Ron Paul in the debate TONIGHT!

[Ratzinger_p38]

Has Dr. Paul ever articulated his thoughts on President Thomas Jefferson's undeclared war against the Barbary (pirate) states in the Mediterranean 1801-1805?

Actually after Jefferson sent ships, Tripoli declared war on the US before they even reached the shores.

 

[Ratzinger_p38]

Because if we don't help them out financially (ie militarily), they'll cease being Israel after the Islamofacists slaughter them.

oh boy. There's that "islamofacists" term again, a favorite of the neocons on this board. How would you like it if we started referring to the Christian dictators like Franco as 'Christiofacists'?

I dont really care about Israel. Why cant we just trade with them like we do with Taiwan to sustain them? We dont just give free money to Taiwan, we help pump up their economy with trade and that seems to be enough to help them out. Why cant we do this Israel? Oh thats right, they have almost no natural resources. I have an uncle who is Jewish, so dont accuse me of antisemitism.

 

[maasenstodt]

He might have studied medicine, but his training in economics is not very evident.

That his knowledge of economics may not be evident is the fault two things: a debate format that doesn't allow for real discussion and, more problematic, a lack of effort by citizens to spend even 10 minutes examining each candidate's views.

Those who take the time to listen to Ron Paul discuss economic and monetary policy may not come away agreeing with him (though I can't see anyone who prioritizes fiscal responsibility or individual liberty ultimately disagreeing), but they certainly understand that he has a knowledge of the subjects.

 

[maasenstodt]

I don't think Ron Paul, while being fundamentally correct on the issue, used the most effective political rhetoric in this last debate. That fact may well cost him in the primary.

That said, the success of his campaign hinges not on platitudes and sound bites but rather on his ability to get voters to pay more than cursory attention to his platform. There's no doubt that, while the media giants are using this opportunity to beat up on Ron Paul, his name recognition has risen as a result of this incident.

If Ron Paul can make a stronger case for himself and his policies in the next debate, I think it is possible that he could turn this to his advantage.

 

[budney]

JWarren,

My view of nationalism is representing the interests of US Citizens. We are a melting pot of cultures, religions and ideologies. I am speaking of citizenship, not religion. A muslim US citizen is a US citizen. Period. The same may be said for a Methodist, Hindu, or anyone else.

OK, it looks like we might be on the same page after all. You may be right about the hijacking of the word "nationalist."

My perspective is that if the government limits itself to protecting persons and property from criminals, then they're doing the best they possibly can for citizens--but the benefit extends equally to non-citizens within our borders. Everyone would then be free, and enjoy equal protection under the law.

--Len.

 

[Titan6]

Predictions-

1. MSM will continue to ignore Paul and hope he goes away.
2. Paul will not go away, unless legally made to.
3. At the next dabate RG and possibly other candidates will attempt to grandstand on 911 or some new terrorist attack with sound bytes.
4. Paul will try to awkardly to explain why people around the world hate us and have the same level of favorable opinion of us as the PRK, a whacked out dictator looney state. Hint: it is not media bias.
5. People will ignore Paul in favor of emotional appeals calling Muslims evil.
6. The candidate with most emotional appeal gets the nod.

 

[maasenstodt]

Predictions-

1. MSM will continue to ignore Paul and hope he goes away.
2. Paul will not go away, unless legally made to.
3. At the next dabate RG and possibly other candidates will attempt to grandstand on 911 or some new terrorist attack with sound bytes.
4. Paul will try to awkardly to explain why people around the world hate us and have the same level of favorable opinion of us as the PRK, a whacked out dictator looney state. Hint: it is not media bias.
5. People will ignore Paul in favor of emotional appeals calling Muslims evil.
6. The candidate with most emotional appeal gets the nod.

7. Whoever is elected as president continues (finishes?) the destruction of this republic.
8. At too late a date, the citizenry recognizes the grave they've dug for themselves.
9. The American empire collapses from its own weight.
10. The people are left to fend for themselves in the aftermath.

In all seriousness, I see Ron Paul as the last chance we have to avert disaster. We can't take any more "lesser evils" that gradually degrade our Constitutional basis for government and expect our experiment in liberty to continue for long.

It's either Ron Paul or a dark future for this nation. In that kind of equation, odds can't be a factor.

 

[Deanimator]

Guliani isn't the perfect candidate, but he's a far cry from hillary. If you take him at his word, he believes gun control should be left up to the states, which isn't inconsistent with anything he's done in the past. If you don't believe him then theres still the pressure from his political base.

If he claims that, he's LYING. Sueing the firearms makers isn't leaving gun control up to the states.

And what other Amendments does he think don't necessarily apply throughout the entire nation?

The 1st?
The 4th?
The 5th?
The 13th?

Giuliani is America's Putin.

 

[JWarren]

OK, it looks like we might be on the same page after all. You may be right about the hijacking of the word "nationalist."

My perspective is that if the government limits itself to protecting persons and property from criminals, then they're doing the best they possibly can for citizens--but the benefit extends equally to non-citizens within our borders. Everyone would then be free, and enjoy equal protection under the law.

--Len.

I suspected we were, my friend. That is why I tried to do a better job of explaining what I meant. After writing that, I did think about the "highjacking" of the term "nationalist." Actually, the highjacking comes honestly. It seems that too often that something bad happened, it is attributed to a "nationalist" of some sort. Heck, WWI was started off by an assassination by a Serbian Nationalist.

Your last paragraph sums it up well. I fully agree that the protections should be extended to all within our border legally. I do, however, believe there should be a difference in priviledges extended to Citizens as opposed to Resident Aliens-- namely, the right to vote and decide on our representatives. Obviously, this is the case now.

All the best my friend!

-- John

 

[springmom]

Wow, interesting thread. I just wanted to add one bit:

I dont really care about Israel. Why cant we just trade with them like we do with Taiwan to sustain them? We dont just give free money to Taiwan, we help pump up their economy with trade and that seems to be enough to help them out. Why cant we do this Israel?

Well, actually, if you consider the incredible amount of money spent since the late 1940's in guaranteeing Taiwan's independence, I'd say we've given them quite a lot. Not cash, no; but our military budget would have been cumulatively quite a lot smaller had we never defended Taiwan. Just an observation.

Springmom

 

[Tim James]

2. Paul will not go away, unless legally made to.

Or the corporations will decide to eliminate him! Yeah!!

4. Paul will try to awkardly to explain why people around the world hate us and have the same level of favorable opinion of us as the PRK, a whacked out dictator looney state. Hint: it is not media bias.

Hint: people naturally want to eat their hearts out when some entity is unabashedly successful.

In all seriousness, I see Ron Paul as the last chance we have to avert disaster.

Time to stick a fork in this thread.

Back to Paul's comments: his problem is that he is trying to show a potentially very valid and balanced Third Way, but he is gets a little out of control and starts sounding like the wrong way (i.e., the weak liberals/Democrats). If he came out and said "America has made some mistakes in foreign policy and I believe a slow move toward an isolationist strategy will help us in the long run," he sounds weak, but all he has to do is add, "America is the greatest country in the world and has a right to exist and retaliate when attacked in such a heinous way."

Both those statements are perfectly reasonable, but he (like everyone here) just can't resist going on the attack and staying on it. You guys are trying to argue ideas, but we are mostly on the same page and it is a problem of presentation.

 

[antarti]

Ron Paul didn't appear on Beck, and Beck took great advantage in mocking his failure to appear due to a scheduling issue.

However, he skipped Beck in favor of somebody with much better ratings, Wolf Blitzer, and used his time pretty well.

Video to enjoy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sy4Eugc0Xls&eurl=http://dailypaul.com/node/147

 

[Correia]

Just so we're on the same page. I pray to God that you guys are right, and I'm totally wrong, and that Ron Paul will have a huge groundswell of support.

I don't think I'm wrong. I think he's gonna get smoked because of this, but man it would be nice for me to be totally way off.

 

[antarti]

Just so we're on the same page. I pray to God that you guys are right, and I'm totally wrong, and that Ron Paul will have a huge groundswell of support.

All it takes for him to win it all, are VOTES. No votes, no win. The only part of this thing that isn't in the hands of the media, advertisers, party, etc. are the VOTES. I hope we can deliver on that part.

In today's environment, good/bad press is totally irrelevant.

If having Ron Paul on their shows generates viewer/ad dollars because of scandal or support, he's going to benefit from the exposure, especially if he can speak for more than 20 seconds at a time.

His call for Rudy to apologize are guaranteed to strike a nerve and get some more press for both Paul and Rudy. Rudy is, IMO, completely unelectable among conservatives.

 

[R127]

That is the Democrat mantra. I just wish the loudest, clearest voice wasn't the CBC. Don't kid yourself on the tax cut. That concept is totally incompatible with the rest.

A) You aren't making any sense. When has a Democrat ever suggested ending foreign aid in favor of our own people?

B) Do you have any idea how much we spend on foreign aid in terms of money and resources?

 

[Mr. Designer]

I like many libertarian ideas but Ron Paul is a joke.

 

[R127]

Can you explain your opinion?

 

[Titan6]

He will get smoked. There is not one special interest group that backs him.

Name a president that has been elected since Truman without major special interest group backing. If Paul were elected he would be accountable to no one except the people. This is not acceptable to the power brokers or media.

If he becomes a real threat (unlikely) they will figure an angle and unite to defeat him if ignoring him fails. Even the NRA would oppose him because he would make them irrelevant and unemployed.

He has major weaknesses outside of guns and freedom.

 

[Tim James]

There is not one special interest group that backs him....If Paul were elected he would be accountable to no one except the people.

Individuals concerned about their rights are a "special interest group."

I'm not sure if that relates to the discussion, but that's what I always think when people complain about special interest groups.

 

[ubermensch]

I seriously do not understand why so many people continue to speak against Ron Paul. He is the smartest, most reasonable person I have ever seen run for public office. I have read most of the stuff I can find about him, and there is no issue I disagree with him on. As his stance is always, "more freedom, less government ." Even if he ended up running our country into the ground, at least we would have given Liberty a chance.

What is the point of your pessimism?!

(by the way, I thought he was great in the debates, and Rudy was childish and obnoxious)

 

[Titan6]

Individuals do not lobby as a group. With a few notable exceptions they are mostly powerless.

Show me some endorsements by any group with large numbers of registered voters (not 3rd party either) but groups who elected a president. People are not going to go against the group they just gave money to.

- Seniors will not vote for him because he wants to get rid of social security, medicare and prescription drug plan.

- Business leaders will not vote for him because he wants to dismantle the federal reserve, reduce government spending and pay down the debt.

- The poor won't vote for him because he wants to get rid of welfare.

- Unions won't vote for him because he would get rid of OSHA and the Department of Labor.

See where I am heading? Everyone now has their lips out for the government teat. Why would they vote to get rid of things that benefit them? They won't....

 

[Mannix]

He probably won't win because people who actually do like him won't vote for him, because it would be "throwing their vote away" on someone who won't be elected. All that accomplishes is to put into power statist aholes who continue to chip away at our freedoms.

 

[coltrane679]

It's pretty obvious the "mainstream" GOP (i.e. the imbeciles who brought you George W. Bush) is out to destroy Ron Paul, directly:

http://www.mlive.com/newsflash/michigan/index.ssf?/base/news-44/117935695635230.xml&storylist=newsmichigan

And through their hacks in the press:

http://www.latestpolitics.com/blog/2007/05/ron-pauls.html

And I don't know what cartoon land some of you live in, but Israel has an estimated 200+ nuclear weapons--more than enough to exterminate anyone who sets out to exterminate them, so the only "Islamo-fascist" (sic) nation that can take a serious piece out of them would have to be suicidal on a national scale. And there is nothing the US could do to stop that that Israel itself can't do. We do not serve to guaranty Israels' existence in any way.

But keep making it up as you go along--it sounds very convincing to the huge mass of dummies that make up our population.

 

[Biker]

Hasn't anyone here ever stood up to fight a man knowing that the fight was already lost but did it anyway because it was the right and honorable thing to do? Hell, even at that, a guy can score a lucky punch every now and then and end up the last man standing.
Any man who is sitting down when he should be up and standing ain't much of a man in my book.

Biker

 

[ryoushi]

Interesting experiment proposal:

I think Ron Paul is a kook but I'll vote for him in the primary. No really, I promise. I was going to register Democrat anyway to vote for Obama to try and keep Hillary off the ticket so I won't be hurting any of the legetimate Repub candidates by voting for Paul.

Now if everybody here at The High Road would promise to do the same, it might give us some idea of just how much political muscle we have here.

Israel has an estimated 200+ nuclear weapons--more than enough to exterminate anyone who sets out to exterminate them, so the only "Islamo-fascist" (sic) nation that can take a serious piece out of them would have to be suicidal on a national scale.

Isn't that one of the trademarks of an Islamofascist State?