[roger55]

>>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.

[dragnet2]

Mandating speech to be heard irrespective of standards is, isn’t free speech at all.

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?

[AuH2O-1980]

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).

No. I think ideas like the "equal time provision" are complete hogwash.

Were Paul a Islamofascist who preached the enslavement or murder of the Jews for instance, he would almost certainly be disinvited from the debates.

If Paul were to preach the enslavement or murder of the Jews, he wouldn't be a GOP congressman. The man has worked hard, served the public good, and been consistently conservative -- at least in a reductionist, traditional way.

As an elected Republican official, he has earned the right to participate in the Republican debates by virtue of his declaration of candidacy. Sure, you could make the argument that he doesn't speak for the vast majority of conservatives; or, you could say that he is embarrassingly out-of-sync with his party. But those are arguments of party loyalty and emotion, not arguments of principle or reason. I'll take principle and reason over fanatical partisanship any day.

[leadpenny]

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.

[KurtZ]

http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/PetitionAgainstroger55

I like mine better, even though I wouldn't sign it. Generally, I'm against censorship.

[Captain Kirk]

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

Duh!

[CJ Wolf]

The only reason to ban him is because you are afraid of him.

Paul isn’t anti-American, you are.