I agree, the only real straight talker I saw in eithre party during any debate was Ron Paul.

I agree, the only real straight talker I saw in eithre party during any debate was Ron Paul.

 

And, he gets ridiculed by the other candidates and the press. They try to make him look crazy, when in fact, he's the only guy up there willing to tell the truth about our economy and the only one who wants to debate real issues instead of getting into a 3rd grade "Am not, am too" argument.

And, he gets ridiculed by the other candidates and the press. They try to make him look crazy, when in fact, he's the only guy up there willing to tell the truth about our economy and the only one who wants to debate real issues instead of getting into a 3rd grade "Am not, am too" argument.

 

I agree. I like him the more I see him.

I agree. I like him the more I see him.

:thumb: I hope Ron Paul stays in it as long as possible. He at least tries to keep the others honest.

AcesFull, in the other thread, you stated that John McCain was as "dishonest as the day is long." I challenged you to find examples or retract the statement. You stated you would start a thread last night, and you started this one.

 

So far, what you have posted here is a series of articles that depict McCain's history of championing policies that are centrist, not conservative, and in which he opposed his party. I think my posts here will demonstrate that I absolutely 100% agree with you on those items. McCain is a centrist and not a conservative, and his record demonstrates that.

 

But NOTHING you have posted here tells me that he LIED about something. You called him a LIAR, and that is a very serious accusation. The closest thing you have done is pull an excerpt where he recently accused Mitt Romney of supporting a timetable for pullout, and you said that was a lie. I put Romney's statement on there showing it was not a lie, that he had made that statement, he had just characterized it as a "private" timetable and not a "public" one, and McCain had not mentioned that. That might be "spin," but it is not "lying."

 

I am asking again for you to give evidence that he is a liar. If it is merely that he is trying to paint himself as a conservative when he is not, that's fine, but then you need to be intellectually honest and do the same with Romney, whom I support but whom has changed his position on MANY issues in the last several years.

IMO, McCain did lie about Romney's position on the Iraq timetable issue and he continue to lie about his position last night. I have posted the context in which McCain made his initial accusation and I have posted the actual transcript of the pertinent part of Romney's GMA interview.

 

McCain did not say that Romney used the word "timetable" - he said that Romney believed in timetables similar to the ones that the Democrats advocated. That was not true. McCain also said that Romney wanted to withdraw like Hillary Clinton does. That was also a false statement.

 

You are free to disagree with my conclusion if you want but as I stated in the other thread, there are many objective observers, including CNN's Jeffrey Toobin and McCain's friend, Bill Bennet who agree that McCain was out of line and owes Romney an apology.

 

There has been very little difference in Romney's position and McCain's position on the Iraq War since Romney declared his candidacy. As I noted above, McCain even hinted that if Iraq failed to meet certain milestones set by Congress, that we "would not be able to finish our mission." At one point, Barack Obama even commented that McCain agreed with his own position.

 

There is a big difference in changing one's position over the years, as Romney has done, and intentionally mischaracterizing your opponent's record, as McCain did in this case. (I would also characterize Romney's statement about being a lifelong hunter as a lie. Hunting twice - once as a 15 year old and once at age 60 does not merit the use of the "lifelong" adjective.)

 

I will continue to post information regarding McCain's erratic record on the issues until he most likely locks up the nomination. At that point, my interest in politics will go on hold for four years because I see very little difference in McCain and Hillary. Both of them will say anything to get elected and once in office I would not expect them to govern much differently.

 

McCain looked ridiculous last night attempting to read a few words out of context to justify his actions - even more so when he steadfastly declined Romney's challenge for him to read the entire quote.

And, he gets ridiculed by the other candidates and the press. They try to make him look crazy, when in fact, he's the only guy up there willing to tell the truth about our economy and the only one who wants to debate real issues instead of getting into a 3rd grade "Am not, am too" argument.

I agree. McCain spends most of the time during Ron Paul's responses chuckling. I thought Paul had a very good debate last night in limited action.

 

Every time that I see one of the other candidates treating Paul like a nutcase I think to myself that Reagan would agree with Paul on many more issues than the candidates. I am sure of one thing - Ronald Reagan would not be rolling his eyes and laughing while Ron Paul spoke.

 

The other candidates seem to think they are in a contest to see who can invoke Ronald Reagan's name the most often in the shortest period of time.

I agree. McCain spends most of the time during Ron Paul's responses chuckling. I thought Paul had a very good debate last night in limited action.

 

Every time that I see one of the other candidates treating Paul like a nutcase I think to myself that Reagan would agree with Paul on many more issues than the candidates. I am sure of one thing - Ronald Reagan would not be rolling his eyes and laughing while Ron Paul spoke.

 

The other candidates seem to think they are in a contest to see who can invoke Ronald Reagan's name the most often in the shortest period of time.

 

I likewise respected the heck out of RR, but with the current mood of this country, I doubt RR could get elected in 08 running on the principles he had.

:thumb: I hope Ron Paul stays in it as long as possible. He at least tries to keep the others honest.

 

:thumb:

 

I wish the media would cover him more. I'd love to see Paul go head-to-head with these guys so they couldn't avoid him. The more I see and hear him, the more I like him...I seriously think he'd be my #1 choice.

 

What kills me is they won't even acknowledge the points he makes. Paul brings up some great issues and the moderators just ignore them and move on to some third grade argument between Romney and McCain.

I agree. McCain spends most of the time during Ron Paul's responses chuckling. I thought Paul had a very good debate last night in limited action.

 

Every time that I see one of the other candidates treating Paul like a nutcase I think to myself that Reagan would agree with Paul on many more issues than the candidates. I am sure of one thing - Ronald Reagan would not be rolling his eyes and laughing while Ron Paul spoke.

 

The other candidates seem to think they are in a contest to see who can invoke Ronald Reagan's name the most often in the shortest period of time.

 

:thumb:

 

That's how I've been...I didn't seriously consider Paul at first, but I find myself agreeing with way more of the what he says than anyone else. He seems to be the only one who knows or is willing to tell the truth about our economy. How people can sit up there and talk about our economy being fine when the dollar is consistenly dropping is amazing...and what's worse, I think a lot of people believe it.

 

I like his view on the economy. I like his view on the constitution. And, while I don't agree verbatim with all his thoughts on the war, he makes great points about our penchant for funding and arming Middle Eastern groups only to turn around and fight them a decade later. In a past debate, Huckabee told Paul he would never abandon Israel and leave them to fend for themselves against the whole middle east and Paul had a great reply, "Then why do we continue to arm their enemies? How is that operating in Israel's best interests?"

 

I do agree with Huckabee that we couldn't let the Arabs exterminate Israel, but Paul's point is a good one. We can't continue to arm Arabs and then fight them 10 years later.

 

Join the Ron Paul Revolution...

:thumb:

 

I wish the media would cover him more. I'd love to see Paul go head-to-head with these guys so they couldn't avoid him. The more I see and hear him, the more I like him...I seriously think he'd be my #1 choice.

 

What kills me is they won't even acknowledge the points he makes. Paul brings up some great issues and the moderators just ignore them and move on to some third grade argument between Romney and McCain.

And the smirks that the other 3 give Paul when he talks really tick me off.

Lets all make a pact on here to vote for Ron Paul. I think we would at least feel better about ourselves.

:thumb:

 

That's how I've been...I didn't seriously consider Paul at first, but I find myself agreeing with way more of the what he says than anyone else. He seems to be the only one who knows or is willing to tell the truth about our economy. How people can sit up there and talk about our economy being fine when the dollar is consistenly dropping is amazing...and what's worse, I think a lot of people believe it.

 

I like his view on the economy. I like his view on the constitution. And, while I don't agree verbatim with all his thoughts on the war, he makes great points about our penchant for funding and arming Middle Eastern groups only to turn around and fight them a decade later. In a past debate, Huckabee told Paul he would never abandon Israel and leave them to fend for themselves against the whole middle east and Paul had a great reply, "Then why do we continue to arm their enemies? How is that operating in Israel's best interests?"

I do agree with Huckabee that we couldn't let the Arabs exterminate Israel, but Paul's point is a good one. We can't continue to arm Arabs and then fight them 10 years later.

 

Join the Ron Paul Revolution...

 

While I wish the other candidates would not chuckle or smirk at Paul as it is being extremely rude and disrespectful, my guess part of it is due to his naivete'. The bolded part of your post is an example of it in my opinon. We armed the Taliban to help them fight the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. That was a good thing. Unfortunately later those arms were used against us. Its rather simplistic to now say we were stupid to provide arms to the Taliban. I think our foreign policy folks are well aware of the shifting loyalties of people in the Middle East, but sometimes you have to deal first with the present dangers knowing that it might bite you in the backside later. Methinks the other candidates thought it was a tad bit funny that Paul saw that matter in such a black and white way.

Lets all make a pact on here to vote for Ron Paul. I think we would at least feel better about ourselves.

 

What's next David Williams for Governor?:laugh:

Lets all make a pact on here to vote for Ron Paul. I think we would at least feel better about ourselves.

 

I'm in...of course, since I'm registered democrat so I can vote in local elections, you guys will have to pull him through to the General Election before I can cast my vote. :lol:

While I wish the other candidates would not chuckle or smirk at Paul as it is being extremely rude and disrespectful, my guess part of it is due to his naivete'. The bolded part of your post is an example of it in my opinon. We armed the Taliban to help them fight the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. That was a good thing. Unfortunately later those arms were used against us. Its rather simplistic to now say we were stupid to provide arms to the Taliban. I think our foreign policy folks are well aware of the shifting loyalties of people in the Middle East, but sometimes you have to deal first with the present dangers knowing that it might bite you in the backside later. Methinks the other candidates thought it was a tad bit funny that Paul saw that matter in such a black and white way.

 

Maybe it is that black and white.

 

At least with the USSR, we knew exactly who our enemy was and how we'd have to engage them. Now we've got renegade bands of terrorists all over the Middle East who hate us armed and ready for war...how are they armed? Primarily, by us and the collapsed Soviet Union. Arming your enemies can only complicate things in the long run...

 

I do see your point. But, perhaps we should look for a better solution than arming people that we're going to fight later. It makes no sense.