***REPUBLICANS ARE GOING DOWN IN 2008***

Yes, you are correct sir! (or madam)

I too, watched with the utmost disgust. I do not want a democrat, laws for your own good president. But after the ABC debate, unless our dream comes true and we get our hero, the republicans are going down.

My husband commented that there should have been gravestones with "RIP" on them in front of each poteum (except for RP's of course). What a disgusting display of idiocracy.

If Romney said jihad one more time, I'd have thrown up.

to push John McCain to be their choice, if they have their way. He's basically the same age a Dr. Paul, but he comes across as "nothing new" and actually part of the neo con warmonggerers.........If Obama keeps it up.......he'll snowball McCain. Ron Paul is the only guy that can stand up square and face all comers......and sooner or later, I think he'll get his chance.

There is no question that anyone who is pro war is going to loose the election. So unless Dr. Paul got the nomination they are going to get their backside handed to them in the final 08 election.

Even worse than being a pro war candidate is the fact that ALL of the Republicans (except Dr. Paul) all have supported and praise George Bush's policies, now they will criteque them all day long and criteque the way he "mismanages" things however in the end they all pretty much support him....

So they support:
Torture
The stripping of Rights of American Citizens (see the Military Commissions Act)....
Spying on Americans (see Patriot Act)
American Imperealism, nation building,
Pre-emptive invasions, and nuclear attacks...

This Neo-Con mentality has won the Republican party, they have tarnished any good deed that Dr. Paul represents so because of this they are going to lose......

Regards,
David F
www.myspace.com/asymptote

and they are only with Ron Paul in the Repub., they are with Obama and Edwards in the Dem., most are anti war and new young voters /older that had not voted in past elections.

You can simply read what he said about the Iraq War and Terrorism!
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/taylor-j3.html

Even his strongest selling point for the left – his opposition to the Iraq War in 2002–03 – is suspect upon close examination. In his October 2002 speech, he told the anti-war crowd FOUR times that he was not opposed "to all wars." He summed up his philosophy by saying, "I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars." There is nothing about war in general that is offensive to Obama. He objected to the Iraq War only on strategic grounds, not ethical grounds.

Referring to the U.S. Senate authorization vote of 2002, in July 2004, Obama told the New York Times, "What would I have done? I don't know." Asked about the pro-war votes of Kerry and Edwards, Obama told NPR, "I don't consider that to have been an easy decision, and certainly, I wasn't in the position to actually cast a vote on it. I think that there is room for disagreement in that initial decision." Not exactly a stunning statement of the peace position! Obama told the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, in November 2006, "We cannot afford to be a country of isolationists right now. 9/11 showed us that try as we might to ignore the rest of the world, our enemies will no longer ignore us. And so we need to maintain a strong foreign policy, relentless in pursuing our enemies and hopeful in promoting our values around the world." So 9/11 occurred during a period in our history when we were minding our own business (practicing "isolationism")? That's a novel explanation of events!

In April 2007, Obama told the CCGA, "I reject the notion that the American moment has passed. I dismiss the cynics who say that this new century cannot be another when, in the words of President Franklin Roosevelt, we lead the world in battling immediate evils and promoting the ultimate good. I still believe that America is the last, best hope of Earth. We just have to show the world why this is so." Spoken like a true neoconservative. This messianic imperialism continues throughout the speech: "In today's globalized world, the security of the American people is inextricably linked to the security of all people. . . . World opinion has turned against us. And after all the lives lost and the billions of dollars spent, many Americans may find it tempting to turn inward, and cede our claim of leadership in world affairs. I insist, however, that such an abandonment of our leadership is a mistake we must not make. . . . We must lead the world, by deed and example."

Obama even endorsed the Persian Gulf War of 1991, a bloodletting that had nothing to do with U.S. national security: "No President should ever hesitate to use force – unilaterally if necessary – to protect ourselves and our vital interests when we are attacked or imminently threatened. But when we use force in situations other than self-defense, we should make every effort to garner the clear support and participation of others – the kind of burden-sharing and support President George H.W. Bush mustered before he launched Operation Desert Storm."

What bothered me, in the ABC debates, the Dems all talked about a nuclear war, and how they would bomb and we would bomb them back, etc. etc. etc!

It's a continuation of the scare and fear tactic they play over and over again to the public. A scare tactic to continue a war.

I was scared just listening to the war mongering that was going on! - and I know better!

What was new, in a previous debate, NON of the Dems would promise to have ALL our troops out by 2013. Tonight, they ALL said bring them home - starting 60 days after taking office - and uh - within a year, all would be home - none left behind.

Wow, they all learn quick what the public is responding to and jumping on the bandwagon. Liars all!!!

Well all of the republican candidates except Ron Paul are just a bunch of war mongering neocons who all seem to think that war is good. so if Paul does not get the nomination then i HOPE the republicans do LOOSE! We don't need another neocon crazy attacking other countries for the next 8 years. Not that i think the democrats are any better. IN fact if Ron Paul does not win the nomination then I will not even waste my time voting as i'm sure many others won't either. I am tired of the idea that i have to choose between the lesser of 2 evils. Why should i vote for somebody when I disagree with 80% of their views as opposed to voting for the other guy who i disagree with 90% of his views. I just won't do it anymore.