Republicans Out Of Touch With Reality?

[dgridley]

Ever hear someone say they can tell a certain type of joke because they are a [blank], so it's ok? Well, I'm a Republican (apologizes) so I guess when I say that the Repulicans seem to be out of touch with reality, it's ok because I'm one of you guys :p

Anyway, here it is, just after the landmark CNN/YouTube debates for the Democrats and we have just two Republicans who have signed up for the September Republican YouTube debate: Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) and Rep. Ron Paul (Tex.). What are they afraid of?

Well, we have a quote from Romney:

In an interview Wednesday with the New Hampshire Union Leader, Romney said he's not a fan of the CNN/YouTube format. Referring to the video of a snowman asking the Democratic candidates about global warming, Romney quipped, "I think the presidency ought to be held at a higher level than having to answer questions from a snowman."​

Sadly for Romney, that "snowman" may represent a voter. And Republicans are going to need to court every single voter if they expect to win in 2008 (they won't).

I think Republicans need to lighten up and realize that "the little guy" counts just as much as the next.. maybe more so.

What do you think?

:hi: :imho:

 

[dotprofan]

What statements, specifically, are you taliking about?

Well, he had me interested right up until he let on about this lunacy to do with 9/11 conspiracies.

 

[~ The 34 Year Buzz!!]

I doubt Ronald Reagan would recognize the GOP of today...

I'm glad (and you're 'lucky') I no longer enjoy debating politics :td:
~~~~~~~~~

Ronald Reagan was

• A talented speaker and actor
• Loved by many people
• Able to make Americans feel good about being 'American'

Ronald Reagan was not

• A true supporter of small (decentralized) government and related principles
• Able to do the primary, vital things he said during his first campaign (regarding "freedom from big government")

RIP Ronald Reagan.
You acted your part very well.

 

[CrazyTech]

to discount somebody's opinion about that day as being 'lunacy and conspiratory' is as absurd as calling anybody with an opinion against the bush administration 'unpatriotic'.

Funny, I thought we were talking about the choice for the next President here?

This isn't about everybody's little 'ole opinion and being all sweet and nice. This person is going to lead my country and if I feel that he has a loony idea, then that's how I feel. I'm voting - me. It's even more absurd to sit here and play this silly little opinion games. Someone may think I have a loony opinion, I could care less.

As to what statement, I am referring to Paul's statement at the SC Republican Presidential debate (or lack thereof, moreso). That's a true Libertarian's view and he goes back to the pre-WWI and WWII isolationism. I'd love to do away with our part in the UN and agree with much of what he says. However, I don't agree with some of his other stuff. I know he doesn't believe big bad Bush killed 2,000+ Americans on 9/11, but something about the way he handled himself in that moment killed any support he had from me and many others. I don't particularly like Guliani either, but that moment he blew his chance for someone like me.

Reagan had a quick wit to compliment the many faces of wisdom he showed. This is something that every candidate in this race lacks. The jokes have been told a thousand times. The speeches are given over and over whether it be a snowman or Anderson Cooper asking the question. I just failed to see anything all that new and revolutionary about this debate. It's a lot of hype, and I'm just pointing out how some of us normal folks feel about it. I've actually asked around about this debate and it gets the "it was neat but ok let's move on" response every time.

 

[dotprofan]

This paragraph is pretty vague and unclear. What exactly did he say that you disagree with?

As to what statement, I am referring to Paul's statement at the SC Republican Presidential debate (or lack thereof, moreso). That's a true Libertarian's view and he goes back to the pre-WWI and WWII isolationism. I'd love to do away with our part in the UN and agree with much of what he says. However, I don't agree with some of his other stuff. I know he doesn't believe big bad Bush killed 2,000+ Americans on 9/11, but something about the way he handled himself in that moment killed any support he had from me and many others. I don't particularly like Guliani either, but that moment he blew his chance for someone like me.

 

[CrazyTech]

Well it came right down to Rudy putting him on the spot and he wouldn't say that he did or didn't(believe in the conspiracy theories out there). I don't view that as standing up to Rudy, I view that as someone stuck because they don't quite know what they think about it. I believe Ron Paul doesn't think that it was an "inside job" but his actions are more than a little odd to me.

I'm not big on retracted statements or "clarifications" made later for anyone. We all make mistakes, but for something on an arguably vital topic to a lot of people, there's an intangible conveyed in his response/lack of response that leaves me unsettled.

 

[whitebark]

i liked the youtube debate - but in the end how different was it? CNN screened the questions, and the most popular ones for the most part did not make it.

And it's not surprising to see Rep. Ron Paul as one getting involved. If I was American he would get my vote and donations because he stands firmly behind the world's best written constitution. The only one to do so. All the others - Dems and Reps are nothing more than corporate/special interest talking heads that are already bought and paid for.

I am not sure how Ron Paul calls himself a Republican.
If you listen to him and look at his platform, hes a Democrat.
He is the only Republican that would get my vote, but chances are thats not gonna happen.

He's actually a Libertarian - and once ran for the presidency as one.

 

[Ixix]

This isn't about everybody's little 'ole opinion and being all sweet and nice. This person is going to lead my country and if I feel that he has a loony idea, then that's how I feel. I'm voting - me. It's even more absurd to sit here and play this silly little opinion games. Someone may think I have a loony opinion, I could care less.

I'm sorry, presidental standards for the republican party dropped considerably since the year 2000 in my mind. seriously, how many republicans would for for dubya again if he had the ability to run?

The difference between reagan and the conservatives of today was that reagan was primarily a fiscal conservatives and while today's conservatives are religous conservatives influenced by the bible belt of the south. While the conservatives of the past encouraged wealth amoung the people today's conservatives back wealth amoung big industry and special interest groups (not unlike today's democrat)....

the voice of the 'little people' is only heard during election season....after that, it's business as usual.

In all honesty, i voted for George Bush in 2000 because i thought he would be able to make a positive change in the country. I considered myself a 'republican' at the time, but even i could tell when the party started shifting gears and is traveling in a different direction....

 

[CrazyTech]

Acutally, Reagan was quite the social conservative:

1. He was against abortion.
2. Supported captial punishment.
3. Big spender on national defense.
4. Abolish the Dep. of Education

The only issue he most likely differed on would have been homosexuality and I think he followed the mainstream of the average American in saying that civil unions would be fine. I think the difference with Reagan was that there wasn't a press conference called on all of his stances, he did instead of talking so much.

Reaganomics were just amazing, but it stinks some later Presidents rode that part of his work out and took the credit.

I think Presidential standards have dropped altogether. A vote for Reagan was against communism and the largest voting block for the communists got about one million votes. Now we have candidates that have adopted some very essential elements of communism and they're sometimes branded as "moderates" - fiscally and socially.

 

[viciouscircle]

Well it came right down to Rudy putting him on the spot and he wouldn't say that he did or didn't(believe in the conspiracy theories out there).

When was this? I can't remember anything of the top of my head where Rudy and Paul were involved in a discussion about 9/11 conspiracy theories.

 

[CrazyTech]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AD7dnFDdwu0

On over after the 2:00 mark - roughly 2:15 on. This was at the South Carolina debate. Basically, Paul's position was that we invited these attacks because we were in Iraq with Bush Sr. in Desert Storm and Clinton again with the bombings.

Perhaps this has some merit for a portion of the population, but I think it would have made more sense to point out that we armed the guy who orchestrated the attack. For the average conservative - and I'd say not nearly as "anti-war" as Paul was saying (when I think anti-war, I think anti-war activists with no war period, not what I would view as the more common war when there isn't another choice) - Paul's saying that we fully caused it really presents some problems. Guys like bin Laden thrive on the attention, that's all he knows. I'd say look to Palestine and Iraq now for other examples.

I don't believe that had we not ever been in the area, it would have been Israel...and if no Israel, then it would have been us anyway. As the recent England bombing attempts have shown, education doesn't necessarily mean anything. Neither do free elections as witnessed by Hamas and their subsequent actions.

This is one issue that I have truly stepped back and looked at, and I think it goes back to Reagan's quote that we don't understand it over there. I'm a big fan of Pat Buchanan and he's against the war in Iraq as well. I continue to arrive at the same conclusion, and Paul's beliefs are not there for me.

That being said, this discussion alone says to me that the "old fashioned" debates do the same thing as this YouTube debate in getting you to think.

 

[~ The 34 Year Buzz!!]

Beware Of Foreign Entanglements...

Ron Paul stands 'way above the crowd' in Washington.
Most honest people never get a chance to be where he is.
Ron Paul gives some bit of hope to people who know we sure need it.

~~~~~~~~~~
"Beware Of Foreign Entanglements"
-President George Washington
~~~~~~~~~~

"Also consider the fiasco that happened as a result of sanctions on Iraq. Thousands of Iraqi children starved to death, causing (according to the 9/11 commission report) great resentment against America, yet some managed trade was allowed to continue, managed of course by the globalists in the UN oil for food program. This program resulted in yet another UN scandal."
-Dr. Ron Paul

Exposing the True Isolationists
~~~~~~~~~~

"Unfortunately, we continue to concentrate on the obvious mismanagement of a war promoted by false information and ignore debating the real issue which is: Why are we determined to follow a foreign policy of empire building and pre-emption which is unbecoming of a constitutional republic?"
-Dr. Ron Paul

The Neoconservative Empire
~~~~~~~~~~

"The Government is best, which governs least"
-President Thomas Jefferson

~~~~~~~~~~

"The Pentagon recently reported that it now spends roughly $8.4 billion per month waging the war in Iraq, while the additional cost of our engagement in Afghanistan brings the monthly total to a staggering $10 billion. Since 2001, Congress has spent more than $500 billion on specific appropriations for Iraq. This sum is not reflected in official budget and deficit figures. Congress has funded the war by passing a series of so-called “supplemental” spending bills, which are passed outside of the normal appropriations process and thus deemed off-budget.

This is fundamentally dishonest: if we’re going to have a war, let’s face the costs – both human and economic – squarely. Congress has no business hiding the costs of war through accounting tricks."

-Dr. Ron Paul

Inflation and War Finance

~~~~~~~~~~

"At Mt. Carmel there were two firearms per person, most of them locked away. The rest of their protection consisted of hay bales and plywood.

The stockpiling accusation was an act of projection, for the real stockpiler was the government. In the attack on Waco, agents used MI 13 personnel carriers, M2AO Bradley fighting vehicles, Sikorsky Blackhawks, Apache and UH-1 Bell helicopters, Abrams MI tanks, 7.62mm machine guns, FBI SWAT snipers, two varieties of hand grenades, and the FBI's psychological warfare experts. The government even fired canisters of CS gas, banned in warfare by international treaty, through windows and walls."
-Dr. Ron Paul

The Moral Promise of Freedom

~~~~~~~~~~

"The problem is that politicians are not supposed to have power over us – we're supposed to be free."
-Dr. Ron Paul

Political Power and the Rule of Law

~~~~~~~~~~

:sold:

 

[viciouscircle]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AD7dnFDdwu0

On over after the 2:00 mark - roughly 2:15 on. This was at the South Carolina debate. Basically, Paul's position was that we invited these attacks because we were in Iraq with Bush Sr. in Desert Storm and Clinton again with the bombings.

Perhaps this has some merit for a portion of the population, but I think it would have made more sense to point out that we armed the guy who orchestrated the attack. For the average conservative - and I'd say not nearly as "anti-war" as Paul was saying (when I think anti-war, I think anti-war activists with no war period, not what I would view as the more common war when there isn't another choice) - Paul's saying that we fully caused it really presents some problems. Guys like bin Laden thrive on the attention, that's all he knows. I'd say look to Palestine and Iraq now for other examples.

I don't believe that had we not ever been in the area, it would have been Israel...and if no Israel, then it would have been us anyway. As the recent England bombing attempts have shown, education doesn't necessarily mean anything. Neither do free elections as witnessed by Hamas and their subsequent actions.

This is one issue that I have truly stepped back and looked at, and I think it goes back to Reagan's quote that we don't understand it over there. I'm a big fan of Pat Buchanan and he's against the war in Iraq as well. I continue to arrive at the same conclusion, and Paul's beliefs are not there for me.

That being said, this discussion alone says to me that the "old fashioned" debates do the same thing as this YouTube debate in getting you to think.

I'm very familiar with that exchange, although it hardly falls under the category of 9/11 conspiracy theories, IMO.

As far as his position, he suggests we "listen to the people who attacked us and why the did it", and his statement about bombing iraq was making reference to Osama bin Laden's 1998 Fatwa which states the following (emphasis added):

No one argues today about three facts that are known to everyone; we will list them, in order to remind everyone:

First, for over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples.

If some people have in the past argued about the fact of the occupation, all the people of the Peninsula have now acknowledged it. The best proof of this is the Americans' continuing aggression against the Iraqi people using the Peninsula as a staging post, even though all its rulers are against their territories being used to that end, but they are helpless.

Second, despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the crusader-Zionist alliance, and despite the huge number of those killed, which has exceeded 1 million... despite all this, the Americans are once against trying to repeat the horrific massacres, as though they are not content with the protracted blockade imposed after the ferocious war or the fragmentation and devastation.

So here they come to annihilate what is left of this people and to humiliate their Muslim neighbors.

Third, if the Americans' aims behind these wars are religious and economic, the aim is also to serve the Jews' petty state and divert attention from its occupation of Jerusalem and murder of Muslims there. The best proof of this is their eagerness to destroy Iraq, the strongest neighboring Arab state, and their endeavor to fragment all the states of the region such as Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Sudan into paper statelets and through their disunion and weakness to guarantee Israel's survival and the continuation of the brutal crusade occupation of the Peninsula.

All these crimes and sins committed by the Americans are a clear declaration of war on Allah, his messenger, and Muslims. And ulema have throughout Islamic history unanimously agreed that the jihad is an individual duty if the enemy destroys the Muslim countries. This was revealed by Imam Bin-Qadamah in "Al- Mughni," Imam al-Kisa'i in "Al-Bada'i," al-Qurtubi in his interpretation, and the shaykh of al-Islam in his books, where he said: "As for the fighting to repulse [an enemy], it is aimed at defending sanctity and religion, and it is a duty as agreed [by the ulema]. Nothing is more sacred than belief except repulsing an enemy who is attacking religion and life."

On that basis, and in compliance with Allah's order, we issue the following fatwa to all Muslims:

The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty Allah, "and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together," and "fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah."