Click on the link below. This will take you to the Fox News video page. Click on "Top Videos" in the upper right quarter of the page. Each segment is about 7 minutes long. Watch at least one segment and respond to at least two of the candidates performance in the segment. You must identify teh specific candidate, segment # and topics discussed to get credit.
NOTE: If the debates are no longer in the "Top Videos," type GOP Debate in the Search Fox News box.
DUE Friday!
http://www.foxnews.com/video/index.html
32 comments:
After watching segments of the republican national debate held in South Carolina I gained more knowledge about pertinent issues in the 2008 election. I watched the first two segments and heard all of the republican candidates respond to questions about the war in Iraq. John McCain addressed the issue of the American people being upset with our state in the war but he asked the people to understand. He explained that since we got involved we need to finish the job and we can not leave half way through. If we left Iraq it would be at stake for failure, attacks, and instability but it would also put the U.S. at stake for terrorism attacks. Rudy Giuliani agreed with McCains feelings about leaving the war. He also emphasized that providing a deadline for are troops to pull out of Iraq would put us and Iraq in danger. In past history never have we told are enemy when we were leaving and it would be counterproductive to provide the terrorists with a schedule. I also agree with Sam Brownback. He believes that it is very hard to get anything done with the democrats and republicans arguing all the time. Brownback stated that we need to pull together because one party pro war and one party con war will make it impossible to end the war. Mike Huckabee brought up a valid point. He declared that we should be listening more to the generals and less of the American people. He said that the generals are the ones with the most first hand knowledge and can give the best advice for our next decisions about the war. In the end most of the republicans believe that we need to end the war as soon as possible but setting a date to pull out of Iraq would be damaging to both Iraq and the U.S.
I just watched Part 2 of the Republican debates which showed the candidates debating over Iraq. I think it shows something about the candidates who are trying to support their party rather than the people, because they are trying to do what Republicans would typically want and not what the people truly desire. I agree strongly witht the ideas of Mike Huckabee, who claimed once again that it is necessary to listen to the generals who are in Iraq. Obviously, they would know the most about the battle conditions and what needs to be done with the troops. I feel that it is also important to listen to what American citizens want as well, and we need to keep our national budget in mind as well. I think that Ron Paul made an interesting point by bringing up the occupation of Lebanon under Reagan, as I feel that this was a valid point, but I also think he puts way too much emphasis on the mistakes made in Vietnam and the Gulf Wars. I also thought it was interesting that we progressed right from Iraq into the emerging problem in Iran. The candidates are so quick to say that occupying Iraq was a mistake but it seems as if they are all hurrying to do something about Iran. Can the US honestly take another six years of dealing with another country and weapons of mass destructions? I think it is absolutely essential that an honest discussion with the American people takes place before any play is moved forward to deal with Iran.
Mr. Kirby, today I tried to watch the videos on the website, but none of them worked. I don't know what to do about current events this week.
In part three, I agree with what Mike Huckabee said about taxes/fair tax. He wants to stop the internal revenue to create a fair tax that would eliminate all hidden taxes that Americans don't even know what they're paying for. I definetly agree that this would be necessary to help anyone who may be on the lowest level of the economic spectrum reach the next level. The fair tax would be family friendly and benefit just about everyone in one way or another. I also agree with Rudy Giuliani in part five about the topic of abortion. What he explained is that for the time being and with the way that our society is right now, people want government out of their personal lives. People should be respected for their own opinions but at the same time he actually isn't for abortion. What he would like to do which he did in New York is reduce abortion and increase adoption. I think that idea is a great idea that would please a wider variety of people rather than being pro-choice or pro-life. This way you sort of get the best of both worlds with a compromise.
Initially, I had been against the war in Iraq. I felt that it was unnecessary, time consuming, and just increasing our gas prices and taxes. However, after watching the first segment of the GOP Debate, I'm unsure as to how I feel on the war in Iraq. It's something that we started, and we should finish it, but it's costly, and brings sad news to the families and friends of soldiers who are killed in Iraq. Most Americans feel that we have no place there, but like Senator McCain said, leaving Iraq would only mean that Iraq would spiral downwards, and they will 'follow us home.' since the jihad and terrorists are so keen to 'bring down the United States' (Gov. Mitt Romney). If we left Iraq as it is, there would be total chaos, destruction, and genocide. They would threaten the bordering countries, and it would mean constant fear for American citizens. The Al-Qaeda and Jihads aren't going to be content if we leave. The Al-Qaeda are determined to drive foreign influence out of Muslim Countries, and the Jihad deem war against those who 'deny the truth' just warfare. It is without doubt that they will continue to terrorize the U.S, who tolerate all religions.
Despite my strong dislike for the war, I cannot deny that leaving Iraq could possibly bring even more destruction. I feel that the Republicans have a point, and that like Senator Sam Brownback said, we should all pull together. If we are divided as the Iraqis in Iraq are divided, we won't go anywhere, and all we'll do is argue. We haven't 'already lost'. There may still be hope for a peaceful Iraq.
I watched part one of the Presidential Debate and a few minutes of part 2. In these particular segments the issue of Iraq was discussed. I agree with both statements that were made by two of the candidates in part one, John McCain and Senator Sam Brownback. When asked “Why America should be willing to fight and die while little effort is being made by Iraqi politicians,” Senator McCain responded saying that America’s national security is at risk. By leaving Iraq he believes, we will not only “fall” in Iraq, but be putting ourselves at risk. He states that Iraq is the center of chaous. If it is not dealt with, then it will follow us home. I completely agree with this statement. America, as he stated, “is very frustrated.” In order to protect ourselves and our safety we must continue to fight. Succeeding in Iraq means we will be succeeding at home. We will be protecting ourselves and our security rather than imposing more danger on ourselves by leaving. It was also pointed out by Senator Sam Brownback that in order to win, we must “pull together here to win over there.” He believes that there are far too many divisions split between the democrats and republicans. Again, I strongly agree. Many people here are against Bush’s decision to stay within Iraq. The overly expressed opinions made by citizens were brought up by Mike Huckabee (part 2). I believe that he made a very valid point. He discussed the fact that we tend to listen to the civilians of the United States rather than the generals and people who are actually in Iraq at the moment. There the ones who are aware of what needs to be improved in order to succeed. By listening to the diplomats we are not getting a “true” picture of what needs to be done. It is critical as he states, to get the “best advice as commander in chief.”
After watching segment six of the national debate tonight, i have decided that most of these Republicans running for president flip flop their views way too much. Rudy Guliani said that for New York City "if you can work hard, we want you". Here he is talking about illegal immigrants. He didn't care if illegals were working in New York City, but as President he states that he would like to know everyone that is in the country. I don't understand why he would change his views now. He believes that we should have a huge database and tamper proof ID cards for illegal immigrants. He shouldn't flip flop his views like that. Also, congressman Paul, i believe his name was, was asked the question about the war in Iraq. He believes that we should pull out of the war in Iraq almost immediately and he believes that we pretty much "invited" the twin towers attack. His reasoning was because we have been bombing Iraq for the past ten years. Guliani did not like this statement at all and he asked him to revoke it, but obvioulsy he wouldn't. I feel like Paul didn't have a right to say that we invited it, because we didn't. McCain also flip flopped his ideas. In the year 2000, he was asked if it was proper to have the confederate flag flying in South Carolina, he said yes, but now he claims that it was the worst thing that he could have done. Almost every single person changed their views. Governer Huckabee said that a rapist should be released from prison. What did the rapist do? He killed a woman a year later. Huckabee says he wished he hadn't done it, but he "met conditions for bail". The only two men that spoke tonight that didn't flip their views were Hunter and Tancredo i think his name was. ( he was the last speaker). Hunter spoke about how he made a border on the southern part of SanDiego and reduced the crime rate by a lot. He thinks that we should have more border control and i totally agree with him. Tancredo talked about global warming and how we have to take control of it soo and reduce our dependency on pretrolium products because it is a national security issue.
I just watched segment three of the GOP debate held in South Carolina. Overall I felt that it was not a very good debate but one person that I felt stood out from the rest was Rudy Giuliani, particularly when asked about using physical discipline. He commented on how he lowered taxes while passing 23 bills as mayor of New York City. He later then talked about how about 50% of the federal employees would possibly retire within the next presidents term and he would not rehire anyone for their position. I thought this was a bold statement because you could take this as why you would cut jobs but you could also see this as how the government is running improperly and needs to be fixed. Rudy Giuliani is a very good speaker and because of that, it is part of the reason why he stood out from the rest of the candidates. On the other hand when Fred Thompson was asked about physical discipline I felt he did an awful job at explaining his side. He did say that he cut taxes as governor of Wisconsin but then he just went about avoiding the question of which federal agencies or departments that he would eliminate. Not being able to directly answer which departments he would eliminate made him look very indecisive and scared to name which ones he did not approve of. Overall I felt the debate was kind of dull and no one candidate really attacked any of the other ones on specific topics.
After watching the republican debate, I learned more about the candidate’s opinions about the war in Iraq. Rudy Giuliani has the belief that since we started something we can not leave half way through. He believes that if the United States left now, we would be at risk for attacks, along with failure. He also said that the United States has never given a warning of leaving a country and thinks that if we did so, it could help aid the terrorists, which in turn would hurt the United States. Mike Huckabee believes that the American people should not have as much of a say, and that the generals should be who the President and Congress listens to. Huckabee stated that the generals have experienced the issues of war first hand and would have the most knowledge of the subject and could provide the best facts to help make the best decision. I agree with John McCain, when he says that it would be unwise to leave the war halfway through because of the dangers it would pose to the United States. If we left the war, it leaves the United States open to attacks, and the Iraq government more prone to failure. I also agree with Rudy Giuliani when he stated that in no time throughout our history have we given a time stating when we will exit a war. I agree with Giuliani when he says that this would be counterproductive. which is why I agree with the debates in North Carolina, where the candidates all agreed on quickly ending the war in Iraq, without a specific date.
I watched Segment 1.
I disagree strongly with John McCain's statements concerning the war in Iraq. He speaks very vaguely with little evidence of actual substance, and most of what he says are attempts at motivational soundbites rather than fully-developed arguments. He talks about our national interests in Iraq-- what are our interests there? In oil? The war in Iraq, unlike, for example, Afghanistan, was begun with little justification. What really concerns me, however, is the lack of depth and the personality McCain displays during this segment. He says, "We must succeed. We cannot fail." Unfortunately for Mr. McCain, failure is an inevitable part of every person's--and every nation's--life. We must have the discernment to recognize when we have failed, and when to cut our losses. I'd rather not become involved for decades in a war that accomplishes little but drain our country of soldiers and resources because our leader believes that it is impossible to admit failure. Furthermore, he makes rousing statements about being the last man standing. Perhaps he should go to Iraq himself and fight singlehandedly, then. A president must have the ability to cooperate with others-- to take the advice of his Cabinet-- to listen to Congress. A president does not singledhandedly rule the entire body of people in a democracy. (That would be amount to a dictatorship. See: North Korea.) McCain would be an extremely ineffective (and disliked) president if he chose to oppose everyone else in the national government, and to refuse to compromise as he is doing now.
I also disagree strongly with Tommy Thompson. Perhaps he is unaware that he is running for the presidency of the United States, not of Iraq. It is not his role in any way to decide FOR Iraq how their government should be structured. Furthermore, his plan seems to me to be unfeasible and impractical. Even if it were possible to apportion oil revenue in such a way, I don't see how THAT would make people work for peace. An entire nation--government and economy--cannot and should not be reduced to a single resource. And I think people WANT peace and prosperity for themselves regardless of the oil revenue that they've been allotted. Also-- most people would fail to see it in Tommy Thompson's light. The apathetic would remain apathetic, and not "every man, woman, and CHILD" will understand the significance of their portion of the oil revenue. And people should be motivated to work for peace for the sake of peace--not because they're concerned about some oil revenue!
I watched segment 1 with that candidates of Brownback, Romney, Tommy Thompson, and McCain. The issue discussed was the topic of Iraq. I am more of a democrat than a republican, but these candidates made me look at things a little differently. They all mention not failing and how they want the U.S. to be successful which is a good point that seems to be forgotten. The candidates that spoke made it clear that we do not want to be seen as weak and leave unfinished business in Iraq. Tommy Thompson seemed as if he was the govenor of some sort of Iraq, he made it clear what his plan would be if he was president of the U.S. and how it would be successful. His plan was to basically have the Iraqi people decide what they want and have them vote and although he does make good points, how really far involoved do we actually want to get with Iraq because we are already involved in quite a bit of a mess over there and why would we want to make it worse or do more than we have to? He almost seems to have his plan too in depth and not as focused on his own country. When McCain was speaking he showed how he cares about what the American people think by saying he knows that Americans are "frustrated" and that shows how he pays attention to the emotions of the people of his country and that's important to have in a candidate.
I watched segment three of the rupublic debate held in South Carolina. Overall, I felt the Rudy Giuliana was the superior in this debate because of his speaking skills, confidence, and previous accomplishments as mayor of New York City. During his time as mayor, he passed twenty-three bills involving lowering taxes and to help the common people. He was an exquisite speaker, and every point he made we one backed by knowledge and intelligence. Another candidate seen in this segment was Fred Thompson of Wisconsin. He was extremely inferior to the speaking skills of Giuliani. He never really answered the quiestion about federal agencies that he was rid of. I felt as though he didn't want to disappoint any of his followers, or anyone listening for that matter. During this debate, it was mainly individual, whereas during other segments there were some controversial attacks. I sort of regret watching this segment because it was pretty boring. However, I was impressed with Giuliani and he leads in my book for the republican party.
I watched part seven.
“We do not torture people.” “We must succeed. We cannot fail.” “It’s not about us. It’s about what kind of a country we are.” When did Senator McCain last make a genuine, unrehearsed comment? When did he last speak fluidly and completely, and not in sound bites for the evening news? I barely listen to Mr. McCain because he is not speaking to me, or to us. He’s speaking to the television and newspaper media. Instead of answering questions with in depth, authoritative responses, Senator McCain fills his time with proud patriotic statements and propaganda. Consequently, his speech is ideal, his quotes absolutely flawless. But is that what really matters?
“Enhanced interrogation techniques need to be used. Not torture, but enhanced interrogation techniques.” Let’s be honest, Mr. Romney. Terrorist suspects are interrogated and tortured in the interest of saving thousands of lives. I’m not condoning of supporting such activities, but am definitely admitting that they exist and they occur within our country’s control. I’m not voting for a man who has not faced such undeniable realities. But more importantly, I’m not voting for a man who softens his statements, his views, and his sound bites in a manipulative attempt to appeal to a greater number of potential voters.
I watched segment one of the debate where the candidates talked about the war in Iraq. Although I think John McCain made a good point about how we need to win the war so the terrorists dont follow us home, I don't think he realized the toll that they are having on the soldiers fighting there now. They too are American citizens and deserve the same protection that we want from the terrorists. He also seemed stubborn and unwilling to listen to the American people, and the President's job is to make decisions of behalf of the American people, not for them.
I did not agree with Tommy Thompson's plan for Iraq. It seemed as if he cared more about Iraq's future the the future of the United States, and seemed to think that if he were elected President he would by default have complete control over what the Iraqi government does and does not do. Also, his plan to divide up the oil revenues in Iraq would not create peace, it would simply add the the violence. If the entire nation depended on these oil revenues, it would create fighting over oil fields and government corruption. Nothing can create peace in Iraq except the will of the people there. If they don't want peace, then it won't happen. Again, like McCain, he seemed stubborn and unwilling to compromise on his plan that was "assured victory" and we can't afford another President that is unwilling to listen to his people.
After watching part one of the republican debate in South Carolina, I noticed a difference in the responses of certain candidates. The responses by the front-runners such as Rudy Guiliani and John McCain were very broad and really didn't specifically answer the questions they were asked. However, Tommy Thompson gave a specific strategy of what he would do if he was elected president. He talked of three ideas he had to help decide how to end the conflict in Iraq, and took a risk by showing exactly what he would do as president. He knew that he had to make up ground in the polls, so he needed to make a statement. Mitt Romney and Rudy Guiliani just said that all America needs is "leadership" and "optimism". Saying these things cannot backfire on them, so they make these safe statements so they can stay at the top of the polls. These candidates decisions show their cowardice to take a stand, and shows the importance of having a well-known name in a debate. It's not always the candidates postition, but the candidates money and notorious reputations.
I watched segment 7 if the debate. It begins with John McCain discussing how the U.S. should go about getting information from those held at Guantanamo Bay. He reveals that he does not think that the U.S. should ever torture people because it would make the world have a lower opinion of us and when people are tortured they only tell you what they think you want to hear, which may not even help. He makes a strong point when he says that when he was a soldier and was being tortured he consoled himself with the tought that the if the roles were switched, the U.S. would not be torturing people. In contrast Guliani says that people shouldn't be tortured but that interigators should use "any method they can think of." He seems to be contradicting himself because "any method they can think of" sounds like he'd want to allow torture. Governor Romney responds by saying that torture should not be used but "enhanced interrogating techniques" should be used. He seems to be saying what Guliani wanted to say but in a more concise way.
Tommy Thompson is then asked what he'd do if he found out, as president, that a hostile African country was training terrorists. He responded by saying that he would verify that this intelligence was correct, he would go to war only for a good reason such as this, he would make sure he had plenty of force, and he would have an exit strategy. The most important part of this was the mentioning of the exit strategy. This makes Thompson look good, because an exit strategy seems to be what we're missing in the current war in Iraq.
Mr Kirby, I have tried many of the videos and none are even showing up on my computer. I think I'm using the work flashplayer for it or something but I don't know how to fix that so I guess I'll just try to do it tomorrow when my Dad is awake.
After watching the third segment of the Gop. Debate i have learned alot more about the canidates. I agree with Brownbeck's statements about making sure that gas prices stay below 4 dollars. I feel that we do need to figure out other soureces besides gas to help us keep are economy going. I also agree with Mike Huckabe's statements about the tax cuts. I agree that all hidden taxes that Americans don't know that they pay for should be stopped. I also feel thath the trade deficite that we are in right now needs to change. I agree with Hunter's statements that we are at a loss of jobs becasue of the trade deficite we are facing with china. I also believe that Fred Thompson didn'd to that well of a job of answering hid debate question. After finishing watching the debate i feel that it was a very good debate for most of the canidates.
After watching section three of the Republican Debate that was held in South Carolina, I realized that most republicans do not really think of the best interests of the country. When asked to eliminate three programs in Washington, Congressman Paul says he would eliminate the department of homeland security during while the United States is still involved with the war in Iraq. One thing that I do agree with however is Governor Huckabee's response to taxes. I believe he's right about congress spending too much money concerning taxes. I also agree with his strategy to eliminate the tax because it eliminates all hidden taxes without increasing or decreasing revenue. Rudy Giuliani’s arguments about his physical discipline with spending was very interesting. The question says that during Mayor Giuliani’s administration money spent was increased well before September 11, after which it “soared.” Mayor Giulani flat out denies this claim saying that he actually decreased the spending for the city. He also focuses on the fact that since he was able to lower taxes and money spent in New York then he can also do it in Washington D.C. I also think that Rudy Giuliani may be forgetting that he is running for the President of the United States, not just Washington D.C. and that fifty states might be a little bit harder to restrain physical spending then when it only involves one.
After watching the second part of the Republican Party’s debate, I commend Congressman Ron Paul for his passionate and loyal views. He is out on a limb supporting the removal of troops from Iraq while the rest of his party supports the war. I feel his independence is refreshing. He noted that we had been bombing the Middle East region for the past ten years and he understands why some people may be upset with our nation. I do not believe, as Rudy Giuliani implied, that Congressman Paul was justifying the actions of the September Eleventh attacks. I do not believe that Congressman Paul meant that we were inviting the terrorists into our country. There are always two sides to a story and Congressman Paul recognized that.
Just like Giuliani understands different aspects of abortion. I applaud Giuliani for taking his stand on supporting a woman’s right to choose on the abortion issue. His personal views are parallel with his party’s, but his thoughts for the nation go very much against their platform. He said that our growing, diverse society needs to be open to new ideas. He said he believes the number of abortions should be limited and he recognizes it as a reality, which appeals to many Americans, no matter what their affiliation is. Although Congressman Ron Paul seems like a crotchety old man, I was impressed with his and Rudi Giuliani’s ability to defend what they believe in, especially in front of members of their party who are opposed to the ideas.
In the second part of the debate, the topic of the Iraqi war came up. In it, Rudy Giuliani stated that giving a time line to terrorists was not smart, because it would be telling the enemy just when you were leaving, and give them time to act. Tom Tancredo then said that he felt that the troops would be there for a long time due to national interests, but didn’t want the statement to seem like a timeline. I feel that no matter what we do, we will need some kind of a timeline, because otherwise the troops may never leave Iraq.
In the fifth part of the debate, they discussed abortion. Giuliani stated that he felt the government needed to stay out of people’s lives, and that although he was against abortion, he thought there should be freedom of choice. Huckabee felt that life was too valuable, and that abortion was wrong no matter what. I agree with Huckabee, and feel abortion is wrong no matter what.
In the second part of the debate, the topic of the Iraqi war came up. In it, Rudy Giuliani stated that giving a time line to terrorists was not smart, because it would be telling the enemy just when you were leaving, and give them time to act. Tom Tancredo then said that he felt that the troops would be there for a long time due to national interests, but didn’t want the statement to seem like a timeline. I feel that no matter what we do, we will need some kind of a timeline, because otherwise the troops may never leave Iraq.
In the fifth part of the debate, they discussed abortion. Giuliani stated that he felt the government needed to stay out of people’s lives, and that although he was against abortion, he thought there should be freedom of choice. Huckabee felt that life was too valuable, and that abortion was wrong no matter what. I agree with Huckabee, and feel abortion is wrong no matter what.
I watched part three which featured Mike Huckabee and Rudy Giuliani. Mike Huckabee made a good point about taxes and fair taxing that I really liked. He said there should be a fair tax that eliminate all the hidden taxes that Americans pay without even being aware of them. Less taxing means people have more money to work their way up into “higher society” and to have more money to live off of. Of course, under such a plan the higher tax brackets would need to be taxed more, but I am totally fine with that. They can afford it. I really like Rudy Giuliani’s stance on abortion. He’s right in his thought that the American people want the government to stay out of their personal lives (think Patriot Act…) People see him as a flip-flopper because he says he supports a woman’s right to choose, but is personally against abortion, but I completely understand what he is saying. I really like his idea that he implemented in NY: More adoption, less abortion. This seems the most moral choice all around, especially considering how many couples want children, but are physically incapable of it. This way everyone gets what they want. And for the girls who want an abortion simply because they don’t want to give birth, that’s their problem. They shouldn’t have put themselves in situations where they could get pregnant in the first place.
Mr. Kirby- I apologize for how late this is, but due to my absences and other unforeseen circumstances, I was unable to complete it by midnight Friday night. I hope this won’t be too much of a problem.
Dave Brunetti
I watched the first segment of the debate online. The first candidate that speaks is John McCain. He is asked about the war in Iraq and how he has a position that is for keeping our soldiers in Iraq. He talks about how if our soldiers leave the area, the terrorists will 'follow us home'. He thinks we have a good strategy but we must do something to overcome the mishandling of the war to date. He "will be the last man standing if necessary". I think that John McCain is correcct in his stance of supporting our troops, but other than that he is way off base in saying that we need to stay there. He says that it is more than just an Iraq interest and that the safety of our own country is at stake, but I feel that is not true. I think our soldiers are fighting for a moot point. Later in the segment, governor of Massachussetts, Mitt Romney is asked about if there is ever an instance where he would be ok with leaving Iraq without an organized government. He is smart to not give a straight out answer and says that he would never project failure for our people. He goes on to fluently describe the global situation that Iraq is in the middle of. While I did feel that he is a great speaker, I am not sure that Iraq is truly an important battle arena for our country or the world.
Mr. Kirby, I am aware this is late, but I figured that I would rather get a zero for being late than have an incomplete.
i watched segments one and two. i thought mcCain sounded kinda stupid. so many of our candidates feel it would be wise to stay in the war. i just do not see how this can be true. our country seems so afriad of failure. but this war is costing so much money and so many lives for America. i do not feel this is right or fair. i disagree with McCain's stand on the war. as far as Huckabee was concerned, we should be listening to the generals who have fought wars rather than the American people on the terms of being in war or not. while this could argueably be a good point, i still thought he was wrong. i can not help but notice the many parallels to the IRaq war and the Vietnam war. we were afriad to pull out of that war as well because failure leads to weakness. but look where that got us.
In the GOP Debate (pt 5), all three candidates state that they are pro-life. Of course, notice that all three are also male. There is no doubt in my mind that if these three were females there would be different opinions. Brown talks about how the child is an innocent life that should be protected under God's will, but first of all it is a matter of opinion whether or not the fetus should be considered "life" yet upon conseption. Also, there is a separation of church and state so God should have nothing to do with this decision. Gulianni is the only one who somewhat supports the woman's right to choose. Although he, personally, is pro-life, he is not a female who will ever have to make this decision and so he gives his support to those who have to make this decision. I strongly respect him for these words and feel that he is the only person who views this topic realistically and respectfully towards women faced with this horrible situation. I am definitely pro-choice but it is everyone's own opinion whether or not they are, but I feel that Gulianni presented his opinion very well.
From the segments that I watched I was able to find some of the candidates' positions on some issues, but not all of them. It seemed as though some of the responses did not answer the question directly, but some of this was probably due to the fact that many of the questions seemed designed to lead the candidate in a certain direction. I did find out that Romney, Gilmore, Brownback, and Huckabee are all pro-life, and that Guiliani has no opinion on the subject. Most candidates seemed to support U.S. military operations, except for Sen. Paul, who thought that the more the country used military force, the weaker our national defense would be. I found that point of view very confusing because it seems to me that if we don't fight the terrorists in the Middle-East, that they would simply have an easier time in attacking us. They would not stop hating America if we stopped fighting back, because they are taught from a very young age that the U.S. is evil and should be utterly destroyed. Overall, I did find the debate interesting and feel as though I have a better feel for just who the Republican candidates are.
After watching the debate Pt. 7 about the Iraq war I between Rudy Giuliani and Mike Huckabee. I believed that each held a good argument on the war itself. Rudy Giuliani expressed belief in the process of training more Iraqi troops to eventually replace the US troops stationed in Iraq which I personally felt was for the betterment of the United States. On the other side of the spectrum Mike expressed how long would it take to accomplish without causing the region to go into complete chaos. I cannot stand this whole "Putting your life on the line for freedom" line that they use. They are using American citizens to their own gains. This makes me sick to my stomach. Mike held a good point of the war in Iraq is just a battlefield for the war on terrorism and our efforts to overcome Jihad globally. I believe that the Republican side is the best choice for sucsess.
I watched the segments of Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney at the N.H. debate discuss the issue of illegal immigration in the United States. Prior to watching these segements, i had never thought about illegal immigration as a major political issue. There are around twelve million illegal immigrants living in the United States presently. Rudy Giuliani stated that he doesn't mind illegal immigrants being in the country, unless they start to commit crimes and they dont put their children in schools. Then he would have the illegal immigrants thrown out of the city and deported. Rudy Giuliani talks about when he started being mayor of New York City; how he reduced the crimes rates from New York City being the Number 1 City of crime in the United States, to city 191 over the whole country. He also states that he brought shootings down 74% and that in theory with the controled gun laws, saved 9000 people. After watching this segment, i agreed with Mr. Giuliani's idea about illegal immigration, until i saw Mitt Romney's view about illegal immigrants. Romney talked about how immigrants come over our borders and take our jobs. He wants to cut back on federal funding, whereas Giuliani doesn't. Romney talks about building a wall that would stop illegal immigrants from coming into the United States and even though it would cost billions of dollars, it would be beneficial and rid the United States the burden of illegal immigrants. He states that this cost is very minor compared to the trillions that the United States has, and then the United States would be able to welcome legal immigrants coming into the country, which is great for the country. I agree more with Mitt Romney's view about illegal immigration and i think his ideas seem to uphold best for the United Sates.
After watching the segment on keeping troops in Iraq. Paul was discussing that neo-conservatives said it was their responsibility for this war and that out American people shouldn't have to fight for it. And that our representatives should have to fix the mistakes that where made and not continue them. Also that the republican party is losing votes by this war. Brownback is saying that we are one nation and we shouldn't be divided if this country makes a mistake we have to be in this together, and even if the republican don't win next year it doesn't matter because they shouldn't have to lose their honor. Hunter comes in agreeing with Brownback saying that gun battles have gone down 80% since we have been in Iraq and that American troop have pulled down civilian causalities by 74% and the way to win is with victory. I agree with Paul and think that pulling the troops out of Iraq would be a good idea because I feel the war was not our place to go into and we have been there for many years and still have found no weapons of mass destruction and anything that was threatening to America. Now we are just cleaning up a mess that was ours to begin and we are spending too much time concentrating on what is going on in Iraq rather than what is going on in America.
While watching some of the political debates I noticed that a handful of the candidates are Pro-war. At first I was against the war completely;however,after listening to the candidates I have a better understanding of why we are in the war. Many of the cadidates said that leaving the war now would harm the United States and put us in the position of haveing more potential terrorist acts. Giuliani said that we should train Iraqi troops so that eventually the US troops could leave and they could defend themselves. This isn't a bad idea but when I thought about it, it would take a lot of time to train the Iraqis, and that would mean having more troops go over to do so which may not be the best idea. Huckabee said that the war we are fighting is a war on terrorism as a whole and that its an effort to overcome the Jihad. Another point that was brought up in the debate was illegal immigration. Before watching the debates I hadn't really thought much of illegal immigration. Now I realized its a bigger problem that I thought. Guiliani stated that he didn't mind illegal immigrant in the United States as long as they put their kids in school, and didn't commit crimes; he didn't see them as dangering anyone. Romney on the other hand didn't like illegal immigrants. Romney stated that they come in and take job that could be for citizens;and that his suggestion was to build a wall blocking them from coming in so easily. Although it would be costly for the United States, it may be benificial in the long run with decreasing the amout of immigrants that do come in illegally. After hearing that I did think it was a good idea, but there are around 12 million immigrants illegally in the US right now and it would be hard to get all of them back to where they origianlly came from. After watching various debates the candidates made valid points throughout.
Post a Comment