• 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 banned from Dec 7 debate!

The December 7th meeting will be remembered, not for the candidates who attended but for the one who did not receive an invitation.
 
jgarden47 said:
The December 7th meeting will be remembered, not for the candidates who attended but for the one who did not receive an invitation.
Click to expand...

Nah, nobody cares but the handful of Paul disciples, and even some of them realize this was a reasonable move on the part of the JRC.
 
coolwalker said:
Brilliant...just brilliant, all of America should be screwed-royally with four more years of socialism pushed down our throats because you can't see the forest for the trees. Great!
Click to expand...

It would be cute that you think there's a difference between the Republicans and the Democrats if that way of thinking wasn't already destroying the Republic.
 
coolwalker said:
Very unpopular opinion here, but I am glad he was banned. He's going to end up throwing a monkey wrench in the works and end up handing Obama another 4 years. He is unelectable and he knows it. If he feels he has great ideas he should have volunteered to manage a winners campaign or else stay in congress, but this way he screws with everyone and then will be smug about it, as will be his supporters.
Click to expand...

In final terms, Ron Paul is a spoiler for Obama. Ron Paul's campaign attacks the Republican Party, Republican platforms and Republican candidates almost exclusively. He is the anti-Republican candidate.

By raging against Jews, the Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act, Affirmative Action, against Abraham Lincoln and that the North started the Civil War etc he attracts a following of angry white men to both give him money and stroke his ego. Its like a cult thing. Nothing new. Before him there was such as David Duke and George Wallace - those also declaring that bigotries have nothing to do with their campaign.
 
Last edited:
joko104 said:
In final terms, Ron Paul is a spoiler for Obama. Ron Paul's campaign attacks the Republican Party, Republican platforms and Republican candidates almost exclusively. He is the anti-Republican candidate.
Click to expand...

Paul More Republican than Other Candidates

On Sunday, Dec. 4 (original air date: Dec. 2), I watched the rerun of the Republican presidential candidate forum on Fox News’ “Huckabee.” The event took place at a town hall meeting in New York and was sponsored by tea party supporters.

Participating candidates were Michele Bachmann, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, Rick Perry, Mitt Romney, and Rick Santorum. The event was moderated by former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, and the candidates were interviewed by Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, Oklahoma Attorney General E. Scott Pruitt, and Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli.

“This forum is an excellent opportunity to engage each of the candidates in a candid conversation about issues that are important to voters in our state and across the nation,” said Bondi in her press release, which was sent out by the Republican Party of Florida.
Click to expand...


Read more on Newsmax.com: Paul More Republican than Other Candidates http://www.newsmax.com/navrozov/Paul-Huckabee-Iowa-Gingrich/2011/12/09/id/420470
 
Last edited by a moderator:
joko104 said:
In final terms, Ron Paul is a spoiler for Obama. Ron Paul's campaign attacks the Republican Party, Republican platforms and Republican candidates almost exclusively. He is the anti-Republican candidate.
Click to expand...

I don't think he is a spoiler. If he would run 3rd party, I think Obama stands to lose as much support as any Republican. He is not just anti-Republican (and that's ONLY in the sense of foreign policy), but he's also anti-establishment.

By raging against Jews, the Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act, Affirmative Action, against Abraham Lincoln and that the North started the Civil War etc he attracts a following of angry white men to both give him money and stroke his ego. Its like a cult thing. Nothing new. Before him there was such as David Duke and George Wallace - those also declaring that bigotries have nothing to do with their campaign.
Click to expand...

What a paragraph of emotional hyperbole and outlandish claims! Care to provide evidence that Ron Paul "rages against Jews?" Retracting overseas welfare will help them and not hinder them. We give much more to Israel's enemies, so they can build better more efficient arms to threaten Israel with.
 
Last edited:
It should be stated that much of the money given to Israel in foreign aid, is sent right back to the USA in the form of military purchases. One could logically & rationally argue that military aid to Israel is actually a pro-jobs plan for the USA.
 
LOL. By your facebook page you're a Ron Paul loyalist and whatever he says is like gossip to you.

Without exception, on any forum, whether 2008 or 2012, Ron Paul loyalists are white men. I suppose there is an exception a person could find.

If Ron Paul does not get the nomination, will you vote for the Republican who does?
 
Thunder said:
It should be stated that much of the money given to Israel in foreign aid, is sent right back to the USA in the form of military purchases. One could logically & rationally argue that military aid to Israel is actually a pro-jobs plan for the USA.
Click to expand...

Now while I certainly do not beleive that is true, let's assume it is. Now why don't we just cut the middle man out and help the American people directly?
 
joko104 said:
Without exception, on any forum, whether 2008 or 2012, Ron Paul loyalists are white men. I suppose there is an exception a person could find.

You contradict yourself here amigo. More and more blacks are flocking to Ron Paul. Almost every black I've spoke to said they would vote Ron Paul over Obama, but if Dr. Paul doesn't get the nomination, will vote for Obama.








If Ron Paul does not get the nomination, will you vote for the Republican who does?
Click to expand...

I think you must first ask, if Ron Paul is the GOP nominee, will the Republican candidates endorse him?
Click to expand...
 
The Prophet said:
joko104 said:
Without exception, on any forum, whether 2008 or 2012, Ron Paul loyalists are white men. I suppose there is an exception a person could find.

You contradict yourself here amigo. More and more blacks are flocking to Ron Paul. Almost every black I've spoke to said they would vote Ron Paul over Obama, but if Dr. Paul doesn't get the nomination, will vote for Obama.





I think you must first ask, if Ron Paul is the GOP nominee, will the Republican candidates endorse him?
Click to expand...

"Every black I've spoken to..." :dohYeah, them "blacks"

I didn't think you'd answer the question yourself and your overall comment ratifies that Paul is just a force for Obama in final effect.
Click to expand...
 
joko104 said:
The Prophet said:
"Every black I've spoken to..." :dohYeah, them "blacks"

I didn't think you'd answer the question yourself and your overall comment ratifies that Paul is just a force for Obama in final effect.
Click to expand...

Well your allegation that Paul loyalists are only white people is inherently false. I had absolutely no trouble finding youtube videos of blacks who support Dr. Paul.
Click to expand...
 
joko104 said:
Please provide links to any messages where you complain of the USA spending to have tens of thousands of troops in Germany, Japan, S. Korea?

The Arab-Israeli wars were not border disputes, they were wars.

What border dispute are you even referring to?

Since the USA has 28,000+ troops in S. Korea over what is a "border dispute" - please provide a link to where you posted messages prior on this forum of your complaining of troops in S. Korea? Bet you can't.
Click to expand...
Why? I believe that foreign aid and troop placement should both be zeroed out in all territories.

I referred to the Palestine-Israel conflict as a border dispute, after all they are fighting over territory.

Refer to my above response. Silly request to say the least.
 
Hare said:
Why? I believe that foreign aid and troop placement should both be zeroed out in all territories.

I referred to the Palestine-Israel conflict as a border dispute, after all they are fighting over territory.

Refer to my above response. Silly request to say the least.
Click to expand...

Are you saying you think we should have no troops deployed to other countries and should spend no money on foreign aid? Before I criticize I want ot make sure I understand correctly.
 
Redress said:
Are you saying you think we should have no troops deployed to other countries and should spend no money on foreign aid? Before I criticize I want ot make sure I understand correctly.
Click to expand...
Sure (10 char)
 
Hare said:
Sure (10 char)
Click to expand...

That is an incredibly, painfully stupid position to take. In this modern world, the economic and political wellbeing of this country is highly effected by other countries. With no forward deployed military and no foreign aide we would have almost no influence on what those other countries did and would be at the mercy of whatever they chose to do. I don't like deploying overseas(did that twice), I do not like going to war(did this too), I do not like the cost, but I find all those preferable to the alternative.
 
Redress said:
That is an incredibly, painfully stupid position to take.

In this modern world, the economic and political wellbeing of this country is highly effected by other countries. With no forward deployed military and no foreign aide we would have almost no influence on what those other countries did and would be at the mercy of whatever they chose to do.

I don't like deploying overseas(did that twice), I do not like going to war(did this too), I do not like the cost, but I find all those preferable to the alternative.
Click to expand...

Not very "civil" of you is it

Very true, although it's been demonstrated many times that no matter how many troops are deployed we can't dictate other countries with any success. As for the economic side, There's no countries we would be "at the mercy of". Propping up other countries economy with our money is a false sense of stability to begin with.

Appreciate your service, although i would much rather have peaceful trade and relationships with as many countries as possible instead of trying to enforce our sense of moralityon countries that have no bearing on our nations well-being.
 
There is a large, unsubtle difference between "dictate" and "influence". We aim for the latter, not the former. Nor is economic aide to just propping up other countries.
 
Redress said:
There is a large, unsubtle difference between "dictate" and "influence". We aim for the latter, not the former. Nor is economic aide to just propping up other countries.
Click to expand...
We've done neither with much success. Mostly either to prop up foreign markets or build other countries military. Very few of the individuals who actually need help recieve it in the form of aid. Government is almost always an incompetent middle-man.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom