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

I look forward to watching the debate, although without firebrands like Kucinich and Gravel (The latter never being more than one step away from a total meltdown), it probably won't be as "entertaining"

I kid. I do look forward to it. I'm still waiting for someone to capture my interest and support. The Dems did a lousy job last week. Now let's see what the GOP can do, sans Thompson.

 

I've heard it said by many different political scientists that a Giuliani/Thompson ticket would be undefeatable by any other team. I wonder if there is maybe a deal in the works between the two.

I look forward to the debate tomorrow.

 

There's too much difference between Guliani and Thompson to make a cohesive team. I'd rather have Thompson and someone else more like him form a team.

 

I doubt it.

 

You might be righ. And I might be wrong. I do not have 20 years invested in him. But I am familiar with him and looked with interest at himat one point. I will not hold my breath.

 

I need to start looking at the Constitution Party again. I refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils this time...

 

Hum... a fairly simple sentence. Shows a lack of respect in my opinion.

Ron Paul is the best hope we have with the current list of canidiates. He is a leader that has a proven track record. He has shown that he doesn't bow down to the party, but is truely looking out for the interests on America.

If you have looked over Ron Paul and don't like him, who it is you're looking over and do like?

Jamie

 

I'm praying a Ron Paul will be elected this time around. If anyone finds a link to the webcast of the debate, please post it.

 

I think Ken said that it was going to be shown live on this website: www.politico.com


Jamie

 

Yeah, they just don't have a link up yet. I hate waiting till the last minute I'm sure they will have something up soon.

 

I guess I could look a little harder, it seems their debate coverage will be here:
http://www.politico.com/debate/

 

I've also been paying attention to Ron Paul for a while - about 10 years since he's been back in Congress - and there are most things he says I do find agreeable.

He differs with my views on one major issues on which I can not yield and that is the war in Iraq. We also differs, to significant degree, on trade agreements, and on a few other relatively minor points.

I do agree with these principles he claims:

• Rights belong to individuals, not groups.
• Property should be owned by people, not government.
• All voluntary associations should be permissible -- economic and social.
• The government's monetary role is to maintain the integrity of the monetary unit, not participate in fraud.
• Government exists to protect liberty, not to redistribute wealth or to grant special privileges.
• The lives and actions of people are their own responsibility, not the government's.

I do like his views on the following:

• Debt and Taxes - Working Americans like lower taxes. So do I. Lower taxes benefit all of us, creating jobs and allowing us to make more decisions for ourselves about our lives.
• Border Security and Immigration Reform - The talk must stop. We must secure our borders now. A nation without secure borders is no nation at all.
• Privacy and Personal Liberty - The biggest threat to your privacy is the government. We must drastically limit the ability of government to collect and store data regarding citizens’ personal matters.
• Property Rights and Eminent Domain -We must stop special interests from violating property rights and literally driving families from their homes, farms and ranches.

I also make note that less government has historically proved to be better than more government and most human suffering has been at the hands of government.

Were it not for his views on the current war I might find him a worthy candidate relative to the other choices.

 

Why do you feel the war in Iraq is of more importance than issues such as personal liberty and securing our own borders?

 

I think Paul belongs in this debate even though he falls outside the parameters of a mainstream Republican. I think he would be fiscally true to conservative values and would make a real effort at securing the borders, but I believe he has some isolationist tendencies that could do him and our country great damage.

Unlike democrats, Republicans tolerate those in their party who do not march in lockstep with the mainstreamers.