Anyone else watching the CNN Rep. Debate with me in a few minutes?

For anyone who hasn't heard, Ron Paul won the IN PERSON straw poll after the debates in at least Ohio. I don't know about the other locations. Check out this video:



I like how he says, "There were some changes..." Notice what DIDN'T change? RON PAUL BEING IN THE LEAD!

do you realize if ron paul becomes president, that we may actually have a chance to have busineses again, where we hire people and pay them instead of the government? blink blink

Originally posted by AwakeinNM

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by 27jd

Originally posted by macaronicaesar
One thing I see coming out of it that is a positive though, that is more and more of the other candidates are leaning towards Paul on some of the key issues, but being realistic, the only person who can help, really has no chance and that has me completely saddened.

No chance? Why would you parrot the very propaganda that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy? Get out, spread the word, READ UP about Dr. Paul's real positions, and speak directly to your family and friends. If you have questions about his positions on an issue, send me a U2U, I'll direct you to the answer. Encourage everybody who wants to take this country back to register as a republican, and even try to become a delegate. If we don't get the republican nomination, Dr. Paul has the opportunity to run 3rd party but we would vastly prefer to put him head to head against Obama. Don't curl up in the fetal position and give up. Fight harder. They said Reagan had no chance too.

Oh, I soooo agree with you on this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Second that! I am getting tired of the defeatist attitudes from people who still insist on believing what they hear from the MSM.

Listen to yourself. Where did I say I believe the MSM, I said the sheep believe in the MSM. My support for Dr. Paul is unwavering, but you're lying to yourself if you think he's gonna win. I'd make a prop bet paying 10-1 for anyone interested and it's not because I have given up, I haven't, but there is only so much I can do.

Yeah, I watched it. It almost seems like EVERY OTHER DEBATE I HAVE SEEN ON THERE FOR YEARS. The only part of CNN I like is that they have hot chicks that do their news (which leads me to believe that they are biased against ugly chicks), so I just turn down the volume and look at them. They do nothing but give their opinions anyway, I couldn't care less about their opinions, but they look hot so, whatever. CNN wouldn't last a month if it weren't for the braindead eyecandy that they have delivering the news. Why? No one hears and ugly chick and the only thing they hear from a hot chick is Blah, Blah, Blah.....but at least with a hot chick they will stay on the channel to watch..even though they do nothing but lie.

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
reply to post by bottleslingguy

 

The stupid bases may not need to be there, but I like actual facts.

I am normally convinced by logos not pathos or ethos.

ok then the fact is the stupid bases don't need to be there because they are a part of what is bankrupting us and don't make us safer they only lend to the world's perception of our imperialistic attitude toward the world. Why do you think they need to be there?

reply to post by gladtobehere


I have been in the US military for over ten years, stationed overseas, and deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. We have numerous maps that show locations of US military installations around the world.

The issue here I have noticed is with the term "US bases". Many of these bases we operate at are not our own, but belong to host nations. For example in the UK, we operate at RAF bases. They belong to the RAF not the US.

In addition, US military property is not always a base. It can be housing areas. It can be sites for R&R. For example some of the sites in Germany, considered bases by people who have no idea what they are talking about are simple housing areas, apartment complexes. When people throw the term base around it conjures up an image of motorpools, hangars, barracks, etc. Apartments, a commissary and a shoppette are not a base. A ski resort is not base.

Originally posted by macaronicaesar

Originally posted by AwakeinNM

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by 27jd

Originally posted by macaronicaesar
One thing I see coming out of it that is a positive though, that is more and more of the other candidates are leaning towards Paul on some of the key issues, but being realistic, the only person who can help, really has no chance and that has me completely saddened.

No chance? Why would you parrot the very propaganda that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy? Get out, spread the word, READ UP about Dr. Paul's real positions, and speak directly to your family and friends. If you have questions about his positions on an issue, send me a U2U, I'll direct you to the answer. Encourage everybody who wants to take this country back to register as a republican, and even try to become a delegate. If we don't get the republican nomination, Dr. Paul has the opportunity to run 3rd party but we would vastly prefer to put him head to head against Obama. Don't curl up in the fetal position and give up. Fight harder. They said Reagan had no chance too.

Oh, I soooo agree with you on this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Second that! I am getting tired of the defeatist attitudes from people who still insist on believing what they hear from the MSM.

Listen to yourself. Where did I say I believe the MSM, I said the sheep believe in the MSM. My support for Dr. Paul is unwavering, but you're lying to yourself if you think he's gonna win. I'd make a prop bet paying 10-1 for anyone interested and it's not because I have given up, I haven't, but there is only so much I can do.

Simmah down, chief. I was speaking in generalities. He does have a chance to win, and you cannot place odds on him - you have no data. The MSM is repressing information and coverage, yet he does amazingly well in polls. You and I have no idea how many people will vote for him in the primaries, so until that happens, nobody can say he has no chance of winning. Saying as much before the fat lady has sung is downright irresponsible and defeatist.

reply to post by MikeboydUS


Here's the politifact truth-o-meter regarding his comments, the article does mention the points you make...

www.politifact.com...

Noam Chomsky agrees with Ron Paul on foreign policy...

www.youtube.com...


Former head of CIA Bin Laden unit agrees with Ron Paul on foreign policy...

www.revolutionpac.com...

reply to post by 27jd


The article supports many of the same points I was making.

Over 50 countries have offices or a building with less than 10 personnel. A "base" in Canada is a room. Only 13 nations have facilities either basing or hosting over 1000 US personnel.

In 56 of these 148 countries, the U.S. has less than 10 active-duty personnel present. These include such obscure locales as Mongolia, Nepal, Gabon, Togo and Suriname.

By contrast, the U.S. has disclosed only 13 countries outside the United States and its possessions that are host to more than 1,000 personnel. They are: Belgium, Germany, Italy, Spain, Turkey, the United Kingdom, Japan, Bahrain, Djibouti, South Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan and Kuwait.

Simply put, the claims there are 700 or 900 or 1000 US bases is disinformation, its propaganda used to appeal to anti-war activists.

Of the 662 overseas sites listed -- that is, those outside the active war zones -- all but 32 of them are either small sites (with a replacement value of less than $915 million) or sites essentially owned on paper only.

For instance, the sole site listed for Canada is 144 square feet of leased space -- equal to a 12-foot-by-12-foot room. That’s an extreme case, but other nations on the list -- such as Aruba, Iceland, Indonesia, Kenya, Norway and Peru -- have just a few U.S. military buildings, many of them leased. Some of the sites are unmanned radio relay towers or other minor facilities. "Most of them are a couple of acres with a cyclone fence and no troops," Pike said.

All but 32. 32 major sites other than the main operating bases in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Yet at the end of the article, they rate it as mostly true?!

Given the incomplete figures available from the Pentagon, Paul’s topline figures -- 130 nations, 900 bases -- are plausible when active military operations are included. "My eyebrows were raised many times" during the debate, Pike said, but this comment "was not one of those times."

Still, we think it’s worth pointing out that many of the personnel deployments and facilities included in Paul’s number are fairly minimal in nature. On balance, we rate Paul’s statement Mostly True.

It rates it mostly true over the point that was made, not on actual facts?!

What kind of fact finding crap is that?

It doesn't matter if someone has a point, if they falsify the facts to make the point it nullifies the point. Its wrong in a court of law and its wrong in science, yet for some idiotic reason its okay in politics?

reply to post by MikeboydUS


I clearly stated the link supported what you were saying. But, nitpicking over the exact numbers seems to be beside the point, which is we have WAY too many bases overseas bleeding us dry while stimulating the economies of other nations when we need that stimulus here. We can no longer afford it, and our so-called allies need to step up and defend themselves. I don't think Ron Paul would ever intentionally tell a non-truth, personally. Care to address the outright LIES the other candidates told? As opposed to nitpicking exact numbers based on what is "officially" considered a base? He didn't have enough time, nor does he ever get enough time, to carefully lay out what is a base, and what is not.

Originally posted by 27jd
reply to post by MikeboydUS

 

I clearly stated the link supported what you were saying. But, nitpicking over the exact numbers seems to be beside the point, which is we have WAY too many bases overseas bleeding us dry while stimulating the economies of other nations when we need that stimulus here. We can no longer afford it, and our so-called allies need to step up and defend themselves. I don't think Ron Paul would ever intentionally tell a non-truth, personally. Care to address the outright LIES the other candidates told? As opposed to nitpicking exact numbers based on what is "officially" considered a base? He didn't have enough time, nor does he ever get enough time, to carefully lay out what is a base, and what is not.

If it was a difference of just a few numbers, I would call it nitpicking. The numbers speak for themselves though. Only 13 nations have more than 1,000 US troops hosted or based at 32 major sites.

Sure we need to cut back on leasing properties and draw down forces from overseas, but we have to be honest and accurate about it. We can't distort the facts in order to get an impulsive emotional reponse from voters. Instead of focusing on basing, all he would have to say is the US spends more on defense than the rest of the world combined, primarily due to overseas operations. Its accurate, blunt, and gets the point across.

The other candidates are just as guilty in the distortion of the facts to get a reaction. Its a cancer in the US political system. Look at the recent gaff by Michele Bachman about the HPV vaccine.

Even though I am conservative, there isn't a single candidate I am willing to get behind yet. I was close to supporting Ron Paul and I was a fan of Herman Cain previously. At this point I don't trust any of them and I feel the system may be completely broken. Even if Paul is the least of all evils, Congress and the Supreme Court are going to fight any real change tooth and nail, resulting in more of nothing getting done. Its a mess.

reply to post by MikeboydUS


That's understandable. I would never expect you to vote for somebody you don't trust. As commander in chief, he can bring the troops home, which will be a huge financial gain for us. He will use the money spent on overseas military spending, by splitting it between paying off our debt, and funding entitlement programs. Of course he will be subject to checks and balances, but we'll be headed in a much better direction, with somebody who is truly fighting for the people in the office of the President.

Here's a new video....

www.youtube.com...

Add a couple new bases to the list...

news.yahoo.com...

reply to post by 27jd


Note the "base" in the Seychelles is not a base, but a hangar at an airport.

I would imagine a number of these facilities are like that, meaning we leased some property at their airports or air bases.