[CaelestisPeste]

Did anyone watch or listen to the CBS GOP debate (Saturday, Nov. 12, 2011 in Spartanburg, S.C.)?


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


The chances of Obama getting re-elected are quite slim, so one of these candidates will be our future president. I'm quite distraught by their answers to certain questions including torture and Iran.

Basically everyone, but Ron Paul and Herman Cain (he wants to use insurgents to topple over the regime), wanted to go to war with Iran over nuclear weapons -- Gingrich wants to covertly assassinate all their scientists.

The debate over the use of water boarding was unbelievable with Herman Cain trying to disprove water boarding as torture but instead described it as "enhanced interrogation technique". What happened to morals? I'm assuming none of the candidates have been water boarded before.

There's also the issue with the trade war with China and the conflicts with Israel.

In terms of the candidates, it seemed that Mitt Romney and Ron Paul came out on top; Herman Cain, with no foreign policy experience was definitely unprepared. Rick Perry seems to have done better in comparison to the
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[thod]

Yea, it's all about assessing the character of the man. The trouble is if you elect this 'master of assassins', he may turn them on you. The war mongers are simply pushing the agenda of the military-industrial complex. Lots of dead bodies later the best you achieve is another unwinnable occupation and fat invoice.

They deflect attentions from problems at home with another flash flash bang show. Bread and circuses. They are put into office to redress the concerns of the people not to deflect them. Very few people care for another foreign war, they want changes at home.

[Daoist]

	Originally Posted by CaelestisPeste To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The chances of Obama getting re-elected are quite slim, so one of these candidates will be our future president.

I wouldn't jump to conclusions here. Sure Obama hasn't done any particular magic...but this thing with the divided opposition isn't just a fluke. Nobody substantial is getting behind any alternative policies, because there are no clear alternatives.

[Tristan]

Divided opposition is an apt descriptor for foreign policy and national security issues. Obama talked up a liberal philosophy in these fields, and his deeds went contrary to it. He continued the Iraq and Afghan operations and has generally retained a realpolitik approach. I approve of most of what he's done. Opposition to him over these issues is likely to be divided because his opposition does not, in fact, have a whole lot to complain about.

Maybe the brass at CBS would like to advance a notion that opposition to Obama is scattered in general, and since they couldn't generate the necessary forged documents, they decided instead to hold a debate among republicans over foreign policy and national security issues.

[Crazyblue]

Considering that people will be maimed, crippled, and killed as an unintended side-effect of war anyone who is not a pacifist does not have an ethical leg to stand on when they disagree to torture. The two acts are very similar, and torture actually would serve a purpose.

We can't claim that because the 'collateral damage' was unintended it is any better. We make the conscious choice to wage war, knowing in advance that there will be harm to bystanders. Random destruction of lives does not strike me as more ethical, although it is somewhat necessary.

In the same sense, if torture would yield information needed, it becomes far more ethical than the random destruction and maiming of a group of civilians. However, this is not the case so I don't support torture. My disagreement stems from torture not being a very good method of getting information from a prisoner and the possibility that they may not even have the information.

[Melchizedek]

Ron Paul got 89 seconds of airtime in the debate. If I believed in conspiracy theories, I'd think that the masters of the MSM are purposely keeping him isolated and unknown.

[Mogura]

	Originally Posted by Melchizedek To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Ron Paul got 89 seconds of airtime in the debate. If I believed in conspiracy theories, I'd think that the masters of the MSM are purposely keeping him isolated and unknown.

Yeah. I kind of noticed that, too. Shouldn't all debate participants receive equal time (in the interest of fairness and balance)?

[benr3600]

	Originally Posted by Melchizedek To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Ron Paul got 89 seconds of airtime in the debate. If I believed in conspiracy theories, I'd think that the masters of the MSM are purposely keeping him isolated and unknown.

Liar. He got 90 seconds. :P

Yeah, the anti-Paul bias by the media has been so profound, for MONTHS on end now. Not only that, but it started even earlier than three years ago. Anybody remember the election? That is the first time I've EVER seen a third candidate get ABSOLUTELY NO election night coverage, and I was flipping back between CSNBC, CNN and others. I still remember Perot getting enough coverage in '92 that he was actually shown conceding the election...and that was when I was 7! That's more coverage than I remember Paul getting watching coverage for a good six hours 3 years ago.

[IslandHead]

Originally Posted by benr3600 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Liar. He got 90 seconds. :P Yeah, the anti-Paul bias by the media has been so profound, for MONTHS on end now. Not only that, but it started even earlier than three years ago. Anybody remember the election? That is the first time I've EVER seen a third candidate get ABSOLUTELY NO election night coverage, and I was flipping back between CSNBC, CNN and others. I still remember Perot getting enough coverage in '92 that he was actually shown conceding the election...and that was when I was 7! That's more coverage than I remember Paul getting watching coverage for a good six hours 3 years ago.

Did John Huntsman get much time? I didn't watch the debate, but I did watch the highlights and he wasn't shown in them either.

[Mogura]

	Originally Posted by IslandHead To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Did John Huntsman get much time? I didn't watch the debate, but I did watch the highlights and he was shown in them either.

A little more than RP, but still not as much as the big name flip-floppers.

I thought that the moderation was shit to begin with...

[Subgenius]

	Originally Posted by CaelestisPeste To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The debate over the use of water boarding was unbelievable with Herman Cain trying to disprove water boarding as torture but instead described it as "enhanced interrogation technique". What happened to morals? I'm assuming none of the candidates have been water boarded before.

When has a government in recent memory or even a bit farther back, other than maybe the Scandinavians(which might be up for debate), not had some piece of itself engaging in torture? I assume you are talking about morals in the sense of what is right or wrong, so I would ask you when have morals standards been at a level where the could decline from in regards to torture? Do you think the US stopped torturing people because a couple of Black sites were discovered? Hardly. They just made new black sites, probably within a couple miles of the original. This can pretty much be said for most countries now, almost all countries within the last 100 years, and all inhabited areas if you are talking about the whole of civilization.

[CaelestisPeste]

	Originally Posted by Daoist To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I wouldn't jump to conclusions here. Sure Obama hasn't done any particular magic...but this thing with the divided opposition isn't just a fluke. Nobody substantial is getting behind any alternative policies, because there are no clear alternatives.

True. He probably does have the support of the "Occupy" protesters. There doesn't seem to be as much moderation in this coming election.

Originally Posted by Subgenius To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

When has a government in recent memory or even a bit farther back, other than maybe the Scandinavians(which might be up for debate), not had some piece of itself engaging in torture? I assume you are talking about morals in the sense of what is right or wrong, so I would ask you when have morals standards been at a level where the could decline from in regards to torture? Do you think the US stopped torturing people because a couple of Black sites were discovered? Hardly. They just made new black sites, probably within a couple miles of the original. This can pretty much be said for most countries now, almost all countries within the last 100 years, and all inhabited areas if you are talking about the whole of civilization.

True. But the current agenda or issue is whether to define water boarding as torture or not. The 8th amendment of the US constitution prohibits the federal government from cruel and unusual punishment: torture. The 5th amendment also applies, as it infringes on the rights against self-incrimination. As Ron Paul has stated, it is immoral and illegal in the United States. As for the Black sites or Guantanamo, they are outside of US jurisdiction, so I have no comment on that, but it's a shame it still exists. I have a firm belief in the declination of our morals and rights if this were to be affirmed: a slippery slope. This nation used to be a beacon of hope and freedom, but if this continues, this country is no better than the nations it fights. "He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither."

[CharlieBrown]

	The chances of Obama getting re-elected are quite slim, so one of these candidates will be our future president.

If America chooses a Christian Dominionist over Obama in the next election then I'm moving to the moon.

Somehow, unless the GOP unifies and solidly backs one candidate, I don't think Obama will have much of an issue getting re-elected. We have one candidate who can't remember the name of which departments he wants to abolish, one who wears flip-flops on the campaign trail, one who clearly cannot understand whether he is pro-life or pro-choice, two batshit insane Christian theocrats and a self-important Newt who says that anyone who quotes what he says is a liar.

The current GOP election platform is, "we aren't Obama, therefore we're better." There's no substance. If America elects one of these buffoons then we deserve everything that's coming to us.

I mean, Jesus Christ, the GOP lineup is nothing but lockstep party bullshit.

	Originally Posted by Newt Gingrich
	"We're here tonight talking to the American people about why every single one of us is better than Barack Obama...

Our election process is asinine anyways, when it's boiled down to putting a check next to A or B, we're doing nothing but choosing what type of garbage we want running the country.

Fuck it,
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Tristan]

	Originally Posted by CharlieBrown To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The current GOP election platform is, "we aren't Obama, therefore we're better." There's no substance. If America elects one of these buffoons then we deserve everything that's coming to us.

Were not the current buffoon in office so atrocious, I'd be inclined to agree. The Republicans have found themselves in the same position as the Democrats in 2004: "we aren't Bush, therefore we're better." There was no substance then, either.

As it stands, if a Republican won the election and used the entire 2012-2016 term to play golf, go to church services, and make passes at women, I'd be somewhat content. Inaction will do less damage than Obama's brand of action. The only positive thing he has done domestically was to break his campaign promise and not let the Bush tax cuts expire (and he only did that because of the shitstorm that would erupt when the general public discovered they'd lost their EI and child tax credits).

[zibber]

	Originally Posted by benr3600 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	the anti-Paul bias [in] the media

It's not so much an anti-Paul bias as a bias towards inoffensive, easy-to-digest, unsubstantial bullshit that doesn't undermine the status quo.

[Haumea]

	Nobody substantial is getting behind any alternative policies, because there are no clear alternatives.

What do you mean? Not needing to deal with Obama is the "alternative policy."

It's called regime uncertainty. Business (aside from his cronies) isn't gonna grow a goddam thing in this country till the looter is gone.