PDA

View Full Version : Presidential Debate: Sarah Palin vs. Ron Paul 2012 (youtube animation)



Kords21
02-01-2011, 07:26 PM
I thought this was pretty spot on:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8b9ZSJaaN8c
TCE
02-01-2011, 07:30 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8b9ZSJaaN8c
Fredom101
02-01-2011, 07:59 PM
Well some of it was good and funny, but I don't like it when Ron Paul says "we need a strong national defense", it sounds neocon-ish.
FrankRep
02-01-2011, 08:03 PM
Well some of it was good and funny, but I don't like it when Ron Paul says "we need a strong national defense", it sounds neocon-ish.

Ron Paul supports a Strong National Defense. Nothing "Neocon" about that.
Fredom101
02-01-2011, 08:15 PM
Ron Paul supports a Strong National Defense. Nothing "Neocon" about that.

Sure there is. Bush was also for a Strong National Defense (why are we capitalizing it btw?).
When you're for a SND, then "defense spending" can easily be justified. It's just another way to manipulate the language. We have no need for a "national defense", if there isn't a military galavanting around the world and blowing up innocent people in the middle east.
MRK
02-01-2011, 08:16 PM
Sure there is. Bush was also for a Strong National Defense (why are we capitalizing it btw?).
When you're for a SND, then "defense spending" can easily be justified. It's just another way to manipulate the language. We have no need for a "national defense", if there isn't a military galavanting around the world and blowing up innocent people in the middle east.

/devil's advocate powers ACTIVATE!!!

What then, is the legitimate purpose of a government? Is there any?
sailingaway
02-01-2011, 09:09 PM
Sure there is. Bush was also for a Strong National Defense (why are we capitalizing it btw?).
When you're for a SND, then "defense spending" can easily be justified. It's just another way to manipulate the language. We have no need for a "national defense", if there isn't a military galavanting around the world and blowing up innocent people in the middle east.

Bush misused the term to mean something it doesn't. The words mean what they meant before Bush.
erowe1
02-01-2011, 09:12 PM
Sure there is. Bush was also for a Strong National Defense (why are we capitalizing it btw?).
When you're for a SND, then "defense spending" can easily be justified. It's just another way to manipulate the language. We have no need for a "national defense", if there isn't a military galavanting around the world and blowing up innocent people in the middle east.

That's like saying that it's progressive to believe that education is important because Obama said education was important.

There's nothing neocon about a strong national defense. Neocons don't even care about defense, regardless of what they say, they only care about offense. Supporting the right to keep and bear arms is supporting a strong national defense.
Legend1104
02-01-2011, 11:07 PM
That would be like that errgh? look that McCain had during the debates when Ron asked him a questions about the Presidential working group on the economy (or something like that..dont exactly remember).
__27__
02-01-2011, 11:11 PM
/devil's advocate powers ACTIVATE!!!

What then, is the legitimate purpose of a government? Is there any?

Nope. Next question?
TheTyke
02-02-2011, 12:50 AM
Ehh... I'm not crazy about this. Disagree with Palin on a lot of issues, and think she's a primary opponent for the tea party vote, but this comes across as just poking fun and alienating her supporters from Ron. How would we react if someone did that to Ron? Sure wouldn't inspire us to vote for someone else...
dntrpltt
02-02-2011, 01:00 AM
Ron: "Do you care about anything important?"
Sarah: "...One time, I killed a moose and took a picture with it."

I Lol'd.