Newt got his lunch eaten on that one. And you've gotta have balls to try and get any foodstuffs away from that tubby sack of shiat.

PAUL: I need one quick follow up: When I was drafted, I was married and had two kids. And I went.



ouch.

As much as I dislike Ron Paul, that was indeed a true OH SNAP! moment.

Bathia_Mapes: As much as I dislike Ron Paul, that was indeed a true OH SNAP! moment.

every now and then all of Ron Paul's neurons fire at the same time and he says something brilliant.

Oh for Fark's sake, Newt - give it up, you lyin' sack o' schitt.

Weaver95: Bathia_Mapes: As much as I dislike Ron Paul, that was indeed a true OH SNAP! moment.

every now and then all of Ron Paul's neurons fire at the same time and he says something brilliant.

QFT

That wasn't just a burn, that was a third degree burn.

This is one of those moments that make sane, rational people like Ron Paul, until they discover his positions and feelings on certain things and he becomes RONPAUL

Kudos on the OH SNAPPAGE, Ronald.

I also liked the part right after Ron Paul went after Newt for not being in the military 40 years ago by saying that his newsletters happened 20 years in the past so don't matter anymore.

I find it very bothersome that a president who has never seen conflict -let alone never served in the military- could send troops into battle. I would hope that president defers to his better informed advisers/Generals on that call.

It's also why I have the utmost respect for Eisenhower. He seen it all; and knew the price to be paid.

\no respect for chickenhawks

You know, I have to love how much Newt is getting destroyed. And the fark deserves it for the 'oppressed Christian' line.

Frederick: I find it very bothersome that a president who has never seen conflict -let alone never served in the military- could send troops into battle

You should find a new place to live, one which does not have a constitution which places the military under civilian control.

Frederick: I find it very bothersome that a president who has never seen conflict -let alone never served in the military- could send troops into battle. I would hope that president defers to his better informed advisers/Generals on that call.

It's also why I have the utmost respect for Eisenhower. He seen it all; and knew the price to be paid.

\no respect for chickenhawks

Except the US was designed for civilian, not military control. Presidents at least very well should have a much broader picture of American interests than just military decisions when serving in their role as Commander in Chief which is just part of their greater role as President. Yes, they should most certainly take very carefully the advice of the military serving them. However, no president, whether having served in the military or not, should take advice of the military as dictates. In any military engagement there are broader national considerations/interests than just what is happening on the battlefield.

skinnycatullus: Frederick: I find it very bothersome that a president who has never seen conflict -let alone never served in the military- could send troops into battle

You should find a new place to live, one which does not have a constitution which places the military under civilian control.

WorldCitizen: Frederick: I find it very bothersome that a president who has never seen conflict -let alone never served in the military- could send troops into battle. I would hope that president defers to his better informed advisers/Generals on that call.

It's also why I have the utmost respect for Eisenhower. He seen it all; and knew the price to be paid.

\no respect for chickenhawks

Except the US was designed for civilian, not military control. Presidents at least very well should have a much broader picture of American interests than just military decisions when serving in their role as Commander in Chief which is just part of their greater role as President. Yes, they should most certainly take very carefully the advice of the military serving them. However, no president, whether having served in the military or not, should take advice of the military as dictates. In any military engagement there are broader national considerations/interests than just what is happening on the battlefield.

You've both missed the point. I thought it was pretty clear; but I guess not. Maybe you dont know what "chickenhawk" means.....

Also since you've both gone off on a tangent I feel it necessary to point out Congress is supposed to have the power to declare war. Just so you know -since you feel like you need to hand out civics lessons.

Frederick: You've both missed the point. I thought it was pretty clear; but I guess not. Maybe you dont know what "chickenhawk" means.....

I think I got your point. That you'd prefer someone who has the power to send people into combat to have actually experienced combat in their lives, hopefully ensuring that they'd only send people into combat themselves if they absolutely had to. Like Truman, Eisenhower or Kennedy.

SilentStrider: Frederick: You've both missed the point. I thought it was pretty clear; but I guess not. Maybe you dont know what "chickenhawk" means.....

I think I got your point. That you'd prefer someone who has the power to send people into combat to have actually experienced combat in their lives, hopefully ensuring that they'd only send people into combat themselves if they absolutely had to. Like Truman, Eisenhower or Kennedy.

I think it was Frederick's use of the word "defer" that made them respond like that.

GAT_00: You know, I have to love how much Newt is getting destroyed. And the fark deserves it for the 'oppressed Christian' line.

And out of all the GOP contenders, Gingrich is probably the one who's least able to tolerate criticism. this HAS to be tearing him up inside. he can't STAND it when someone calls him out on his bullshiat.

SilentStrider: Frederick: You've both missed the point. I thought it was pretty clear; but I guess not. Maybe you dont know what "chickenhawk" means.....

I think I got your point. That you'd prefer someone who has the power to send people into combat to have actually experienced combat in their lives, hopefully ensuring that they'd only send people into combat themselves if they absolutely had to. Like Truman, Eisenhower or Kennedy.

Yes; thank you -well said.

Frederick: You've both missed the point. I thought it was pretty clear; but I guess not. Maybe you dont know what "chickenhawk" means...

I know what it means, but it doesn't have any bearing on what you said. Maybe you meant to word it differently, but you stated that you find it bothersome when a non-military person gives the order to send troops into battle. That is not how our government is set up, though. Also, I'd like to clear up my suggestion that you leave the country. I am not in the habit of suggesting people do that. I only meant that you might be less bothered by a place where generals are given more control over when and where to use military force.

As for you civics lesson on Congress, I'd remind you that it is a civilian institution as well, so I don't know what that has to do with your preference for a military ruled by those with military experience.

Boom. Roasted.

Frederick: SilentStrider: Frederick: You've both missed the point. I thought it was pretty clear; but I guess not. Maybe you dont know what "chickenhawk" means.....

I think I got your point. That you'd prefer someone who has the power to send people into combat to have actually experienced combat in their lives, hopefully ensuring that they'd only send people into combat themselves if they absolutely had to. Like Truman, Eisenhower or Kennedy.

Yes; thank you -well said.

Truman sent 35,000 Americans to their deaths in Korea. Eisenhower by his own words was willing to nuke anyone instead of sending in troops, a much better strategy should Vietnam have occurred on his watch. Kennedy was key to starting the Vietnam War and also was responsible for the Bay of Pigs fiasco. LBJ was a Naval Reservist.

Obama has ended the war in Iraq and authorized the mission to kill bin Laden. Clinton prosecuted Kosovo in a fairly effective manner, with zero combat deaths.

This is an incredibly ineffective argument.

Way to misinterpret his comments, idiots. Gingrich was pointing out that Democrats do not support the troops and Ron Paul was explaining that he agreed. How you concocted that ridiculous conversation by reading the article and watching the video pretty much sums up the Mainstream Liberal Media Experience™.

For the record, there were two Presidents who had a large number of Americans die on their watch who were not military members in some way - Wilson and FDR. Both of which obviously served in World Wars and both of which were precipitated by someone attacking us. Every other war we have ever had happened with a military veteran sending American troops to their death.

This is the dumbest farking argument. Unless farking WWIII breaks out, you statistically want someone who isn't a veteran as President if you don't want large number of troop deaths.

RoyBatty: disavowed the newsletters

Yes, he's disavowed newsletters that were published in his name in a first person style indicating that HE FARKING WROTE THEM that were published for 20 years that he says he never read and nobody ever commented to him about the content of them.

This is a slightly larger flaming load of horseshiat than the previous argument, but only slightly.

Mike_LowELL: Way to misinterpret his comments, idiots. Gingrich was pointing out that Democrats do not support the troops and Ron Paul was explaining that he agreed. How you concocted that ridiculous conversation by reading the article and watching the video pretty much sums up the Mainstream Liberal Media Experience™.

You almost got me with that one.

RoyBatty: why is Paul asking for a pass on the newsletters from 20 years

He's asking for a pass on them because they're incredibly racist and have given him a very nice core demographic that loves the content, and he doesn't want to piss them off. Newt's stupidity of the past is clearly not racist, and like everything Gingrich does is massively hypocritical and self-serving, and thus makes a nice easy target.

Weaver95: Bathia_Mapes: As much as I dislike Ron Paul, that was indeed a true OH SNAP! moment.

every now and then all of Ron Paul's neurons fire at the same time and he says something brilliant.

He is not at all unintelligent. But then again history is replete with rabidly ideological individuals who were also quite brilliant; it's just that their thinking process is completely distorted and ultimately sabotaged by their whack-a-doodle assumptions. Which also certainly applies to Mr. Paul.

GAT_00: Yes, he's disavowed newsletters that were published in his name in a first person style indicating that HE FARKING WROTE THEM that were published for 20 years that he says he never read and nobody ever commented to him about the content of them.

This is a slightly larger flaming load of horseshiat than the previous argument, but only slightly.

And the media never bothered to research. (new window)

Until now, that is.

/forgot the slashie

vossiewulf: Weaver95: Bathia_Mapes: As much as I dislike Ron Paul, that was indeed a true OH SNAP! moment.

every now and then all of Ron Paul's neurons fire at the same time and he says something brilliant.

He is not at all unintelligent. But then again history is replete with rabidly ideological individuals who were also quite brilliant; it's just that their thinking process is completely distorted and ultimately sabotaged by their whack-a-doodle assumptions. Which also certainly applies to Mr. Paul.

I dunno about you but i'm just gonna enjoy the smackdown Newt got and let the rest go for another time.

Hydra: And the media never bothered to research

He was never a serious contender for anything until this year. Sorry if you're mad he couldn't keep getting away with them existing.

It's a Presidential. EVERYTHING shows up.

GAT_00: Hydra: And the media never bothered to research

He was never a serious contender for anything until this year. Sorry if you're mad he couldn't keep getting away with them existing.

It's a Presidential. EVERYTHING shows up.

even if it's not really relevant. Ah well, at least the press feeds on the misery of BOTH parties more or less equally. ok, well...except for Fox News. those motherf*ckers make shiat up about people they don't like.

vossiewulf: He is not at all unintelligent. But then again history is replete with rabidly ideological individuals who were also quite brilliant; it's just that their thinking process is completely distorted and ultimately sabotaged by their whack-a-doodle assumptions. Which also certainly applies to Mr. Paul.

There's nothing whack-a-doodle about ideas that address legitimate issues and debates (the Fed and the nature of money, excessive government spending, etc.) that have been made for decades. It's just that most people are so used to the big-government rhetoric from Democrats and big-government actions from Republicans that anyone who proposes any degree of reduction is branded as a "quack" by the politicians who want to marginalize their challengers and maintain their power.

Hydra: vossiewulf: He is not at all unintelligent. But then again history is replete with rabidly ideological individuals who were also quite brilliant; it's just that their thinking process is completely distorted and ultimately sabotaged by their whack-a-doodle assumptions. Which also certainly applies to Mr. Paul.

There's nothing whack-a-doodle about ideas that address legitimate issues and debates (the Fed and the nature of money, excessive government spending, etc.) that have been made for decades. It's just that most people are so used to the big-government rhetoric from Democrats and big-government actions from Republicans that anyone who proposes any degree of reduction is branded as a "quack" by the politicians who want to marginalize their challengers and maintain their power.

true enough, but again - somewhat off topic. Newt Gingrich got biatch slapped - IN PUBLIC - by Ron Paul. And Newt seemed shocked first, then started looking angry. I think RP knocked Gingrich back on his pins and the Gingrich was not pleased.

/obligatory

The difference in their situations resulted simply from the difference in their ages. Paternity was not a deferment between 1953 and 1963. Paul just got a tough break. He was drafted in 1963, and President Kennedy re-instituted the paternity deferment just a few months later (by executive order on September 10th).

Paternity WAS an exemption starting in September of 1963, in the period when Newt would have been drafted, so Newt's point was completely correct. There was no question of his being drafted. Because Newt was married with a child after the Kennedy order, being drafted was simply never the oppressive reality that it had been for Paul and his contemporaries in a similar situation just a few short years earlier.

By the way, Paul is being disingenuous when he said "I went." He didn't have the choice to stay out. He could either have entered the Army as a private or had to agree to join the medical corps for assignment as an officer to any branch of service where he was needed. He chose to the medical corps.

GAT_00: He was never a serious contender for anything until this year. Sorry if you're mad he couldn't keep getting away with them existing.

It's a Presidential. EVERYTHING shows up.

It's a few articles probably ghostwritten by some freelancer (which you would know had you watched the video I linked to - done by a local news station instead of one of the cable news channels, no less) written up twenty years ago that he's disavowed numerous times while clarifying his position on some race issues.

I could care less about his campaign or even if he did write them up - his chances against Obama in a general election are fairly slim, anyway (though no one knows for sure). I just want us to stop wasting our time bringing this crap up which just distracts us from the real issues. It's such a red herring that it's annoying to keep hearing about it.

RoyBatty: Weaver95: I think RP knocked Gingrich back on his pins and the Gingrich was not pleased.

I have no ideas what the rules for getting drafted were in Vietnam, but could Newt have been accurate?

Paul went to Vietnam as a Flight Surgeon, M.D.
Gingrich would have gone as Gomer Pyle, Ph.D.

Is it possible that Newt was not eligible for the draft because of his wife and kid, but that Paul would have been? And that Newt didn't have to ask for a deferment or special treatment (ala Bush).

Which is not to say it's not fun seeing Newt squirm and squirm and squirm.

I think you're over analyzing things. look - the meme the GOP pushes is that 'military service is honorable' and that anyone who didn't go to vietnam is a draft dodging commie hippie. that's almost a matter of faith among GOP voters - if you don't go to war, you're a gotdamn hippie waste of space. What Ron Paul is saying is that right now, today, we've got people who either dodged the draft and/or got bullshiat deferments sending kids off to a war with no clear goal and no end in sight...very similar to the kind of war they got deferred out of doing. And Paul is right to be pissed off about GOP hypocrisy on this issue, Newt in particular.

What's more, Newt knows he just got biatch slapped. I think Gingrich went into that debate looking to gun down Romney and forgot to watch his 6. Ron Paul shot him down and scored some points off him in the process.

tomasso: The difference in their situations resulted simply from the difference in their ages. Paternity was not a deferment between 1953 and 1963. Paul just got a tough break. He was drafted in 1963, and President Kennedy re-instituted the paternity deferment just a few months later (by executive order on September 10th).

Paternity WAS an exemption starting in September of 1963, in the period when Newt would have been drafted, so Newt's point was completely correct. There was no question of his being drafted. Because Newt was married with a child after the Kennedy order, being drafted was simply never the oppressive reality that it had been for Paul and his contemporaries in a similar situation just a few short years earlier.

By the way, Paul is being disingenuous when he said "I went." He didn't have the choice to stay out. He could either have entered the Army as a private or had to agree to join the medical corps for assignment as an officer to any branch of service where he was needed. He chose to the medical corps.

politics is perception tho. And Ron Paul just made Gingrich look like a draft dodging hippie.

Weaver95: true enough, but again - somewhat off topic. Newt Gingrich got biatch slapped - IN PUBLIC - by Ron Paul. And Newt seemed shocked first, then started looking angry. I think RP knocked Gingrich back on his pins and the Gingrich was not pleased.

Gingrich just doesn't seem to take criticism very well.

I'm sure I'm not alone in saying that I don't care about a president's past war experience; I care more about what he's going to do if he's elected to office. If you've served in the military, great - glad you made it out alive. If you didn't, though, so what? It's yet another red herring that just distracts from the real issues.