The Instigator
JasonMc
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Advidoct
Pro (for)
Winning
9 Points

Mitt Romney should be the next president

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
Con Tied Pro
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: 1/22/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 818 times Debate No: 2101
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (4)

 

JasonMc

Con

I have found your arguments to be quite rational, which is exactly what I look for in a worthwhile opponent. I've also noticed that we agree on a variety of issues, politically speaking. The thing that stands out mostly about you to me is that you are supporting Mitt Romney for president. I also noted that you were a Mormon yourself, but you seem to base your political beliefs on solid principles, and not fact that Mitt Romney shares your religious beliefs alone.

I would argue, being a conservative myself, that Ron Paul is the best candidate for president. He has the most consistent conservative record, and he's the only candidate that has a firm grasp on the economic crisis, as well as the other important issues facing the US today.

Where as many argue that Ron Paul is a liberal or totally insane, I argue that the other GOP candidates are paleoliberals, otherwise known as neoconservatives. The Bush administration has increased government spending, size, and power exponentially, and therefore cannot be considered conservative.

If they were conservative, they would've advocated more conservative means of addressing this country's problems, instead of the liberal means which they chose. They are in fact leftist liberals, and every GOP candidate except for Ron Paul is following this lead.

If one party should ideally give balance to the other, neocon republicans are wolves in sheep's clothing. If the liberal opposition is liberal itself, then the scales tip to one side, and there is no balance to the system. There's nothing democratic about a system without balance.

I debate people in order to correct and refine my views because I want to know that I'm subscribing to the right philosophies. I seek to challenge my own views, as well as yours. Maybe I'm right, or maybe I'm wrong. Either way, I hope that you will accept the challenge and that we can both learn something and fine tune our political idealisms.
Advidoct

Pro

Before I get started, I just wanna thank you for the respect to are willing to pay to others who dont necessrily subscribe to your point of view. Its very refreshing, and i know we will both enjoy this debate.

When it comes to Ron Paul, I cant say that I am particularly well informed. I have been to his website and listened to him on the issues, and Ive read his biography. If I get any facts wrong, please feel free to let me know. I am bound to mess up somewhere.

Watching his videos, Ron Paul has impressed me. He is very smart and insightful man. This as a quality is great. It does, however have certain repercussions that I feel make him a poor fit for president at this time. Because of his ability to see things from new persepectives, he has what some people consider pretty radical ideas. Things such a reinstating the gold standard out income tax.
I wont argue that they are all bad ideas, but the time for that kind of economical change is not now. Our economy is too unstable to expirement with moving onto the gold-standard or cutting income tax. Suppose the economy crashes while we are undergoing these changes...we would lose much more than a few billion dollars. OUr government would no longer have sufficient funding. The National standard of living will drop lower than it has in 100 years. Its to risky of a proposition.
To me the most important thing we need to be concerned about is our economy and according to polls, most people feel the same way. Our strength as a nation and our work ethic as a people come from our industries. Our success has been based not on our military might, but our ability to gain great profit from very productive industries. Even our military might comes less from well-trained soldier and more from our ability to produce weapons, munitions, and tolls faster than any other nation. When it comes to all out war, the US wins because of its ability to overwhelm and outproduce and other nation. Today, however our economy is at serious risk. We are no longer able to compete with countries such as Japan and China. If we want to maintain stability and prolong our role as a superpower, we need to stay competitive.
In this situation, we need to look at the country as a business. We need to expand our industries to become more productive. We need to cut spending to increase profit. The man to do this job is the "King if Cut-Spending" himself, Mitt Romney. Mitt Romney has brought many business out of near-bankruptcy and made them successful and very profitable. His ability to turn businesses around is what we need for America. He can bring changes that will make us very profitable, and hat are much less risky than Ron Pauls ideas. We need a more stable America and now is not the time to kick the government off of some of its old legs. What we need more, is to pump more strength into them.

As you said earlier, Ron Paul has the most consistent conservative record. I can probably agree with that. I get the impression that he does have a firm grasp on the economic crisis, but I do not believe he really has the skills to tackle the problem. He has little training in handling money. In reality...this is a job for a businessman.

I agree with you that neoconservatives are dangerous too. People like Mike Huckabee, Fred Thompson, Duncan Hunter, and in some cases Rudy Giuliani scare me. I like to call them "Bush" republicans. Republicans that speak change but aren't ready to listen to the voice of the people. They are people who i think will certaily not fix our Bushist government.
Debate Round No. 1
JasonMc

Con

For the most part, I agree with your statement that "Our success has been based not on our military might, but our ability to gain great profit from very productive industries. Even our military might comes less from well-trained soldier and more from our ability to produce weapons, munitions, and tolls faster than any other nation. When it comes to all out war, the US wins because of its ability to overwhelm and outproduce and other nation. Today, however our economy is at serious risk. We are no longer able to compete with countries such as Japan and China. If we want to maintain stability and prolong our role as a superpower, we need to stay competitive" however, I disagree that we need to run our country like a business in order to fix the problem.

Being a successful businessman would certainly qualify as a positive attribute for a candidate to have, and I applaud Romney for that. The problem with running a country like a business is that running a country is far more complex than running a business. A president has far more than economical considerations to take into account with every decision he or she makes for the people they are supposed to be representing.

To give a good analogy to better illustrate my point, imagine a veteran goes to a VA hospital for treatment and they tell him they can't give him care because they've gone out of business due to mismanagement and unforeseen complications. The problem with running a country like a business is that businesses fail all the time. In fact, the majority of all businesses started do. A country / government cannot go out of business.

Another problem with running a country like a business is that ethical considerations are not necessarily a top priority in business management. I study environmental management at the IU School of Public and Environmental Affairs, which is attached to the IU Kelly School of Business. We jokingly call them "the dark side", but in all seriousness, many professors at IU KSB and other business schools teach that ethics and business have nothing to do with one another, that they are two totally unrelated disciplines. This business philosophy is a general consensus among businesses across the US and the rest of the developed world alike.

To a degree, there is some truth to what they're saying in terms of maximizing profits and running a business successfully, but incorporating this philosophy into politics has resulted in the domination of our government at every level by special interests. Companies from all over the world have the ability to buy off any politician that's for sale through lobbying tactics or through more lucrative means. They do so in order to favor their business endeavors without considering the broader picture of promoting the general welfare of ourselves and our posterities, a constitutional obligation that every politician swears to uphold. Lobbyists don't even bother with Ron Paul because of his constitutional stance on representing the people, and not special interests.

I also disagree with the statement "Because of his ability to see things from new persepectives, he has what some people consider pretty radical ideas. Things such a reinstating the gold standard out income tax.
I wont argue that they are all bad ideas, but the time for that kind of economical change is not now. Our economy is too unstable to expirement with moving onto the gold-standard or cutting income tax. Suppose the economy crashes while we are undergoing these changes...we would lose much more than a few billion dollars. OUr government would no longer have sufficient funding. The National standard of living will drop lower than it has in 100 years. Its to risky of a proposition."

I would argue that the exact time for economical change is now, because if we don't change, our government will no longer have sufficient funding. In fact, I would argue that our government currently does not have sufficient funding, due to our overwhelming national debt, and the fact that we have to borrow so much from China and other countries in order to fund our wars. I would also argue that we are currently in recession, and therefore our economy is crashing.

Switching to the gold standard would not be experimentation because our economy was gold-based prior to switching to "legal tender". The Federal Reserve was created by a handful of bankers in order to give stability and government control of otherwise free markets and lassies faire economics. Note, however, that the great depression happened after the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. [An interesting documentary on this subject called America; Freedom to Fascism" by Aaron Russo can be viewed free (streaming) on Google]

One of the main reasons the original 13 colonies declared war against King George was because he refused to let us mint our own money, and demanded that we borrow our money from the central bank of England. He did so because he knew if he controlled our money supply, that he would have us by the balls, and would still possess tyrannical control over us even if we were more self-governed.

The Federal Reserve is similar in the sense that, it matters not who makes the rules, but who controls the money. There are many who are unaware of the fact that, according to a US district court justice, the Federal Reserve is a privately owned entity. There's nothing federal about it (reference: Phoenix Journals). Ronald Reagan's Grace Commission, a commission started by the Reagan administration to find out exactly where our tax dollars go, found that 100% of federal income tax revenues go towards paying the interest on the amount we owe the Federal Reserve. That is, we are paying private interests a percentage of our income to pay on the interest, not the principle, of a large amount of counterfeit money that they print out of thin air to lend us.

As a result, the Fed Res gained the ability to fluctuate the interest rate as they see fit, and have in turn inflated the dollar to the point that it's worth about .05% of its original value. Inflation is an invisible tax on middle and lower-class Americans. It's the very reason why a high school kid was able to get a job flipping burgers in the 1960's and afford to buy a sports car, but there's no chance of doing so today.

The Fed Red Act of 1913 was the greatest heist of all time. If we cut the Fed Res out of the mix we can eliminate inflation, our national debt, and the need for the federal income tax. All of the sudden, Americans have more money that's worth WAY more than before (also worth more compared to foreign currency as well). This is exactly what our country needs to increase productivity and stay competitive on a global scale.

Pulling our troops out of every other country and decreasing the size of government / military leave plenty of money for the government to provide the services that they are constitutionally obligated to provide. I argue that Romney is not the candidate with a firm grasp on our economic crisis, and that a businessman is not who we need to pull our country out of the situation we're in.
Advidoct

Pro

I think whole-heartedly that the country needs to be run like a business, though not exactly in the way you described it.
From a larger standpoint this country is in actuality a business. Its giant corporation strung together by smaller businesses that competes in a Global Economy. Our wealth, our standard of living, and even our personal beliefs stem from the success of this giant business called the United States. Throughout all of this nations history we have had to compete with other nations (just like smaller businesses) to stay afloat.
Now in the much smaller world we live in today, our economy is nearly if not entirely dependent of foreign trade. So much so that most of what Americans buy comes from another country, and most of what we make is sent to another country. The United States is simply a large corporation of an enormous global economy. Just like smaller corporations, it has certain committess assigned to oversee certain tasks. Internal Affair (our domestic policies) Foreign Affairs, Customer Service, Marketing, Public Relation (our foreign policies).
In fact, the way I see it, the only difference between a corporation and the US Government is that the US government does not appoint most of its officers.
Now in a large corporation, when the company starts to make a turn for the worst, the board (in this case the united states citizens and congress) would usually replace the head of the company. The United States is facing the turn for the worst right now. Our profit is heading for a major downturn. SO, what should we do??? Find a new president; someone to bring innovation, someone who can see things from a different persepctive, someone with experience and talent, and someone with the skills needed to make such a huge turnaraound.
When we reach election time, we are simply looking through the candidates for the new position.
Now when it comes down to hiring your new company president, would you rather pick the man who has experience running a large corportation; a man who was very successful at it and who has a strong mind for it, or would you rather hire a former doctor, who has little experience if any in running a business.

Ill give you that Ron Paul is a brilliant man, but he doesnt really fit the position as it needs to be filled right now.

I do not necessarily disagree with changes he wants to make. I haven't really taken the time to study all fo the facts regarding these changes, but I know enough about the consequences to understand the drastic changes that would occur.
My point is that our unstable economy is in no position to undergo such serious changes.
Im gunna try and put this into an analogy.

Right now our country is ill. Our economy has come down with a strong virus and we need to fight it off. How do we do this? The same way you always do. You strengthen the immune system. You down more vitamins, drink lots of fluids; you give your body everything it needs to be in its best condition.
In the economy's case, you pour strength into businesses. Find ways to increase production, to protect our businesses from foreign onslaught, and to create growth. Every business that succeeds makes our economy that much stronger. Eventually our ecnomy fights off the virus and we are back to our own healthy selves again.
If we were to take an unstable or ill economy, however, and make drastic changes while it is still ill, we face making it worse. The kinds of changes Ron Paul wants make dont strengthen the economy. They make it more reliable, and less unpredictable. These may or may not be good changes, but they are not changes that need to be made while our country is sick. Just like you dont wanna drastically change a sick persons enviroment when they are unstable, you dont wanna change the way our economy functions when it is in no position to absorb the shock of any kind of consequential damages that may occur at first.

When it comes to ethics you were talking about, I pose a question. Has the government always acted in our interests?
Not always, unfortunately. The government has made decisions that most of America did not believe were right. Most americans never wanted to leave the gold standard. Most americans felt like too much foreign trade was a bad thing. Most americans felt like using so much foreign oil was too risky. The government still made decisions on what was most beficial to our economy. We moved off the gold standard so we could raise the bar on our standard of living. We started more international trade, which made us a very wealthy people. Our government has just as many ethics problems as most corporations. It comes down to a conflict of interest. Whats more important? Success and wealth, or doing the right thing. People make those decisions. Businesses make those decisions, and governments make those decisions. In that respect, this nation is, as i said earlier, a giant corporation; assessing risks and profitability, just like any other business.

When a business is successful, you can often find people like Ron Paul; people with a new perspective who wants to make changes to stabilize and make the company more efficient. When a company is weak though, you need someone who can nurse it back to strength. You need someone who can help it grow and become very profitable.
Someone like Mitt Romney.
Debate Round No. 2
JasonMc

Con

You made an analogy about the country being a business and that we needed a successful businessman to bail us out instead of a doctor who knows little about business. Ron Paul entered the political arena over twenty years ago due to his fascination with free-market Austrian economics and the parallels of our political system. Though Romney is a successful businessman, Ron Paul has a better understanding of economics than any other presidential candidate.

In regards to the analogy made about not wanting to drastically change a sick person's environment when they are unstable, I say that sometimes the environment is what's making the person sick in the first place, so the only way to heal this person would be to remove them from the source of their ailment. I could also make the analogy that the US is like a sick patient, and you would want a doctor to properly diagnose the problem and prescribe a treatment to heal them, not a businessman.

Not intend to deviate too far from the subject at hand by bringing up the war, but it is certainly relevant to the current economic crisis. In the last GOP debate in Boca Raton, FLA, every candidate except for Ron Paul stated that we made the right decision by invading Iraq and that we should maintain our presence, though an overwhelming majority of Americans want us out of there. In terms of business management, a good manager should be able to make the connections that A) we are sliding into recession, and that the cost of unnecessarily maintaining a foreign empire is bankrupting our country, B) if the vast majority of voters in a democratic election want us out of Iraq, then the only way the Republicans have a chance of winning the election is to pick a candidate who's against the war.

Your statement "Our government has just as many ethics problems as most corporations. It comes down to a conflict of interest. Whats more important? Success and wealth, or doing the right thing. People make those decisions. Businesses make those decisions, and governments make those decisions. In that respect, this nation is, as i said earlier, a giant corporation; assessing risks and profitability, just like any other business" is exactly what I'm talking about when I said that you can't run a country like a business.

Why do we have to make a compromise? The best way to achieve success is to do the right thing by adhering to the Constitution. Those who say that business and ethics do not have anything to do with one another and apply this mentality to politics are simply looking at the issue from a business stance.

You made the statement that "In the economy's case, you pour strength into businesses. Find ways to increase production, to protect our businesses from foreign onslaught, and to create growth." I agree, but argue that Ron Paul's plan to eliminate the Federal Reserve return to the gold standard, and stop trying to maintain a foreign empire is the best way to do so.

To the notion of returning to the gold standard and eliminating the Federal Reserve, you stated that "I do not necessarily disagree with changes he wants to make. I haven't really taken the time to study all of the facts regarding these changes, but I know enough about the consequences to understand the drastic changes that would occur."

How can you claim to know enough about the consequences of a plan if you admittedly haven't taken the time to study all of the facts? I was skeptical of what Ron Paul was advocating until I did my homework and was able to see the argument from all sides, and was able to give it an analysis based on ALL of the facts.

There are a lot of economists within the academic realm who support Paul's economics, some of which have endorsed Paul on his website. Jim Cramer from Mad Money has been saying the same thing about the Federal Reserve for a long time, and invites Ron Paul on his show from time to time to talk about it.

Ron Paul is the only candidate without skeletons in his closet. He's got to where he's at by subscribing to constitutional governing principles and serving the people, not individual interests. He's the only candidate that will make our country safer by bringing our troops home from every country we're in, and will bail out our economy by doing so. Less $ for optimal security makes perfect sense to me.
Advidoct

Pro

"You made the statement that "In the economy's case, you pour strength into businesses. Find ways to increase production, to protect our businesses from foreign onslaught, and to create growth." I agree, but argue that Ron Paul's plan to eliminate the Federal Reserve return to the gold standard, and stop trying to maintain a foreign empire is the best way to do so".

-- I don't see how Ron Paul's interest in economics makes him an expert on the economy. Mitt Romney not only has an interest in the economy, but he has genuine experience. His career was, in a word, the "economy". Ron Paul not only has no genuine experience in the economy, but as clear as I can see, he doesn't have ANY experience in the economy. I definitely have to say that I feel Romney is much more qualified to fix our economy and I think, aside from most Paul supporters, most people agree even if they don't support Romney.

"To the notion of returning to the gold standard and eliminating the Federal Reserve, you stated that "I do not necessarily disagree with changes he wants to make. I haven't really taken the time to study all of the facts regarding these changes, but I know enough about the consequences to understand the drastic changes that would occur."

How can you claim to know enough about the consequences of a plan if you admittedly haven't taken the time to study all of the facts? I was skeptical of what Ron Paul was advocating until I did my homework and was able to see the argument from all sides, and was able to give it an analysis based on ALL of the facts."

--Its not the exact details that I need to know to understand what kind of effect those changes would have. A major economic change would have to be carefully made because an economy is a fragile things. A change of any kind would have to be made with caution, because any kind of change would have consequences that could be bad. My point is that a weakening economy does not need earth-shaking changes because it may not be able to absorb the shock of a new system. Romney wants to help the economy grow and expand. That's how you make a healthy economy. You increase production, create jobs, and encourage entrepeneurship. Growth is the key. Ron Paul wants to essentially give our economy a limit. He wants to bottle it up for safety. That's not a successful and vibrant economy. That's just a safe one.

"There are a lot of economists within the academic realm who support Paul's economics, some of which have endorsed Paul on his website. Jim Cramer from Mad Money has been saying the same thing about the Federal Reserve for a long time, and invites Ron Paul on his show from time to time to talk about it."

--Endorsements don't qualify a candidate for this kind of job though. A candidate MUST HAVE experience. Ron Paul may have economic ideas that many support, but that does not mean he has the experience to execute them. If they economy were to have an awful reaction and collapse, would Ron Paul have the know-how to fix it? I don't have enough faith in the miniscule experience to give him that chance.

"Ron Paul is the only candidate without skeletons in his closet. He's got to where he's at by subscribing to constitutional governing principles and serving the people, not individual interests. He's the only candidate that will make our country safer by bringing our troops home from every country we're in, and will bail out our economy by doing so. Less $ for optimal security makes perfect sense to me."

-- Though this has the potential to be another debate in and of itself, I will still state my views and this and Iraq.
Leaving Iraq will not make our country safer. The terrorists hate us. They want us dead, and whether or not Ron Paul is right about it being our fault, they will follow us home. They wanna fight and they don't care where the battle is. Lets not forget who attack who first.
If we leave Iraq, Al Qeada will declare victory and rally all of its supports. Recruitments will shoot through the roof, and they will come to fight the US within our borders if they have to. Im not saying there will be battles in the streets, but they will attack us with bombings, random shootings, and other attacks of terror. Bring the troops home would be bringing the fight home. That's not making America safer. That's making me worry if I'll make it home from the grocery store alive. We need to finish the fight on foreign soil, not start over on our own.

Lastly, I don't want the United States to be known as the country that invades other countries...and then leaves them a mess. We broke Iraq, now we need to buy it ( or a better way of saying it would to fix it).

Both of our top republican candidates have loads of experience in one area or another. McCain is excellent for national security. Romney is excellent for our economy. I don't feel like Ron Paul has any extensive experience anywhere outside of a hospital and on those grounds, I find him not to be the best candidate for President'
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by JasonMc 9 years ago
JasonMc
Muhafidh

As I said before, please cite one instance when Ron Paul has tossed economist's jargon around to anyone other than congress, Bernanke, OR DURING A DEBATE. He wasn't explaining the economic problem in terms familiar to the audience because the man only has so much time to be heard in a debate. If he went into detail about the Austrian school, the newfound understanding of Austrian school is all anyone would have taken from what little time he was given to speak.

You claimed in your first comment that "Ron Paul's understanding of Mises is highly imperfect, and his application of Misesian ideas to today's monetarist regime is even worse." If that's the case, then explain this list of supporters I pulled off www.ronpaul 2008.com:

Dr. Guido Hulsmann, Senior Fellow, Ludwig von Mises Institute
Dr. Thomas DiLorenzo, Professor of Economics, Loyola College in Maryland; Senior Faculty Member, the Ludwig von Mises Institute
Dr. William H Peterson, Schlarbaum Laureate, Ludwig von Misis Institute
Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr., President, Ludwig von Mises Institute
Dr. Mark Thornton, Author, Former Economic Advisor to the Governor of Alabama; Senior Fellow, Ludwig von Mises Institute.

For someone who's understanding of Mises is "highly imperfect, and his application of Misesian ideas to today's monetarist regime is even worse", he sure does have a lot of support from senior faculty and fellows from the Ludwig von Mises Institute, as well as a number of prestigious economists in academia.

You also make the claim that "The Fed participates in the economy, using only free-market tools to try to keep the money supply aligned with GDP growth. Thus, Ron Paul has it wrong." How is it you say that the Fed uses only free-market tools when they have the ability to manipulate the flow of currency any time they please? That's not what I call a free market. Even Alan Greenspan has discussed our need to do away with the Fed.
Posted by Muhafidh 9 years ago
Muhafidh
JasonMc - Here is an examples of Ron Paul's use of a term relating to economics without explaining it: "Austrian school," tossed out during at least one debate (instead of explaining the economic problem in terms familiar to the audience). His supporters magnify this, name-dropping Austrian economists left and right without explaining what they said. My point is that too many people are snowed by this loose usage without proper explication.

Ron Paul is completely self-taught (not formally educated) in economics - not a bad thing in itself, but when you're dealing with economics, watch out! That's where all the misunderstandings crop up. Here's an example of that:

Mises' biggest peeve was that governments through the early 20th century often printed money instead of raising taxes. By doing this, they could use the money before its value dropped as a consequence of the extra printing, while evading the transparency that comes with having to ask the citizens for that money instead (i.e., taxing them).

Ron Paul equates the Fed's monetary decisions with printing money in this fashion. But to make the analogy accurate, the Fed and the mint would wholly have to belong to the government. In fact, the government does not print money to cover its expenses, nor does the Fed. The Fed participates in the economy, using only free-market tools to try to keep the money supply aligned with GDP growth. Thus, Ron Paul has it wrong.

On the one hand, Ron Paul complains that the Fed does not belong to the government, so it should be eliminated. On the other, he says that its monetary decisions amount to printing money for the government, which is not true: It does not belong to the government, nor does it print any money at all.

As I said, some of Ron Paul's ideas are valid. But he does not understand his beloved Austrian school.
Posted by JasonMc 9 years ago
JasonMc
BTW, good debate. Care to continue?
Posted by JasonMc 9 years ago
JasonMc
Muhafidh:

Please, cite one instance when Ron Paul has tossed economist's jargon around to anyone other than congress, Bernanke, or during a debate when he answers complex questions the other candidates don't know how to respond to. When Ron Paul addresses the public on economic issues, he uses a more simplified means of communicating his point. Otherwise, it wouldn't make sense to so many.

To simplify complicated issues for the public, Ron Paul says things like "you can't solve inflation with more inflation." That seems pretty easy for the masses to understand to me, excluding a small group of people who think that the term "inflation" is technical jargon.

Just because Paul doesn't exactly adhere to every Misesian principle doesn't mean that he's not subscribing to some of the fundamental philosophies of Austrian economics, such as adhering to strict methodological individualism, and questioning of the basis of the behavioral theory underlying neoclassical economics.

How can you deem that applying these theories to today's monetarist regime is worse than imperfect, when you support Romney's economic policy, which advocates maintaining world-wide military presence that we can no longer afford to maintain?

How does this make good economical sense when such liberal spending is forcing our country into recession? If Romney has such a firm grasp on the state of the union, how does he expect to get elected when it's common knowledge that the vast majority of Americans want us out of Iraq, and will therefore vote for someone other than a pro-war candidate?

I have to give credit where credit is due, and acknowledge Romney's accomplishments as governor. Having said that, I would also like to point out that we shouldn't be so quick to praise a governor for his or her economical achievements before we can see how their policies come to fruition in terms of long-term economic sustainability.
Posted by Muhafidh 9 years ago
Muhafidh
Hey, folks, Ron Paul does *not* have the grasp of economics that Mitt Romney has. Ron Paul's understanding of Mises is highly imperfect, and his application of Misesian ideas to today's monetarist regime is even worse.

Yes, Ron Paul talks about economics all the time and tosses specialized terminology here and there, enough to convince a lot of people that he is actually an expert. By contrast, Mitt Romney has actually run a major economy (Massachusetts is bigger than Switzerland in economic terms) and turned around complex organizations from losses to strong profitability. Ron Paul talks a good game (literally!), and some of his ideas are valid, but he is too often mistaken.

By the way, if anyone out there is a Mitt Romney supporter and near Muscogee County (Columbus), GA, visit our local site at http://mittmuscogee.blogspot.com...!
Posted by Advidoct 9 years ago
Advidoct
thx for the challenge!
Ill post my first argument tomorrow
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by vinavinx 9 years ago
vinavinx
JasonMcAdvidoctTied
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 Gao 9 years ago
Gao
JasonMcAdvidoctTied
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 advidiun 9 years ago
advidiun
JasonMcAdvidoctTied
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 blond_guy 9 years ago
blond_guy
JasonMcAdvidoctTied
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