1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Ron Paul to Join First Presidential Debate

Discussion in 'Legal' started by Lambo, Mar 2, 2007.

  1. Lambo

    Lambo Well-Known Member

    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.
  2. El Tejon

    El Tejon Well-Known Member

    Well, at least he'll put some life back in the debates.:D
  3. LAR-15

    LAR-15 Well-Known Member

    This is exactly what his campaign needs
  4. the naked prophet

    the naked prophet Well-Known Member


    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.
  5. longeyes

    longeyes member

    If nothing else he will treat the benumbed American viewer to some fresh ideas.
  6. Titan6

    Titan6 member

    This is pre-season but certainly a move in the right direction.
  7. Norton

    Norton Well-Known Member

    He's already got my vote if he makes it to the primaries.
  8. LawBot5000

    LawBot5000 Well-Known Member

    This is awesome. At the very least, people will be exposed to some really good ideas.
  9. LAR-15

    LAR-15 Well-Known Member


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

    Smellvin Well-Known Member

    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.
  11. davhina

    davhina Well-Known Member

    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:
  12. scurtis_34471

    scurtis_34471 Well-Known Member

    What does Perot have to do with this? Ron Paul is running as a Republican.
  13. Ragnar Danneskjold

    Ragnar Danneskjold Well-Known Member

    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.
  14. Caimlas

    Caimlas Well-Known Member

    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.
  15. Biker

    Biker Well-Known Member

    Paul's stance toward Israel is something this country has needed for awhile.

  16. Ragnar Danneskjold

    Ragnar Danneskjold Well-Known Member

    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.
  17. lamazza

    lamazza Well-Known Member

    +1 biker
    Isreal needs to stop picking fights
  18. Biker

    Biker Well-Known Member


    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?
  19. Ragnar Danneskjold

    Ragnar Danneskjold Well-Known Member

    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.
  20. Biker

    Biker Well-Known Member

    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.


Share This Page