It was a non-event. Fred wasn't there!

I question the patriotism of anyone who would watch a debate not involving Fred Thompson... especially during a Red Wings game.

I was going to remark on the lack of Fred Thompson, but the first commenter beat me to it.

Someone please explain the difference between Romney, Guiliani and Clinton. They all wear pants and they all hold socialist ideals.

Someone please explain the difference between Romney, Guiliani and Clinton. They all wear pants and they all hold socialist ideals.

Someone please explain the difference between Romney, Guiliani and Clinton. They all wear pants and they all hold socialist ideals.

Someone please explain the difference between Romney, Guiliani and Clinton. They all wear pants and they all hold socialist ideals.

Someone please explain the difference between Romney, Guiliani and Clinton. They all wear pants and they all hold socialist ideals.

Someone please explain the difference between Romney, Guiliani and Clinton. They all wear pants and they all hold socialist ideals.

Someone please explain the difference between Romney, Guiliani and Clinton. They all wear pants and they all hold socialist ideals.

Someone please explain the difference between Romney, Guiliani and Clinton. They all wear pants and they all hold socialist ideals.

This isn't a flash game; you don't earn extra point for hitting the "Post" buttons as quickly as possible.

The reason Fred Thompson hasn't jumped in the race yet is because he wants to let the other guys get their message out before his message automatically overrides theirs with his star power.

It's mighty decent of him, but he needs to hurry up!

While Rudy stood up for a second otr two and sounded good, he's still nothing more than a stuffed suit.
I miss the days when he was on Notre Dame's practice squad.
The others bored me to tears with their typical mindless question dodging ability.

On the other hand, Fred still gives me a pudgy.

I really liked the debate and thought everybody was making good points. One of the lower tier candidates ripped people for not being conservative enough, he had the line "Rudy McRomney", and I thought we would go to the infighting so I was really angry at the guy, but Guiliani had a good response to it, and everybody kept cool after that for the most part. Except Ron Paul who is apparently in the latter stages of extreme dimentia and just needs to get out of the race for mercy's sake. I like all the candidates (except Ron Paul) even McCain who I despised before. Rudy's response was good being about how we have two anti-american socialists running against us who are competely unserious about radical islamism why should start infighting and give the media what they want.

Or maybe we can all sit out the election because we are angry. That will teach Bush a lesson. Oh wait, he isn't running, neither was he running in the congressional elections last time. In my opinion, whether you are angry about spending or illegal immigration or whatever, you are getting played and dupped by the media, if you dont vote. They have a vested interest in splitting repubs, thats pretty obvious. Lets look at spending. It never got up to pre-94 levels, and the deficit is falling faster than anybody predicted. But to listen to the nobody-is-conservative-enough-for-me crowd it was reaching volcanic proportions. The question is, have people been so poisoned with irrational anger that they will elect Hillary by default.

Ringmaster said: I question the patriotism of anyone who would watch a debate not involving Fred Thompson... especially during a Red Wings game.

AMEN to that!

I enjoyed good 'ol Tin-Foil Paul.

I don't get all these conservatives saying they like Rudy for this, or they're considering voting for McCain etc...how can any conservative worth his salt even hear the name McCain or Giuliani without wretching? Fred Thompson, all kidding aside, is the only Candidate that gives me hope for the immdeiate future of this country. In my eyes, having Rudi or McCain elected is only a very small step above having Hillary Clinton in office. There, you know that shudder you feel when you hear her name spoken? That's about what I get with Rudy and McCain.

For me, it's either Fred Thompson or Brownback. And since Brownback has absolutely NO chance, it's only Fred Thompson.

HKpistole has spoken.

I'm not sure I like Ron Paul, but I don't really get the outrage either.

People don't seem to acknowledge the difference between: "Terrorist attacks are the response to American actions" versus "America deserved to be attacked."

Of course what we did led to our being attacked. The terrorists didn't throw a dart at a globe.

It doesn't mean what we did was morally wrong in any way. It just means when we act, we have to consider how crazy people wearing bombs will respond.

Sometimes it will be morally imperitive to make the terrorists angry and must be done. Other times we may have to decide it's not worth it.

I don't think most candidates can identify the 2nd scenerio, and I don't think Ron Paul can identify the 1st. That may make him a worse candidate but not a crackpot.

MB, you're a moron.

...consideration for "crazy people wearing bombs?"

Yeah, I'm considering whether to shoot them in the face or in the throat.

Don't you think it's about time you were weaned from your mama's teat?

everydayjoe,

If I was looking for that sort of mature and thoughtful argument, I'd go to liberal blogs.

Huckabee won me over with his FairTax comments. Giuliani lost me when he started talking about National ID cards and such nonsense.

The best candidate, short of Fred Thompson, I would have to make myself. I could use a chainsaw and pick out the parts of each candidate that I like and that would be that.

You know, FiftyCal, repeating something does NOT make it true!

Ron Paul was the Sanjaya of the GOP debate.

If I was looking for that sort of mature and thoughtful argument, I'd go to liberal blogs.

I think they're busy wishing Tony Snow had more cancer.

Sorry for the multiple posts, I guess the new softmare to "prevent abusive posters" was designed by aquaman.

And the "Ron Paul is the new sanjaya" might have come from here.

http://capitolannex.com/

I don't have to watch the debates! Fred! pwns them allll. Of course, my short list is Fred! -most likely, less evil candidate, Duncan Hunter -closer to my values, and Mitt Romney - the "if-I-hafta" candidate.

Please don't tell Fred! I'm possible, maybe, in a loose sense, considering other candidates. I can feel his eyes boring into my skull, probably from miles and miles away.

So MB do you always bow the man wearing the bomb or do you just suggest hiding from them. Perhaps Yeah, MB that an astute observation. If we were invisible or entirely absent from the rest of the world than no one would bother attack us.

Money Quote: “It just means when we act, we have to consider how crazy people wearing bombs will respond.”

I find it quite satisfying when liberals decide to go the invisibility rout. If you want to be invisible, go right ahead. It just means I don’t have to listen to you. Also, if you want to bow to the man wearing the bomb, please do so. I’ll just know the proper attire for getting something out of your bleeding little liberal heart. You want no impact on the rest of the world. I don’t want you to have impact on the rest of the world. If you don’t want oil and a modern economy, fine there’s tens of thousands of square mile of desert out west. Just make sure you don’t take any fuel or burn anything. We already have enough pollution without a bunch of stupid hippies trying to go back to slash and burn agrarianism.

If you can remember not to include me in any of your crap. I’ll respect your invisibility.

Crazy Person,

Please try not to twist my argument. I simply suggested that we choose our battles carefully. I did not say that we had to either surrender or hide.

There are indeed many times was we have a moral imperative to do something that will anger terrorists. I think that finishing the job in Iraq is one of these things. That is why I would not vote for Ron Paul. However, this just makes him a man with a different set of values than me, not a crackpot.

And I don't see how "considering how crazy people with bombs would respond" is at all strange. Say you saw a crazy person with a bomb. Say you were unable to shoot him for some reason. It might be tempting to point out that he probably has a very small penis. I am suggesting that it is bad idea to do this while you are in his blast range. I hope this does not make me a liberal coward.

I agree w/ everydayjoe. You are a moron.

//If I was looking for that sort of mature and thoughtful argument, I'd go to liberal blogs.//

So go, dumbass.

So why did they attack us again?

There was a debate?

the pretty boy don't like our "Assault weapons" forget that lets ban "assault criminals" instead