• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Ron Paul at the CNN debate

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,256
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative


I have to say that I absolutely agree with everything he said. My rap on him in the past has been his lack of charisma, but he expressed himself so well here that, once again, he is my first choice to be president.
 
Well of course he's right, but because he expresses control of government he will be ignored.
 


I have to say that I absolutely agree with everything he said. My rap on him in the past has been his lack of charisma, but he expressed himself so well here that, once again, he is my first choice to be president.


Do you agree with him when he says that Obama is going to try to install himself as a dictator?

That's about the only thing he says that I do agree with.
 
Do you agree with him when he says that Obama is going to try to install himself as a dictator?

That's about the only thing he says that I do agree with.

Of course that's true. Your arguments have been nothing more than political hackery and you wouldn't pass up an opportunity to insult Obama. But certainly as a Big Government supporter, you wouldn't endorse Ron Paul. Ron Paul is small government and means it. Not like some of y'all who love to run your mouth about small government, but ain't got the balls to go through with it.
 
Of course that's true. Your arguments have been nothing more than political hackery and you wouldn't pass up an opportunity to insult Obama. But certainly as a Big Government supporter, you wouldn't endorse Ron Paul. Ron Paul is small government and means it. Not like some of y'all who love to run your mouth about small government, but ain't got the balls to go through with it.

Ron Paul is an idiot. He proved that when he said he wants to abolish CIA. He's noting but a mixed bag of everything that's wrong with both parties.
 
I agree with a lot of what Paul stands for, but he takes everything to an extreme that I can't support. Our foreign policy should be less interventionist, but we shouldn't be complete isolationists. We should be more careful with our foreign aid, but we should not end all foreign aid. We should step back from some of the overreaching in the Patriot Act, but you cannot have security without giving up some liberty. Etc. It runs throughout his platform and it's why he'll never be elected President.
 
Ron Paul is an idiot. He proved that when he said he wants to abolish CIA. He's noting but a mixed bag of everything that's wrong with both parties.

Yeah I know. Small government policy is idiotic, huh?
 
I agree with a lot of what Paul stands for, but he takes everything to an extreme that I can't support. Our foreign policy should be less interventionist, but we shouldn't be complete isolationists. We should be more careful with our foreign aid, but we should not end all foreign aid. We should step back from some of the overreaching in the Patriot Act, but you cannot have security without giving up some liberty. Etc. It runs throughout his platform and it's why he'll never be elected President.

Isolationist: Read Non-interventionism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Foreign aid: You take money from poor people in this country and you end up giving it to rich people in poor countries. And they're used as weapons of war so you accomplish nothing. We should export some principles about free markets and sound money and maybe they could produce some of their own wealth.
Patriot Act: I personally find it a disgrace for a profess free society. Strip it down so it doesn't violate the bootie out of our fourth amendment if possible. I thought Newt was crazy for saying we need to strengthen aka expand the powers of it. I'm surprise this isn't a headline somewhere...
 

I really dislike Wikipedia, they are usually uninformed, lack full definitions, or totally factually incorrect. In this case the lack full definition.

isolationism - definition of isolationism by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia. or
isolationism
the policy or doctrine directed toward the isolation of a country from the affairs of other nations by a deliberate abstention from political, military, and economic agreements. — isolationist, n.9

nonintervention - definition of nonintervention by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia. or
nonintervention
(Government, Politics & Diplomacy) refusal to intervene, esp the abstention by a state from intervening in the affairs of other states or in its own internal disputes.

Ron Paul brings up good points but his foreign policy (more or less) is that; maybe if we just ignore that country they won't target us. I don't believe this is even intelligent discernment on a foreign policy that the U.S. could even think about trying. So then what? Ron Paul would have an "opps moment" after L.A., Washington D.C. or any target on U.S. soil would have a nuke land on them from N. Korea? This is his position, let it happen then deal with it.
 
Last edited:
Foreign aid: You take money from poor people in this country and you end up giving it to rich people in poor countries. And they're used as weapons of war so you accomplish nothing. We should export some principles about free markets and sound money and maybe they could produce some of their own wealth.
Patriot Act: I personally find it a disgrace for a profess free society. Strip it down so it doesn't violate the bootie out of our fourth amendment if possible. I thought Newt was crazy for saying we need to strengthen aka expand the powers of it. I'm surprise this isn't a headline somewhere...

I watched the video and I can hear. Was this your feelings on this subject or just regurgitation of what Ron Paul said?
 
Isolationist: Read Non-interventionism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Foreign aid: You take money from poor people in this country and you end up giving it to rich people in poor countries. And they're used as weapons of war so you accomplish nothing. We should export some principles about free markets and sound money and maybe they could produce some of their own wealth.
Patriot Act: I personally find it a disgrace for a profess free society. Strip it down so it doesn't violate the bootie out of our fourth amendment if possible. I thought Newt was crazy for saying we need to strengthen aka expand the powers of it. I'm surprise this isn't a headline somewhere...

Yeah, I saw the video, I don't need you to regurgitate Paul's words. Has he proposed taking all the money we spend in foreign aid and giving it to poor Americans? Can you give me a link to the bill he authored attempting to put that into effect?
 
I agree with a lot of what Paul stands for, but he takes everything to an extreme that I can't support. Our foreign policy should be less interventionist, but we shouldn't be complete isolationists. We should be more careful with our foreign aid, but we should not end all foreign aid. We should step back from some of the overreaching in the Patriot Act, but you cannot have security without giving up some liberty. Etc. It runs throughout his platform and it's why he'll never be elected President.

Unfortunately Paul does not do as good a job as he could defending these positions. On the Patriot Act especially all he really had to do is point out that if the CIA had just told the FBI that they knew two of the lead hijackers were involved in planning al-Qaeda attacks and were in the United States the whole 9-11 plot would have unraveled without any need for expansion of police powers or weakening of checks on the State. We were perfectly capable of preventing terrorist attacks before the Patriot Act. A non-interventionist foreign policy where we get out of these entangling alliances really shouldn't be hard to sell since all you really need to do is ask "What if Georgia was in NATO in 2008?"
 
I have always like Ron Paul. I have always like Dennis Kucinich. I think they would make the perfect ticket. I don't have a preference for President or VP between them. The problem is is that both are too damned smart, too knowledgeable, too committed to every be considered.
 
Ron Paul is dead on with almost everything in my book.

dont twist his words, he talks about what our foreign aid is now. it takes our tax payers money and gives it to a country that then uses it to fight a war, AND HE IS 100% RIGHT ON THAT, just look at Pakistan. thats who he was talking about also in the debate.

and he is also 100% right when he says that if we stayed out of other country's problems that we would be much less hated and in return have much less people trying to do us harm. these terrorist didnt pop up and hate us because we are better then them, or have more money, or because we are a free society. they hate us because we are in their country trying to influence it! if we stayed out of the middle east there wouldnt even be a war on terror.
he speaks the truth and people dont want to hear it.
what would we do if another nation came hear doing the same **** we do over there?
 
Ron Paul is dead on with almost everything in my book.

dont twist his words, he talks about what our foreign aid is now. it takes our tax payers money and gives it to a country that then uses it to fight a war, AND HE IS 100% RIGHT ON THAT, just look at Pakistan. thats who he was talking about also in the debate.

and he is also 100% right when he says that if we stayed out of other country's problems that we would be much less hated and in return have much less people trying to do us harm. these terrorist didnt pop up and hate us because we are better then them, or have more money, or because we are a free society. they hate us because we are in their country trying to influence it! if we stayed out of the middle east there wouldnt even be a war on terror.
he speaks the truth and people dont want to hear it.
what would we do if another nation came hear doing the same **** we do over there?

Paul's argument on foreign aid is a bit of a strawman. It's pretty obvious that a lot of the foreign aid we dole out is for security reasons and not to feed starving children. Do you think we'd have ever naild bin Laden if we weren't bribing the Pakistanis to allow us to operate inside their borders?
 
Paul's argument on foreign aid is a bit of a strawman. It's pretty obvious that a lot of the foreign aid we dole out is for security reasons and not to feed starving children. Do you think we'd have ever naild bin Laden if we weren't bribing the Pakistanis to allow us to operate inside their borders?

i dont know if you were paying attention but Pakistan was hiding bin laden from us, so hell yea we would of got him with out their help.
now the fall out of us going into their country and doing it would of been worse. but do you really think the billions we give them is money well spent.

Ron paul never said we should cut all foreign aid just all the badly spent aid, which is quite a lot!

he never said close all of our bases around the world, just we dont need as many as we have.
people are always trying to twist what he says around to fit their cause
 
i dont know if you were paying attention but Pakistan was hiding bin laden from us, so hell yea we would of got him with out their help.
now the fall out of us going into their country and doing it would of been worse. but do you really think the billions we give them is money well spent.

Ron paul never said we should cut all foreign aid just all the badly spent aid, which is quite a lot!

he never said close all of our bases around the world, just we dont need as many as we have.
people are always trying to twist what he says around to fit their cause

We don't know that the Pakistanis were hiding him or if they were simply ignorant. In either case, we never would have found him if we hadn't developed intelligence sources in Pakistan, and we never would have gone in to get him if we didn't have the tacit approval of the Pakistanis to operate inside their borders. We've also taken out countless AQ terrorists via drone attacks inside of Pakistan with their full approval.
 
Yeah, I saw the video, I don't need you to regurgitate Paul's words. Has he proposed taking all the money we spend in foreign aid and giving it to poor Americans? Can you give me a link to the bill he authored attempting to put that into effect?

To directly give it to poor Americans? The concept would be to stop taking it away from poor Americans in the first place. Also Ron Paul seeks vote to end foreign aid to Egypt, Israel, Jordan, and Pakistan | The Cable , came close adding it into the bill which Obama signed in April. :-( *sniffle*
 
Last edited:
Does Ron Paul actually have a shot at the nomination? Most definitely not.

But out of all the Republican candidates regardless of your viewpoint or political affiliation one has to respect the man, he's a man of principle and belief, not a man of oppertunity and pandering.

Even if I don't agree with him.
 
On the Patriot Act especially all he really had to do is point out that if the CIA had just told the FBI that they knew two of the lead hijackers were involved in planning al-Qaeda attacks and were in the United States the whole 9-11 plot would have unraveled without any need for expansion of police powers or weakening of checks on the State.

Which is all fine and good except that they weren't ALLOWED to tell each other that
 
Which is all fine and good except that they weren't ALLOWED to tell each other that

It was perfectly legal and acceptable for them to pass on certain information. Keep in mind that the information was passed on to the FBI a month before the attacks. So, it was perfectly legal to share this information and had it been passed on sooner the attacks would have been foiled.
 


I have to say that I absolutely agree with everything he said. My rap on him in the past has been his lack of charisma, but he expressed himself so well here that, once again, he is my first choice to be president.


He's totally wrong on the main thrust of his arguement. We sacrifice liberty for safety, we limit the bill of rights for security - it's the only way to have a peaceful functional society. The only question is how far we're willing to sacrifice our freedom for our security, and the Patriot Act is going too far.
 
He's noting but a mixed bag of everything that's wrong with both parties.

Ugh... I'd have to agree....

Now I gotta go to the store and buy some mouthwash...
 
Ugh... I'd have to agree....

Now I gotta go to the store and buy some mouthwash...

Why do you type with your tongue?

Keyboards are actually one of the most bacteria infested items in peoples households.

I seriously recommend you do get that Mouth wash, and cease typing using your tongue.
 
He's totally wrong on the main thrust of his arguement. We sacrifice liberty for safety, we limit the bill of rights for security - it's the only way to have a peaceful functional society. The only question is how far we're willing to sacrifice our freedom for our security, and the Patriot Act is going too far.

Actually, the principle is that you can only have your rights violated by the government, not taken away, and the government is only justified in violating rights if it is done to prevent another person's rights from being violated or in response to another person's rights being violated. However, that violation should be limited only to those who can be reasonably shown as seeking to violate the rights of others, or having already violated them. You cannot violate everyone's rights to potentially protect the rights of some.
 
Back
Top Bottom