Ron Paul to Join First Presidential Debate


PDA






Lambo
March 2, 2007, 05:56 PM
http://www.ronpaulexplore.com/
Ron Paul has accepted an invitation to participate in the first National Presidential Debate in New Hampshire on Wednesday, April 4, 2007. It will be hosted by Wolf Blitzer and will be carried on CNN TV, radio, and cnn.com from 7-9 p.m. EST.

If you enjoyed reading about "Ron Paul to Join First Presidential Debate" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
El Tejon
March 2, 2007, 05:59 PM
Well, at least he'll put some life back in the debates.:D

LAR-15
March 2, 2007, 06:02 PM
This is exactly what his campaign needs

the naked prophet
March 2, 2007, 06:04 PM
Sweet!

I may write an article on him vs. all the other candidates for the paper next week, now that it seems that he might actually have a chance.

longeyes
March 2, 2007, 06:15 PM
If nothing else he will treat the benumbed American viewer to some fresh ideas.

Titan6
March 2, 2007, 06:16 PM
This is pre-season but certainly a move in the right direction.

Norton
March 2, 2007, 06:20 PM
He's already got my vote if he makes it to the primaries.

LawBot5000
March 2, 2007, 06:21 PM
This is awesome. At the very least, people will be exposed to some really good ideas.

LAR-15
March 2, 2007, 06:25 PM
Exactly.

I don't always agree with Dr Paul but I think it will be mighty good for the sheeple to hear his ideas.

Smellvin
March 2, 2007, 06:27 PM
This is the main advantage of running as a Republican instead of a Libertarian; he won't be excluded from debates. All I can say is that I'm looking forward to him spreading his ideas and making people think.

davhina
March 2, 2007, 06:48 PM
While i agree with most of what Rep Paul says,(he is right on, for most subjects)he , unfortunately has no chance. Slick Willy won in "92 because enough people voted for Perot. The same is going to happen in '08:banghead:

scurtis_34471
March 2, 2007, 07:55 PM
What does Perot have to do with this? Ron Paul is running as a Republican.

Ragnar Danneskjold
March 2, 2007, 08:00 PM
davhina, that situation will only apply here if Paul runs in the general election as something other than a republican. That would mean he would be running against the republicans and would split the non-leftist vote, thus making things easier for Hillary or Obama.

BUT, since Paul is running for the GOP nomination, if he makes it, we don't have to worry about him splitting votes with the GOP.

Caimlas
March 2, 2007, 09:58 PM
The single thing which I don't agree with Ron Paul on is that he's not a 'friend of Israel' and he fully supports the Democrats' "bleeding retreat". His domestic policy is spot on, and I would agree that we need to not get involved in any more confrontations, two things are pretty evident:

1) We need to support our allies. Israel is more our ally than almost any other country, argueably moreso than Britain but not moreso than India. They are also the only bastion of US interest in that part of the world, which is critical given our need for oil.
2) Once you've started a war, there are only two ways to finish it: win or lose. There is no retreat without loss, as history tells us about Vietnam. As much as I'd wish it to be otherwise, we can not retreat from Iraq (and shirk the current attacks from Iran, which Iran has made unfortunately linked to Iraq) without a loss in worldwide opinion of our military might that is much, much more severe than we encountered after Vietnam. N Vietnam was supported by the Russians wholeheartedly, and we were much more closely matched than we are now against the ragtag Islamists. If we retreat, we'll have every crackpot group htinking they can take a chunk out of the US and face marginal consequences.

I like the philosophy behind isolationism, but unfortunately it's not something htat is currently possible. You can't get there from here; you've got to go around, and the trip is much more arduous than you'd like. "Regression" in such a fashion would probably take longer than the progression of expansion took.

Seemingly in contradiction to his "anti-war", anti-expansionist stance is his opinion on illegal immigration. As he has written himself on a number of occasions, he is very much for open borders; this is congruent with a stringent Libertarian view shackled with a fundamental misunderstanding of what illegal immigration from Mexico is. It isn't "just" immigration by illegals. It is very much invasion and cultural conquest of foreign (our) lands, and is fundamentally incompatible with athe sovereignty of the United States.

As such, I can not vote for Ron Paul in good conscience, despite the overall girth of his views with which I find agreement. While I distain "compromise", as it leads to rot, his is stances are not even pragmatic; they're verging on dogmatic. Ideologues are dangerous not just when they're Marxists, Islamists, and Fascists; they're dangerous in every stripe.

Biker
March 2, 2007, 10:03 PM
Paul's stance toward Israel is something this country has needed for awhile.

Biker

Ragnar Danneskjold
March 2, 2007, 10:05 PM
I don't agree. If anything, we need to support Israel even more than we do now. And if the rest of that area of the world doesn't like it, glass em.

lamazza
March 2, 2007, 10:10 PM
+1 biker
Isreal needs to stop picking fights

Biker
March 2, 2007, 10:10 PM
We'll just have to agree to disagree concerning our support of Israel.
OTOH, if we "glass 'em", it would be a mite hard to get all that oil back here, now wouldn't it?
Biker

Ragnar Danneskjold
March 2, 2007, 10:33 PM
+1 biker
Isreal needs to stop picking fights

Picking fights? Are you serious? Israel has been on the "to destroy" list of about 20 psychotic nations since the day after their tiny country was born. Time after time, they are attacked. Time after time some lunatic Islamic leader trying to make a bigger name for himself tries to "destroy the Zionist regime". And time and again these lunatics fail. And a big part of that reason is because of our help. Giving up on the one sane nation in that entire section of the planet would be the worst thing we could do.

There are a lot of problems in the Middle East. And about 99% of them come from lunatic Islamic nations like Iran and Syria.

Biker
March 2, 2007, 10:36 PM
I dunno, the same could be said of Israel. In truth, I wish Israel well, but Israel's problems are not mine.
Fact is, if you stick your finger in a pile of red ants, you gotta figure on gettin' stung.

Biker

tcgeol
March 2, 2007, 10:55 PM
+1 biker
Isreal needs to stop picking fights
The only way that Israel could stop "picking fights" is if it destroyed itself. As long as Jews are alive, a lot of people in the Middle East just won't be happy.

Biker
March 2, 2007, 11:06 PM
Well then, that's between Israel and its enemies, not us. It's time to take the ring out of America's nose - I'm tired of being led around and paying someone else's debts and fighting their fights.

Biker

LawBot5000
March 2, 2007, 11:20 PM
Support to israel is really support for america's military supply companies. Almost all of the money we give them goes directly into the pockets of american companies who sell small arms, missles and military vehicle platforms.

Plus, israel kills lots of people we dont like, so I aim inclined to keep giving them equipment to facilitate that.

Israel has a huge domestic arms industry and would be entirely self sufficient if it wasnt for US aid. They designed and manufacture their own helicopters, tanks, small arms and munitions. The Merkava is easily one of the best tanks in the world and their other stuff is pretty good too. In short, our contractors need aid to israel more than israel does.

Biker
March 2, 2007, 11:24 PM
We, the taxpayer, subsidise those Israeli purchases. That means that *we* are making these arms companies rich. I don't like that.

Biker

Titan6
March 2, 2007, 11:26 PM
"2) Once you've started a war, there are only two ways to finish it: win or lose. There is no retreat without loss, as history tells us about Vietnam.
(Korea, Bosnia, Russia, Mexico just to name a few...)

As much as I'd wish it to be otherwise, we can not retreat from Iraq (and shirk the current attacks from Iran, which Iran has made unfortunately linked to Iraq) without a loss in worldwide opinion of our military might that is much, much more severe than we encountered after Vietnam.

(If you think that they are not terrifyed of the US military you are wrong)

N Vietnam was supported by the Russians wholeheartedly, and we were much more closely matched than we are now against the ragtag Islamists.

(rag tag maybe but with way more money and nasty bombs than the Russians ever had)

If we retreat, we'll have every crackpot group htinking they can take a chunk out of the US and face marginal consequences."

(How will that be any different than always?)

The military has done everything that it has been asked to do that it is possible to do. They will continue to do that.
We are down to three options:
1. Kill everyone in the country (and neihboring countries) that disagrees with us
2. Find a political solution.
3. Leave.

I am pulling for number 2 but it isn't really up to me....

Had Paul been president in 2001 we wouldn't even be there in the first place. Afganistan Yes. Iraq No. If you want more of the same vote for more of the same.

LawBot5000
March 2, 2007, 11:27 PM
Well the machines cant stop running just because no one wants to fight us. Unless I am mistaken, keeping everything running smoothly is cheaper in the long run than having to create an arms industry from scratch every time we get involved in a war.

Admittedly some of the smaller items (like M16s and ammo) would be easy to just sell straight to US civilians, but stuff like patriot missle batteries and artillery pieces are just too pricey and large to support a large US civilian market, regardless of legality.

I personally think the better long term strategy would be to create lower priced weapon systems that overlap heavily with civilian usage so that military companies can keep operating even during peacetime. But this would require a major rethinking of our long term military strategy. Actually it wouldnt be that big a deal when you consider that most upgrades beyond stealth technology have been in the area of electronic equipment. Even a jet fighter is relatively cheap to produce if you strip out all the avionics and fighting related computers. Your average cargo plane could provide a decent platform for civilian aviation and they are probably fairly reliable to boot. Wonder why no one does this.

Ragnar Danneskjold
March 2, 2007, 11:30 PM
As much as I'd wish it to be otherwise, we can not retreat from Iraq (and shirk the current attacks from Iran, which Iran has made unfortunately linked to Iraq) without a loss in worldwide opinion of our military might that is much, much more severe than we encountered after Vietnam.

(If you think that they are not terrifyed of the US military you are wrong)

N Vietnam was supported by the Russians wholeheartedly, and we were much more closely matched than we are now against the ragtag Islamists.

(rag tag maybe but with way more money and nasty bombs than the Russians ever had)

If we retreat, we'll have every crackpot group htinking they can take a chunk out of the US and face marginal consequences."




Titan is right. Leaving Iraq will prove to generations of people all around the world that the American military of WWII is dead and buried. Everyone is watching how we handle this. The sharks are swimming and the vultures are circling. And we are their prey. Pulling out will be the green light that the feast is on.

There will be a unified consensus around the world from all of our enemies and potential enemies: "America does not have the balls to stand for anything"

telomerase
March 2, 2007, 11:34 PM
Having Ron Paul in a debate with RINOs will be fascinating. It will be the first time in 50 years that a real issue or two is mentioned in a Presidential debate.

Daps
March 2, 2007, 11:39 PM
Guys question whats Ron Paul's stance on our borders, illegals, amensty?
Is there a website that I can read his stances? I'm not a Repub, pretty much an Indy guy now, used to vote Dem years ago.

But what few things I've heard about Ron Paul has really got me thinking I may have found someone I can vote for in 08

GoRon
March 2, 2007, 11:47 PM
edit: he is good to go on the borders

illegals (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul269.html)

Titan6
March 2, 2007, 11:48 PM
Go straight to his congressional web site. All of his important stances are right there in his own words with zero spin.

And the open borders crap is a load of bull. Part of the reason he split with the libbys was that.

GoRon
March 2, 2007, 11:51 PM
wow Titan6 you posted faster than I could edit!

Titan6
March 2, 2007, 11:57 PM
Nah, I was already posting to refute an earlier post. I sure was surprised to see your pre-edit post right before mine....

telomerase
March 3, 2007, 12:16 AM
Leaving Vietnam will prove to generations of people all around the world that the American military of WWII is dead and buried.

Ummmmm.... the majority of the American-funded military forces in WWII were carrying Nagants, and most of them are buried now.

Everyone is watching how we handle this. The sharks are swimming and the vultures are circling. And we are their prey.

The sharks aren't "circling", they're feasting on the 715 billion dollars of "military" expenditures that come out of our hides. (And the official figure doesn't even count the Aid To Dependent Dictators that create our problems in the first place... you are aware where North Korea got its reactors, right?)

Whatever our views on the proper defense policy, I think everyone agrees that first priority is to quit funding the kleptocrats around the world with our tax money. In my view, the second priority would be to get the actual defense of our families up to the level that Switzerland enjoys. (We have lots of antique nuclear missiles, but almost no actual defense).

More corporate welfare is pretty low on my list, as is making more little socialist kleptocracies around the Middle East defended with the blood of our troops.

But I'm willing to compromise... get the Republicans to give the airline pilots back their guns (as in really, instead of the present phony program), a big tax credit for civil defense shelters, and I'll put up with them invading two more countries (as long as they are Nauru and Sealand).

Daps
March 3, 2007, 12:38 AM
ummm whats his website?

telomerase
March 3, 2007, 12:53 AM
Same as any Congressman's:

http://www.house.gov/paul/

Fred Fuller
March 3, 2007, 01:02 AM
http://www.house.gov/paul/legis_tst.htm

Best place to read his views, from the horse's mouth.

lpl/nc

tek
March 3, 2007, 01:09 AM
Titan is right. Leaving Iraq will prove to generations of people all around the world that the American military of WWII is dead and buried. Everyone is watching how we handle this. The sharks are swimming and the vultures are circling. And we are their prey. Pulling out will be the green light that the feast is on.

There will be a unified consensus around the world from all of our enemies and potential enemies: "America does not have the balls to stand for anything"



I'm sorry, but I'm afraid that boat sailed when we decided to invade a largely arab country with three different major ethnic groups who have hated each other to the death for thousands of years and tried to make them into a European style socialist "democracy" complete with Soviet style constitution.

The U.S. military should be used for unrestricted ass-kicking, not nation building, police action, P.R. work, or any other blue helmet policies.

PirateJoe
March 3, 2007, 01:15 AM
Well then, that's between Israel and its enemies, not us. It's time to take the ring out of America's nose - I'm tired of being led around and paying someone else's debts and fighting their fights.

Biker

:banghead:

Last time I checked, our enemies and Israel's enemies were the same people.

There's good reason we support Israel. Its the only sane country in the Middle East.

LAK Supply
March 3, 2007, 01:24 AM
I spent the last hour or so going through Dr. Paul's "Texas Straight Talk" section. The more I read the more I like him. . . . About 95% of what I've seen is dead-on.

Biker
March 3, 2007, 01:37 AM
We could debate that, Pirate joe, but your mind is made up and so is mine. Cast your vote as you will, and I will do the same.
Remember the USS Liberty.

Biker

tek
March 3, 2007, 01:46 AM
Last time I checked, our enemies and Israel's enemies were the same people.

There's good reason we support Israel. Its the only sane country in the Middle East.


I totally understand where you're coming from and I don't have any major problems with Israel, but if you're going to go the route of "what is tactically best for us in the middle east"... well then on that line of questioning, I have to ask you.. which causes more problems, supporting the enemy of the energy producers you rely on or being neutral and letting all parties fight it out/resolve their differences on their own?

Also, do you believe they would be our enemies if we bought their oil and were neutral towards them and Israel?

Just talking in terms of tactics here.

Sylvan-Forge
March 3, 2007, 02:06 AM
Caimlas said:

The single thing which I don't agree with Ron Paul on is that he's not a 'friend of Israel' and he fully supports the Democrats' "bleeding retreat".
Sources?

he is very much for open borders
Again, sources?


Caimlas, I urge you to read a bit more deeply, beyond the detractors and read the full speeches/commentary/legislation. You might be surprised to find you have been given a very false impression.

Waitone
March 3, 2007, 07:51 AM
Highly scripted news conferences are not debates. A debate uncovers how a candidate thinks. News conferences display how candidates memorize bumper stickers and sound drops.

Wake me when when simple college debate rules apply. Otherwise I'll watch a Three Stooges Marathon. Much more informative.

Caimlas
March 4, 2007, 12:55 AM
oo7, you are absolutely right; thank you for calling my claims to quesiton, because I honestly have no idea where I got those conceptions - now that I've looked up his voting record and looked at the essays he wrote which spurred those opinions on.

I can't cite anything, and I know there was a reason why I wrote what I did - but I'll be damned if I can find sources for them or even a trace of evidence right now. I'm thinking this recent essay of his (http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst012207.htm) may have been the motivation, though I'm fairly certain I didn't read it well the first time now. :( Or it may have been this (http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst011507.htm) article, also about the Middle East, suggesting to heed the advice of the Iraq Study Group which not only says we're conclusively losing (debateable - not on the ground, but maybe in the media) but that the #1 recommendation is to have a "phased withdrawl" (ie "bleeding retreat").

These are Ron Paul's words, not mine.

Just the same, it stands to reason - as illustrated by those articles and others - that his opinion is very strongly against war in the Middle East, as it is currently being conducted, on ideological reasons. That makes me very uneasy, for the reasons I stated above.

Titan6
March 4, 2007, 01:30 AM
So advocates a political solution to Iraq over a military solution? Fully agree.

Advocates not giving away billions of US tax dollars to two adversaries to keep fighting a war that has killed millions of people over more than 50 years with no end in sight? Fully agree.

dam every word this guy says is like the pure genius..... or common sense at least...

Silver Bullet
March 4, 2007, 02:15 AM
Jeez ... when was the last time we had a candidate of his qualifications ?

I made a contribution to his campaign. I'll make more when I can. It's important that we get behind him in the primaries.

What a contrast between him and the liberalMedia's picks for Republican nominee: McCain and Giuliani.

LAK Supply
March 4, 2007, 03:14 AM
Paul is NOT pro-illegal immigration. America's sovereignty is one of his strong points.

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2006/tst103006.htm

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2006/tst100206.htm

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2006/tst091806.htm

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2006/tst091106.htm

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2006/tst082806.htm

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2006/tst040306.htm

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2005/tst121205.htm

These are just a few. I'm sure you can find more in his words at that same site.

Sylvan-Forge
March 4, 2007, 06:23 AM
Caimlas,

You have my respect, sir.

I believe that Congressman Paul has a fairly good
understanding of the various implications of withdrawl. In that a phased withdrawl has the benefit of bringing
the new-guard online while not giving up ground,
leaving vacated space for the enemy to fill and inflict
upon its inhabitants.

A bloody retreat, in my opinion, is a rapid flight from
the face of the enemy.

One form, a panicked-retreat, would get our troops killed. The citizens and the new-guard as well.

The other, a coordinated, hasty-retreat, would get the citizens and the new guard killed, while sparing our soldiers the greatest harm.


The only thing I can see that will get us out of a
never-ending war is to either commit nuclear
genocide/suicide,
bloody retreat, which would be political suicide,
or encourage the Iraq people to be responsible for their own internal security while we phase withdrawl, work (hard) to right our government from within, and foster diplomacy in the region.

Running around forcing people to adopt our form of
freedom at gunpoint
is not very convincing to anyone.

Deeds define a man or woman as they define a nation.

xd9fan
March 4, 2007, 12:53 PM
Like most of the republicans since 1994, the other guys will just agree with Ron Paul to try and take his thunder away.......Its the walking the walk, that the current GOP just cant do.

This is great for Mr Paul.

But in general I think the structured sound-bit Debates are nothing more than a pony show and for some a promise show( who can give you the most Govt programs in 60 seconds.)

Libertylover
March 4, 2007, 12:56 PM
http://www.ussliberty.org/

Yeah, Israel is such a great "friend" of the United States... With "friends" like that...

Oh, and if you want money going to Israel to help in their fight against the Muslims, than DONATE! DO NOT think that it's okay for our government to STEAL from me AT GUNPOINT to send MY HARD EARNED MONEY to Israel, who I couldn't care less about.

Charity is for churches, NOT for governments!:cuss:

Autolycus
March 4, 2007, 10:42 PM
It is really refreshing to know that he will be given a chance.

However I strongly belive that the Anti-War stance will ostracize a lot of the GOP. The same people who bought into the idea that that if you do not support the war your Un-American.

I also think that he will have a hard time with his views on abortion are my only problem with him. He is pro-life but feels that the proper way to go about becoming a pro-life nation is to reaappeal Roe vs. Wade. He suggests that the states be allowed to decide their own stances on abortions. I myself am Pro-choice but I can tolerate this idea. I do believe it is a matter of local government to decide what is right. However in the overall idea I understand that I may dislike their conclusion.

Here is a link to that...

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul240.html

As for his views on Gay marriage I see the Christian Right gnashing their teeth. I think that they will let their homophobia affect the way they vote and will refuse to vote for Ron Paul on that basis alone. I do think that he is right when he suggests that the government should not be in the marriage business. Let us not forget that GWB tried to get people to go to marriage counseling.

Link to his writing about that...

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul160.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul151.html

I disagree with him on the abortion views but I can stomach his ideas. However on one other issue I do feel he is wrong and I will open a seperate thread about it.

RealGun
March 5, 2007, 09:16 AM
I think it is pathetic that the issue of Ron Paul's candidacy comes down to positions on abortion and gay marriage. It seems to me that the agenda needs to change to the real business of government. This social engineering nonsense is getting old. Anyone who cares so much about those issues is not going to vote for Ron Paul anyway. Forcing others to see things our way, when it's no skin off our nose, is anathema to the philosophy that he represents.

Autolycus
March 5, 2007, 06:13 PM
Ah but it will matter to some. The Christian Right is very much against those things and wishes to cram their beliefs down our throats.

tcgeol
March 5, 2007, 06:31 PM
Ah but it will matter to some. The Christian Right is very much against those things and wishes to cram their beliefs down our throats.
Completely unlike the "atheist" Left, of course, who has no desire to tell me what I have to believe as long as I agree with them. (Of course, I know not all atheists are on the left.) Naturally, your view on these issues is legitimate and ours is not.

This idea of the "Christian Right" being a bunch of "Christofacists" and "Theocrats", as we have been called on this board a number of times, tells me that you all who use such terms are as ignorant of us as a well-meaning anti is of the 2nd Amendment. The great majority of us are on the RKBA side. While the liberals on the board object to being excluded because of other issues as long as they are pro-gun, so do we.

Ragnar Danneskjold
March 5, 2007, 10:00 PM
Tecumseh, take a stroll at any high school or especially college in America, and mention that you may be a Christian. You'll see exactly how tolerant the Left is then. I'm not talking about "prayer in schools"(although that is another example of the intolerance of the Left), I just mean mention it. Go take, say, a religion class. Or a philosophy class. Or a political science class. When answering a question, let it slip that you believe in Christianity. Be prepared for 90% of the class to start yelling at you, and be prepared to fail the class as well.

Titan6
March 5, 2007, 10:21 PM
Gosh Taurus I have taken lots of classes as a Christian and not failed any of them. Nearly all of them at secular schools. I have never had anyone make fun of me for my religious beliefs either. I don't know where you go to school but if that is happening than you need to straight to the EO rep at your school and file a complaint. If that dosen't work than you need to find a real lawyer and file a real law suit against the school.

Ragnar Danneskjold
March 5, 2007, 10:22 PM
Well you live in Texas. I live in Ann Arbor Michigan. I can see where our experiences would differ.

RealGun
March 6, 2007, 08:45 AM
We have conspiracy theories and we have persecution theories. They are all likely to be nonsense or only true anecdotally or in a narrow context.

Libertylover
March 6, 2007, 01:29 PM
For those of you in NH, there's a demonstration in support of Dr. Paul being put together for that night outside the venue, which is Saint Anslem college in Manchester. I'll come by with more info once it becomes available.

If you enjoyed reading about "Ron Paul to Join First Presidential Debate" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!