[roger55]

I am in favor of Paul’s exclusion. Not because his ideas have no place in politics, but because they have no place in the Republican party.

As a contrast, I’d submit that saying 9/11 was the fault of the United States in a Republican debate, is equivalent to responding to a question about civil rights violations and saying “those blacks had it coming.” We wouldn’t tolerate that, why should we tolerate this?

[dragnet2]

why should we tolerate this?

Anyone up there can say anything they want. One of those guys made blatant anti-2nd Amendment comments. Another one dodged direct legitimate questions. Should we start a petition to eliminate them too?

[leadpenny]

Roger, the answer to free speech is more free speech, not exclusion.

[dread78645]

I am in favor of Paul’s exclusion. Not because his ideas have no place in politics, but because they have no place in the Republican party.

So why 3,000 folks died on 9/11 and we're at war with Iraq is anathema in the Republican circles?
I guess that just leaves us to support "true" Republican qualities like abortion, CFR, amnesty, and gun control. -- Go Rudy!

/s

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

I am in favor of Paul’s exclusion. Not because his ideas have no place in politics, but because they have no place in the Republican party.

Rudy Giuliani's views have no place in the Republican Party.

Ron Paul's non-interventionist foreign policy dates back to "Mr. Republican" Robert A. Taft himself. His views may be unpopular in these Neo-Conservative times, but at least they have a distinguished Conservative pedigree.

By contrast, Rudy Giuliani's Pro-Abortion, Pro-Homosexual, Pro-Gun Control, Pro-Illegal Immigration policies have NEVER been "Conservative" by ANY stretch of the imagination.

What, me Liberal?

IF ANYONE should be excluded from the Republican Debates, it should be the man(?) who sought, and received, the endorsement of the LIBERAL PARTY of New York -- ex-mayor Rudy Giuliani; NOT the man who was the Leader of Ronald Reagan's Electoral Delegation from Texas -- Congressman Ron Paul.

[BlazingArizona]

As a contrast, I’d submit that saying 9/11 was the fault of the United States in a Republican debate, is equivalent to responding to a question about civil rights violations and saying “those blacks had it coming.” We wouldn’t tolerate that, why should we tolerate this?

This is a reason for not voting for Paul, but not for keeping him out of a debate in which every other idea he has appeals to large numbers of Republicans.

Each of these candidates has at least one position I consider odious. Duncan Hunter looks great on almost all counts until we find out that he supports that ban on Internet gambling. This early in the campaign, we need to air all these differences so a Republican platform can be decided.

[BCR #226]

I’ll be honest... I’m not thrilled with a single candidate running for President at all. BUT, they all have the right to voice their opinion and be included in the debates. Ron Paul has one thing going for him over the other candidates... he’s pro-gun. None of the others are... sure they spout the BS line that they support the 2nd Amendment but do they really support your right or my right to own a gun? No. If you don’t believe me, ask them to repeal the 1968 gun control acts “sporting purpose” clause.

Sorry but the 2008 slate of candidates is the most pathetic this nation has ever seen. They are a bunch of liars, con artists, thieves, and anti-freedom maggots.

But, they do have the right to speak as they will... even if the campaign finance laws infringe on our 1st Amendment rights...

Mike

[arroyo run]

Ron Paul didn’t blame America for 9/11, he inferred it was a consequence of an interventionist foreign policy. Not all Americans support interventionism, and there is nothing definitively American about such a policy. The Republicans need more candidates who look at our appeasement of Islamic fascists during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and our appeasement of Saddam Hussein in the 1980’s as detrimental, not fewer.

[Designer]

"..because they have no place in the Republican party."

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!

[abigailsmybaby]

He sticks to the Constitution. Are you saying that is NOT part of the Republican Party platform? If ya are, I’d have to agree with you.