PDA

View Full Version : The most disturbing part of last night's debate...




economics102
12-16-2011, 06:21 AM
The most telling reaction, I thought, was when the crowd booed Dr. Paul refuting Bachmann's claim about Iran being close to a nuclear weapon. Obviously the crowd has no knowledge of the evidence and so no idea who's right and wrong in that scuffle, so the fact that they chose to boo the idea that Iran isn't getting WMD and thus giving us an excuse to bomb them says a LOT about the kind of deranged people we're trying to win over. If we can't win them over it's not our fault!

tbone717
12-16-2011, 06:22 AM
I believe that they were booing Bachmann interrupting Paul's rebuttal.

afwjam
12-16-2011, 06:23 AM
They were not booing Paul.

bobbyw24
12-16-2011, 06:26 AM
In one of the more interesting exchanges in last night’s GOP Debate on FOX News, Ron Paul and Michelle Bachmann found some time to disagree with each other. Without checking on the facts of what each said, one could walk away believing something that was just not true. Which candidate lied? Here is your answer from “FACT CHECK” via the AP:

http://libertymaven.com/2011/12/16/ron-pauls-debate-moments-and-bachmann-lies/11992/

neverseen
12-16-2011, 06:35 AM
this is just going to force people to check on the facts and the facts show ron is right. this outburst and pwning of bachmann is just a reason for people to google her doc's and see that she was wrong. It was a great exchange.

remember.... peoople also cheered and booed at inappropriate times. Gay soldier asking a question, the whole insurance let him die cheering, etc.

1836
12-16-2011, 06:38 AM
The most telling reaction, I thought, was when the crowd booed Dr. Paul refuting Bachmann's claim about Iran being close to a nuclear weapon. Obviously the crowd has no knowledge of the evidence and so no idea who's right and wrong in that scuffle, so the fact that they chose to boo the idea that Iran isn't getting WMD and thus giving us an excuse to bomb them says a LOT about the kind of deranged people we're trying to win over. If we can't win them over it's not our fault!

Yes it is. Man, we are so close. We need to fix this foreign policy thing before it disallows us from winning the nomination, because my God, we actually could win the nomination. We actually could.

And for Ron to not realize that he needs to tone down his foreign policy message a bit, kind of frustrates me. And I love the man, and I have given countless hours and dollars on his behalf.

LeJimster
12-16-2011, 06:40 AM
I believe that they were booing Bachmann interrupting Paul's rebuttal.

^^ This.

bronxboy10
12-16-2011, 06:40 AM
They were not booing Paul.

I also got the impression they weren't booing Paul.

neverseen
12-16-2011, 06:41 AM
Yes it is. Man, we are so close. We need to fix this foreign policy thing before it disallows us from winning the nomination, because my God, we actually could win the nomination. We actually could.

And for Ron to not realize that he needs to tone down his foreign policy message a bit, kind of frustrates me. And I love the man, and I have given countless hours and dollars on his behalf.

Annnnnd he'll be on leno tonight. I didn't see anything out of character for ron last night. He has been proven correct by all the fact checkers. The truth hurts and america needs a dose of it. he has 2 weeks before iowa to clarify his stance (for the past oh say, 35 or 40 years) on his policy. He'll be FINE. EVERYone on the board knew going into this that he was going to be attacked HARD. If the worst they can do is bring up his well know and correct policy... let them.

Emerick
12-16-2011, 06:45 AM
A lot of people only respond to fear. That's why I suggested Ron should run an ad showing that going to war against Iran carelessly would result in another World War, since China and Russia are Iran's allies.

If they are trying to play the "scary dangerous non-interventionist foreign policy" card, then we should play the "dangerous neocon foreign policy that will lead America to an end" card.

We must give a much greater threat to be feared of.

1836
12-16-2011, 06:48 AM
Annnnnd he'll be on leno tonight. I didn't see anything out of character for ron last night. He has been proven correct by all the fact checkers. The truth hurts and america needs a dose of it. he has 2 weeks before iowa to clarify his stance (for the past oh say, 35 or 40 years) on his policy. He'll be FINE. EVERYone on the board knew going into this that he was going to be attacked HARD. If the worst they can do is bring up his well know and correct policy... let them.

COOL DUDE. YOU'RE RIGHT. Let's just sing the praises of Ron's position, because it is correct.

So what if Ron Paul is right? We all HERE know that. And we all HERE do not constitute enough votes for Ron to get the nomination, I'm sorry to say. "America needs the truth" is not going to win the nomination. We are SO CLOSE. And it is absolutely ridiculous that we wouldn't at least SOMEWHAT moderate the foreign policy message to better appeal to primary voters.

HOLLYWOOD
12-16-2011, 06:50 AM
this is just going to force people to check on the facts and the facts show ron is right. this outburst and pwning of bachmann is just a reason for people to google her doc's and see that she was wrong. It was a great exchange. The 50+ year olds/age voting crowds don't followup and fact check. The propaganda corporate rag print in the papers will seal the deal the next morning, since they just forward AP/Reuters/NYT/WSJ garbage.

They believe what they see, hear, and are told by politicians/media. The 50+ age voting groups are also the highest percentile voting groups.

NancyNYC
12-16-2011, 06:55 AM
The impression I got was that there were people booing both of them, but that there were a lot more booing Bachmann than were booing Dr. Paul. I'd say he definitely came out on top of that exchange. Unfortunately, the corporate media will likely spin it otherwise.

Aratus
12-16-2011, 07:05 AM
Newt Gingrich set the tone when pointing out a GOP bloodfeud slugfest

may trigger a Luv~Fest for Barack Obama amougnst the public at large.

We got a mainly polite talk about the issues where everyone went back to

all usual debate format roles. Was this whole FOX debate set up so Newt

would not look like the intelligent meglomaniac he usually is? he has none

of the dispassion of Henry Cabot Lodge Senior or Professor Woodrow Wilson,

and he must have been pleased about how the crowd does not question the

intelligence data concerning any iranian nuclear facilities that are almost nuclear.

wgadget
12-16-2011, 07:06 AM
COOL DUDE. YOU'RE RIGHT. Let's just sing the praises of Ron's position, because it is correct.

So what if Ron Paul is right? We all HERE know that. And we all HERE do not constitute enough votes for Ron to get the nomination, I'm sorry to say. "America needs the truth" is not going to win the nomination. We are SO CLOSE. And it is absolutely ridiculous that we wouldn't at least SOMEWHAT moderate the foreign policy message to better appeal to primary voters.

Calm down. In the age of the Internet, and with many fierce supporters, Ron Paul's TRUTH will come out. It always does.

neverseen
12-16-2011, 07:07 AM
COOL DUDE. YOU'RE RIGHT. Let's just sing the praises of Ron's position, because it is correct.

So what if Ron Paul is right? We all HERE know that. And we all HERE do not constitute enough votes for Ron to get the nomination, I'm sorry to say. "America needs the truth" is not going to win the nomination. We are SO CLOSE. And it is absolutely ridiculous that we wouldn't at least SOMEWHAT moderate the foreign policy message to better appeal to primary voters.

Then do your job and pander at voter door steps. Ron does NOT need to bend to the hawks will and send my friends to war. War in iran is wrong and the american people know that. You just need a nap and a rewatch of the debate. Paul is right, the media says he's right, and even NEWT backed him up on bachmann's constant lies. There was nothing wrong with what he said. You've been around long enough to know ron doesn't lie to people for their votes.

DerekB
12-16-2011, 07:08 AM
The most telling reaction, I thought, was when the crowd booed Dr. Paul refuting Bachmann's claim about Iran being close to a nuclear weapon. Obviously the crowd has no knowledge of the evidence and so no idea who's right and wrong in that scuffle, so the fact that they chose to boo the idea that Iran isn't getting WMD and thus giving us an excuse to bomb them says a LOT about the kind of deranged people we're trying to win over. If we can't win them over it's not our fault!

The people booed in several different spots. The booed both Ron and Bachmann... mostly Paul.

The most disturbing part of last night was Dr. Paul's acceptance of the 'to the left of Obama' question by Baier. (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?338630-Ron-Paul-Is-NOT-To-The-Left-Of-Obama-on-Iran) I think your last sentence is exactly wrong... if Ron's answers were packaged properly we'd be able to convince far more Republicans that Ron's foreign policy is the only logical foreign policy.

The best part of the debate last night was Ron Paul's electability answer about 'anyone up here could beat obama, he's beating himself!' Nailed that one out of the ballpark.

wgadget
12-16-2011, 07:09 AM
Oh, btw, EIGHT GLOBAL BANKS, including the Bank of America, have been downgraded.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_FITCH_GLOBAL_BANKS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-12-15-20-20-47

Non-sequitur? I don't think so.

icon124
12-16-2011, 07:14 AM
Uh...they were booing Bachmann for not allowing a 30 second rebutal and cutting RP off 2-3 times......

I don't know where you paranoid people come from lol....chill out it wasn't as bad as you make it seem.

He presented all the facts...if they don't get it they will never get it. We have a solid ground game in Iowa as well explaining in detail his positions

osan
12-16-2011, 07:19 AM
The most telling reaction, I thought, was when the crowd booed Dr. Paul refuting Bachmann's claim about Iran being close to a nuclear weapon. Obviously the crowd has no knowledge of the evidence and so no idea who's right and wrong in that scuffle, so the fact that they chose to boo the idea that Iran isn't getting WMD and thus giving us an excuse to bomb them says a LOT about the kind of deranged people we're trying to win over. If we can't win them over it's not our fault!

Could not see the debate - don't get Fox here. Are you sure that is what they were booing? Things get confused in these events and the participants just have to keep going and at times the things one guy says meets with boos while the next guy starts talking.

People in the USA have been HEAVILY conditioned - and here I mean very real forms of operant conditioning - not just to accept war but to WANT IT. Between the television and now the extremely graphic and realistic video games, the minds of countless millions of people have been deeply trained to violence-as-normal-reality. Couple that with the now known effects of long term over-stimulation of the brain and what results is a huge sub-population that is highly addicted to a psychological state of simulated warfare. So long as the "warfare" is not made real to them, which is done by keeping it confined to foreign places and diligent media scrubbing of images thus insulating the individual from the true horrors of it, those so addicted champ at the bit for proxy war.

On top of that are the other populations, all pent up with anger, anxiety, and fear by the insane conditions imposed upon their lives by their own governments. In their overwhelming need for clarity and resolution, they become easy prey for anyone dangling the bait of a plausible enemy identification before them. The impulse to strike out against any enemy renders them all too eager to accept the media's proclamations of who the bad guys are. This is all psych 101 and is readily observable to anyone willing to observe with attention and an open mind.

At events such as these debates, when a man like Ron Paul takes away the green light to go bomb one's "enemies", the pumped up, jonesing, angry, and frightened people in the audiences release their venom without so much as the first rational thought entering their minds because for them any assertion contrary to their conditioning is like telling them the world is flat. It is simply unimaginable to such people that Iran does not need to be nuked and therefore they respond on a purely visceral basis. Given in sufficient numbers, people in such a state represent very real dangers to the rest, to peace, to reason, and to sanity, for they are inarticulate in responding to violations of their conditioning and respond with singular mid-brain force. They are the dictator's greatest weapon.

Ron Paul is treading on thin ice where these subjects are concerned, but what can he do other than stay his honest course? Become just another whore like the rest? What would be the point, especially at 76 years?

tod evans
12-16-2011, 07:32 AM
The 50+ year olds/age voting crowds don't followup and fact check. The propaganda corporate rag print in the papers will seal the deal the next morning, since they just forward AP/Reuters/NYT/WSJ garbage.

They believe what they see, hear, and are told by politicians/media. The 50+ age voting groups are also the highest percentile voting groups.


Hey dude, I'm one of those 50+ folks and I believe in common sense not what I read online or hear on the news.
Over 90% of my 50+ friends are the same way.....please remember we were living the nam propaganda when we were young so disinformation via mass-media is standard fare for a lot of us "old-folks"..

1836
12-16-2011, 07:39 AM
Then do your job and pander at voter door steps. Ron does NOT need to bend to the hawks will and send my friends to war. War in iran is wrong and the american people know that. You just need a nap and a rewatch of the debate. Paul is right, the media says he's right, and even NEWT backed him up on bachmann's constant lies. There was nothing wrong with what he said. You've been around long enough to know ron doesn't lie to people for their votes.

Being right is not enough to win an election. You have to deliver your message.

You are obviously not familiar with some of Ron's past congressional campaigns. Ron Paul is willing to play politics when he has to and his political staff has long done it. Ron Paul has to; some of his positions truly are not "mainstream GOP" positions and lose him a lot of votes if they aren't handled well. He understands this and so he is careful on how he presents a number of issues.

I know a little bit about politics. A little. And I know that it is incumbent upon the campaign to see this issue and figure out a way to address it so that our momentum is not slowed by Ron expounding upon some of the things he has been expounding upon.

The one area where he most needs to think about toning it down a bit, foreign policy, he isn't.

tremendoustie
12-16-2011, 07:41 AM
A lot of people only respond to fear. That's why I suggested Ron should run an ad showing that going to war against Iran carelessly would result in another World War, since China and Russia are Iran's allies.

If they are trying to play the "scary dangerous non-interventionist foreign policy" card, then we should play the "dangerous neocon foreign policy that will lead America to an end" card.

We must give a much greater threat to be feared of.

This is a good suggestion, actually.

V3n
12-16-2011, 07:45 AM
I thought they were saying "boo-urns".

For me the most disturbing part of last night was Bachmann's cement forehead and lizard eyes.

moostraks
12-16-2011, 07:52 AM
A lot of people only respond to fear. That's why I suggested Ron should run an ad showing that going to war against Iran carelessly would result in another World War, since China and Russia are Iran's allies.

If they are trying to play the "scary dangerous non-interventionist foreign policy" card, then we should play the "dangerous neocon foreign policy that will lead America to an end" card.

We must give a much greater threat to be feared of.



People in the USA have been HEAVILY conditioned - and here I mean very real forms of operant conditioning - not just to accept war but to WANT IT. Between the television and now the extremely graphic and realistic video games, the minds of countless millions of people have been deeply trained to violence-as-normal-reality. Couple that with the now known effects of long term over-stimulation of the brain and what results is a huge sub-population that is highly addicted to a psychological state of simulated warfare. So long as the "warfare" is not made real to them, which is done by keeping it confined to foreign places and diligent media scrubbing of images thus insulating the individual from the true horrors of it, those so addicted champ at the bit for proxy war.

On top of that are the other populations, all pent up with anger, anxiety, and fear by the insane conditions imposed upon their lives by their own governments. In their overwhelming need for clarity and resolution, they become easy prey for anyone dangling the bait of a plausible enemy identification before them. The impulse to strike out against any enemy renders them all too eager to accept the media's proclamations of who the bad guys are. This is all psych 101 and is readily observable to anyone willing to observe with attention and an open mind.

At events such as these debates, when a man like Ron Paul takes away the green light to go bomb one's "enemies", the pumped up, jonesing, angry, and frightened people in the audiences release their venom without so much as the first rational thought entering their minds because for them any assertion contrary to their conditioning is like telling them the world is flat. It is simply unimaginable to such people that Iran does not need to be nuked and therefore they respond on a purely visceral basis. Given in sufficient numbers, people in such a state represent very real dangers to the rest, to peace, to reason, and to sanity, for they are inarticulate in responding to violations of their conditioning and respond with singular mid-brain force. They are the dictator's greatest weapon.


Both of you are right. Osan's analysis is spot on imo and Emerick's suggestion for a response is probably the best method of getting through at this point to those who are so hate driven and mindlessly manipulated.

wgadget
12-16-2011, 07:53 AM
I thought they were saying "boo-urns".

For me the most disturbing part of last night was Bachmann's cement forehead and lizard eyes.

What about her giraffe eyelashes?

Revolution9
12-16-2011, 07:57 AM
The 50+ year olds/age voting crowds don't followup and fact check. The propaganda corporate rag print in the papers will seal the deal the next morning, since they just forward AP/Reuters/NYT/WSJ garbage.

They believe what they see, hear, and are told by politicians/media. The 50+ age voting groups are also the highest percentile voting groups.

Not accurate. I am 54 and I bet alot of folks could chime in here. My landlady is in her 50's and she did the research and sports an RP bumper sticker. My neighbor is in his 60's and I was surprised in our first meeting when he started mentioning research into the Knights Templar, banking, fiat currency and Ron Paul. Alot of the 50+ are from the original anti-war, counter-MIC mindset, invented hard rock, rushed the pigs, invented networked computers, made libertarian philosophy popular as well as the peace movement. All Viet Nam vets are 50+.

Rev9

coastie
12-16-2011, 08:00 AM
I think the good Dr. needs to slow down a bit on foreign policy, instead of just saying "no they don't"(essentially), i really wish he would point out more clearly that


1. The CIA(or any of our intelligence agencies, for that matter) does not even think they have a nuke.

2. Cite Dr. Robert Pape's DOD commissioned study on suicide terrorism, that states unequivocally every candidate on that stage is dead wrong on this issue, with the exception of Dr. Paul. I have converted at least 5 people with #2 alone.

Standing Liberty
12-16-2011, 08:02 AM
What about her giraffe eyelashes?

Yes, the "come hither" eyelashes were very
disturbing.

CFLrutherfordtn
12-16-2011, 08:03 AM
Heck yeah they were :)

69360
12-16-2011, 08:04 AM
I'm almost sure that it was the the Ron supporters booing Bachmann.

brushfire
12-16-2011, 08:09 AM
I thought they were booing bachmann

Student Of Paulism
12-16-2011, 08:10 AM
My two gripes:

1. I still feel that advocating Iran getting a weapon wasn't smart to say. Yes, i don't care wtf they do or get, as i understand how dated most of their military is and that they would be 'wiped off the map' if they tried something (no pun intended) but that is just something that didn't need to be mentioned. He could have left that out and still made his point. That is something the average voter (the sheep, basically) dont want to hear and it makes them crap in their diapers, because ya know, they need their precious government to protect them Al-CIAeda all the time.

2. Should have reinforced national defense and what he would do if attacked and asserted it forcefully, so the people would know he would be serious about it, rather than debunking any threat as if Bret was making it up. Yes, he IS making it up, we know it's all propaganda bs. I get that. Unfortunately, THE SHEEP DO NOT.

specsaregood
12-16-2011, 08:21 AM
"Its (Iran) nuclear program has continued to advance. U.N. weapons inspectors have -- are now saying that it appears that Iran is on the verge of being able to produce and may even be producing nuclear weapons. " --Brit Hume September 5, 2007 Republican Debate, New Hampshire

4 years later, same lies about how they are 1 year or on the verge of getting nukes.

Ronulus
12-16-2011, 08:28 AM
I do think he could have maybe worded it better so the mouth breathers understood. Saying something like "If we attack Iran we will be provoking WW3 with China and Russia as well. It would be better for us to not over react and cause a world wide disaster. Instead of saying if such and such happens, when it happens and they begin to be hostile, we deal with the problem. We don't over react though".

bronxboy10
12-16-2011, 08:33 AM
The impression I got was that there were people booing both of them, but that there were a lot more booing Bachmann than were booing Dr. Paul. I'd say he definitely came out on top of that exchange. Unfortunately, the corporate media will likely spin it otherwise.

I think this is actually 100% on. Both were booed, but there was more applause for Paul and more boos for Bachmann.

Occam's Banana
12-16-2011, 08:57 AM
In one of the more interesting exchanges in last night’s GOP Debate on FOX News, Ron Paul and Michelle Bachmann found some time to disagree with each other. Without checking on the facts of what each said, one could walk away believing something that was just not true. Which candidate lied? Here is your answer from “FACT CHECK” via the AP:

http://libertymaven.com/2011/12/16/ron-pauls-debate-moments-and-bachmann-lies/11992/

That's a good piece. I found this part especially interesting:


[The Iranian constitution] directly mentions foreign policy in section X, saying in part:


Article 152 The foreign policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran is based upon the rejection of all forms of domination, both the exertion of it and submission to it, the preservation of the independence of the country in all respects and its territorial integrity, the defence of the rights of all Muslims, non-alignment with respect to the hegemonic superpowers, and the maintenance of mutually peaceful relations with all non-belligerent States.

That's a clause any decent peoples should want to have in their national charters. Even granting that it's all ultimately just words, Iran (for the most part) seems to have actually lived up to these particular words.

IIRC, Iran has not agressively (as distinguished from "defensively") waged war against another country since before the U.S. even became a country. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of the U.S.

Nevertheless, we are told to think of Iran (which has been Islamic for around 1500 years) as a bunch of jihadist war-mongers slobbering over the prospect of nuking other countries.

Yeah, right ....

HOLLYWOOD
12-16-2011, 09:01 AM
Hey dude, I'm one of those 50+ folks and I believe in common sense not what I read online or hear on the news.
Over 90% of my 50+ friends are the same way.....please remember we were living the nam propaganda when we were young so disinformation via mass-media is standard fare for a lot of us "old-folks"..Well, experience in those age brackets of 50+ lend more to 10%, not 90%. Maybe your group of "folks" are exceptional. In addition, the polls do reflect 10% not 90% which can be reflected in the voter support of Ron Paul, where he does the poorest(5-9% at best), especially the 65+ age group where RP has always polled single digits.

UtahApocalypse
12-16-2011, 09:11 AM
So Ron Paul gives his answer and the moderator asks the question THREE times trying to twist and get the response they wanted on TV. They have NEVER asked a question to any other candidate in that way if they give a off track response.

Unfortunately it seems many here wear Ron Paul colored sunglasses. The crowd booed Ron, they booed him hard. the applauded Bachmans response. Not only that I have now had 5 people message me on Facebook that Ron paul lost them and they are going to Newt.

We lost last night.


I am not being Debbie downer. Sometimes though through objective view you can see things you don't when cheering for the home team. We have not lost yet, but we have to work harder now then ever. We also need Ron Paul to get out there and clarify the foreign policy message. He needs to better emphasis that should ANY country attack, or cause an act of war against the USA he will be calling congress to session to vote on a War.

We also need to better point out that Ron Paul is not supporting Iran, or Terror but only understanding the "Golden Rule" that most learn in grade school. If some country had a spy drone flying over the U.S. do you think we would not respond? If a country had its navy parked off the west or east coast how would the people of America react? It is not who we are it is what we do.

We took a big hit last night (weather you can swallow your pride and admit it or not) but this is a good thing. It shows that we very strong, it shows we could win, it shows that now we must fight too win. It also gives us focus, and strength to carry forward our message.

Now take your anger, take your frustration and DONATE today, and make calls to Iowa.

tod evans
12-16-2011, 09:28 AM
Well, experience in those age brackets of 50+ lend more to 10%, not 90%. Maybe your group of "folks" are exceptional. In addition, the polls do reflect 10% not 90% which can be reflected in the voter support of Ron Paul, where he does the poorest(5-9% at best), especially the 65+ age group where RP has always polled single digits.

I appreciate your reliance on the polls, for myself I view them as another arm of syndicated media...granted my circle of friends is small but their eyes are open.
Heck even my mother and her cronies are watching Rons campain very closely, with a kind eye I might add.
In very simle terms, we all agree that what we have isn't working and Ron Paul is the only person running who differs from the status-quo.
We're all on the same team.

pinkmandy
12-16-2011, 09:29 AM
Maybe Dr. Paul needs to pull a Glenn Beck- get himself some glasses, a desk, and a chalkboard then host a weekly educational seminar on these issues. It's obvious that too many people aren't educating themselves and are allowing the media to teach them. That's what needs to be counteracted. I don't think those who are drooling to bomb Iran even understand what the legal process for going to war is and why it's that way.

He can skip out on the vapor rub to the eyes, though. No need to overdo it, lol.

CanadaBoy
12-16-2011, 09:44 AM
Michelle was claiming the IAEA was reporting that Iran could build Nuclear weapon.

Ron Paul misheard her and stated that the UN released no such report.

Only slip-up from Ron Paul last night, did anyone else catch this?

PaulConventionWV
12-16-2011, 10:01 AM
COOL DUDE. YOU'RE RIGHT. Let's just sing the praises of Ron's position, because it is correct.

So what if Ron Paul is right? We all HERE know that. And we all HERE do not constitute enough votes for Ron to get the nomination, I'm sorry to say. "America needs the truth" is not going to win the nomination. We are SO CLOSE. And it is absolutely ridiculous that we wouldn't at least SOMEWHAT moderate the foreign policy message to better appeal to primary voters.

You are what is called a "sellout." If we start "toning down" the message, then we start eroding the ideas that go along with them. You're selling out to popular pressure because the going gets tough. That's not the right way to win, and it's not very effective, either because it intentionally deceives people. Ron Paul, right now, is winning on truth and honesty. Why would he just now start dumbing himself down?

You're effectively saying Ron Paul should start lying because it's politically expedient.

vita3
12-16-2011, 10:06 AM
The only thing "disturbing" about last nights debate was this Forum over=blow reactions. People need to get some back-bone & realize this campaign is not supporting another idotic war, which by the way would be bigger & for more costly in ever aspect imaginable.

A peace candidate is the best bet to win it ALL.