Posted on 05/19/2007 1:09:38 AM PDT by roger55
>>Usurp OUR role and seize OUR territories in Asia? We had NO business in Asia, and our imperialism was as foolish as Japan’s.
Ha. With this logic you’ll end up saying we should have all stayed in England, or ultimately Africa. What right do we have to be in North America no?
We’re here, because we’ve a claim to an ideal that transcends geography. That’s why we’re here and that’s why we were there. As righteous as it is, it’s also self-interested. Had the United States ignored the pleas of her allies and abandoned Asia to be raped and murdered by one of the most despicable regimes that mankind has ever produced, it would not have stopped just off the California coast. Plans for the invasion of the continental United States had long been on the books of the Axis powers. Their ambitions were global and the world is eternally fortunate that ours were as well.
Defending a candle while the lights of the world went out would have been like hiding under a bedsheet, while burglars ransacked your neighborhood. Your house is on their list, the question is merely whether you’ve the foresight and courage to stop them in the street.
Supplemental note: Capitalization for screaming emphasis does not make your argument more persuasive. Thanks.
Understood.
Censorship is not hard enough!
I say we burn him!
Burn, Ron Paul, BURN!!
We absolutely must stop this insidious constitutionality!
And while we're at it, we can burn books to make the fire!
Burn, Ron Paul, and take that outdated worthless Constitution with you!
Globalism uber alles!
>>>Censorship is not hard enough!
This tautology is getting a little tiresome. It’s not censorship to not invite a candidate to a debate. Many candidates are not being invited to the debates and they’re not having their speech rights revoked because of it. See the dozen extended explanations by me and others earlier in this thread as to why, none of which have been successfully challenged.
>>And while we’re at it, we can burn books to make the fire! Globalism uber alles!
Amusing, given the grotesquely anti-semitic and crypto-fascist nature of much of the Ron Paul spam I and others daily receive.
LOL. The Censors are up to 134 signatures. The pro-Ron Paul petition is up to 15,700.
>>>The Censors
Sigh.
>>>The pro-Ron Paul petition is up to 15,700.
Yep, it’s easy to sign when you can’t distinguish between censorship and facilitation, as you can’t. Of course, that’s a frequent problem of Libertarians and Leftists generally.
Which isn’t surprising given that this petition is promoted all over leftist blogs and all we’ve got is basically an old FR thread. :-)
Then there’s stuff like this:
“Zionists are trying to kick Ron Paul to the curb!”
http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?RPRNC08&101
Yeah man.
The criticisms of Jimmy Carter are certainly valid, and just more evidence allying with dictators is poor judgment. But Donald Rumsfeld and Ronald Reagan deserve no sympathy for their support of Saddam Hussein. Now, in our quest to rid the world of Saddam, which by itself alone worthy of praise, we’ve validated the thugs of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc. And I’m sure when we have to lay down American lives and spend the taxpayers’ dollars to rid the world of Musharrif or the House of Saud, people will keep denouncing those who want to end the cycle as “moonbats.”
Facilitation of what? I want to see all of the issues discussed, particularly those involving the constitution. Should we not watch debates between Repub and Dem candidates because we don't like what the Dems have to say? To the contrary, this is the opportunity for those on the correct side of the argument to state their case, to educate the electorate, to present compelling arguments as to why their positions are correct and why one should vote for them.
The petition is silly, IMO. If there is one candidate whose positions are largely in opposition to the Republican Platform, it is Rudy Giuliani. Should we eliminate him from all future debates, as well? I used the word "censor" in the broadest sense--it was proposed that the voice of Ron Paul not be given the opportunity to be heard even though he is a declared candidate. Call it a ban, a blockage, a squelching of open discussion--I don't care. I think it is wrong. If the Republicans are going to win this election, they are going to do it by selling ideas, not by avoiding the discussion.
Of course, that’s a frequent problem of Libertarians and Leftists generally.
I am neither, so if that is some sort of back-handed slam, you're talkin' to the wrong person.
Umm...I’m not signing any petition of this nature, but why exactly Paul? Pro-illegal, pro-abortion, pro-gay and anti-second amendment leftist fraud Rudy Giuliani is the worst candidate up there and no-doubt the one at odds most with the mainstream of the party.
>>Facilitation of what?
Facilitation of Paul’s ignoble views.
>>>Call it a ban, a blockage, a squelching of open discussion—I don’t care.
There are presently about a dozen GOP candidates who are excluded from the debates. John Cox, who another poster here mentioned earlier, actually polls higher than Paul in some scientific opinion polls and for that matter, holds policy positions that are broadly aligned with the Republican party’s membership. Yet despite the fact that I’ve brought this up numerous times in the course of this thread, no Paulist in it has denounced the exclusion of these candidates as “censorship.”
The answer why that is so is obvious. They realize when it’s not their own candidate, that failure to invite someone to a party television debate does not represent censorship or “blockage,” by any loose definition you’d like to choose. Also, that putting an endless list of fringe candidates up there whose views are in many cases widely unpopular in the party, weakens the efficacy of any debate. The only thing they don’t realize, is that this is true of Paul as much as it is of the other candidates they don’t care about the exclusion of.
If you think RP is so ridiculous, shouldn't want to see him self destruct.
I disagree with RP on foreign policy, although his views are still more sound than the Giuliani/Bush/Wilson "lets crusade with American lives for Democracy" BS.
>>>Umm...I’m not signing any petition of this nature, but why exactly Paul? Pro-illegal, pro-abortion, pro-gay and anti-second amendment leftist fraud Rudy Giuliani is the worst candidate up there and no-doubt the one at odds most with the mainstream of the party.
Strictly on the 9/11 argument. For fun, you might put it this to see the point: Paul’s views are so outrageously out of step with the party, that even Rudy Giuliani (of all people) thinks they’re unacceptable. Rather than being a proof for Rudy’s exclusion, it actually proves the point in my opinion.
Even though I disagree with Rudy on just about every domestic political issue, like most Republicans, I applauded him without reservation when he correctly called Paul’s views out as absurd. You’ve got to be pretty far off the range for that and Paul is.
>>>If you think RP is so ridiculous, shouldn’t want to see him self destruct.
I don’t really want to see that. I think the debates ought to be serious and we ought to be serious about who is them.
And it’s not because Paul is some kind of realistic threat for the nomination. Paul’s views, as I discussed earlier, aid the moderates more than anyone. The mods can defend the most default of the defaults in Republican positions and end up looking like conservative heroes (when they’re not). This is merely one dimension of the cheapening and equilibrating effect Paul exerts on debates. But of course, I’ve discussed all of this previously herein.
>>>I am neither, so if that is some sort of back-handed slam, you’re talkin’ to the wrong person.
Oh and I haven’t intended to “slam” you or anyone in this thread. If you felt slammed, I’m sorry.
In that case I was speaking less individually about the sources of support for the Paulist petition.
I think Cox is the only declared candidate that was not in the debates. I don't understand that -- on the surface, I think he should have been included. Who else do you think has declared their candidacy--and who are they?
As to polls--I DON'T CARE! Polls are nothing but a menace to the democratic process of voting. Campaigns and debates allow a candidate to get their message out over a period of time running up to primary elections. Polls, 8 months in advance of those elections, do nothing but a disservice to that process, IMO.
Also, that putting an endless list of fringe candidates up there whose views are in many cases widely unpopular in the party, weakens the efficacy of any debate.
Since these really aren't the standard "debate" format, with interaction between the candidates, I don't think it takes away from the efficacy, at all. If you don't want to listen to the Q&A of certain candidates, that is certainly anyone's perogative. But others may want to listen--I think they should be allowed. And who exactly gets to define "fringe" and "unpopular"?
I’m thinking of voting for Ron Paul in the primaries unless Romney or Fred Thompson show some gnads on the immigration issue.
If Paul had said what Rudy indicated, perhaps I might agree with you. But he didn’t—Rudy completely misrepresented what Paul said. I don’t agree with everything Paul said, but shutting down all discussion is not the way to go either. Foreign policy does need to be discussed, as do all of the issues!
Yep, it’s easy to sign when you can’t distinguish between censorship and facilitation, as you can’t.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.