Last Night's Republican Debates

[MassuhDGoodName]

Last night, the only candidate who spoke truthfully was Ron Paul.

He's certainly no friend of the Jews, as he's recently revealed.

However, the other Republicans are merely nothing more than "the same, and more of the same".

It's clear that if you love W, vote for any of them but Ron Paul.

It's the oldest trick in the world to state "I strongly favor enforcing border security!"..."I am opposed to treaties such as NAFTA!", etc...  Then, immediately after being elected, they change their tune to "I am opposed to NAFTA, but the treaty was signed long before I was in office, and I am duty sworn to obey it!"..."I have always called for border enforcement, but the issue must be carefully studied first, and that's why I'm appointing to newly created high-pay positions, some good old friends of mine from back home, who are going to study the border problem carefully over the next two years, and then report back to me their conclusions!".

Those of you out there who are trying to decide the "best choice" for your vote, are wasting very valuable time.  After the next election, the policies of W will continue full steam ahead should any Republican but Ron Paul be elected, and the policies of W will seem ultra-conservative should any of the Democrats be elected.

It is clear to me that most posters on this forum have no familiarity whatsoever with the Constitution of the United States of America, and no understanding of the nation designed by our Founding Fathers.

You're being duped again.

Big time.

Wake up!

p.s.-- Any ideas from anyone on the best possible candidate based on actual reality?
If you ask me, things don't look too good!  Any thoughts given to who's going to pay off the infinite war and domestic spending debt that W has amounted?  I get the feeling that most here judge their candidates based on "how well they look on MTV."

[nessuno]

Ron Paul is vile and igonorant.
The democraps worse.
Things don't look good - but the democraps and Ron Paul are really scary people.
They think America is to blame for the terrorist attacks.
They despise Israel and adore terrorists.
I definitely want one of them to run the country.  
Maybe a Clinton/Obama ticket is appealing?
One of those men who debated last night might have to be my choice - too early to tell.
MTV - what's that?  

[MassuhDGoodName]

Muck deFuslims writes:  "You're either joking or a complete moron like Paul..."

Well, I'm not joking.

Not in the least.

My post stated its meaning quite clearly, and nothing I wrote warrants the type of disgusting reply you have written.

You seem to be unable to read a post and understand its exact meaning.

You have stated nothing factual or intelligent, other than to attack me and imply that I am "a Ron Paul supporter, a fool, and an enemy of Israel".

So...if you're insulting another member of the forum, let's hear some more.

[MarZutra]

Guiliani is finnished as a politician.  I like Tancredo or that Mormon fellow.  Sadly I think Tancredo would give in to the Rockefeller CFR/Trilataral Establishment as Regan did if elected.  The Mormon fellow I have to question specifically as to how or why a Mormon ever gained office in Mass which is an ultra-Leftist State.  To me it is all a sham really Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton and then Bush....   There is so much pressure for Hillary that skank to get in that if any decent Repub that is half way honest to get the ticket Bloomberb that .......  will run and split the Repub vote giving Clinton the Presidency.  That is how I see it..

PS: Massuh, I've been taking a beating on the Paul issue on the Ron Paul thread.  Much of what was said is new to me...  Here's to hoping for one anti-Establishment Right Winger to get into office and bring down the CFR, Trilateral, Rand, Tavistock, ACLU, CAIR and perhaps autdit the Federal Reserve...etc. etc....and place America back onto track since House/Wilson royally pooched it...

[Muck DeFuslims]

Last night, the only candidate who spoke truthfully was Ron Paul.

He's certainly no friend of the Jews, as he's recently revealed.

However, the other Republicans are merely nothing more than "the same, and more of the same".

It's clear that if you love W, vote for any of them but Ron Paul.

It's the oldest trick in the world to state "I strongly favor enforcing border security!"..."I am opposed to treaties such as NAFTA!", etc...  Then, immediately after being elected, they change their tune to "I am opposed to NAFTA, but the treaty was signed long before I was in office, and I am duty sworn to obey it!"..."I have always called for border enforcement, but the issue must be carefully studied first, and that's why I'm appointing to newly created high-pay positions, some good old friends of mine from back home, who are going to study the border problem carefully over the next two years, and then report back to me their conclusions!".

Those of you out there who are trying to decide the "best choice" for your vote, are wasting very valuable time.  After the next election, the policies of W will continue full steam ahead should any Republican but Ron Paul be elected, and the policies of W will seem ultra-conservative should any of the Democrats be elected.

It is clear to me that most posters on this forum have no familiarity whatsoever with the Constitution of the United States of America, and no understanding of the nation designed by our Founding Fathers.

You're being duped again.

Big time.

Wake up!

p.s.-- Any ideas from anyone on the best possible candidate based on actual reality?
If you ask me, things don't look too good!  Any thoughts given to who's going to pay off the infinite war and domestic spending debt that W has amounted?  I get the feeling that most here judge their candidates based on "how well they look on MTV."

Let me get this straight.

Your version of reality is that Ron Paul is truthful ?

Do you agree with Ron Paul's assertion that America's foreign policy is responsible for 9/11 and Muslim aggression against America ?

Is Ron Paul being truthful or correct when he states that the best way to deal with the genocidal Moozies is to sit down and talk with them, negotiate with them and trade with them ?

Who is the one that's being duped here ?

You state: "Those of you out there who are trying to decide the "best choice" for your vote, are wasting very valuable time.  After the next election, the policies of W will continue full steam ahead should any Republican but Ron Paul be elected...."

So are you endorsing the Moozie bootlicking, Jew hating [censored] Ron Paul ?

After all, Paul is the only one, according to you, that's any different from Jorge Wahabi. And Paul is the only one that is truthful.

Since in this instance, you consider trying to decide the best choice for one's vote a waste of time--- why bother to watch the debates, or listen to what the candidates say---- because anything other than a vote for Paul just guarantees a continuation of more of Bush's policies, right ?

What brilliant thinking !!

I think there's definitely a difference between Duncan Hunter and Jorge Wahabi.
I think there's a difference between Tancredo and Jorge Wahabi.
I'd prefer to see either one of them as President before I'd vote for the Israel hating, Jew hating scumbag Ron Paul.
Do either of them have much of a chance of securing the Republican nomination? No.
Then again, thankfully the scumbag Ron Paul has no chance either.

If it comes down to it I'll vote for Guiliani or Romney and hope for the best.

One thing is for sure, I'm not going to be voting for Hitlery, Osama or the moronic scumbag RuPaul, and I'd urge everyone on the JTF forum to consider the candidates (despite your nonsensical assertion that it's a waste of time to do so) and make the best choice possible.

[MassuhDGoodName]

To Muck deFuslims:

It's obvious that not only do you have no understanding or comprehension of history, but you also read and hear something, and immediately decide that the "pre-recorded track" running in your mind is it's meaning and message.

So far, not have you totally twisted and distorted what a U.S. Congressman said live on TV (you've merely repeated the venemous "red-herring" which Giuliani spit out to win applause), but you've also accused a long standing member on this forum (ME) of treason, Nazism, anti-Jewish & anti-Israel beliefs, etc.

Shouldn't you be posting with others of a suitable educational level?

You'd be much happier there, throwing each other "red-herrings" so that you actually don't admit that you're intellectually incapable of sustaining a logical argument.

[Muck DeFuslims]

To Muck deFuslims:

It's obvious that not only do you have no understanding or comprehension of history, but you also read and hear something, and immediately decide that the "pre-recorded track" running in your mind is it's meaning and message.

So far, not have you totally twisted and distorted what a U.S. Congressman said live on TV (you've merely repeated the venemous "red-herring" which Giuliani spit out to win applause), but you've also accused a long standing member on this forum (ME) of treason, Nazism, anti-Jewish & anti-Israel beliefs, etc.

Shouldn't you be posting with others of a suitable educational level?

You'd be much happier there, throwing each other "red-herrings" so that you actually don't admit that you're intellectually incapable of sustaining a logical argument.

OK genius,
Let's set the record straight again, since you're having a hard time dealing with facts and demonstrating the ability to answer any questions or doing any thoughtful analysis.

Ron Paul most definitely inferred that American foreign policy is responsible for Muslim aggression against the USA and a cause for 9/11. It's also not the first time he's done so.
That was no 'red herring' by Guiliani, just an honest rebuttal to a despicable, moronic assertion by Paul, which earned a well deserved round of applause from the audience.

I notice you avoid answering my question if you're endorsing Ron Paul, or any of the other queries I made in my post.

One more thing bright boy, it's spelled 'venomous', and I'll put my intellectual capacities and ability to logically argue up against yours any time.

Now, are you endorsing Ron Paul or not, because the rest of us idiots wasting our time considering voting for any other candidate certainly can use the guidance of someone as brilliant and incisive as you.

[Shlomo]

Why are you guys getting so personal in here? Does it really have to get so ugly to debate? Come on... geez.

Stop it. I mean it. Both of you are good posters... I mean GOOD posters and I like you both. I'm just surprised. Debate is cool... this is not. It's just weird. Don't take it all (or give it all) so personal.

[MarZutra]

I'd say just cool it down.  It is fabulous to debate, ask questions and display facts back and forth but name calling and instigating arguements is both unneeded and useless. 

I too question Ron Paul from what I have learned now.....but then again I'm openly an ignoramus on his history as well his platform to be honest.  I wish to say openly that I do not think that it is logical to even entertain Paul because American politics is so corrupt it is actually insulting to any thinking person. 

Personally, I feel the vote means nothing and Clinton was chosen like her husband and Carter at some Bilderberg meeting....LOL

[RationalThought110]

Last night, the only candidate who spoke truthfully was Ron Paul.

He's certainly no friend of the Jews, as he's recently revealed.

However, the other Republicans are merely nothing more than "the same, and more of the same".

It's clear that if you love W, vote for any of them but Ron Paul.

It's the oldest trick in the world to state "I strongly favor enforcing border security!"..."I am opposed to treaties such as NAFTA!", etc...  Then, immediately after being elected, they change their tune to "I am opposed to NAFTA, but the treaty was signed long before I was in office, and I am duty sworn to obey it!"..."I have always called for border enforcement, but the issue must be carefully studied first, and that's why I'm appointing to newly created high-pay positions, some good old friends of mine from back home, who are going to study the border problem carefully over the next two years, and then report back to me their conclusions!".

Those of you out there who are trying to decide the "best choice" for your vote, are wasting very valuable time.  After the next election, the policies of W will continue full steam ahead should any Republican but Ron Paul be elected, and the policies of W will seem ultra-conservative should any of the Democrats be elected.

It is clear to me that most posters on this forum have no familiarity whatsoever with the Constitution of the United States of America, and no understanding of the nation designed by our Founding Fathers.

You're being duped again.

Big time.

Wake up!

p.s.-- Any ideas from anyone on the best possible candidate based on actual reality?
If you ask me, things don't look too good!  Any thoughts given to who's going to pay off the infinite war and domestic spending debt that W has amounted?  I get the feeling that most here judge their candidates based on "how well they look on MTV."

Duncan Hunter disagrees with the Bush administration on many issues.

[RationalThought110]

Guiliani is finnished as a politician.  I like Tancredo or that Mormon fellow.  Sadly I think Tancredo would give in to the Rockefeller CFR/Trilataral Establishment as Regan did if elected.  The Mormon fellow I have to question specifically as to how or why a Mormon ever gained office in Mass which is an ultra-Leftist State.  To me it is all a sham really Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton and then Bush....   There is so much pressure for Hillary that skank to get in that if any decent Repub that is half way honest to get the ticket Bloomberb that .......  will run and split the Repub vote giving Clinton the Presidency.  That is how I see it..

PS: Massuh, I've been taking a beating on the Paul issue on the Ron Paul thread.  Much of what was said is new to me...  Here's to hoping for one anti-Establishment Right Winger to get into office and bring down the CFR, Trilateral, Rand, Tavistock, ACLU, CAIR and perhaps autdit the Federal Reserve...etc. etc....and place America back onto track since House/Wilson royally pooched it...

Romney has degrees from Harvard University and that might contribute to how many MA residents select their candidate.

[RationalThought110]

MassuhDGoodName,

     The Taliban and al-qaeda view non-Islams as infidels.  I don't think Ron Paul realizes this. 

[nessuno]

MassuhDGoodName,

     The Taliban and al-qaeda view non-Islams as infidels.  I don't think Ron Paul realizes this. 

Then he really is an idiot.