Having watched the GOP debate on Fox News, I am going to say that some of these candidates are totally clueless. Tom Tancredo and Ron Paul are prime examples of one being clueless in the world of politics and international affairs. Rep. Paul is more like a silly leftist guy who probably knows little about the outside world, and Rep. Tancredo of Colorado is just annoying and out of touch with the reality.
Any way, I am going to stick with Congressman Hunter even though many keep telling me that he has little chance in this race but he is actually the only debater, along with Mayor Guiliani, who knows what he's talking about and puts the money where his mouth is.
Rudy Giuliani answered the questions very well too but I am not sure where he'll end up. He seems to be under a lot of pressure.
10 comments:
peace in the middle-east
no war in Iran
clueless? maybe you should do a little research with US in the middle-east?
but more importantly check out the ruling law of this country and why we should follow it
just an idea
Peace here friend let's not hate ;)
I don't think it's right to put anyone in the same catagory as Paul. He's a NUT. No one else on that stage is mentally imbalanced. He's in a class by himself.
Tancredo may not have experience or be as knowledgable as others, but he isn't a screwball.
Ron Paul is far from being a "nut".
He's a doctor, a senator, and now a presidential candidate.
He's against the war, higher taxes, Internet regulation, abortion, corporate subsidies. What is wrong with that.
Does a country need to take 20 - 30 % of the middle classes wage in income tax? No.
If these things make him a nut, so be it. Because I would have no idea of how to classify you Chester.
I'm not sure that Ron Paul is a nut, but if I wanted to vote for a libertarian for president, I'd just vote for a libertarian outright rather than a libertarian/republican hybrid. His ideas appealed to me before 9-11 but I think it's too late for us to revert back to isolationism when we're dealing with war and regional instability.
I'm for Fred Thompson right now because he's the only one, that I'm aware of, who has mentioned the economic situation in Iran and the possibility of supporting a revolution there. It may be a long shot, but it's the least crappy of our options.
Hunter??!! Aren't you Canadian citizen? you can even vote here? :-)
I am for Gulliani or McCain. Both gave great in depth answers unlike Democrats' shallow responds that sound like cliches.
Ron Paul says the right stuff about American economy but he comes across like a fool regarding foreign policy.
Frieda, I can vote if I want to... LOL... just like those non-citizen Hispanic people who vote for DemoNRats. Why not?!
not only could you vote, but you may be able to make your vote count 5 or 6 times. :)
Ron Paul is more of a conservative than a neo-con reject like you ever could be. At least he's consistent with what conservative values are. You're more likely some former Trotskyist leftist nutjob like David Horowitz was.
If you support a war on Iran, then you better put your money where your mouth is and be able to fight over there, instead of waging the war behind the safety of your computer.
And chester, if you don't think anyone who advocates nuking Mecca and Medina are screwballs, then I'm sure you'd have no problem with lynching parties in the Deep South, eh?
"Frieda, I can vote if I want to... LOL... just like those non-citizen Hispanic people who vote for DemoNRats. Why not"
Uh, Republicans are also for amnesty for illegals, or are you just looking to bend over for your neocon crowd to make up facts?
I'm not even a Democrat yet you're the biggest embarassment to true conservatives. Go back to being a leftist.
Post a Comment