Posted on 05/19/2007 1:09:38 AM PDT by roger55
Another campaign operative joins the forum for pure political reasons.
I’m not operative for anyone, just submitting a petition. No need to impugn my motives if you disagree with the petition’s grounds. I’d prefer a competing case as disagreement.
I suppose taking my freedom loving Republican vote in 2008 somewhere else is probably appropriate too.
Keep pissing us off and than ask us for our vote later, see what happens.
But suggesting that the United States is culpable for its own punishment on 9/11 from Al Qaeda is as near a disqualifying position as one can adopt.Couldn't agree with you more. But if he hasn't already disqualified himself (that is, if he ever "qualified" himself in the first place) then he's awfully close. So let him shoot himself in the foot. But trying to bar someone from speaking in a public debate because you don't like what he has to say is about as un-American and anti-conservative as ideas get.
Just make him wear a dress.
And Rudy has to drag his out too.
Roger, the answer to free speech is more free speech, not exclusion.
Naah, Ron Paul should have to wear a powdered wig, a ruffled collar, and a robe — you know, the clothes people wore when life in America was as simple as it was back in Ron Paul’s day.
>>I suppose taking my freedom loving Republican vote in 2008 somewhere else is probably appropriate too.
Sure, that’s appropriate. Indeed, if Paul’s views are inconsistent with GOP principles and they are instead better suited for different party’s context, that’s essentially what I’m saying. If you agree with those views, you shouldn’t vote for the Republican candidate.
>>I suppose taking my freedom loving Republican vote in 2008 somewhere else is probably appropriate too.
Har. Now that’s actually a better petition come to think of it.
>>But trying to bar someone from speaking in a public debate because you don’t like what he has to say is about as un-American and anti-conservative as ideas get.
I suspect you’re making the assumption that free speech rights are identical to a compulsory requirement to be heard (correct me if I’m wrong). This really isn’t true. Mandating speech to be heard irrespective of standards is, isn’t free speech at all. And in fact it isn’t practiced.
Were Paul a Islamofascist who preached the enslavement or murder of the Jews for instance, he would almost certainly be disinvited from the debates. This is a more extreme example naturally, but it reveals that there are and should be standards for inclusion/exclusion in a Republican debate. It’s not true that if you have an opinion, it’s appropriate to include it. If these standards exist, what are they and where do they begin and end? My point is merely that ritualistic and reflexive anti-Americanism like Paul’s should be among those that disqualify. And once again, is not the same thing as censorship.
Your attempt to censor the patriot Ron Paul is despicable.
Who's standards are you referring to?
And what about the individual on stage that made blatant anti-2nd Amendment comments? Would you suggest eliminating him to, or is this within these standards you referred to?
>>14 in a day and a half? LOL!
Oh, this petition will never have 13,000 signatures. In candor, doubt it will ever have 50. Volume isn’t the point here.
Most people will see an appeal to standards for inclusion as a demand for censorship, as the comments below reveal. It’s the odd person that first recognizes that standards for inclusion already exist...and an odder person yet, who recognizes this is a good thing. Thus, this petition will never approach equivalent popularity to those promoting Paul’s inclusion at any price.
Yeah, but which campaign?
Ron Paul won both debates so far and in no way should be censored for his speech which can be backed up with documented evidence gathered by our very own CIA for crying out loud. Rudy made a big mistake by jumping on something that proves he didn't even read the 9/11 commision report. The people trying to ban him from the debates now are just as ignorant as he is.
We Republicans do not wish to be associated such views, have a party platform provided for their propagation, or allow them to distort and damage the substantive content of future presidential debates. By forcing the other candidates to confront his unsound and grotesquely anti-American positions on equal terms, Guilliani lowers the quality and relevance of any debate and thereby does a substantial disservice to Republicans seeking a nominee for their party.
You are wrong. Volume is the main point of a petition. It always has been. I think you have been exposed as a troll now.
If Paul’s comment was so egregious, the Republican Party should have the nads to expel him from the party before they exclude him from the Republican candidate’s debate.
I was HIGHLY pissed when they refused to let Alan Keyes into the debates.
Terrible idea here. This is no better than McCain/Feingold limiting free speech as well.
Let Ron Paul speak his peace. I happen to think he’s as misguided as Bush on the nature of Islam, but we’re grown-ups. We can handle it.
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.