Ron Paul Will Be in the GOP Debate on Thursday, May 3

I'm absolutely not for giving up any of our - meaning responsible citizens - freedoms in the name of a war on terrorism or any other cause. I am for preserving them and, in fact, for restoring what's already been eroded. I don't believe the government can "save" us here at home. I think perhaps as much as 80% of what the government is doing works against the founding principles and needs to be stopped. The government does not exist to make all things right.

I have no blind support for any leader or spokesman. If I agree on a point then it is on that point which I agree. It does not imply full agreement with all points. That includes President Bush!

I do believe it's the government's responsibility to defend the nation against its enemies by military force when required. Terrorism is a significant enemy. However, to accomplish this it is neither necessary nor productive to suspend any liberties of our citizens here at home. Certain, temporary suspensions would only be necessary in the event of war here at home. It is necessary, rather, to empower the citizens to defend themselves first and then to unite to defend the nation.

Let's see, by one example, how far you can support this belief I hold: I would not have established the TSA. I would have instead removed the un-Constitutional restrictions on citizens to carry weapons with them when traveling. There would be no permits required and there would be no questions asked except to show responsible citizenship. I would leave the first responsibility for defense against terrorist to the citizens. Now let the screams begin over the "craziness" of such a position! Yet I maintain that, in the long term, individual citizens could be trusted much more than any government agency. If responsible citizens do not out number the irresponsible then nothing can help us! The only problem with immediately implementing such an approach is the extant inertia of irresponsibility among the citizenry who've been conditioned for years that someone else must "protect" them. They fear themselves as much as their real enemies.

 

Your definition of isolationist and mine differ somewhat.

 

That's not going to happen. Giuliani is popular now, but that will change as more and more Conservatives find out who the real Giuliani is.

Regards,
BiR

 

Thats pretty good, Ken. That debate was so fast paced I could hardly keep up.

 

I will not watch the republican debates because I don't care what any of them say, I'm a proud Democrat! I do hope however that Ron Paul wins the republican nomination, although I doubt he wins any of the primaries at all.

 

I was hoping to see him get some post-debate time, but so far they haven't had him on, or even much to say about him.

 

I just found this in my in-box:

Go RON!

 

Is it just me or did it seem like Romney and McCain were asked the bulk of the questions and allowed the most time to respond? ...even more so than Giuliani.

 

btw, Dr. Paul is up to 46% positive and only 27% negative. He's far and away got better feedback than the other candidates after this debate.

 

You are going to see an effort to squash that quickly. I wouldn't be surprised if we see this start today.

 

Yea, it's ashame that people can't see him for the true, honorable person he is. They would rather vote for the "popular" guy and forfeit the good decent vote.

Looking over this record, one can see how Ron Paul would propell our country forward and start to make things right once again.

People want another Ronald Reagan, but when they get one, they shun him and turn on him.

Ron Paul has more to offer than anyone on either side. I hope the voters can see this before it's too late.

Jamie

 

Do you think they see Ron Paul as a threat to the status quo?

 

Elimination of the income tax and returning to real money would flip the status quo apple cart 720 degrees, upside down and sideways.