Official Fox News/Iowa GOP Debate Thread

[Thomas D]

Wow, Harper is being a jerk.

[Lief 🗽]

So... being blackmailed by Iran is bad... but being blackmailed by Canada is good...

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

I might start non-ironically supporting Ron Paul. Seriously. He's the only one that understands the Middle-East or terrorism at all.

left-communists for Paul.  I'm down.

[cavalcade]

Newt Gingrich is winning this debate.

[Joe Biden 2020]

Memo to Cavuto:  No one is going to directly answer your questions, just get over it.  You're questions are meaningless and futile.

[© tweed]

I might start non-ironically supporting Ron Paul. Seriously. He's the only one that understands the Middle-East or terrorism at all.

left-communists for Paul.  I'm down.

If only there were some way to elect Ron Paul's foreign policy (plus the drugs thing, I guess) without the completely gutting the welfare state part.

the latter wouldn't happen, or at least there would be no more risk of that than there would be under an agent-of-capital Republican, like Romney or Gingrich.  and if somehow the welfare state were axed to the ground it would breed chaos.  it wouldn't hold.

[M]

MEMO TO RON PAUL: TERRORISM IS NOT THE SAME AS DEALING WITH THE LIKES OF THE USSR!!!!!!

The guy is idiotic with foreign policy. He will never win the nomination simply because of this fact.

Scary stuff coming from the libertarian.

Why should Iran not have nukes? Give me a reason, and I will debunk it

Iran supports Hezbollah, which has said its goal is to kill all Jews. Not all Israelis. All Jews, in the world.

A source:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-dershowitz/hezbollahs-goal-going-aft_b_26983.html

[Donald Trump’s Toupée]

Newt Gingrich is winning this debate.

Nah. Mittens.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

MEMO TO RON PAUL: TERRORISM IS NOT THE SAME AS DEALING WITH THE LIKES OF THE USSR!!!!!!

The guy is idiotic with foreign policy. He will never win the nomination simply because of this fact.

Scary stuff coming from the libertarian.

Why should Iran not have nukes? Give me a reason, and I will debunk it

Iran supports Hezbollah, which has said its goal is to kill all Jews. Not all Israelis. All Jews, in the world.

A source:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-dershowitz/hezbollahs-goal-going-aft_b_26983.html

That has nothing to do with nukes. Cuba wants to spread Communism throughout Africa. What else is new?

[Dereich]

Huntsman! I like you, but PLEASE, answer the question. No need to always be so long winded. Short answers are okay.

[Eraserhead]

I might start non-ironically supporting Ron Paul. Seriously. He's the only one that understands the Middle-East or terrorism at all.

left-communists for Paul.  I'm down.

Unfortunately, a lot of Paul's foreign policy ideas are pretty bad outside of the war stuff. No foreign aid... none at all? Uhh...

[tmthforu94]

Gingrich lost the first half - they need to hammer him harder. He has a talent at escaping valid attacks.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Huntsman! I like you, but PLEASE, answer the question. No need to always be so long winded. Short answers are okay.

I wish Huntsman would not do that. He has so much potential.

[Lief 🗽]

I might start non-ironically supporting Ron Paul. Seriously. He's the only one that understands the Middle-East or terrorism at all.

left-communists for Paul.  I'm down.

If only there were some way to elect Ron Paul's foreign policy (plus the drugs thing, I guess) without the completely gutting the welfare state part.

the latter wouldn't happen, or at least there would be no more risk of that than there would be under an agent-of-capital Republican, like Romney or Gingrich.  and if somehow the welfare state were axed to the ground it would breed chaos.  it wouldn't hold.

Well, right, but the risk would still be significantly higher than if Obama were re-elected.

Though maybe the only way to build a real, European-style welfare state in this country is to destroy it all and then rebuild it from scratch.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

You would have put your re-election over what should be done too, you just will not admit it.

[M]

MEMO TO RON PAUL: TERRORISM IS NOT THE SAME AS DEALING WITH THE LIKES OF THE USSR!!!!!!

The guy is idiotic with foreign policy. He will never win the nomination simply because of this fact.

Scary stuff coming from the libertarian.

Why should Iran not have nukes? Give me a reason, and I will debunk it

Iran supports Hezbollah, which has said its goal is to kill all Jews. Not all Israelis. All Jews, in the world.

A source:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-dershowitz/hezbollahs-goal-going-aft_b_26983.html

That has nothing to do with nukes. Cuba wants to spread Communism throughout Africa. What else is new?

It doesn't scare you that a political entity that has pushed for the extermination of ALL JEWS in the WORLD is about to get nuclear weapons?

You wouldn't at least call it a reason why they should not have nukes?

[Simfan34]

Huntsman! I like you, but PLEASE, answer the question. No need to always be so long winded. Short answers are okay.

I wish Huntsman would not do that. He has so much potential.

[© tweed]

I might start non-ironically supporting Ron Paul. Seriously. He's the only one that understands the Middle-East or terrorism at all.

left-communists for Paul.  I'm down.

If only there were some way to elect Ron Paul's foreign policy (plus the drugs thing, I guess) without the completely gutting the welfare state part.

the latter wouldn't happen, or at least there would be no more risk of that than there would be under an agent-of-capital Republican, like Romney or Gingrich.  and if somehow the welfare state were axed to the ground it would breed chaos.  it wouldn't hold.

Well, right, but the risk would still be significantly higher than if Obama were re-elected.

Though maybe the only way to build a real, European-style welfare state in this country is to destroy it all and then rebuild it from scratch.

you believe in Obama well more than I do yet, that's been well established.  I'll leave you with a Mao quote: "Destroy first, and construction will take of itself."

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Iran wasn't like that before we attacked Iran in 1953.

[NHI]

Huntsman! I like you, but PLEASE, answer the question. No need to always be so long winded. Short answers are okay.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

MEMO TO RON PAUL: TERRORISM IS NOT THE SAME AS DEALING WITH THE LIKES OF THE USSR!!!!!!

The guy is idiotic with foreign policy. He will never win the nomination simply because of this fact.

Scary stuff coming from the libertarian.

Why should Iran not have nukes? Give me a reason, and I will debunk it

Iran supports Hezbollah, which has said its goal is to kill all Jews. Not all Israelis. All Jews, in the world.

A source:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-dershowitz/hezbollahs-goal-going-aft_b_26983.html

That has nothing to do with nukes. Cuba wants to spread Communism throughout Africa. What else is new?

It doesn't scare you that a political entity that has pushed for the extermination of ALL JEWS in the WORLD is about to get nuclear weapons?

You wouldn't at least call it a reason why they should not have nukes?

Do you honestly believe that? That the 1940's will be repeated? With NATO, the UN, and other mass alliances (SEATO, etc), a mass, international invasion would be launched (and I would support it) against Iran.

Irans leaders are evil people who only care about themselves. Thats why Iran and North Korea are building nukes---to make themselves look big and scary.

[© tweed]

who's pumped?  I'll be stoked on PBR and chicken wings

I have PBR but I feel like I should save it for the weekend.

the only good thing about capitalism: there's always more PBR

[Donald Trump’s Toupée]

MEMO TO RON PAUL: TERRORISM IS NOT THE SAME AS DEALING WITH THE LIKES OF THE USSR!!!!!!

The guy is idiotic with foreign policy. He will never win the nomination simply because of this fact.

Scary stuff coming from the libertarian.

Why should Iran not have nukes? Give me a reason, and I will debunk it

Iran supports Hezbollah, which has said its goal is to kill all Jews. Not all Israelis. All Jews, in the world.

A source:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-dershowitz/hezbollahs-goal-going-aft_b_26983.html

That has nothing to do with nukes. Cuba wants to spread Communism throughout Africa. What else is new?

You're kidding? Right?

Look: MAD is irrelevant with terrorists for obvious reasons.

If Iran makes a covert deal with Hezbollah, who they sponsor, and Hezbollah launches an attack, what do we do? More specifically, what do we do if we never discover that Iran supplied Hezbollah with the weapon?

Newt said in a recent debate something along the lines of "I'm not going to wait until we lose 3,000 people, I'm going to make sure we don't lose those 3,000 people in the first place." I agree with that. And so do most on the stage tonight, except for Paul. And it's why I admire Bush's foreign policy so much.

You do not wait to be attacked before you respond. Your respond before you're attacked. Ron Paul is so beyond reality to think otherwise.

I hate to use cliches but isn't this what WWII was suppose to teach us? I'm not saying we necessarily go to war with Iraq in the same way as we did with Iraq, but we can still use force.

Also, on a side note, Iraq made much more sense than Libya. Just saying.

[M]

MEMO TO RON PAUL: TERRORISM IS NOT THE SAME AS DEALING WITH THE LIKES OF THE USSR!!!!!!

The guy is idiotic with foreign policy. He will never win the nomination simply because of this fact.

Scary stuff coming from the libertarian.

Why should Iran not have nukes? Give me a reason, and I will debunk it

Iran supports Hezbollah, which has said its goal is to kill all Jews. Not all Israelis. All Jews, in the world.

A source:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-dershowitz/hezbollahs-goal-going-aft_b_26983.html

That has nothing to do with nukes. Cuba wants to spread Communism throughout Africa. What else is new?

It doesn't scare you that a political entity that has pushed for the extermination of ALL JEWS in the WORLD is about to get nuclear weapons?

You wouldn't at least call it a reason why they should not have nukes?

Do you honestly believe that? That the 1940's will be repeated? With NATO, the UN, and other mass alliances (SEATO, etc), a mass, international invasion would be launched (and I would support it) against Iran.

Irans leaders are evil people who only care about themselves. Thats why Iran and North Korea are building nukes---to make themselves look big and scary.

I think SEATO is defunct.

And I never said Iran would succeed, thankfully. But you asked for reasons why Iran should not have nukes. I think I have given a pretty good one.

[Simfan34]

Iran wasn't like that before we attacked Iran in 1953.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GftT7COo67Q

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dF47rrHd7wo&feature=related