| |
|
|
| 13 Aug 2011 05:48 PM |
TOLD YOU THOARE
I KNEW IT I KNEW IT I KNEW IT. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 13 Aug 2011 05:52 PM |
| It's only a straw poll. She hasn't won the caucus. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 13 Aug 2011 05:54 PM |
HUNTSMAN GOT 69 VOTES!
SECOND WORST!
WAS THE GUY BELOW HIM EVEN IN THE DEBATE? |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 13 Aug 2011 05:55 PM |
| Huntsman isn't campaigning in Iowa. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 13 Aug 2011 05:56 PM |
| DERP HE WENT TO THE DEBATE |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 13 Aug 2011 06:03 PM |
You don't understand US politics. The debate was nationally broadcast. Everybody goes to the debates. Mitt Romney and Huntsman aren't campaigning in Iowa. Iowa = social conservative land which is why Bachmann, Pawlenty, and Santorum had so much at stake there.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/leaving-rest-of-gop-field-in-iowa-huntsman-romney-get-to-nh-ahead-of-perry/2011/08/12/gIQAxITfBJ_story.html |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
| |
|
|
| 13 Aug 2011 06:08 PM |
| It would translate into 4 more years of Obama. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 13 Aug 2011 06:09 PM |
| nah, your just a GrAY male anarchist that is attracted to female leaders. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 13 Aug 2011 06:48 PM |
nah, your just a GrAY male anarchist that is attracted to female leaders. -------------------------------- What the hell? |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
twigs182
|
  |
| Joined: 13 Apr 2008 |
| Total Posts: 2109 |
|
|
| 13 Aug 2011 11:16 PM |
| Ron Paul is gonna win it all. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 13 Aug 2011 11:22 PM |
>ron paul
LOL!
Why would a neocon like you support Ron Paul? |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
twigs182
|
  |
| Joined: 13 Apr 2008 |
| Total Posts: 2109 |
|
|
| 13 Aug 2011 11:26 PM |
| Because social policies can be addressed when the economy stabilizes. And I am not a neocon as much as I am somewhat of a populist. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 13 Aug 2011 11:32 PM |
| Do you really support shutting down the Federal Reserve? |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
twigs182
|
  |
| Joined: 13 Apr 2008 |
| Total Posts: 2109 |
|
|
| 13 Aug 2011 11:51 PM |
I favor more of the Newt approach. But he would save the US trillions by pulling out of bases and ending the wars in Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Pakistan, Iraq, and where ever our shadow op militarized complex reaches and infests the world much like the German propaganda poster of liberators. to sum things up... end the WERE GONNA FREE THE SHAT OUT OF YOU BY FLATTENING YOUR ENTIRE COUNTRY WITH AERIAL WARFARE! |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 14 Aug 2011 12:01 AM |
Libertarian =/= NeoCon
Besides, he's in favor of the traditional isolationist-like policy the US had prior to WWII. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
twigs182
|
  |
| Joined: 13 Apr 2008 |
| Total Posts: 2109 |
|
|
| 14 Aug 2011 12:04 AM |
| You mean in the 1890s before the HURHUR! MEXICANS GIMME GIMME GIMME |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 14 Aug 2011 12:06 AM |
Since you're focusing on the economy, how can you say you support Ron Paul if you don't support his view on arguably the biggest economic issue?
Try this out: Jon Huntsman: History will show how effective he is. In terms of foreign policy, we have a generational opportunity, George, to reset our position in the world. And it must be done based upon our deployments in all corners of the world, wherever we find ourselves, how affordable those deployments are, whether it's a good use of our young men and women. Whether it's in our core national security and interest. We're fighting an enemy that is far different than any we have got before. It's a nontraditional kind of war, and I think we need to step back, recalibrate how we go about protecting our borders and protecting our people, and resetting our position in the world.
George Stephanopoulos: But what does that mean? Is the President fighting that war effectively today?
Jon Huntsman: It means that we have too much in the way of boots on the ground in corners of the world where we probably don't need it. It means that we must prepare for an asymmetrical kind of response. It means that we probably don't need to be in certain parts of the Middle East where there are domestic revolutions playing out. Where we probably just ought to let them play out. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
twigs182
|
  |
| Joined: 13 Apr 2008 |
| Total Posts: 2109 |
|
|
| 14 Aug 2011 12:12 AM |
| Ron wants to also end the war on drags. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 14 Aug 2011 12:14 AM |
Probably the worst idea I have heard in a long time.
I haven't heard Huntsman comment on it.
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
twigs182
|
  |
| Joined: 13 Apr 2008 |
| Total Posts: 2109 |
|
|
| 14 Aug 2011 12:18 AM |
| Why? Are you telling me its been successful? No knock raids have killed probably more innocent people and dogs than actual dealers. HURHUR! The war on drugs has turned the freaking SWAT team which is to be used as a limited assest much like the SEALs, into nothing more than an extension of the police force to flex their nuts on petty non violent criminals rather than those totting AK47s in the streets. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 14 Aug 2011 12:23 AM |
40 people have been killed in no-knock raids. Since 1980. And we're averaging now at 50,000 no-knock raids a year. About 20,000 people die every year from o-ver- doze. I could make the argument it actually saves lives.
Now that this nonsense about no-knock raids is out of the way, can we have a real argument about the effectiveness of the drug war? |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|