CNN - Republican Debate

[Mickulz]

What a fucking joke. Why even have Huckabee and Paul on? They should have just called it the Mitt and John show. I am not even making mention about the "media bias" from the other thread. I am talking about how many times Huck or Paul would flat out say "Don't forget about us down here" and still not get any results.

I am not even going to talk about most of the answers because they were ridiculous.

I will say one thing, and this is not a bash. If I was the adviser for Ron Paul, I would have him stop mentioning money in almost every answer. His response to the question about the "being in Iraq for 100 years" turned me off (and some I know). His first response was "who is going to pay for it". The fact that it was about money first kind of felt weird...Again, not a bash, just a reaction.

[HBGOnline]

I would agree. I had the webcast version and listened most of the time. Anderson Cooper is an idiot not a debate moderator.

I did watch that pathetic debate between Romney and McCain about time tables. Even with the actual quote read, McCain still stuck to his guns. In my opinionn that did him in. I'm sure that will get a lot of press today and hopefully put a dent in his armor.

I too agree with the Paul comment. It's always link the dollar to gold and get rid of the Fed. Reserve for most all answers to current problems. I wish some economist would run that scenerio and see what the results would be compared to the current system.

CNN's webcast had Paul on after the debate for a good 5 minutes. Not sure if that made the TV broadcast.

Finally I'd like to thank CNN for one of the worst debates I've ever heard. They should be proud.

[Mickulz]

The Larry King special on Reagan after the debate was very good. It made staying up worth it.

[freddyv]

mickulz said:

If I was the adviser for Ron Paul, I would have him stop mentioning money in almost every answer.

according to most polling data that I have seen, the number one issue in this election is the economy. our monetary policy is directly affecting our economy's performance.

everything is interconnected....we rack up huge debt to fund our exploits abroad. eliminating this spending eliminates one of the biggest burdens on our economy (over $1 trillion, if the estimates are correct). our purchasing power is greatly reduced due to the weakening of the dollar, which is a direct effect of our monetary policy (i.e. the fed et al). returning to a gold standard makes our money physically worth more than simply the paper it is printed on. this also provides a more organic method of controlling inflation.

reducing taxes and regulations on business causes economic growth...job growth...etc. the more money that the consumer has in their hands, the more money they are able to spend and invest. this is good for the economy. you need to cut spending in order to cut taxes and not incur more debt.

unfortunately, it all comes back to money. globally speaking, the countries that have the most weath also have the freest markets.

as an aside, I have to give some credit to huckabee for a statement he's been making at his public appearances/debates lately. it goes to the effect of we borrow $150 billion from the chinese to pay for this stimulus package to put money in the hands of consumers who most likely go out and purchase non-essential items that were probably manufactured in china. so who's economy are we really stimulating?

[Mickulz]

I understand that money is a major issue, but when someone ask you about saving lives and soldiers welfare, the first thing out of your mouth should not be "Who is going to pay for it." It made him seem very cold IMHO. Actually, my mother was going to vote for Paul until the last two debates, and how now changed her mind because she felt he is to focused on the money issues and would not be a well rounded leader.

[freddyv]

I can definitely see how that would turn people off. unfortunately at the last few debates they haven't really given him more than a few seconds to answer any given question. I watched the first half-hour or so of this last debate and they spoke to him twice. they kind of just kept skipping over him. and when he spoke up and said he wanted to address a previous question since he was not given the opportunity to do so, anderson cooper told him "we'll give you a chance in like two questions, I promise"...and then never came back to him.

it's hard to give people a good idea what you're all about when you're not given the opportunity to speak. they let mccain and romney go on and on for minutes on end about the same regurgitated garbage they've been saying at every single debate, but then give a guy like ron paul about ten or fifteen seconds to answer a question before moving on. huckabee definitely wasn't getting to talk much either, but in the short amount I saw he did at least get to answer questions completely when he was addressed.

dr. paul actually got to speak more at earlier debates when there were more candidates...which makes no sense to me at all.

[Mickulz]

I think that is why I had an issue with him this debate. Knowing he was not getting the chance to speak, I would have addressed things in a different manner. But he is the one running..Not me.

[HBGOnline]

In my opinion CNN wanted headlines from their debate last night. Thus the McCain/Romney BS. Plus the format was totally fucked up. No time limits? You just knew that was a disaster waiting to happen.

I can bet you tonight with the Democrats, there will be a love fest. Softballs with no real stingers. Plus Wolf Blitzer is the biggest dick head in the mainstream media.

[HBGOnline]

After months away I finally tuned in to Rush today to see what he was saying about all the election BS. About the same things I heard him say when Bob Dole was running. Only tuned in for about half hour then had to change the channel.

I did like when he called CNN the Clinton News Network. That was a good one.

He also pointed out the Republican "establishment" was behind Ford in 76 (snubbed Reagan) and recently with Bob Dole's election run. Both times the base was against the establishment's canidate. Could McCain be a repeat or will the "base" come out in force next Tuesday.

[freddyv]

mickulz said:

I understand that money is a major issue, but when someone ask you about saving lives and soldiers welfare, the first thing out of your mouth should not be "Who is going to pay for it."

I finally got the chance to look at the transcript. It's really unfortunate if people heard him mention money and tuned out to the rest of his response...because it's not cold-hearted at all. Here's the exchange in question:

VANDEHEI: Congressman Paul, this comes from Jay Majumdar (ph) from Roswell, Georgia. And he wants to know if you agree with Senator McCain's statement that the United States might need to have U.S. troops in Iraq for as long as even 100 years?

PAUL: I don't even think they should have gone, so keeping them for 100 years, where's the money going to come from? (APPLAUSE)

You know, the country is in bankruptcy. And when I listen to this argument, I mean, I find it rather silly, because they're arguing technicalities of a policy they both agree with.

They agreed with going in; they agreed for staying, agreed for staying how many years? And these are technicalities. We should be debating foreign policy, whether we should have interventionism or non-interventionism, whether we should be defending this country or whether we should be the policemen of the world, whether we should be running our empire or not, and how are going to have guns and butter?

You know, the '70s were horrible because we paid for the guns and butters of the '60s. Now we're doing the same thing. And nobody even seems to care. The dollar is crashing, and you're talking about these technicalities about who said what when?

I mean, in 1952, we Republicans were elected to stop the war in Korea. In 1968, we were elected to stop the war in Vietnam. And, tragically, we didn't stop it very fast: 30,000 more men died.

So when I talk about these long-term stays, I think, "How many men are you willing to let die for this, for something that has nothing to do with our national security?"

There were no Al Qaida there. It had nothing do with 9/11. And there was no threat to our national security. They never committed aggression. It's unconstitutional. It's an undeclared war.

And we have these silly arguments going on about who said what when. I think it's time to debate foreign policy and why we don't follow the Constitution and only go to war with a declaration of war.

[freddyv]

more from the transcript regarding the economy:

COOPER: Congressman Paul, what makes you capable of being a leader both on the economy and the military?

PAUL: OK. The Constitution is very clear that the president is commander in chief of the military, but the president is not the commander in chief of the economy or of the people. And when we get asked questions like how are you going to manage the economy, it's a reflection of conventional wisdom, but of a lot of lack of understanding of how the economy works.

The president is not supposed to manage and run the economy. The people are supposed to do this. The government is supposed to give them sound money, low taxes, less regulation. The people are supposed to run it.

But here, we're assuming that the president is supposed to run the economy. We're not supposed to manage. We're not supposed to manage the people's...

COOPER: What role do you think the federal government should have -- I mean, does the federal government in your opinion have a role in stimulating the economy?

PAUL: Yes, by lower taxes and less regulation. They could do a whole lot by having sound money, where we don't print the money out of thin air. That causes the business cycle. That causes your bubbles.

We're always dealing with the symptoms of the disease and never saying, "how did this come about?" You know, it comes about because we have a Federal Reserve that creates money and prints it out of thin air. There is a lot of malinvestment.

That's the most important thing to understand about the inflation of the monetary system, is the malinvestment. Then, later on, people suffer. You wipe out the middle class. But the evil of it all is the vehicle for financing wars that we shouldn't be in and a welfare state that we shouldn't be doing.

So, yes, we have a role to play, but it's a negative role. We want the people to be free. We don't want to manage the people and tell them how to live. And we need a commander in chief. But the most important thing as a commander in chief is not moving troops around, as much as it is having a wise foreign policy that doesn't get us involved in so many things that we get trapped in and we linger year after year. We've been doing this for so long.

And I like President Bush's argument that we have a humble foreign policy when he ran in 2000, and that we not be the policemen of the world.

[freddyv]

one last quote from the transcript...ron paul talking about ronald reagan:

I'm not sure exactly what he would do right now, but I do know that he was very sympathetic to the gold standard, and he told me personally that no great nation that went off the gold standard ever remained great. And he was very, very serious about that.

[Mickulz]

I will be the first to admit the Reagan is my all time favorite President (followed closely by JFK), but that is because he was a good "leader" and not a good "politician". If you look back at most of his policies, they were not good for the country, and actually caused some issues. That being said, there has never been a president that could rally both sides of the isle like he could. He could also work the room, the press, and other leaders to get results.

A lot of people remember Reagan the "person" and not Reagan the "politician". That is very key to a lot of issues.

Being a Democrat, it is funny that I put a Republican above JFK, but the major issue I have that goes against JFK is that he was not in office long enough to see if he really did good or bad on the policy sense. He, like Reagan, was a very good leader and spokesperson. I think that is what the problem today is. Here is a weird example:

If we were about to launch a major attack on Russia (I know..humor me here), I would want to hear it from McCain. I would be able to rally around him. If there was a touchy situation like the Bay Of Pigs, I would rather here it from Romney. He calms me. It honestly may be the fact that I am one of the few on here that remembers Ron Paul from his earlier run at office, and how he acted, and that may be what is turning me off. I could not see myself feeling either of the above situations with Ron Paul as my leader. Huckabee is the same way. I always feel like he is saying one thing, but doing another behind my back. It is not that I have proof of this, it is just how I feel.

On the Democratic side, I just feel like I am watching two school kids fight. I am flat out saying it now, I will not vote from Clinton. If Obama get's the nod, it will have a lot to do with who his running mate is, and who he is against. So far the only person I have ruled out of voting for 100% is Clinton.

[freddyv]

mickulz said:

If we were about to launch a major attack on Russia (I know..humor me here), I would want to hear it from McCain.

ron paul was a flight surgeon in the us air force. it's not the same as being tortured in a vietnamese prison, but he was a military man too. I don't think a lot of people are aware of that.

I can't really see us launching any major attacks under ron paul. he's a peaceful person. if it were to happen, it would most likely be in retaliation. he would also probably wait until congress actually declared war to wage war.

[freddyv]

mickulz said:

It honestly may be the fact that I am one of the few on here that remembers Ron Paul from his earlier run at office, and how he acted, and that may be what is turning me off.

I only remember Bush vs. Dukakis in that election, and not much else. And maybe Kitty Dukakis trying to commit suicide. I think I was in fourth grade at the time.

You have to bear in mind that this all happened 20 years ago. People can change a lot in 20 years. The world certainly has changed a lot in 20 years. In that time, Ron Paul walked away from politics for a while. He resumed his practice as an ob/gyn. It wasn't until the late 90's that he finally returned to the political scene after taking the better part of a decade off.

He seems genuine. He's always been a strict constitutionalist. His voting record (and his record in general) is pretty impeccable.

Some people don't care for his foreign policy. If staying in Iraq is a major issue for someone, I can understand not voting for the guy. It all comes down to what works for you and who's the candidate that best represents your ideas/ideals.

[BT]

For those complaining about Ron Paul linking most of our woes, and especially the economic ones, to the Federal Reserve banking system must check out this quote:

Thomas Jefferson's Warning To America

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."

Here is a partial list of what would be fixed by eliminating the Federal Reserve and kicking those blood-sucking international bankers out of here once and for all (Andrew Jackson booted them in the 1830's - setting their plans back by nearly 100 years):

Inflation
Devaluation of the currency
Destruction of the middle class
Jobs going overseas
Foreign wars for oil
Our dependency on fossil fuels in general - because we can make ethanol from hemp much cheaper and less energy intensive than from corn, and all the other alternative energy technologies that are suppressed right now.
Mercury in vaccines
Poisons in our food and water
A media that distorts the facts, omits facts, and glorifies the homosexual lifestyle, the occult, and materialism
Rigged elections
Nefarious Influence on our representatives
A broken border
Loss of liberties in the name of the War on Scarism

I could go on and on and on....

[Mickulz]

armorofchrist777 said:

Inflation
Devaluation of the currency
Destruction of the middle class
Jobs going overseas
Foreign wars for oil
Our dependency on fossil fuels in general - because we can make ethanol from hemp much cheaper and less energy intensive than from corn, and all the other alternative energy technologies that are suppressed right now.
Mercury in vaccines
Poisons in our food and water
A media that distorts the facts, omits facts, and glorifies the homosexual lifestyle, the occult, and materialism
Rigged elections
Nefarious Influence on our representatives
A broken border
Loss of liberties in the name of the War on Scarism

I could go on and on and on....

You really need to get educated on not only social policy and sociology, but numerous other aspects of life. If you think that eliminating one entity (i.e. The Fed) would cure all the above issues, you honestly have no grasp on how things work in the world. But please humor me and tell me how elimating the fed would would lead to less mercury in vaccines and how it would clean up the media. I actually look forward to this answer.

[JeffD5Buddy]

I'm looking forward to this one also! Should be fun!

[BT]

That was only a short list. I could have listed many more problems that would be eliminated by kicking the international bankers out. I'm presuming that you're only disputing what I said about mercury in vaccines and media control, because the rest of that list was not even questioned.

You both need to get educated yourselves and understand who runs the Federal Reserve; and what kind of agenda they push. The USA was stolen nearly a hundred years ago, when J.D. Rockefeller, J.P. Morgan, Paul Warburg, Nelson Aldrige, E.H.Harriman et al. created the Federal Reserve system. They literally duped the US congress into granting them the right to create and control US currency - and all political power flows from that power.

They, and their descendents (both genealogically and corporately), have been consolidating that power ever since. The first thing they did (after WWI) was create the Council on Foreign Relations - which is now the most influential think tank in the US - if you aren't annointed by these people, you don't get to be president (or even Secretary of xxxx for that matter). Their influence over the media is no less complete, they've dismantled every law and regulation put in the books to maintain freedom of the press in order that their cronies could concolidate all of TV and printed news under the umbrella of just five corporations. Their influence over education, the health industry, the courts - you name it - is also no less complete.

Ron Paul is talking about abolishing the Federal Reserve and these guys are the Top Dogs! They will not stand for it. They and their ancestors have spent a hundred years creating this giant corporate-governmental machine, and they've got it about perfect. Through their tax-exempt foundations (Ford, Carnegie, Rockefeller) and the money and energy they've pumped into the educational system, and along with that their control over the media they have effectively dumbed-down and brainwashed the public ... to the point where most Americans don't have any idea what Ron Paul is talking about when he tries to remind us what the American Revolution was fought for, what our Constitution says, and what the word "Liberty" REALLY means. People seperate personal liberty from economic liberty but they are related.

Do you think they will just lay down and let Ron Paul undo all of that work? No way. They will use and have used every imaginable means at their disposal. A vote here, a vote there, a media black out, digging up old newsletters to try and make him out to be a racist, alternate slates, leaving his name off of the tally charts on CNN, you name it, they have done it - and it worked. Personally, I don't believe that a guy of Ron Paul's integrity who could draw 5000 people to an event in Minneapolis wouldn't carry Minnesota. I don't believe it for a second. "THEY" are incredibly powerful and organized and will not accept a Ron Paul presidency - it would essentially mean the end to their existence. Kennedy was killed for as much.

There are Ron Paul supporters who have opened their eyes enough to see that we need to go back to the tenets embodied in the Constitution, but refuse to believe that there is a conspiracy to silence, dupe, rob, dumb-down, poison, and enslave the American people - a conspiracy of the investor class so powerful that it can influence media coverage and an election.

Wake up people, the information is out there, and its every bit as bad as I am describing it, if not worse. (Norm Dodd was the point man on the Reese Commission in the 50's, a congressional investigation into the activities of the tax-exempt foundations. His secretary spent two weeks going over the minutes from various meetings - she went insane after reading them. Literally lost her mind - she was no longer able to work as a lawyer after the shock).

I look at this as a "long war", and undoing a hundred years of corruption and tyranny is bound to be hard. We've made great strides - let's keep going.

Oh, and go look up "Codex Alimentarius' if you want to learn what the World Health Organization has in store for us. I hope I do not have to explain the connections between organizations like WHO and the international bankers who own the Federal Reserve.

[Mickulz]

I am actually still waiting for the answer to my question. You have not proven a single link on how the SOLE action of getting rid of the Fed would cure those two issues. All you have done is posted the same old news that you have been posting since day one.

You say in your reply that it took some of the elite years to set this up, but yet you say that getting rid of the Fed will solve it.

Prove it. Plain and simple. Pick one of the topics: Mercury or Media and tell me how getting rid of the Fed will clean it up.

[seanx]

....I'd like to know the answer to this as well....perhaps he got carried away and blamed the Fed for more problems than they cause....but the rest of the list is enough for me to get rid of the whole agency (that and the facts that they have now tacked 51 grand in penalties and interest to an original amount of approx 38 grand that was owed by our business........and they have sent letters with intent to levy even though we have now paid back 33 grand plus of the original debt which was embezzeled). The whole group is an organized crime ring run by the elite......look who actually controls it.

And Armor of Christ-if you can't answer the question Mickulz asked, just ask him what his masonic oaths are.......he wont' be able to answer that question either........muah ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha

[Mickulz]

Oh, I agree that the rest of the list is pretty true. But I wanted to know the answer for those two.

Sean, tell me your credit card number and code on the back...

[seanx]

I no longer use credit cards.........Ron Paul: he ain't perfect, he's just the best of the shitty ass "elitist" dickheads...........plus, I think he bucks the system and the leaders don't like that.......sound familiar?

(noone can see what I type if it's within parentheses......you're showing the rest of the world, I mean two other people, secret societal handshakes....you can't do that! how rude?! ......... but I respect you more for it........)

[Mickulz]

(I will reply in secret parentheses..it is not a secret, in fact it is on most Masonic materials...heck..it is on the license plate on my car).

[seanx]

...the handshake is on your license plate?

[Mickulz]

On my Masonic Plate on the front of the Jeep.

It is the Square and Compasses with two hands shaking.

[seanx]

...so judging from where his thumb is placed on the other guy's knuckle, this would make him a Worshipful Master, yes?....................

[Mickulz]

hahahah no.

[seanx]

his thumb is on his second....or between his second and third.......what the hell is that then? or does every lodge have different handshakes too?

[Mickulz]

Now, you know I can not tell you all that :-)

Lodges are all the same though.