Quantcast
  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.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Lambo

    Lambo Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2005
    Messages:
    299
    Location:
    Bel Air, Maryland
    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.
     
  2. El Tejon

    El Tejon Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    18,083
    Location:
    Lafayette, Indiana-the Ned Flanders neighbor to Il
    Well, at least he'll put some life back in the debates.:D
     
  3. LAR-15

    LAR-15 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2004
    Messages:
    3,385
    This is exactly what his campaign needs
     
  4. the naked prophet

    the naked prophet Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2006
    Messages:
    1,237
    Location:
    MO
    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.
     
  5. longeyes

    longeyes member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    7,227
    Location:
    True West...Hotel California
    If nothing else he will treat the benumbed American viewer to some fresh ideas.
     
  6. Titan6

    Titan6 member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,745
    Location:
    Gillikin Country
    This is pre-season but certainly a move in the right direction.
     
  7. Norton

    Norton Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2003
    Messages:
    2,718
    He's already got my vote if he makes it to the primaries.
     
  8. LawBot5000

    LawBot5000 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2007
    Messages:
    653
    Location:
    Florida mostly
    This is awesome. At the very least, people will be exposed to some really good ideas.
     
  9. LAR-15

    LAR-15 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2004
    Messages:
    3,385
    Exactly.

    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 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2007
    Messages:
    80
    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 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2007
    Messages:
    323
    Location:
    VA
    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 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2006
    Messages:
    1,014
    Location:
    Ocala, FL
    What does Perot have to do with this? Ron Paul is running as a Republican.
     
  13. Ragnar Danneskjold

    Ragnar Danneskjold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2007
    Messages:
    3,703
    Location:
    Arlington, Republic of Texas
    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 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2006
    Messages:
    1,690
    Location:
    SD
    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 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    6,085
    Location:
    Idaho
    Paul's stance toward Israel is something this country has needed for awhile.

    Biker
     
  16. Ragnar Danneskjold

    Ragnar Danneskjold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2007
    Messages:
    3,703
    Location:
    Arlington, Republic of Texas
    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 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2005
    Messages:
    1,081
    Location:
    Wisconsin
    +1 biker
    Isreal needs to stop picking fights
     
  18. Biker

    Biker Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    6,085
    Location:
    Idaho
    Taurusowner...

    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
     
  19. Ragnar Danneskjold

    Ragnar Danneskjold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2007
    Messages:
    3,703
    Location:
    Arlington, Republic of Texas
    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 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    6,085
    Location:
    Idaho
    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
     
  21. tcgeol

    tcgeol Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2006
    Messages:
    85
    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.
     
  22. Biker

    Biker Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    6,085
    Location:
    Idaho
    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
     
  23. LawBot5000

    LawBot5000 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2007
    Messages:
    653
    Location:
    Florida mostly
    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.
     
  24. Biker

    Biker Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    6,085
    Location:
    Idaho
    We, the taxpayer, subsidise those Israeli purchases. That means that *we* are making these arms companies rich. I don't like that.

    Biker
     
  25. Titan6

    Titan6 member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,745
    Location:
    Gillikin Country
    What would you suggest?

    "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.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page