The Instigator
clsmooth
Pro (for)
Winning
38 Points
The Contender
mjvoss
Con (against)
Losing
32 Points

Conservatives should vote for Ron Paul, and NOT Fred Thompson

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/28/2007 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,402 times Debate No: 1107
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (28)
Votes (21)

 

clsmooth

Pro

Here are my reasons:

1. Ron Paul is pro-life. As an OBGYN for decades, Dr. Paul delivered more than 4,000 babies and never considered performing an abortion. As any true conservative should, Dr. Paul believes that the federal government has no legitimate jurisdiction over the issue of abortion, including a national ban on the practice, and thinks that the states should decide. And, unlike his Republican rivals, he stands behind this belief with proposed legislation that would strip the issue of abortion from federal courts, thereby proactively returning the matter to the states.

By contrast, Fred Thompson is wishy-washy on life, and even did lobbying for pro-abortion groups.

2. Ron Paul is against world government under the auspices of the UN, NAFTA, the WTO, the IMF, and the World Bank, etc. Fred Thompson is a globalist member of the liberal Council on Foreign Relations, and he supports continued participation by the U.S. in these internationalist organizations created by Fabian Socialists and supported by liberal Democrats like FDR, Truman, LBJ, and Bill Clinton.

3. Ron Paul supports abolition of the income tax -- the ultimate instrument of government tyranny. Fred Thompson favors no such move, and thinks it's just fine to have the income tax, which was first championed by liberal "progressives" and "populists" in the early twentieth century.

4. Ron Paul is the only opponent of the Federal Reserve running for president. This evil institution, signed into law by ultra-liberal Woodrow Wilson, allows the government to inflate the money supply and silently steal from savers and pensioners. When combined with the income tax, there is no limit on how much the government may spend for any number of projects.

5. Ron Paul has the traditional Republican foreign policy of peace and commerce, but no entangling alliances -- the same policy of "Mr. Republican" Bob Taft, who opposed the ultra-liberal interventionism embarked upon by Wilson, and later taken up again by FDR, Truman, LBJ, and Clinton. As a liberal CFR member, Fred Thompson supports Rooseveltian liberalism / globalism, and the march towards One World Government. NOT conservative.

6. Ron Paul has family values. He has been married to his wife for over forty years. Fred Thompson, on the other hand, has a new wife young enough to be his daughter, and he recently said his "trophy wife" was his "most prized possession." Disgusting.

7. Here are some facts about Ron Paul's record:

He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.

Can Fred Thompson say the same?
mjvoss

Con

I don't actually support Fred Thompson as my candidate, but I will debate simply because I would never vote for Ron Paul and would rather vote for Thompson.

1. Fred Thompson is definitely not for making abortion illegal on a national level. He has said that he wants to leave it up to the states. That's actually my position. He could be personally pro-choice, but if the states decide, then that's fine. This only is an issue on wanting a candidate with the same viewpoint of abortion. It's not actually what he would put into EFFECT (aka what really matters). For this reason, your argument that Thompson is wishy-washy as opposed to Paul's strong stance isn't a strong argument at all.

2. I don't really know Thompson's view on the UN, NAFTA, etc. I can only respond by saying that the UN, although somewhat messed up, does a lot of a good for the world. From keeping the peace in conflicting areas of different nations to helping poorer nations to get back on their feet. Not supporting the UN is not supporting also the positive things they do. I also do not understand the problem of NAFTA. Elaborate.

3. Get your facts straight on Thompson's view of the current tax system. According to his website, he believes the current tax system to be very fallible. He believes Americans should keep more of their money. He doesn't seem to favor abolishing the IRS entirely, but he favors simplifying the tax code to make it easier for Americans and to lower taxes. Abolishing the IRS, although it would be ideal, is a radical move to say the least. It's never going to happen. Paul's wishes are actually quite hard to accomplish. Thompson sets a realistic goal with the abolition of the IRS certainly a possibility in the future.

4. I actually cannot argue effectively on this point. I'm taking a course on Macroeconomics next semester if you want to wait until then. ;) Until then, however, I will trust the opinions of a man with a Ph.D. in economics from MIT rather than a man who has no formal degree in the subject.

5. Please elaborate on Thompson's alleged support for a One World Government.

6. His wife is rather hot. As long as they are happy together, then I support them. In fact, the phrase "trophy wife" can sometimes be seen as a sign of affection and he could very well be her "most prized possession." It doesn't necessarily mean that he owns her and commands her. It might just mean that she means the most to him in the world.

Beef against Ron Paul:

1. His idea that leaving Iraq immediately is messed up. He claims it is similar to our situation in Vietnam. The question on everyone's minds during Vietnam was, "If we leave, would the rest of the world succumb to communism?" The question for Iraq is, "If we leave, will the terrorists then fight to control Iraq, or at least do a coup on the current government, and destroy everything we have fought for?" The possibility for other countries to succumb to communism simply because Vietnam is communist is actually not that high. The possibility that, without a sensible plan of withdrawal (which Paul lacks), Iraq might be overrun with terrorists (newly recruited with a hard resolve that America can be beaten) is actually very high provided we go with Paul's plan and Iraq isn't already completely stable. In the event that Iraq is indeed already stable, the rest of the republicans plans would advocate withdrawal anyway.

2. I understand limiting the government. What I don't understand is destroying the government. He wants to eliminate many government agencies. I really do not see why. Do you care to list at least the most important ones he wants to eliminate and a logical reason why? I know he wants to limit "unnecessary bureaucracies," but that doesn't tell exactly why. Needless to say, reducing the size of government is sensible. Destroying agencies is radical.
Debate Round No. 1
clsmooth

Pro

ANSWERS TO YOUR REBUTTALS:

1. That may be Fred Thompson's rhetoric, but he had no problem lobbying for Planned Parenthood (or was it NARAL?). Yes, that's his job as a lawyer, but that further demonstrates his lack of character. Furthermore, if he truly believed in abortion as a state's issue, he would have a more proactive approach of removing abortion for the jurisdiction of federal courts. He never sponsored such a bill as a senator. Like other "conservatives," Thompson's supposed "plan" is to appoint pro-life justices to the Supreme Court, whereby a ruling with thirty-four years of precedent can be overturned... Unlikely!

2. My opponent says "the UN . . . does a lot of a good for the world. From keeping the peace in conflicting areas of different nations to helping poorer nations to get back on their feet." Spoken like a true liberal. You do recall the subject of this debate is CONSERVATIVES should support Ron Paul, right? The UN has never done any good for anyone but the cronies and bureaucrats it keeps rich. True conservatives have always opposed America's membership to this socialist, anti-gun, pro-abortion, world-government organization, and even "mainstream" conservatives publications today still do. It is only the CFR elites, like Thompson (and Romney and all of the other Republican candidates, save for Paul), along with the Democrats, who support the UN. And you don't know what the problem with NAFTA is? Why did you take this debate if you aren't even familiar with the subject matter? NAFTA is an unconstitutional supra-national bureaucracy that, like your cherished UN, greatly undermines America's sovereignty.

3. Thompson supports the continued existence of the unconstitutional income tax and the lawless IRS. The elimination of these things has traditionally been a goal of conservatives, but they are not goals of Thompson, or any other Republican candidate, save for Ron Paul. (Huckabee's bogus "Fair Tax" would be even worse, so I don't count him).

4. Well, by the time you're done with your course, you will have a lot of un-learning to do. May I suggest F.A. Hayek's Road to Serfdom and Constitution of Liberty -- two books highly thought of by Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher? You are going to be fed Keynesian and monetarist lies by your "macroeconomics" class. But of course, PhD's can't be wrong. So when you take a class in political science from a Marxist PhD, you'll have to accept Marxism too. Your college coursework is only a jump-off point -- you need to do independent research if you want to become legitimately educated. I suggest mises.org to start with. And by the way, I do have a degree in the subject matter and I am a professional financial writer.

5. He is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. 'Nuff said.

6. If you think Thompson has good family values, then I'm no one to judge. This issue isn't important to me, but it is to many conservatives. Having a wife young enough to be your granddaughter and referring to her as a possession -- not something Ron Paul would do.

NOW TO YOUR 'BEEFS':

1. You think leaving will breed more terrorists, but what about all of the innocents being killed and maimed? Are not their family members and friends more likely to fall victim to extremist rhetoric? Of course. How long are we to stay in Iraq? At what cost? Are you willing to contribute voluntarily to the cause so that I don't have to and the Fed doesn't need to print more money, stealing wealth from pensioners and savers? If not, then what is your plan to pay for this war? This leaves aside the constitutional aspects, even the moral aspects. Nation building and world policing are traditional left-liberal views -- NOT the views of conservatives. Study your history -- and not the propaganda your leftist/neocon history professor will feed you.

2. Take a look at the number of agencies Thomas Jefferson or Grover Cleveland had. Now look. We never repeal agencies, we only rename them and/or add to them. Virtually all of the agencies currently under the executive branch are unconstitutional, and that's the #1 reason they should be abolished. But Ron Paul makes no promises to do so -- he can't do it alone, and his goal is to REDUCE the power of the president and the federal government, not expand it. Andrew Jackson tried to do good through expansion of executive powers, and it only set the stage for later tyrants. Ron Paul knows better. But here are some of the worthless and/or counterproductive agencies that could and should be abolished:

Education: The Constitution does not delegate the power to the federal government. Education should be handled locally, not by the centralized government. The department only came into being in 1979, and could easily be done away with. Has education actually improved since 1979? Of course not! Quite the opposite.

Energy: The government should not pick winners and losers in the free market. There need not be an energy policy at all. There is no cell-phone policy, and yet cell phones get distributed to those who need them. Plus, the technology gets better and prices get lower at the same time!

Agriculture: Just a big welfare agency for paying farmers not to work. Horribly unconstitutional and demeaning.

Labor: Another relatively new department. The National Labor Relations Board should also be abolished, and workers should form unions just as capitalists form corporations -- via contract. Unionized workers should have no "special rights." Also, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the government's leading economic propaganda and fraud mill, should be abolished. Oh, and while we're at it, the other half of the old Commerce and Labor Department, the Commerce Department, could also be abolished.

Homeland Security: Totally unconstitutional, unnecessary, and wasteful. These actions should be carried out by local police, etc. This is yet another new agency brought into existence by a supposed "conservative."

DEA: There's no constitutional basis for this or for the federal prohibition of drugs. A constitutional amendment was needed for Prohibition, and one of the first bans on marijuana was ruled unconstitutional. The earliest anti-drug laws that stuck were constitutional taxes on the drug in question. Why then did the government magically gain this power? It didn't.

EPA: Another completely worthless agency. Regulations are only protections for polluters. The civil tort system (and sometimes criminal courts) can deal with legitimate property-rights violations.

Housing and Urban Development: Along with the Fed, another major player in the housing bubble. This is just more socialism, and it's not only unconstitutional, but bad for everyone involved (but the bankers, of course), too.

I could go on, but that's enough for now.
mjvoss

Con

Gee, if I had a nickel for every time you said the word "unconstitutional," I'd be a millionaire. You throw that word out too much. Instead of explaining exactly why it is unconstitutional, you simply throw the word out seemingly because a certain thing "should" be unconstitutional. This only makes you sound like a rabid Ron Paul supporter.

1. How exactly does Ron Paul want to go about removing Roe v. Wade? How do you do that without first having the Supreme Court turn over Roe v. Wade? As it stands, disallowing anyone from making the choice to have an abortion is unconstitutional. It's nationally effective.

2. "Spoken like a true liberal. You do recall the subject of this debate is CONSERVATIVES should support Ron Paul, right?" For a smart guy, you should know that these blatant ad hominem attacks are simply irrelevant and do not belong in the debate.

Anyway, ignoring all of your attacks, I will respond to the rest of it. I will admittedly say that the UN does have some corruption and its typically liberal policies are simply a waste of money. However, retreating from the UN is laughable. Listen, the US has already gotten itself into a snag. The US is certainly a fundamental part of the UN, and it might be ok if we left. But wait! If Ron Paul is so concerned about how countries view us, why would he do this? Retreating from the UN would make us look horrible; like we don't care about other countries and think we are the best.

Also, not knowing why NAFTA is a problem doesn't mean I am not "familiar with the subject matter." That's a ridiculous assertion. And still, you don't offer a complete argument. You simply say that NAFTA is "unconstitutional" and "greatly undermines our sovereignty." You don't mention why that is.

3. Actually, you shouldn't include FairTax supporters in your assessment of who wants to get rid of the IRS because the FairTax essentially does that. You can't ignore that Ron Paul isn't the only one with that view. And also, a few of the candidates seek to implement the FairTax plan. Romney doesn't because he believes the FairTax to have flaws that need corrections and abolishing the IRS altogether without any plan of transition to be too radical. I suppose Thompson more or less believes the same way. Please give me a quote where Thompson says, "I like the IRS; it is good; it should stay."

4. So, now you are saying not to believe anything my Ph.D.-holding professors say because they are wrong. WOW. Look, if I had a Marxist professor, I bet he would have pretty good reasons for being Marxist, especially if he were a political science professor. I do think and research for myself, especially because I am a business major, and I've said before that, until then, I will trust the judgment of a man with a Ph.D. in economics from MIT over someone with no degree in the same subject at all.

5. That doesn't say anything. Elaborate why the CFR wants a One World Government, and more importantly, why Thompson supports this.

6. He's 65 and she's 41. That's definitely not a granddaughter difference. There have been plenty of perfectly fine marriages with this kind of difference.

Beefs:

1. You start digressing in your argument. I will only respond to what I asked you, and that's why Ron Paul's advocation for immediate withdrawal makes sense. And so, you claim that staying will kill more individuals and thereby creating more terrorists. I already know this happens. But, by leaving prematurely, you are also telling the terrorists that America is able to be defeated. Therefore, the family members being hurt and killed in conjunction with the certainty that America can be defeated would probably create far more recruitment than is happening now.

2. The nation evolves. Get with the program. Some things are created to deal with current problems. And your arguments for the abolition of all of those agencies are somewhat valid. You never explain why any of them are unconstitutional, but I'll leave that alone. Why do you support destroying them altogether instead of simply reducing their power, though? If you can reduce their power, show that the departments are unnecessary, then they can be dissolved easily. Abolishing them all without any solid plan of action isn't something I support.
Debate Round No. 2
clsmooth

Pro

Again, your lack of education rears its ugly head. Any power not specifically enumerated in the Constitution is unconstitutional. This is the original intent, which has been perverted by the Supreme Court over the years. You have a lot of studying to do, but like most conservatives, you won't get around to it. After all, in the common conservative mind, book learning is something for liberals to do. If you were even remotely conservative, you would know that virtually everything the government does is unconstitutional, and therefore, it wouldn't be surprising to you that I would use the word so much. But then again, you're obviously a big-government liberal, which is why you shouldn't have taken this debate. You don't have a single conservative principle that I can see.

1. Again, your complete and total lack of constitutional knowledge shows itself. Congress determines the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court -- this is a power enumerated and delegated to Congress under the Constitution. A simple bill, passed by Congress and signed into law by the president, could remove the issue of abortion from federal jurisdiction, thus returning it to the states. Roe v. Wade would thus be irrelevant.

2. The statement that you made -- "the UN . . . does a lot of a good for the world. From keeping the peace in conflicting areas of different nations to helping poorer nations to get back on their feet" -- is the liberal/socialist, world-government, internationalist philosophy. A self-described conservative would have NEVER made that statement fifty years ago. Why is it that the conservatives have yielded so much ground to the Left? Was the Left right about virtually every issue in the thirties, forties, fifties, and sixties? If so, then what makes you think the Left is wrong now? I mean, you DON'T think that on any issue that really matters: You have the traditional leftist foreign policy, the traditional leftist fiscal and monetary policy. That leaves only "social issues" to distinguish you as a conservative. And as far as how other countries perceive us, I think halting the bombings and assassinations would more than negate whatever fallout there was from the UN. How the other world views us is only important from within the confines of the Constitution and our national interests -- we are not to bend over backwards (or forward) in the name of world opinion alone.

Okay, you need another NAFTA lesson: NAFTA is filled with rules and regulations (not free trade!) which are enforced by North American Trade Commissioners. The purpose of NAFTA is to "level the playing field" of the three countries. Who enforces these efforts to "level the playing field" -- the unelected NAFTA commissioners. What NAFTA really does is take away the constitutional authority of Congress to regulate trade and puts it in the hands of supranational bureaucrats. And what authority do these commissioners have? Well, they can levy fines on businesses, search the premises of business, and use American courts to enforce multinational labor or environmental regulations put into "law" not by the U.S. Congress, but by NAFTA commissioners. See Article 756 of NAFTA. For more, see my debate on the subject at http://www.debate.org...

3. Look at this, everyone. Now what's acceptable for a "conservative" is any candidate who DOESN'T say "I like the IRS, I want it to stay." Where have your standards gone? Fred Thompson, like every other Republican (including, no, ESPECIALLY Huckabee) sees no immorality in taxation and wealth redistribution -- particularly the most heinous tax of all, the inflation tax of fiat-money central banking. This is what distinguishes Ron Paul and makes him the clear choice of true conservatives in the Old Right tradition.

4. Universities are filled with Marxists, Keynesians, and monetarists -- all discredited theories. If you are counting on your formal education to teach you about real economics, you are going to be either disappointed or willfully misled into a blissful sea of ignorance. The subject taught in schools is not even properly called economics -- it is econometrics, and there is an important distinction. And I do have a degree in the subject -- why do you keep saying I don't? It doesn't matter, though. There are plenty of people with degrees -- including PhDs -- who are idiots. If you don't believe that, then you're REALLY not in touch with conservatism and popular conservative thought.

5. Um, yes it does. The stated goal of the CFR is to run an "end round on national sovereignty." He is a member of that organization. He also supports supra-national governments like the UN, the WTO, and the fiat-money Fabian socialists at the IMF and World Bank, etc.

6. She's 41? Okay. My bad. You're right, she is hot. You win this point. I thought she was like 25. I concede half a point here, but the issue remains problematic for anyone who believes in family values.

BEEFS:

1. America is able to be defeated, and the defeat of the Empire is inevitable. We have been defeated in every war since WWII, because every war has been an undeclared one with no exit strategy and no real objective. Don't bring up Gulf War I -- this is just an extension of that war. That war never really ended, considering the fact we bombed Iraq almost without stop from '91 to '01. And you wonder why they hate us? Look, the American Empire is going down. The only question is whether we do it as smoothly as possible, or whether we go down in flames like Rome. If you think we can afford to police the world, the international financial markets and Forex beg to differ. You can't make the markets act like you want via force, and the Empire is never going to be big enough or strong enough to force the world to accept our worthless fiat money like it forces the citizens of our country.

2. This is another liberal argument -- "the nation evolves" -- i.e. the Constitution is a "living document" that can be "interpreted over time" by the dictators in black robes. Wow. Again, this debate was for CONSERVATIVES, who by definition are supposed to be strict constructionists -- not liberals who happen to not like abortion. If YOU and your pro-Fed, pro-blind obedience to university professors, pro-income tax, pro-UN, anti-free trade, pro-Constitution as a "living document" ilk are what qualifies today as conservatives, then where is the difference between conservatives and liberals? It's a joke. Real conservatives know better and that's why they should vote for Ron Paul.
mjvoss

Con

The same can be said for you. You should brush up on your debate tactics. The only reason I am pointing these out is because it is important for the audience to realize why you sound like you are right. However many times you choose to say that I am not a conservative, you are simply throwing out an unnecessary and irrelevant ad hominem attack. You've apparently ignored my previous requests to have you cease this very un-debate-like tactic, and instead you continue it further. Furthermore, you display a different type of ad hominem attack, which is associating my supposed "lack of education" with my not agreeing with you. This is fallacious in and of itself simply because there are plenty of people more educated than you are who do not side with your beliefs. Yet another fallacy you continue to commit is to assume that I am a "big-government liberal" simply because I do not side with your beliefs. Is everyone a "big-government" liberal if they think Ron Paul is a whack? Think about that. My level of your specifically defined conservatism does not dictate whether or not I call myself a conservative or if I can participate in this debate.

I hope you know that the constitution was not designed to be a layout of things we can and cannot do. The founding fathers specifically made it flexible. This means, of course, that anything you say is "unconstitutional" is probably not actually unconstitutional. If we were to go with everything you and your other beloved Ron Paul supporters wanted to do, then the country would be thrown back into the age of extreme state independence where each state was only a part of a confederacy. This conflicts with a unified country. This is not the viewpoint of a "big-government liberal." This is a viewpoint of a rational human being, which conservatives are supposed to be. I will not make the judge on whether or not you are, in fact, a conservative, since over time, that term has become quite relative. However, I will say that your views are reactionary enough.

1. Then, you are going against the Court's decision that banning abortions is unconstitutional. See? I just used the term in the way it is meant to be used. Paul's advocation for the repeal of Roe v. Wade is unconstitutional as determined by the courts. And do not come and say that you know better than a team of supreme court justices on constitutional law.

2. So you do not think the UN does ANY good for ANYONE? What sick, selfish person you are if you think that. Conservatism was never reactionism. Who cares if you think a "self-described" conservative would never make that statement that the UN does plenty of good for the world. The truth of the matter is that a rational human being would admittedly say that the UN has corruption and sides with extreme liberal views often, but would never say that the UN entirely is bad. Additionally, you said, "How the other world views us is only important from within the confines of the Constitution and our national interests." About the "confines of the Constitution" is typical Ron Paul blabber, but what is interesting is you said "national interests." So you don't think being a world partner and having good relations with other very well-developed nations are pertinent to our national interests? I thought that Ron Paul didn't believe in "isolationist policy" but rather "non-interventionist." I rest my case about the UN. In reality, NAFTA could very well be repealed if it really took away from the congress's constitutional authority. The authority will forever remain within the congress since it can be repealed if Congress thought of NAFTA in that way.

3. Wait... are you saying that Ron Paul believes taxation to be immoral?: "Fred Thompson, like every other Republican (including, no, ESPECIALLY Huckabee) sees no immorality in taxation..." You don't have to answer that. I will assume that you were kidding. And I think the taxes most in need of repeal are the death tax, estate tax, and taxes on capital gains and dividends. They aren't fair and/or are detrimental to overall productivity.

4. "Universities are filled with Marxists, Keynesians, and monetarists -- all discredited theories."

Tell that to the thousands of people who disagree and are much wiser and more educated than you. And you should point out where I've said you don't have a degree in the subject. That's not my argument. My argument is that there are many people who disagree with you who have a broader knowledge base than you will ever have. The simple assumption that universities are basically wrong because they primarily teach a more predominant form of economics with which you disagree is absurd. I do believe that just because someone has a Ph.D. doesn't necessarily mean that they are completely correct. In fact, people with Ph.D.s disagree with each other all the time. However, my point is that I'd rather take the opinion of someone who has thoroughly researched and written a dissertation on the subject than someone who did a bit of reading and came up with a countertheory.

5. I don't know where you read that, but it does make me laugh. The stated mission of CFR is to inform the public about foreign affairs and help build the next foreign policy leaders.

6. No, it doesn't, and I don't need to explain why.

BEEFS:

1. America is able to be defeated provided the opposing force is powerful enough. The "defeats" you talk about are mainly political losses in which it was impossible to keep the war going if the public was whole-heartedly against it. Militarily, it was fine. The image the media brought about on the Vietnam War greatly influenced public opinion. Even still, I consider the Vietnam War not a very good war. The current war has brought a fraction of the casualties and our mission is clearly defined. When you end the constant need for continuous bombing of Iraq after placing a democratic government with the capability of policing themselves, then we do not need to have a serious presence in Iraq. And on the subject of conservatism, I believe that patriotism is a very serious conservative value. Calling America an "empire" is certainly not that.

2. "This is another liberal argument -- "the nation evolves" -- i.e. the Constitution is a "living document" that can be "interpreted over time" by the dictators in black robes."

Sorry, your attacks to identity might work with some people, but not with me. If you think that the founding fathers wanted us not to interpret the constitution for current affairs and be stuck back into the mentality of the 18th century, then you are insane.

"Wow. Again, this debate was for CONSERVATIVES, who by definition are supposed to be strict constructionists -- not liberals who happen to not like abortion."

More ad hominem attacks to my identity! You are starting to sound like a kook.

"your pro-Fed"

I never said I was pro-Fed. I have no reason to since I cannot accurately debate that topic.

"pro-blind obedience to university professors"

I don't have blind obedience to university professors, but I do respect them as being great contributors to their respective fields as well as having an enormous amount of knowledge in those fields as well. Not to do that would also be insanity.

"pro-income tax"

Did I say I was pro-income tax? Point that out, please.

"pro-UN"

I said that the UN does some good things. Sorry, bud, that doesn't translate to "UN = Gold!"

"anti-free trade"

No clue where you got that.

"pro-Constitution as a "living document""

No problem with this.

"Real conservatives know better and that's why they should vote for Ron Paul."

Real conservatives are rational human beings who think for themselves. You may define yourself in this bunch, but I assure you that real conservatives can also vote for other candidates such as Fred Thompson.
Debate Round No. 3
28 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Muhafidh 9 years ago
Muhafidh
Yes, Clsmooth, I know that RP likes von Mises, but you had mentioned Ricardo. So I say again, RP doesn't understand Ricardo. That means he hardly has a basis for disagreeing with Ricardo. You see, von Mises believed in Ricardo. How can RP choose one over the other then? Maybe this will help explain it: You wrote, "Real free trade needs no agreements or treaties at all." Once again you have proven my point. Thank you again. I said before that RP believes that the US can go it alone as the only free-trading country on earth, since RP wants to dismantle the very treaties that will get the rest of the world to play the same game. Don't you know what will happen if we try to go it alone? Refer to Ricardo on this! Get my point?

Now how about this: RP doesn't understand von Mises. Pretty devastating, eh? But true. Why exactly did von Mises really support the gold standard? It was because his whole model was based on the "panics" of the previous century. It used to be the case that national governments literally printed money to cover short-term expenditures, despite the havoc it caused soon enough thereafter. We don't do that anymore. RP's opinion that the Fed is doing the same thing anyway is seriously flawed. The Fed helps regulate the economy by actually participating in it. It doesn't print any money.

And what did von Mises really mean in his discussions about inflation? Think this through, and you'll soon figure out that RP's reasoning is flawed not because of anything too subtle to notice, but because he has the relevant causality completely backward! Review the link between interest rates and credit, and carefully reconsider what von Mises really said about it.
Posted by jevan 9 years ago
jevan
No offence, but Ron Paul supporters are pathetic.
Posted by mjvoss 9 years ago
mjvoss
1) Nope. "That comment is on the liberal side." <- That is *trying* to point out a contradiction.

2) Being unfamiliar with *the subject matter* would apply to everything. I told you that I did not have sufficient knowledge to argue for nor against the Fed. But I had plenty of knowledge to argue against everything else.

3) Because you say it is true doesn't make it true. You are no authority I take above any university professor.

4) False. You are making a presumption that (1) my eventual professors will be leftist or "neocon" and (2) what they teach is "propaganda." This means to me that I should not listen to any other viewpoint other than your own because of an unproved accusation.

5) Actually, it is you who does not understand the purpose of the Constitution. What I have said *could* be the viewpoint of hardcore leftist professors, but it also *is* the viewpoint of an enormous majority of Americans.

6) "Glorification of ignorance"? "Deification of propaganda ministers"? I think you are committing another fallacy: Appeal to Humor. Too bad it works against you.

7) False. With no real way to prove that, it can never be fact. It is only an assumption.

8) True, some are not. That wasn't Thoreau's point. Those were used to describe me, however disgustingly inaccurate.

9) "I am in no way attacking my opponent's character or his "image." The reverse, however, is the case." So, you are promoting my character and/or image? "My opponent instead made LIBERAL ARGUMENTS for voting for Fred Thompson." False. The arguments I made were conservative in that they are rational with a thought-process associated with them.

10) "Neocons just love putting up their blinders. At least I can get honest debates with actual liberal"

You can't stop, can you?
Posted by Thoreau 9 years ago
Thoreau
What, "true liberal"? You didn't specify the debate as only for conservatives. And that still doesn't qualify the comment as necessary.

Spoken like a true arrogant. He knew what NAFTA was, he didn't agree that there was anything wrong with it. You only assumed that he didn't know what he was talking about.

Proof? Or, more relevant yet, proof that your way of thinking is better?

So you're saying that the majority of America is "hardcore leftist professors"? Most Americans believe in the elastic clause, and believe that America's government can be changed to fit their needs.

His glorification of ignorance? He goes to a university! Deification of propaganda ministers?! He admitted that they weren't always right, he only said that unless he met someone more educated, or until he got his degree, he would believe what professionals said over what non-professionals said!
Besides that, what do you classify the majority of your statements as, if not propaganda? They're almost entirely dedicated to smearing the opposition and making your side look more believable, and it's obvious that they are.

There's nothing wrong with facts. But what you state aren't facts, and they certainly aren't unbiased. You have provided no evidence outside your own opinion, which is NOT necessarily correct.

You are most certainly attacking his "image"! You refer to him in a derogatory manner almost constantly, and never accept that his arguments hold any water because of one facet of his personality or another (whether it be his "lack of conservatism" or whatever).

And besides that, you STILL haven't addressed the fact that you aren't even conservative yourself! You're libertarian, which is entirely different! If you're making a debate for conservatives, you should exclude yourself from it, because you admit on your profile that you aren't one.
Posted by clsmooth 9 years ago
clsmooth
"Spoken like a true liberal" = Pointing out an obvious contradiction.

"Why did you take this debate if you aren't even familiar with the subject matter?" = He admitted he didn't know enough to argue the point -- so why did he take the debate? It's a valid question.

"You are going to be fed Keynesian and monetarist lies by your "macroeconomics" class" = True.

"Study your history -- and not the propaganda your leftist/neocon history professor will feed you." = Good advice.

"Again, your lack of education rears its ugly head" = He doesn't understand the purpose of the Constitution or the source of its powers; facts denied only by the most hardcore of leftist professors. How is this not a lack of education?

"You have a lot of studying to do, but like most conservatives, you won't get around to it." = Okay, this statement may have been a little presumptuous. But his glorification of ignorance and deification of propaganda ministers (government education authorities) leads me to believe that I'm probably right.

"A self-described conservative would have NEVER made that statement fifty years ago." = A 100% fact. What is so wrong about stating facts in a debate?

"If YOU and your pro-Fed, pro-blind obedience to university professors, pro-income tax, pro-UN, anti-free trade, pro-Constitution as a "living document" ilk are what qualifies today as conservatives," = These are NOT conservative principles.

I am in no way attacking my opponent's character or his "image." The reverse, however, is the case. The purpose of the debate is to show that CONSERVATIVES should vote for Ron Paul. My opponent instead made LIBERAL ARGUMENTS for voting for Fred Thompson.

Neocons just love putting up their blinders. At least I can get honest debates with actual liberals.
Posted by mjvoss 9 years ago
mjvoss
That might be tough for him to follow up on.
Posted by Thoreau 9 years ago
Thoreau
"Spoken like a true liberal."

"Why did you take this debate if you aren't even familiar with the subject matter?"

"You are going to be fed Keynesian and monetarist lies by your "macroeconomics" class"

"Study your history -- and not the propaganda your leftist/neocon history professor will feed you."

"Again, your lack of education rears its ugly head"

"You have a lot of studying to do, but like most conservatives, you won't get around to it."

"A self-described conservative would have NEVER made that statement fifty years ago."

"Wow. Again, this debate was for CONSERVATIVES"

"If YOU and your pro-Fed, pro-blind obedience to university professors, pro-income tax, pro-UN, anti-free trade, pro-Constitution as a "living document" ilk are what qualifies today as conservatives,"

You don't qualify these as the kind of attacks I was talking about? They ALL say either "you're uneducated" or "I'm more conservative than you", and they all say it in an insulting manner!

Besides that, half of these attacks are inaccurate because, well, you're not conservative either! You're quite plainly libertarian! Your profile even says so!
You also never specified that this debate was specifically for conservatives, although you did make it clear that those were the people you were talking about. Your attacks on mjvoss's image in this debate are completely unfounded and unnecessary. Just accept that, and work on not making the attacks.
Posted by clsmooth 9 years ago
clsmooth
Muhafidh - Ron Paul is a student of Mises, who is much more radically pro-free market than even Smith or Ricardo. Ron Paul is 100% pro-free trade, and it is a weak smear to suggest he isn't because of his opposition to anti-free trade agreements like NAFTA. How could he favor the repeal of only "ancillary provisions" when the whole agreement is premised on supranatinonal government?

Real free trade needs no agreements or treaties at all. As Smith and Ricardo knew, reciprocity by legal decree -- which NAFTA and WTO attempt to achieve -- is unnecessary and ultimately counterproductive. The entire spirit of NAFTA and WTO flies in the face of Smith and Ricardo, to say nothing of Mises and Rothbard.
Posted by Muhafidh 9 years ago
Muhafidh
Ron Paul does not understand Ricardo; otherwise, he wouldn't advocate dismantling those institutions (NAFTA, WTO) that seek to eliminate trade barriers. If Ron Paul understood Ricardo, his congressional work would only target ancillary provisions in the relevant treaties that contravene international trade. Ron Paul believes that it's enough if only the US functions as a truly free market, as he opposes our efforts to get other countries to do the same. Those efforts, of course, include NAFTA and the WTO.
Posted by clsmooth 9 years ago
clsmooth
If pointing out contradictions is "abrasive" or a "personal attack", then yes, I'm guilty.
21 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by ineedacookie 7 years ago
ineedacookie
clsmoothmjvossTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by pcmbrown 7 years ago
pcmbrown
clsmoothmjvossTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Vote Placed by Morell4 8 years ago
Morell4
clsmoothmjvossTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by blond_guy 9 years ago
blond_guy
clsmoothmjvossTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Fisherking 9 years ago
Fisherking
clsmoothmjvossTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by lindsay 9 years ago
lindsay
clsmoothmjvossTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by thepinksquirrel 9 years ago
thepinksquirrel
clsmoothmjvossTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Vlast 9 years ago
Vlast
clsmoothmjvossTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by revolutionrising 9 years ago
revolutionrising
clsmoothmjvossTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Leonitus_Trujillo 9 years ago
Leonitus_Trujillo
clsmoothmjvossTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03