Last Nights Debate?

WVHippie · Oct 22, 2007

HOw did Ron Paul do in last nights debate. I didnt get to see it.

Pressed_Rat · Oct 22, 2007

I didn't watch much of it because those debates are painful to watch. It's all lies and empty rhetoric, and they give the other candidates three times as much time as they give Ron Paul. From what I saw he did pretty good. How hard can it be going up against 7 empty suits?

gardener · Oct 23, 2007

I didn't get to see it live. But I saw most of the rehashes, and it's like Paul is non-existant. No replays of his input, no mentions in the commentaries. I always have to go and find a transcript, to find out what he has to say when I miss one of the debates.

WVHippie · Oct 23, 2007

its because the government doesnt want you to know about him!

rebelfight420 · Oct 24, 2007

he was booed twice by the audience when he said most people want us out of Iraq

gardener · Oct 24, 2007

rebelfight420 said:

he was booed twice by the audience when he said most people want us out of Iraq
Click to expand...

I know I want us out of Iraq, I wonder who was doing the booing. Do they have kids over there fighting and dying, or are they worried about their investments?

rebelfight420 · Oct 24, 2007

No fox news hosted the debate they had to take a political survey before they got tickets. It was a setup

Shane99X · Oct 25, 2007

the best part is when Dr.Paul won the FOX poll(of course) and Hannity tried to complain to Dr.Paul about the congressman's supporters flooding the poll and the Dr. was all like "what you dont trust your own poll, wtf, stfu!" I was stoned though so i can't be certain those were his exact words, all i know is Hannity almost pissed himself.

Go Ron Go!

gardener · Oct 26, 2007

From reading the transcript he wasn't directed very many questions. One on gay marriage, which he responded to by say it was a state matter and did not require a constitutional amendment.

CAMERON: Thanks very much, Brit.

Congressman Paul, to you, on the subject of one of the core debates in the party, over social issues: gay marriage.

You've been quoted as saying, Any association that's voluntary should be permissible in a free society. And you've expressed your opposition to a constitutional ban on gay marriage.

Many of your rivals on that stage disagree. Why are they wrong?

PAUL: I'm afraid I haven't been able to get most of your question. I know you brought up the subject of gay marriage, but I didn't get the point of what you're saying. I can't hear it that well.

CAMERON: Why are on those stage who support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage wrong?

PAUL: OK. Well, if you believe in federalism, it's better that we allow these things to be left to the state. My personal belief is that marriage is a religious ceremony.

PAUL: And it should be dealt with religiously. The state really shouldn't be involved. The state, both federal and state-wise, got involved mostly for health reasons 100 years or so ago.

But this should be a religious matter. All voluntary associations, whether they're economic or social, should be protected by the law. But to amend the Constitution is totally unnecessary to define something that's already in the dictionary.

We do know what marriage is about. We don't need a new definition or argue over a definition and have an amendment to the Constitution. To me, it just seems so unnecessary to do that. It's very simply that the states should be out of that business, and the states -- I mean, the states should be able to handle this. The federal government should be out of it.

There's no need for the federal government to be involved in this. You can accomplish this without waiting five or ten or 15 years. The authority can be put in the states by mere voting in the Congress.

(APPLAUSE)
Click to expand...

And this one on health care:

GOLER: Congressman Paul, you say that insurance companies and government programs have made health care simply unafforable. You objected so strongly to Medicaid that, as a doctor, I'm told, you simply treated patients on your own, at your own expense.

Is charity the way we should provide health care for the poor right now?

And how are you going to encourage doctors to do that -- primary care doctors to do that, when their salaries have been declining for more than a decade?

PAUL: Well, we've had managed care, now, for about 35 years. It's not working, and nobody's happy with it. The doctors aren't happy. The patients aren't happy.

PAUL: Nobody seems to be happy -- except the corporations, the drug companies and the HMOs.

You take care of poor people by turning the medical care back into the system, where people have some choices.

Now, we have a mess because we have -- a lot of people are very dependent on health care. But I have the only way we can afford to take care of people now, because we're going broke, with $500 billion going to debt every single year. And we have a foreign policy that is draining us.

I say, take care of these poor people. I'm not against that. But save the money someplace. The only place available for us to save it is to change our attitude about running a world empire and bankrupting this country. We can take care of the poor people, save money and actually cut some of our deficit.

So you don't have to throw anybody out in the street, but long term you have move toward the marketplace. You cannot expect socialized medicine of the Hillary brand to work.

And you can't expect the managed care system that we have today, which promotes and benefits and rewards the corporations -- because it's the drug companies and the HMOs and even the AMA that comes to us and lobbies us for this managed care, and that's why the prices are high.

PAUL: It's only in medicine that technology has raised prices rather than lowering prices.

(APPLAUSE)
Click to expand...

Or on Hillary Clinton:

WALLACE: Congressman Paul...

(APPLAUSE)

WALLACE: Congressman Paul, you're against the Iraq war. So is Senator Clinton. So what are the differences between you?

PAUL: Well, there's a very big difference, and I think the American people, if we as a party realize this and understand it, 70- some percent of the people in America want the war over with. They're sick and tired of it and they want our troops to come home.

Now, Senator Clinton has nothing new to offer. She's endorsing the same policy. She said that the troops would be there for another five years, continue to build this embassy that's going to be bigger than the Vatican, continue to build 14 air bases as are going on there, these private bases going on there, and never change.

PAUL: We in this party have to realize the American people are sick and tired of big government, big government overseas, an empire we can't maintain, the bankruptcy of this country, and also the attack on our personal civil liberties. We don't have privacy left anymore, and Hillary Clinton offers no solution to that, and neither does any of the Democrats. And we are not doing a very good job either.

If we don't recognize that, we don't have a chance because we need to get back to the basics, believe in the Constitution, believe in the rule of law, and not allow our government to spend endlessly and bankrupt this country.

(APPLAUSE)
Click to expand...

On Social Security:

HUME: Congressman Paul, your thoughts on these issues?

PAUL: it's a mess. And it proves that the government is not very good at central economic planning, even for retirement.

PAUL: The money was taken from the people with good intention. We should do our best to return it to those that have taken it.

But we need to allow the young people to just flat out get out of the system. Because, I tell you what...

(APPLAUSE)

... if you have the government managing these accounts, it's not going to work.

And the other thing that you have to consider if you're really serious about protecting people's incomes, each and every one of us, is how you're going to protect the dollar. If you don't have the dollar maintaining its value, no matter where you put the money you're not going to have any value. That's where the crisis is coming.

You're going to go up with all these cost of living increases but you'll never keep up with the cost of living because the dollar's going down, the cost of living is going up.
Our dollar today is worth 4 cents compared to the dollar of 1913, when the Federal Reserve took charge of it. And if you don't deal with the dollar there will be no retirement for anybody. We're going to have chaos.

And that is why you have to cut spending. That's why we need a new foreign policy. We need to tie it to people over here in this country, the people who are dependent, but we need to let the people get out, whether it's Social Security or medical care or education. The Constitution doesn't advise that we do any of that anyway.

PAUL: That's the only way we can solve the problem.

(APPLAUSE)
Click to expand...

And on the middle east:

CAMERON: Senator Thompson, violence escalated again today on the Turkish-Iraq border. The terrorist group, PKK, took Turkish soldiers hostage. If as President Bush says, we are fighting terrorists in Iraq to protect our homeland, shouldn't the Turks be able to go into Iraq to protect their own?

TANCREDO: And that is exactly right. It is because the present leadership of the House of Representatives brought up this bill, agreed to bring up a bill, a resolution, that we knew would in fact, if they did that, would cause Turkey to do exactly what they did.

Now, that goes to show you that pandering for votes, which was what this was partly based upon, and a complete ignorance of the foreign policy implications of doing such a thing, are the reasons why we are here now.

And we should take away from this some very important lessons, not the least of which is that Nancy Pelosi is not a very good speaker of the House, and she is an even lousier secretary of state.

(LAUGHTER) (APPLAUSE)

CAMERON: Governor, I saw that you -- do you want to weigh in on this, Governor?

HUCKABEE: When, four days ago, the parliament of Turkey indicated that they would amass those troops, it's a clear signal -- not just saber-rattling, they're serious about defending themselves.

It would seem to me that we should dispatch the secretary of state immediately to do two things. First of all, we need to train and equip the Kurds to fight the terrorists in their midst.

The PKK is a terrorist organization. Those 3,500 terrorists can best be dealt with by trained and armed Kurds. We don't have to put our military in harm's way. The Kurds have the capacity to do it against those in the PKK -- but also to try to get Turkey to realize that there's nothing to be gained by crossing into that border and creating yet another hostile situation. None of us need it. None of us want it.

And I would hope that maybe the base in Irbil that was shut down earlier could become the base in which those operations could be staged.

(APPLAUSE)

CAMERON: Mr. Paul?

PAUL: This is a -- this is a result of a foreign policy of interventionism. The founders advised non-interventionism. And even our president won the election in the year 2000 to have a more humble foreign policy, not to go into nation-building, and not get involved in the internal affairs of other nations.

And we won an election on that.

But here we are. We're over there and we've invaded this country and this is just another unintended consequence. The war is spreading, the war is likely to go into Iran, nobody's willing to take anything off the table.

What would it be like if somebody came in here into Mexico and did some of these things -- say, like, putting missiles in Europe? We're just looking for trouble. It's so unnecessary. And we jeopardize ourselves. And, quite frankly, we're not able to afford this.

So we don't need to go looking for trouble. We don't need another Cold War. And all we have to do is start talking to people and trading with people.

We don't need to assume that the world is going to blow up. Just think of...

(AUDIENCE BOOING)

PAUL: When I was drafted into the military, and I served five years in the military, the Soviets had 40,000 nuclear weapons.

And here, we're now learning about agitating and putting missiles in Europe.

PAUL: It's the Turks' business. It's not our business.

(AUDIENCE BOOS)

(APPLAUSE)
Click to expand...

And on his role in the republican party:

Congressman Paul, I want to start with you. You have drawn some of the strongest reactions of any person on the stage, both pro and con, sir. When Ronald Reagan became a Republican, he said he hadn't left the Democratic Party, the Democrats had left him.

Given your differences with the other gentlemen on the stage, has the Republican Party left you? Have these gentlemen left the Republican Party?

PAUL: I think in many ways they haven't followed our platform and they don't follow the Constitution. So they're really not following (inaudible). I think in many ways we have become big spenders. Republicans are the big spenders. Our big-government conservatives, they're part of the neo-conservative movement. They've lost their traditions about traditional conservatism and the Constitution.

We have benefited for so many years and decades by having a position of less use of force. Eisenhower won his election in 1952 by trying to clean up the mess that Democrats created in Korea. Nixon won in '68. We continuously won in taking this position of a more commonsensical foreign policy.

Like I said, even George Bush won criticizing this interventionism, and now all of a sudden, just in this short period of time, we have accepted the Democrats' position on foreign policy, on entitlements, on deficits. I mean, we have lost our way.

No, I think that the position of the Republican Party today has not fulfilled their traditions.

And that's why we lost last year. And if we don't go back to our traditions and believe in the Constitution, limited government, personal liberties, and a foreign policy that's noninterventionist, that won't bankrupt us, so that we can defend this country -- we can't even defend our own cities while we're prancing around the entire world.

(APPLAUSE)
Click to expand...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/21/us/politics/21debate-transcript.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&adxnnlx=1193407226-6ONB0IukWxLRTurJEWwpOQ

As to the audience booing, I see war hawks afraid he might not want to send poor kids off to die in a foreign place, for questionable aim.

Mellow Yellow · Oct 26, 2007

I must say I'm pretty impressed with Ron Paul, aside from his stance on abortion.

they give the other candidates three times as much time as they give Ron Paul.
Click to expand...

Sad but true, but then you gotta figure he's more about the common good of the people of this country than he is about the corporate backers who hold the purse strings, and, as they say, time is money, or, conversely, money is time.

I hope he has a shot at it, and we don't end up having to choose between the least of the evils, like we had to in the last election.

Log in or Sign up

Last Nights Debate?

WVHippie Member

Pressed_Rat Do you even lift, bruh?

gardener Realistic Humanist

WVHippie Member

rebelfight420 Banned

gardener Realistic Humanist

rebelfight420 Banned

Shane99X Senior Member

gardener Realistic Humanist

Mellow Yellow Electrical Banana

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

Last Nights Debate?

WVHippie Member

Pressed_Rat Do you even lift, bruh?

gardener Realistic Humanist

WVHippie Member

rebelfight420 Banned

gardener Realistic Humanist

rebelfight420 Banned

Shane99X Senior Member

gardener Realistic Humanist

Mellow Yellow Electrical Banana

Share This Page

Useful Searches