POLL: Who Do You Think Won The FOX News Republican Debate?

Real easy for me: Ron Paul, followed by Gary Johnson and then Herman Cain. Santorum and Pawlenty battled it out for dead last by a wide margin, and I really don’t know which of the two I dislike most.

Herman Cain has some issues. He’s not just a businessman, he was the chairman of a Federal Reserve bank, and I don’t trust anyone associated with the Fed. Secondly, he supported Mitt Romney last time, and any conservative worth their salt should have been able to see that Romney is a liberal. That he thought Romney would be able to create jobs, after earlier admitting the correct notion that government can’t create jobs, was also telling.

Granted my mind was made up long before the debate; I’ve been a Paul supporter since May 2007 with his first debate back then, so it isn’t like someone else was going to win me over. I don’t dislike Cain, and he did have some good answers. But right now, he’s third with me with a favorable opinion. Gary Johnson did quite well for himself, and it’s nice to have someone else up there talking similar to Paul not just on economics, but on social and foreign issues as well.

On a closing note, Dr. Paul is up to $904,322 for his money bomb today. That’s very impressive at such an early stage.

About Gary Smith (1943 Articles)
I'm the creator and Editor-in-Chief of VortexEffect.net. I'm usually posting news and reviews, and doing all the back end stuff as well. I'm also the Gaming Expert for Answers.com. I like to play games, watch movies, wrestling, and college football (Roll Tide Roll).

33 Comments on POLL: Who Do You Think Won The FOX News Republican Debate?

  1. B.Brown // May 6, 2011 at 11:05 AM //

    The only Conservative Republican, who won the Debate was Herman Cain. Does Ron Paul pay to have his followers with him all the time? It doesn’t pass the Smell Test.


    • Herman Cain is a Conservative based on what exactly? He was a Fed chairman who supported the bailouts. There’s a difference between being a businessman and having good economic sense, and Cain hasn’t shown me anything to make me think he isn’t a Keynesian.

      Ron Paul has “followers” with him all the time because he actually has supporters.


    • Love the drive by troll sheep that took the Fox gotchya question about heroin as gospel fact. No wonder the country is going down the tubes.

      B.Brown: You’re wrong.

      Actually Ron Paul’s “followers” paid him a million bucks inside of a day yesterday via the May 5th fundraising “bomb” done for his campaign.

      Look it up anywhere you want. Easily verifiable.

      How in the hell does someone not think Dr. Paul is a conservative?

      That’s what I’m wondering when Cain is singled out as “the only real conservative” which Stinger made some good points about his background. The jury is out. Cain seemed to be the crowd favorite last night as best I could tell. I liked a lot of what he said but that Fed connection is a big red warning light going off for me right off the bat.

      So anyways, I want someone to explain to me how Dr. Paul isn’t a real conservative. Good luck.

      I know I won’t see a real answer to that question backed up with anything concrete and meaningful but I figured I’d put it out there anyways for shit’n’giggles and all that.


    • does faux news pay you to post comments or do you really not understand the constitution and what conservatism is in a pre bush era


  2. I listened to this debate not once but twice. I was enthused because for the first time I actually saw a group of potential Republican candidates get together and not be afraid to discuss the dangers of cronyism and socialism as well as freedom and the constitution. Nothing like this was present in the 08 debates.

    With that said I am left with the following opinion. Ron Paul is a 100% when it comes to one issue and one issue alone. That issue is ending the Federal Reserve bank and returning back to the gold standard. I’m sorry as much as I love this man’s passion on domestic spending issues and understanding of why having central banking cartel issuing us treasury bonds and printing our currency is the ultimate threat to our liberty but I cannot support a man who thinks it is a good idea to try Muslim terrorist, like Khalid Sheik Muhammad, in civilian courts.

    Enemy combatants do not deserve things like Haebas Corpous or constitutional rights when they aren’t US citizens. The fact that Mr. Paul himself won’t support water boarding or that we won’t admit that because of the war in Afghan we were able to get the intelligence needed to capture Osama Bin Laden prevents me from seriously casting a vote for him.

    I also am insulted by the fact that he thinks we caused this and we are some how responsible for the radical Muslims hating us. Reagan did what he had to do in the 80’s to prevent half the middle east from going over to the side of the Soviet Union and buying out those third world dictators at the time was necessary to stop the advance of the Soviets. Yeah I know giving money to these despots did cause much pain and suffering to their populations but we did it because it meant stopping the expansion of communism by the Soviets. We effectively had no other choice other than to watch the world fall.

    And it’s because of this and the non-interventionist Libertarian foreign polices that stops me from voting for a hard core Libertarian. Even Thomas Jefferson who said we should stay out of old wars of Europe, when he was president he was forced to protect the merchants sailing to Northern Italy by attacking the pirates of Barbary. I don’t think Mr. Paul is capable of making that kind of decision which is why in the end, I’m afraid I may not be able to vote for him unless he makes serious changes on his stance on foreign policy.


    • Very well written and well thought out post, Steve. Welcome! :)

      Stinger is our resident champion on “all things libertarian” so I’m eager to see the exchange you and he can have over this. I’ve had some chats with Stinger and voiced a number of those criticisms myself in the past and frankly still share some of those concerns even now. That being said: This country is SO far gone off the rails that I really wouldn’t mind a few years of some isolationism shy of defending our interests CLEARLY and ONLY our REAL allies and friends CLEARLY, which I would NOT define the two slogs of the past 10 years with no end in sight as, and…oh yeah, we’re $14 Trillion in debt and can’t afford to keep doing all this military meddling and nation building anyways, among many other things we can’t afford.

      Maybe it means something different than what it used to but I find I’m becoming fairly anti-interventionist, at least by how the term is being used these days and what it really means: Meddling.

      It doesn’t work. It’s a complete failure of a policy.

      Why not leave people and countries the hell alone unless their interests either directly conflict and threaten ours and our allies’ well being and interest? I liked Don Corleone’s take on it in the first Godfather movie: “As long as your interests don’t conflict with mine, more power to you.”

      That’s more or less how Reagan rolled although even he was doing some meddling here and there. Iran-Contra Affair as an example.

      But put broadly, Reagan’s ways were way better than the crap we’re doing now. Reagan’s way, broadly, was simple: You screw with us or our friends and you’re in for a world of hurt. Guess what? People didn’t screw around with us too much during his time in the White House. It worked.

      A 9-11 type attack would have been unthinkable against us back in the 80s. A country that did something like that would have become a nice new glow in the dark parking lot and that would have been the end of it. No 10 year slogs with no end in sight military actions. Swift, absolute, shock and awe the way it should be. A hell of a deterrent. Sends a very clear message.

      That $14 Trillion debt hanging over our heads and our descendants heads really makes a lot of this stuff moot whether it’s all the military action, the tons of handouts at the expense of the taxpayer in the redistribution of wealth scheme everything seems to run on, and all the rest of the madness we’re doing right on down the tubes.

      We can’t afford to be the world’s social police, social worker, and “rent a cop” any longer. We never should have gone down that road in the first place. It’s a recipie for suicide.

      Let me ask you all something: If the mighty, very politically incorrect, brutal Soviet military machine got slogged down in a place like Afghanistan and they couldn’t “win” there, what the hell are we even doing there? And besides, Bin Laden is dead! Mission accomplished! Right? Or is it?…

      Bring the friggin’ troops already, starting with the people on their NINTH tours!

      Ask yourselves, really, why we aren’t hearing about the troops getting ready to be brought home and really think about it and I think you start to get a picture that’s rather unsettling.

      Interventionism is as much of a failed policy as the Fed’s monetary policies are. There’s no track record of success. We’re way overdue to abandon all of it.

      Thanks for coming by. :)


  3. q5676 thanks for your comments. I always try to put out the best thought out argument possible when arguing my positions because it sure as heck wins people more onto your side than issuing blanket insults.

    That said I am 100% with Paul when it comes to removing aid for the Pakis as they are not our friends and are only using to play us like fools in the Muslim’s long war against the west dating as far back as the 8th century between Charlemagne and the Moors. The war is nothing new and has been going on for over a millennium and probably won’t end any time soon.

    As Richard J Maybury said Thousand Year War the key problem is that the US Pentagon does not want to fight in guerilla warfare. The problem is, as Richard put so eloquently, is that every time we get started in policing and occupation we run into these stray combatants who by day are taxi drivers, farmers, or merchants and by night are shooting our troops with AK-47s or rocket launchers. It’s impossible to determine who’s who in this war as the only way to do that would be to have someone who can read minds of very single villager or have 24/7 video and audio surveillance of every square mile of their village.

    So there are two options either we ‘nuke’ / carpet bomb the hell out of them until they are all dead which is akin to mass genocide IE super unpopular.

    The only other options, which would seem to be what we are doing now, is to invest money into their local infrastructure to help build schools and promise them protection so that way they know that the US is here to protect them (forever) so that way they know we’ll be there the next time the radical mullahs decide to stop by and bully the village again.

    The problem with the aforementioned method, and as you brilliantly pointed out q5676, is that it’s insanely expensive and is killing our deficit. However it’s really the only viable non-genocide option that we have! It worked to some extent in Iraq but there’s no real economic potential in Afghan other than the drug market which is why nation building there is really next to impossible.

    We’ve created a bad situation in Afghan because we have been wavering in our commitments to their people and they don’t know if they can trust us anymore. The problem is if we leave Al Qeada will just come back, start another war, and undue all that expensive work we’ve done over the last ten years trying to eradicate them and we’ll start from square one again. There is no easy answer to this and really the only thing to do is to permanently station troops there just like we do in the 38th parallel in South Kora, just like we stationed troops in West Germany to prevent against the onslaught of the Soviet Union.

    Like I said, the issue is there is no easy answer and the problem is is that everyone is looking for one. Certainly I think there are things that we can do that are simple. Like killing Qaddafi and getting the hell out of Libya. We’re already in it now and if we leave without killing him it will empower every third world dictator into thinking the US is a weak paper tiger. The issue is, as much as I wish Obama never entered Libya because as we know now their rebels are supported by Al Qaeda and by supporting them we are supporting our enemy, we can’t go backwards.

    However there is no time machine and we can only move forward from here and not back. In that regard, in future up risings we should keep our mouths shut as much as possible but carefully monitor the situation. Already I’m seeing signs in Egypt that they will not honor their treaty with Israel as the Muslim Brotherhood there gains more and more support. Things just aren’t looking pretty.

    One simple thing we can do is stop giving money to the IMF and tell those lazy Europeans to go stuff it and get back to work. I also think that we can cut back on some of that foreign aid by stop giving the Pakis money when they have proven themselves to be nothing but untrustworthy backstabbers. The Indian government is right and we should have a moratorium against Pakistan and request further inquires to see just how much they truly knew about Osama Bin Laden’s compound and what other mysterious they have been hiding from us.


    • I think you and I are basically on the same page. I don’t really disagree with anything you wrote, I just want to chat up a few points. :)

      We definitely need to remove a WHOLE lot of countries from the handout list if not most of them. Pakistan? Please. They’re no friend of ours. Most of those countries out there aren’t. There’s no way the Pakistani government, military and a good chunk of that population didn’t know that Osama was there all this time and probably helped him do it. That compound he was wasn’t exactly a small shack hidden in a sea of similar looking small shacks in the middle of a super populated area. Give me a break. Everyone and their mother out there knew he was there and was covering his ass. The concept going around is that perhaps the Pakistani military gave Bin Laden up. But we all know they wouldn’t do that out of the kindness of their hearts, so what did they get in return? Pretty sobering, isn’t it?

      The only other options, which would seem to be what we are doing now, is to invest money into their local infrastructure to help build schools and promise them protection so that way they know that the US is here to protect them (forever) so that way they know we’ll be there the next time the radical mullahs decide to stop by and bully the village again.

      No, this is a failed policy. This is nation building.

      We need that money, resource, and effort HERE. Badly.We don’t HAVE money to throw around and do this nation building.

      And why not kick this sort of thing to the UN instead? Let them commit to protecting these people and spread the load equally. Isn’t that what they’re supposedly for?

      If these people in the Middle East or anywhere else REALLY want freedom and liberty then they need to be able to fight and be prepared to bleed and die for it like WE did back in the late 1700s. Stop voting for tyrants, too. That might help. ;)

      It’s ultimately THEIR responsibility. A lot of those people LIKE Shariah Law and want it because that’s their religion. A real revolution requires sacrifice, blood, sweat, and tears and not those of an outside force doing it for you. What the hell are our troops really out there for? All I’ve heard for 10 years is rhetoric and brainwashese talking points. Very vague. It’s not good enough.

      I am still waiting for clear answers to these questions: What’s the mission? What does victory mean? What does victory look like? Bin Laden is dead and that’s still not good enough so now what? I thought HE was the reason we originally went into Afghanistan. Iraq never made sense to me from day one and they admitted a few years later the intelligence was faulty. RIGHT there, the troops should have been brought home.

      BTW, I’m still waiting for “shock and awe.”

      There is no easy answer to this and really the only thing to do is to permanently station troops there just like we do in the 38th parallel in South Kora, just like we stationed troops in West Germany to prevent against the onslaught of the Soviet Union.

      The easy answer is stop meddling and interfering where we don’t belong in the first place otherwise you get stuck in these kinds of ruts.

      Too bad we don’t have that time machine. ;)

      The entire West has had a bad habit of doing this for most of the last 100 years, especially when it comes to the Middle East. What arrogance the West had to arbitrarily pull out a map after the Ottoman Empire went down and just draw a bunch of lines and make up a bunch of new countries. We’ve all been paying the price ever since.

      American troops aren’t supposed to be the world’s social worker, social police, rent-a-cops, or engineering handymen. In a nutshell, that’s the concept we need to abandon because it’s no longer tenable.

      Qaddafi: This reminds me of Saddam after 9-11. Suddenly he has to be put down post haste even though he was left alone, peachy keen, for 10 years after the first Gulf War. He got his cage rattled back then. Too bad we didn’t finish him off and we should have. But 10 years go by, 9-11 happens, and suddenly he has to be taken out. Suddenly we just can’t tolerate him any longer. Yeah, right. This is the same Saddam that was our buddy back in the 80s against Iran. Seeing a pattern here? We do this all the time.

      Quaddafi should have been killed in response to Lockerbie but we let him live another damn near 30 years and now suddenly we can’t tolerate him any more? Why? What changed? C’mon, what’s really going on here.

      We keep doing this sort of nonsense. We make our enemies of the future and then we get to go fight them. I have no doubt these “rebels” in Libya, being supported by us, will be our enemies in 5-10 years tops if even that. And I’m sure some of them are Al Qaida to boot, which is a really rich irony.

      Trump is right: We’re stupid. This stuff is stupid. And dangerous. And we can’t do it any more. It doesn’t make any SENSE.

      I so wish we’d simply stand by Israel and otherwise get out of that part of the world entirely. Easier said than done after the fact, yes.

      In my fantasy world, I’d love to get out of the UN and kick their asses off our soil, to boot. The IMF, the Fed, they’re all the same thing and I’d love to get out of those things and get away from them, too.

      Realistically, I don’t think any of that’s ever going to happen but it’s nice to think about. :)


    • I heard Arch Neocon Dick Cheny yesterday on Fox sticking up for the failed policy of nation building and it’s just laughable stuff at this point…or it would be if the stakes weren’t so large.

      But here’s something all over the news today that goes to something we were talking about here, namely Pakistan and a number of these other like countries:


      Every news outlet has this. Yeah, Pakistan is an AWESOME ally of ours. We should definitely keep pumping billions of dollars there way.

      Way to go!


      More awesome talk from our good friends the Pakistanis. What gall. Shows you far gone down the tubes we’ve gone and how little respect we, and especially Obama his people, really have in the world.

      I don’t think they’d have even talked tough like this with GWB still in the White House let alone if this were Reagan. Then they’d be scared shitless.

      Time to pull the plug and get the hell out of there. Zero dollars for you guys.


      ^^ Pat Buchanan nails it and yes he’s being a bit sarcastic there in his opening.

      Enough of this crap.


  4. This is in reply to Steve’s first post.

    …but I cannot support a man who thinks it is a good idea to try Muslim terrorist, like Khalid Sheik Muhammad, in civilian courts.

    Why not? Hundreds of terrorist have been tried in civilian courts. I don’t see why these Muslims should be treated any differently. They committed a crime against the US, and justice involves gathering evidence, and presenting that evidence against the criminal in a court in front of a jury. There’s no reason why this shouldn’t be a public process. After all, if the Pentagon officials can have lunch at the Pentagon with one of the Al-Qeada leaders, Anwar Al-Awlaki, just months after 9/11, surely we can try these people in civilian courts just like every other monster criminal?

    Enemy combatants do not deserve things like Haebas Corpous or constitutional rights when they aren’t US citizens.

    I respectfully disagree, and so does Ron Paul as you know. Everyone deserves these things and no just government will deny someone such a basic right. Would you say the same regarding those who the US government would deem terrorist or enemy combatants that are US citizens? Like militia members, and even, as certain reports have indicated, Ron Paul/Chuck Baldwin supporters who are called terrorist?

    While there is no actual thing as “constitutional rights,” the Bill of Rights most certainly does apply to all people and here’s why. The Bill of Rights tells the US federal government what it cannot do at all, not just to US citizens, but to anyone. It is immoral, unjust, and illegal to accuse someone of a crime, carry them off to a prison, and hold them indefinitely without a trial and without charging them with a crime. Everyone deserves to hear the case against them, see the evidence, and everyone has the right to a jury trial. Past that, I don’t see how anyone could trust their government nearly enough to be satisfied with them having the power to indefinitely detain anyone without that person being charged and having a trial. That’s an extraordinary power that is ripe for abuse and is abused. Past that, when the US behaves in such a manner as to pretend it can round of foreigners in foreign lands and hold them without charge and trial indefinitely, they lose all standing when it comes to Americans, either citizens or soldiers, being captured and held hostage either by terrorist groups or foreign governments.

    I think one of the golden rules is to treat everyone how you would like to be treated. If the federal government were to snatch me up, I would like to know the charge against me and I would like a trial. Therefore, I think everyone deserves this basic right regardless of their crime or the accusation against them.

    The fact that Mr. Paul himself won’t support water boarding or that we won’t admit that because of the war in Afghan we were able to get the intelligence needed to capture Osama Bin Laden prevents me from seriously casting a vote for him.

    I would say there is no evidence that Osama was killed. What about the intelligence that says he died in 2001? I’m sorry, but I don’t trust Obama or the government in general to just say “we killed Osama” and then provide absolutely no evidence of it while continuously changing the story of what happened. Even if it were true, it took 10 years, many thousands of lives, and well over a trillion dollars… I wouldn’t say getting one man was worth all of that. Now let me be clear right here, this is my personal opinion that Osama died years ago, and not something Dr. Paul supports or embraces. Paul would say that Osama was just killed, and he would point out that it was a small military unit that did it and that it was the exact same method he urged instead of a full military assault and a decade long war of nation building. Let’s not forget that Paul supported going after Osama and others involved with 9/11.

    I also am insulted by the fact that he thinks we caused this and we are some how responsible for the radical Muslims hating us.

    I don’t know why this would insult you. It’s a logical statement backed up by the CIA, 9/11 Commission, military officials, and other agencies, in addition to the terrorist themselves. If the Chinese behaved in the US as we behave in the Middle East, I would certainly hate the Chinese and would think most of us would. We’ve been interfering in the Middle East since the 50’s at least. We overthrew Iran’s democratically elected prime minister in 1953 and put in the Shah, a dictator. Iran had been pro-America. There was blowback and suddenly America was the Great Satan. They didn’t wake up one day and say “America is rich and free, we hate them.”

    Saddam was our ally, we gave him the weapons and gasses he used to kill Iranians and his own people. We prop up all sorts of brutal dictatorships in the Middle East, the most oppressive being Saudi Arabia, all the while pretending to promote democracy in the region. They don’t like that we’ve had our military on their land for decades. They don’t like that we involve ourselves in their internal affairs. We essentially created Al-Qeada to fight the Soviets and called them “freedom fighters,” and yes we did help radicalize them (you should look up some of the text books we created for their children during the time). Al-Qeada is still suppose to be the enemy and terrorist, but the Libyan rebels we call “freedom fighters” are Al-Qeada members. So we’re currently helping Al-Qeada commit regime change in Libya, while fighting them in Afghanistan and Iraq. That’s completely screwed up, and benefits America in absolutely no way.

    I don’t think it should be considered blaming America to point out that our foreign policy has everything to do with why so many Middle Eastern Muslims hate the United States. Blowback is a real thing and it makes sense. Nor does admitting this fact excuse any action they take to retaliate. But I think it is important to take an honest look at the whole situation, and not the fairy tale espoused by Bush and Cheney of “they attacked us because we’re rich and we’re free.”

    We’d be better off if we minded our own business and stayed out of the internal affairs, nation-building, and policing of foreign countries. If we’re attacked, Ron Paul absolutely supports going after those who attacked us. But he’s for declaring war, that way it’s defined, and then going in and doing what it takes to win as quickly as possible and then coming home. Ron Paul’s foreign policy hasn’t changed, and here’s what Ronald Reagan said about Ron Paul…

    Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country.

    During the 2008 campaign, Ron Paul received more donations from active duty military members than any other candidate.

    And it’s because of this and the non-interventionist Libertarian foreign polices that stops me from voting for a hard core Libertarian. Even Thomas Jefferson who said we should stay out of old wars of Europe, when he was president he was forced to protect the merchants sailing to Northern Italy by attacking the pirates of Barbary. I don’t think Mr. Paul is capable of making that kind of decision which is why in the end, I’m afraid I may not be able to vote for him unless he makes serious changes on his stance on foreign policy.

    I thank you for using the word non-interventionist and not isolationist (because Paul is the most non-isolationist running), but non-interventionism is absolutely the best policy in my opinion. We don’t have the moral or legal authority to police the world and send young people off to die on foreign soil for matters not related to defending the US from an actual threat. Nor do we have the money or resources. This policy that we’ve had for decades actually makes us less safe. It weakens the military and destroys the economy. I think you’re absolutely wrong when you say to Paul couldn’t make the decision Thomas Jefferson did.

    The Barbary pirates were attacking American ships, which is an attack on America. Jefferson was a non-interventionist, but this was acting to protect Americans. Jefferson used the constitutional method of marque and reprisal. This is the exact same method Ron Paul says he would have used after 9/11, and he’s praised Jefferson’s use of it. Don’t confuse Ron Paul with a pacifist dove. He isn’t. He would absolutely act to protect America and Americans from an actual attack and/or threat. He just wouldn’t send Americans off to die in no-win wars that never end and aren’t declared, and have no mission other than building schools and nation building.

    Beyond that, the economy has to be the number one issue. Our foreign policy will change and our empire will end, either by choice (Ron Paul’s way) or by force (economic collapse). It’s completely unsustainable. I would say the Soviet Union did everything we’ve be doing (destroying their currency, bogged down in Afghanistan, overextended military and trying to run an empire). We will absolutely end up the same way they did unless we dismantle the welfare/warfare state.

    Thank you for your posts Steve, and for being respectful of not only other opinions but of Dr. Paul as well. Hope to see more of you around here. :)


  5. I will say this, at least the Fox News drones were 99% for Hermain Cain after that debate, so at least run of the mill RINOS aren’t looking to good.


    • Yeah, but I’m thinking about Stinger’s laundry list of concerns in regards to Cain and matching that up with Fox Neocon Channel’s obvious leanings makes me take a step back and just kind of think about it.

      I like Cain and I’ve heard him on the radio for a couple of years and I’ve definitely liked what I’ve heard there, but I need to see and hear a lot more from him and about him and I’m glad we’re very early in this whole process.


    • always beware of the canidate faux news reporters support


  6. Here’s some Cain writings…

    Why he supports Mitt Romney: http://004eeb5.netsolhost.com/hc098.htm

    And here’s two talking about up the bailouts as being a good thing, you know with his Fed-endorsed brilliancy:



    Do not trust FOX News focus groups. There’s no way they’re not scripted, and they’ve been caught using the same (I’ll say actors) in multiple debate groups. Every single one of them said Cain won, and Santorum came in second. And thier “one word comment” regarding Cain was obviously forced and prepared.

    FOX is trying to push Cain as being an outsider, some anti-establishment businessman; yet he’s probably more of an insider than anyone since was the head of a Federal Reserve bank.

    You can’t talk up free markets and then support and defend the bailouts and the Federal Reserve system. Nor can you have an economic plan that doesn’t include dealing with the Fed, those who create the money and manipulate in interest rates to create booms that then bust.

    He just screams another Keynesian, establishment planted candidate to me. I didn’t hear him say much of anything at the debate other than actually giving a stance regarding the fairtax (which is something I don’t support).


  7. Thank you all very much for clearly defining for me your clear and easy to understand opinions on foreign policy. I really don’t have much more to say other than the fact that military tribunals are just and are done in a similar fashion in which you are presumed to be innocent until proven guilty.

    I can see where through a number of your posted statements that the definition of terrorist can be changed so that way the state can try anyone they suspect of terrorist activities foreign, or domestic through military tribunal in an extreme example.

    My biggest fear is that a civilian trial for people like KSM, Khalid, would become a mockery on the world stage as it would give radicals like him the ability to insult the US and inspire more would be terrorist to commit more acts against the United States. Not too mention all the liberal trial lawyers, like our ‘wonderful’ Attorney General Eric Holder, would find a good defense attorney and a liberal judge that were ‘compassionate’ enough to sympathize with them and get them off on a technicality.

    By going with military tribunals they are still subject to due process and most of the bill of rights.


    As far as the rest of your counter arguments, you were right. The bold section you quoted me is nation building. It’s the only non-genocide option we have. However you are right in saying that by meddling in these nations we do intrude on their independence.

    However going back to earlier arguments, the reason we did buy out a lot of these two bit dictator was because if we didn’t the Soviet Union would have which would have increased their domain and power. One of my friends is an Israeli Jew who’s mother was around during the early days of Israel and as he had put it to me if America did not put up the financial support that we did Israel would have turned towards the Soviet Union for help.

    I have no doubt in my mind that many of other countries would have done the same, Like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc. if we didn’t give them financial support. Of course in today’s world there is no more Soviet Union to fight so a lot of those allies we propped up turned on us in the end and we went to war with them.

    In the end I think we, being your Libertarian point of view, and my more borderline Conservative Libertarian view are more a like than I had previously though despite a number of small technical differences.

    One last point, you’re all right as much as I like Cain on the surface he appears to be a decent well spoken man but underneath the surface he reveals himself to be a stooge for the Fed. I was willing to give him a chance to explain himself after I read on his website that he was a chairman of a Fed Bank in Kansas City but after I heard some of his other statements claiming that the Fed does not need to be audited. Please give me a break. The sad part is that even George H Bush, George W Bush, and Ronald Regan have all fallen victim to the Fed and the IMF’s scans to prop up failed sovereign and private debt like the bank failure in 08, Argentina, Mexico, among various of foreign countries if we didn’t agree to bail them out through FDIC. Not to mention the Savings and Loans crises during the 80’s.

    Out of curiosity, have any of you ever read the book The Creature from Jekyll Island? It’s by G Edward Griffin. I just picked up a week or two ago and I’m about a third of the way through it. The book is full of so much information on our modern fiat currency world along with the history of money in all four forums (commodity, specie, fractal, and fiat) that I find myself re-reading entire sections and chapters many times. It’s a real eye opener.


    • We’re definitely all on the same page here for the most part.

      I certainly don’t claim to be any world expert. I just like kicking the can around. ;)

      I just finished reading the Creature from Jekyll Island about a month ago. I’m right there with you, friend. I honestly couldn’t put that book down and I need to re-read it. They don’t teach that stuff in school! That’s one of the best history books I’ve ever read and I appreciate that the author has the book documented to the nines so people can’t just accuse him of writing some long winded conspiracy theory book.

      Steve, I’m really glad you stumbled upon us and I hope you’re a regular around these parts. :)


  8. The Creature From Jekyll Island is indeed a great book.

    If you guys enjoyed that, then I certainly recommend Murray Rothbard’s much shorter “Case Against the Fed.” It’s available to read online for free:


    Also check out basically any book found here: http://mises.org/store/

    And Steve, I agree completely with Q; hope you become a regular around here. I’ve enjoyed your post, and then manner in which you’ve presented them.


  9. I have been browsing on-line greater than three hours today, but I by no means found any attention-grabbing article like yours. It is lovely worth sufficient for me. In my opinion, if all web owners and bloggers made good content material as you probably did, the web might be much more useful than ever before.


1 2

Comments are closed.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,602 other followers

%d bloggers like this: