So painful he won the their own polling

Paul is polling in the 5% range in SC, most voters aren't fooled.

During the debate, they were discussing the U.S.-Iran boat incident recently. Here is a direct quote from Paul: "So here we have -- let's put it in perspective. We have five small speedboats attacking the U.S. Navy with a Destroyer? They could take care of those speedboats in about five seconds."

Guess he forgot about the damage small boats can do?

How close did the boats get?

Let me guess, this is just another conspiracy by the U.S.

Probably staged the bombing of the USS Cole, too.

You guessed... wrong. It's actually pretty lame of you to try to paint me or Paul as a conspiracy theorist.

from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7175325.stm

"US sailors assumed battle stations and the captain on one of the ships was about to order an attack when the Iranian boats turned away, US officials said."

I don't understand your point bringing this up. Our ships were not attacked, and we were prepared to attack if the speedboats didn't stand down. They did stand down. If our ships were attacked, Paul would support retaliation. None of the candidates, including Paul, second guessed the actions of the captains of those ships.

I find your criticism of Paul's performance last night pretty unsubstantial. Do you disagree on economic policy? It seems you disagree on foreign policy, so I guess you don't mind borrowing money from China that was spent to support a dictator who overthrew a democratically elected government in Pakistan, while trying to sell Iraq on the virtues of democracy. Our foreign policy doesn't make sense economically and creates more problems than it fixes as far as foreign relations goes. We're funding both Muslim countries and Israel, both sides of a tense situation. I don't think we need a leader spewing the filth that McCain was last night... Paul wants free trade with Muslim countries, and McCain jumps to, "I don't want to trade with Al-Queda because all they want to trade is burkas." I'm sure moderate Muslims appreciate that sentiment.

There are more options in dealing with a dangerous world - we don't have to choose between being hippy pacifists and warmongering neocons. We can be strong without putting ourselves in the center of every civil war on the globe.

I think we know which demographic likes to text and phone in their support for this exact science.

Did you bother watching the debate? Let me give you Paul's response to the question about what he would do should Iran do this again:

Look at the items in bold. He is questioning the validity of this story, despite video evidence. He used this opportunity to once again blame the U.S. while never once condemning Iran's actions. Paul turned a simple question into a potential conspiracy by the U.S. to justify attacking Iran.

I don't have to substantiate my criticism of Paul since it is nothing more than my opinion. He is a kook in my book.

Yes.

This sadly points out how oblivious Hume is to the rhetoric. Obviously you missed the point as well.

Ghouliani wants to ignore the NIE. A number of the candidates want to impose sanctions on Iran. The rhetoric is leaning toward conflict, not toward peace. It is being reported that the voice corresponding with the speedboats likely didn't even come from the speedboats. The pentagon has reportedly said they now don't disagree with the video released by Iran. Have you heard the voice on the tape? It sounds highly suspect. Yet these candidates are really ratcheting up the rhetoric about Iran. That is what Paul was speaking to, but Hume has bought into the rhetoric that it doesn't even register anymore. Paul was having trouble hearing what Hume was saying, not the other candidates.

He had heard the story and obviously had heard more recent news than the rest of the guys, because he knew that the captain had come on tv since the initial report to say that the voice heard on the tape may not have come from the speedboats.

I don't know if you're oblivious to the rhetoric, but the current administration (and many of the presidential candidates) had been pretty pugnacious on the subject of Iran before the NIE came out. Do you advocate borrowing money from China so that we can initiate a preemptive strike on Iran? How long do you think we could afford that? We have been the aggressor in the middle east since we invaded Iraq. We are in the wrong and are not acting like a Christian country. All while Bin Laden remains free and Al-Queda is stronger since they've been since 9/11.

And I'll do my best to call you out for it. Why is he a kook? His domestic and foreign ideas are the most fiscally responsible of any candidate. He supports a strong national defense and realizes that foreign entanglements are very costly in many ways and are almost always more trouble than they are worth. Every other candidate wants to spend your money and my money on unnecessary foreign affairs (all but Obama) and unnecessary domestic programs (all but McCain and Thompson, though McCain is accused of being weak on illegal immigration).

Paul is the most conservative presidential candidate and is closer to Reagan and the true Republican party than any other candidate. He is very intelligent and principled and he is the most likely to be able to defeat the democratic nominee (notice the number of votes for democrats and republicans in the primaries - the democrats are nearly doubling the republicans). Paul is calling for the end of inefficient federal programs, much like Reagan did before him.

He's gotten more money from serving members of the military and veterans. Take a step back from the rhetoric - the world doesn't have to be that way. We won't all be shiny happy people, but we don't have to sacrifice our security to have a more toned down foreign policy.

You are only proving my point about Paul and his supporters. You can't give one reasonable answer as to why he didn't condemn Iran's actions during the debate. Forget about the voices, do you deny Iran used speedboats near our boats in international water? It's clear the two of you don't think Iran did anything wrong and the U.S. is making all this stuff up to justify attacking Iran.

I understand your desire to find an alternative candidate these days. But Paul is not, and never will be, the answer. More people laugh at him than support him.

Close enough for the Captain of that boat to start getting an itchy trigger finger. There is footage on the internet of the whole incident - of course, Iran claims it is doctored, but I really don't see how you can do that after you watch the video - and it shows the boats getting uncomfortably close.