The Instigator
Solarman1969
Con (against)
Losing
24 Points
The Contender
clsmooth
Pro (for)
Winning
54 Points

Ron Paul for 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: 12/22/2007 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,492 times Debate No: 821
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (23)
Votes (26)

 

Solarman1969

Con

It is no wonder that Ron Paul is attracting all sorts of Wingnuts - he is geninuely outside the mainstream of the democrat and republican parties and is quite a breath of fresh air in the body politic

the libertarian perspective has some good and constitutional points, and Mr Paul makes many of them

that being said, many of the goals of the libertarians are not grounded in reality

i.e.

Abolish huge federal agencies as unconstitutional
Legalize all Drugs
Withdraw from all foreign entanglements

Ron Paul in particular, is NOT a republican in the classic sense, and should be running as an independent if he wants to be president- there is NO WAY he will get the republican nominiation

that being said, I agree with him on many if not most points, but I do think that his website http://www.ronpaul2008.com... espouses some of these more controversial points of the Libertarian perspective

I would not vote for him based on one thing : the WAR WITH ISLAM

To not be actively engaged with the enemy of the freedom- ISLAM- is a folly and makes him a flawed candidate, depspite the other good points, like smaller guvmint and pro-life and the rest.

If we do not actively engage and take on Islam- the war that will result will DWARF anything we have ever seen to date.

my 2 cents

Mr Smooth?
clsmooth

Pro

1. What is a wingnut? I'm not sure, but my understanding of the definition seemed to apply more to you (necons) than to Ron Paul.

2. You seem to agree that being "outside of the mainstream" of the GOP and Democrats is a good thing.

3. Libertarians are most certainly grounded in reality. It is the neocons who are divorced from reality, believing that an unwashed band of Luddite savages is something the most powerful nation in the world should fear... Believing that the same Rooseveltian-liberal foreign policy of interventionism that has failed, repeatedly, for the past seventy years is all the sudden going to start working... And most of all, the neocons are divorced from the reality that USA as World Police is something we cannot afford. So the neocons, just like their liberal counterparts (as if there's a difference) are fully behind the inflationist counterfeiting regime of the Federal Reserve. How can one be a "fiscal conservative" if one thinks it is legitimate for the government to print money to meet any and all obligations? There is no limit on a government empowered by a fiat-money-printing central bank. That is why Jefferson said a central bank was an even greater threat to liberty than a standing army -- what do you know, we have both now!

4. The agencies Ron Paul wants to abolish are clearly unconstitutional. Are you merely saying that it isn't politically realistic to follow the Constitution? If so, then why don't we just burn the Constitution and submit to a less covert (and more honest) electoral dictatorship. How can the terrorists hate us for our "freedom" when our own government doesn't observe its own laws? Ron Paul is the only candidate who states this "inconvenient truth" and that's why the neocons -- with their phony constitutioanlist, limited-government, and "free market" rhetoric -- hate him so much.

5. Legalizing all drugs is not the goal of Ron Paul's presidency. He knows the Constitution does not empower him to tell the states what they can do with drug laws -- unlike Bush and his DOJ gestapo who think the federal government's power over the states is limitless. Under Ashcroft, the gestapo raided the homes of LEGAL medical-marijuana patients and arrested sick and dying people. Is this more "realistic"? If so, I want no part of your reality.

6. Withdraw from all foreign entanglements. Read your history. See what Washington (whom you cite as the greatest president ever) and Jefferson had to say on the matter. The U.S. was prosperous and free when we followed the founding fathers' foreign policy, which served us well for well over 100 years. Why can't we go back? If you study causal economics (the Austrian school -- which President Reagan was fond of), you can easily see the secondary and tertiary effects of intervention, and they're all negative. Non-intervention is the traditional American foreign policy, and the one that allowed us to become the world's greatest nation in the first place.

7. You say "Ron Paul is not a Republican in the classic sense." Really? Well, I guess if you mean the ORIGINAL Republicans -- which grew from the Whigs and were an overtly anti-capitalist movement -- then yes, you're right. But in the 20th century sense, he is a pure Old Right Republican -- the kind of Republican that existed before liberals took over the party and gave into FDR's socialist New Deal. Robert Taft was called "Mr. Republican" -- he was THE QUINTESSENTIAL REPUBLICAN OF HIS DAY -- and his views are very similar to those of Ron Paul. See http://en.wikipedia.org.... Republicans opposed WWI and WWII -- Bob Dole was even calling them "Democrat wars" as late as 1996. It was Democrats that got us into those wars, as well as Korea (under the dictator Truman, without a declaration or even authorization -- just the UN's word) and Vietnam. Republicans opposed Clinton's neoconservative foreign policy. George W. Bush even sounded like Ron Paul in 2000 -- see this video: . So yes, Ron Paul is a Republican in every sense but the modern, neoconservative; and the original mercantilist sense.

8. Ron Paul has a very good chance of winning the Republican nomination. The futures markets put his odds at around 9% the last time I checked. That's not horrible. He is out-fundraising all other Republicans, and unlike them -- whose funds come almost exclusively in "bundles" from fiat-money bankers and other welfare-for-the-rich recipients -- Ron Paul's contributions come from REAL PEOPLE. He raises more money from the military than any other candidate. He's the only major candidate without names like "Goldman Sachs," "Bear, Sterns," and "Lehman Brothers," etc., on his top donors' list. The polls greatly underestimate his support because they (a) sometimes don't even ask about him, (b) they typically ask registered Republicans or recent primary voters (which are not his base), (c) they only reach dinosaurs with landlines and without caller ID, and (d) the polls don't estimate intensity of support -- actually one did... It found that only 47% of Huckabee's supporters were "certain" they would vote for their John Edwards/Jerry Fallwell/modern Huey Long, while 88% of Paul's supporters were "certain" they would vote for their man. SOURCE: http://www.lewrockwell.com... Ron Paul will finish third (or better) in Iowa and New Hampshire, and then people will take more notice. Just watch.

9. No one with any sense, not even the most bloodthirsty and knuckle-dragging neocons, is for a "war with Islam" -- at least not openly. At least you have the integrity to admit you're on a Hitlerian ethnic-cleansing reverse Jihad. Ron Paul, as commander in chief, will pull troops out of imperial bases all over the world, and bring them home -- stationing them on our borders. Who is going to hurt us? It's absurd. They can only hurt us when we make it easy for them by using our soldiers as pawns in our globalist chess match, designed for nothing more than military-industrial-complex profits and loss of liberty at home -- "war is the health of the state." This is the old liberal / socialist game (liberals and socialists LOVED WWI and WWII because with war came bigger government and more central planning), and the neocons have co-opted it. Luckily, the neocons will not outlast 2009, and their ideology will be on the ash heap of history, just like the mercantilists, communists, and socialists who came before them.

I think I gave you more than two cents. Make my change gold or silver, not fiat money! :)
Debate Round No. 1
Solarman1969

Con

1) what is a wingut? a zany follower or marginal type person

examples of Wingnuts for Paul

the head of Stormfront ,Don Black a neo-nazi group

http://lonestartimes.com...

The Islamists

Why should American Muslims vote for Ron Paul? How will he help the Ummah?

http://www.freerepublic.com...

http://www.freerepublic.com...

A Brothel Owner

http://www.azstarnet.com...

and I live in The Gay Bay, Ca (SF) and we have TONS of wingnuts and they are out screaming for Ron Paul with big stickers and banners

Now , again, I totally agree with Paul on many subjects and in general both like and agree with him -EXCEPT on foreign policy

2. You seem to agree that being "outside of the mainstream" of the GOP and Democrats is a good thing.

Yes, I do, and I am. But I am CONSERVATIVE first and foremost

Now on #3 you make two separate points so I will address them separately

3a) Libertarians are most certainly grounded in reality. It is the neocons who are divorced from reality, believing that an unwashed band of Luddite savages is something the most powerful nation in the world should fear... Believing that the same Rooseveltian-liberal foreign policy of interventionism that has failed, repeatedly, for the past seventy years is all the sudden going to start working... And most of all, the neocons are divorced from the reality that USA as World Police is something we cannot afford.

Ok your arguments here are varied, and Wrong. Completely.

First WWII

Do you NOT think we should have gotten engaged with Hitler and Tojo and Mussolini?

Should we have just allowed them to take over Europe and Asia ?

And are you trying to say we werent COMPLETELY SUCCESSFUL in crushing the evil that those empires were? Are they (germany and Japan) not now allies and great members of the international community?

Even my ardent liberal friends dont debate that subject and if you dont think we should ever confront evil or fight for anything you are a COWARD and no more

And in terms of being the world police, who else is in a position to maintain order and peace in the world? Are you foolish enough to think if we withdraw that everything will be fine?

3b) So the neocons, just like their liberal counterparts (as if there's a difference) are fully behind the inflationist counterfeiting regime of the Federal Reserve. How can one be a "fiscal conservative" if one thinks it is legitimate for the government to print money to meet any and all obligations? There is no limit on a government empowered by a fiat-money-printing central bank. That is why Jefferson said a central bank was an even greater threat to liberty than a standing army -- what do you know, we have both now!

Here is where you start to lose it and show why libertarians dont stand a chance of ewver winning elections

What , praytell, do you propose be our monetary system? the Gold standard?

I am going to let YOU answer that question , rather that give me the gobbledygook about the conspiracy of federal reserve and FICA and our current system (and I suppose the secret societies where the run the world etc)

4. The agencies Ron Paul wants to abolish are clearly unconstitutional.....Ron Paul is the only candidate who states this "inconvenient truth" and that's why the neocons -- with their phony constitutioanlist, limited-government, and "free market" rhetoric -- hate him so much

Ok here's where you Paul Bots go off the track

So Paul is going to single handedly end the FBI? CIA? Dept of Education? EPA? OSHA? and all the rest?

Hows that going to happen ? this is where you are out to lunch and dont realize that no matter who the president , they have to WORK WITH CONGRESS to accomplish anything

Now, it would be fun to watch, and nothing would get done, which would be good , and personally I would LOVE to see the fed guvmint get WAY smaller- I just live in reality, not fantasy , and know it aint gonna happen.

Ditto for bloated state guvmints as well.

5. Legalizing all drugs is not the goal of Ron Paul's presidency. He knows the Constitution does not empower him to tell the states what they can do with drug laws -- unlike Bush and his DOJ gestapo who think the federal government's power over the states is limitless. Under Ashcroft, the gestapo raided the homes of LEGAL medical-marijuana patients and arrested sick and dying people. Is this more "realistic"? If so, I want no part of your reality.

I am for the complete legalization of all drugs, to end the crime involved and acheive harm reduction. I agree entriely with the libertarian position.

And I vaporize Marijuana regularly and have enjoyed it for over 25 years- it is a complete joke that this fabulous plant is illicit

6. Withdraw from all foreign entanglements. Read your history. See what Washington (whom you cite as the greatest president ever) and Jefferson had to say on the matter. The U.S. was prosperous and free when we followed the founding fathers' foreign policy, which served us well for well over 100 years. Why can't we go back? If you study causal economics (the Austrian school -- which President Reagan was fond of), you can easily see the secondary and tertiary effects of intervention, and they're all negative. Non-intervention is the traditional American foreign policy, and the one that allowed us to become the world's greatest nation in the first place.

This is not that same world as 1780. there are NUCLEAR WEAPONS.

There are suicidal nutjobs who are dying (no pun intended) to nuke NYC, or LA, or your name it.

To think otherwise is foolish, and the world is in complete agreement that the likes of Ahm-a-damn-nutjob CANNOT and WILL NOT ever get nuke weapons.

The world that you non-interventionists (read isolationists) live in is NOT reality- we MUST be a strong and engaged force against the enemy- Islam

Your seventh point is kind of rambling and youre stuck on "neocon"

8. Ron Paul has a very good chance of winning the Republican nomination.

No he doesnt- that is wishful thinking on your part and you know it

It would be interesting if he runs a la Perot- I wonder who he would take more votes from - Ds or Rs? even wondering about that makes him not an (R) at least in the current sense (which I agree is FAR too liberal, but WAY better than the dems who are totally out to lunch)

9. No one with any sense, not even the most bloodthirsty and knuckle-dragging neocons, is for a "war with Islam" -- at least not openly.At least you have the integrity to admit you're on a Hitlerian ethnic-cleansing reverse Jihad

Ok again, so by pointing out the dangerous death cult that Islam is makes me like Hitler?

Cant you ever come up with something else?

And again, you simply repeat the "WITHDRAW NOW!" rhetoric that aligns you squarely with the nutroots - 9/11 inside job - Bush Lied - LEFT in the USA

Now, again, since it is pointless to talk about turning back the clock to 1780, and making the government entirely constitutional to the letter dating back to that date, although I applaud the fact that at least SOMEONE is talking about it.

Mr Paul is a fine fellow, and I wish him the best of luck- he is right on the money on most issues but the idea that we cant be threatened and that we shouldnt care about the rest of the world's security and freedom wont fly with this "neocon"

My vote in the primary is for Mr Thompson, who I think is the best guy for the job and the only TRUE conservative who hasnt varied over time (Paul hasnt either to his credit)

The bottom line is you say that you are against Collectivism, and thus I would imagine that you realize that trying to compare ANY democrat with ANY republican - there is no comparison

Cheers
clsmooth

Pro

1. Yes, a lot of strange people support Ron Paul. All that proves is that a lot of strange people support him. It shouldn't discredit him in any way. Reverend Fred Phelps (GodHatesFags.com) was a long-time Al Gore supporter -- what does this say about Al Gore? Nothing. The Jesus Camp people literally worship George W. Bush. Does this mean George W. Bush thinks he is a God? No. Ron Paul cannot be responsible for the weirdness of some of his supporters. I'm not weird, and neither are the vast majority of his millions of fans. If you're suggesting that all of his supporters, or even a good percentage of them, are "wingnuts," then there's a whole lot of wingnuts in this country -- as evidenced by his fundraising and success in straw polls.

2. While it was appropriate to respond to Pearl Harbor, you don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to believe that FDR knew about it in advance -- the evidence is overwhelming. Instead of reading liberal history books and trusting socialist teachers, you should read Thomas E. Woods Jr.'s POLITICALLY INCORRECT GUIDE TO AMERICAN HISTORY. We antagonized Japan and Germany. It is not our business to keep Europe free -- they're never even grateful, so why should we? That's a liberal view. Europe created Nazi Germany from the overly harsh punishments inflicted on the nation after WWI. WWI led directly to WWII, and we had no business whatsoever being involved in the former. This is the TRADITIONAL CONSERVATIVE POSITION. The socialist public school system has brainwashed people like you into thinking otherwise -- and the neocon intellectuals (former Communists, almost all of them) have picked up on it. Traditionally, liberal Democrats have been the War Party. Ask Bob Dole.

3. So again, you think the U.S. should be "world police." That's a horribly liberal worldview, and one that conservatives were fighting against as recently as 2000. It is not our job to keep the world safe -- "the common defense" refers to the United States territory, only! Besides, global central planning cannot be successful, and it cannot be paid for without printing money and stealing from savers and pensioners. And, of course, it leads to things like 9/11. You are merely shilling for the profits of redistributionist bankers and the military-industrial complex. Even the liberal Dwight Eisenhower warned against this neoncon philosophy, so evident in his predecessors, Truman and FDR (and later, LBJ, whom the neocons loved).

4. A free monetary system uses real money. Real money is defined by and naturally arises from within the marketplace. Federal Reserve Notes are only accepted because (a) they can be used to pay income taxes, and (b) the government forces you to accept them. They are backed by nothing but big government's might. Don't pay your taxes, and you're thrown in jail. But worse than that, refuse to accept FRNs and you're thrown in jail. Create a competing currency, and you're thrown in jail. I do not go for any conspiracy theories -- what I'm talking about here is open fact that no economist will disagree with. Excuse me for believing in a free monetary system with real money -- one where governments would be restrained. Hard money is a traditional conservative value -- see the monetary-policy debates of the late 1800s and early 1900s. Of course, hard money means you can't have your ethnic-cleansing Jihads, so it's not surprising that the liberal neocons have bought into the Wilson/FDR monetary system and will defend it to their last breath.

5. The FBI, CIA, and all of the departments you mentioned are unquestionably unconstitutional. (Maybe not the FBI, but certainly the CIA). "It's not 1780 anymore" is a classic Leftist argument. Neocons and liberals are both against the Constitution whenever it proves itself to be an "inconvenience" to their welfare/warfare state dreams. Regardless, Ron Paul does not propose to abolish these programs as president unless there is the political will to do so. Of course, if he's elected president, then that will say a lot for the political will.

6. Ron Paul is still a longshot. So what? So was Ronald Reagan when he ran in 1976 -- when Ron Paul was one of the few congressmen to support him -- and again (though less so) in 1980. But right now, Ron Paul's chances are approximately 7.75% to win the GOP nomination. SOURCE: http://www.intrade.com.... If you disagree, sell some futures contracts and make some money. If you're so positive he's going to lose, it's easy money.

7. Fred Thompson is a liberal Council of Foreign Relations member. Just another out-of-touch Hollywood guy, and a big-money lawyer/lobbyist to boot. He's for the income tax, for the Federal Reserve, for nationalist education, for the welfare state, etc. That said, he's the second-best Republican in the race, but second-best by a number of magnitudes. To someone who truly cares about freedom, it matters very little if Thompson or Hillary or Barack is elected. Ron Paul is the only hope for restoring liberty and re-legalizing the Constitution.

8. Finally, you try to smear me as a "conspiracy theorist," "9/11 truther," etc., none of which is true. I don't believe in Secret Societies -- the "societies" I'm worried about conduct their business right in the open: The International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the United Nations, etc. The Federal Reserve itself is sort of secretive, but I don't allege anything about it that any knowledgeable person could disagree with, and that goes for the IMF, World Bank, UN, etc., too.
Debate Round No. 2
Solarman1969

Con

Hello Clsmooth

Im going to skip point one because although the nutjobs and wackos are generally libs or Ron paul supporters, it doesnt impugn him as a good man with alot of VERY GOOD points and perspectives

2. While it was appropriate to respond to Pearl Harbor, you don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to believe that FDR knew about it in advance -- the evidence is overwhelming

We antagonized Japan and Germany. It is not our business to keep Europe free

You are completely off the reservation here, my friend.

Im not going to go into a long debate about WWII, as that is a lengthy subject in and of itself, but suffice it to say that

(1) the Nazis were and evil totalitarian racist regime bent on taking over the world and needed to be defeated for OUR OWN INTEREST as well as Europe

(2) Imperial Japan was much the same- a racist totalitarian regime bent on taking over Asia major.

WE antagonized THEM? what a JOKE!! What about the rape of Nanking in China?

How about their actions in the phillipines, Vietnam, Korea, and the brutal enslavement , torture and rape and murder there?

This is the most important point to be made about you hard core Ron Paul/ Libertarian types

the islolationist world you live in is NOT reality and would have led to incredible suffering in the world had your view, which was about 30% popular in the 1930s prevailed.

In THIS ERA, you UNDERESTIMATE the threat of Islam entirely

did 9/11 happen or not? what would you have done in response?

Does the fact that we have had NO attacks since and have pretty much defeated Al Queda in Iraq and Afgan mean anything to you ?

Or should we have just let them go on after murdering 3000 americans in the most brutal and immoral way possible?

3. So again, you think the U.S. should be "world police." That's a horribly liberal worldview, and one that conservatives were fighting against as recently as 2000. It is not our job to keep the world safe -- "the common defense" refers to the United States territory, only!

Again, this is a myopic and pathetic SELFISH world view

What defines our "borders" ? how did they come to exist in the first place?

Are you that CALLOUS that you are completely willing to ignore the plight of the rest of the world?

This , again , is why you Ron Paulers and libertarians will remain in the fringe for the foreseeable future.

The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA stands alone as the beacon of freedom and example to the world of sane rational government.

We have an OBLIGATION to spread these ideas to the rest of the world.

When the rest of the world understands freedom, the world will be a much better place

Our position is NOT NOBLE if we do less.

4. A free monetary system uses real money. Real money is defined by and naturally arises from within the marketplace

this is nonsense

so who in the "merketplace" prints the money then?

Again, this is why you are out of touch.

I asked you for a real alternative to the federal reserve, which all conspiracy types like to bash- you HAVE NOT PROVIDED ONE.

You cant

5. The FBI, CIA, and all of the departments you mentioned are unquestionably unconstitutional. (Maybe not the FBI, but certainly the CIA). "It's not 1780 anymore" is a classic Leftist argument. Neocons and liberals are both against the Constitution whenever it proves itself to be an "inconvenience" to their welfare/warfare state dreams.

Now youre hust simply confused

Liberal does NOT equal conservative

and your notion of dissolving the Intel agencies is STUPID and confused at best

6. Ron Paul is still a longshot

yes he is, becuase of the marginal views which you express

7. Fred Thompson is a liberal Council of Foreign Relations member. Just another out-of-touch Hollywood guy, and a big-money lawyer/lobbyist to boot

Nice try. Freds the man . Nice attempt to smear him

8. Finally, you try to smear me as a "conspiracy theorist

Yes I do.

PROOF : you think and state clearly that pearl harbor was an inside job

Im sure you have your doubts about 9/11 too, but wont express it openly

In short, to conclude, Ron Paul is a GREAT MAN and a BREATH OF FRESH AIR

He and the libertarians have MANY good points to make about freedom and liberty and I certainly encourage you to keep making your case.

However, he is NOT the man for president right now, because his ideas are NOT mainstream, he would not be able to work within the system we have and thus, he is not the best Republican for the job

reason #1 - He doesnt get the war with Islam and the importance of maintaining a serious military presence around the world to ensure the free flow of commerce and ideas which you hold so sacred and dear.

that being said he is 1000 times better than ANY democrat.

take care and this has been the first good debate I have had other than my one on collidal silver.

i will challenge you on some of the sub-points in the future

Merry Christmas to you and yours

sincerely,

Solarman
clsmooth

Pro

1. Thank you for that kind admission.

2. This is a common trick of the neocons -- smearing anti-war people as Nazi enablers, etc. Yes, Germany and Japan were evil -- most governments are, including today. I'll go further in admitting that these governments were particularly evil. So what? Not our battle. We have no business being Europe's bodyguard. They need to provide their own defense. Germany and Japan were not threats to us -- they had absolutely no ability to attack our homeland. Even after we were dropping bombs on their civilian populations, how many more Pearl Harbors were there? Hawaii wasn't even a state at the time. Why didn't Germany or Japan drop bombs on Detroit or Chicago or New York City? Because they were nice? No, because they were unable to.

To say we did not antagonize Germany and Japan is just to blindly deny historical facts. We took sides with the Allies, providing them loans, etc., in violation of our promises to be neutral. The American people were soundly against this war until FDR (probably) allowed Pearl Harbor to happen.

What does this have to do with Ron Paul? Oh yeah, the FACT that the Republican Party and most non-liberal Americans (and many liberals) were against this war. Thus, refuting your suggestion that the Republican Party was always a macho pro-war party, and therefore, Ron Paul is not a "real" Republican. It wasn't. That is a recent invention. Why did Bob Dole call WWI and WWII "Democrat wars"?

9/11 did happen. A group of bandits killed 3,000 people and themselves. Most of the hijackers were Saudis. What would I have done in response? Exactly what the Constitution says to do, and what Ron Paul proposed -- issue a Letter of Marque and Reprisal. Put a $100 million bounty on bin Laden's head -- hell, a $2 billion bounty. He'd have been caught if that route would have been pursued.

The only threat I'm worried about is our own government. That's a much greater threat than a silly superstition from the year 600.

3. Our government was created to defend the liberty of its citizens -- not to "go in search abroad of monsters to destroy." Read the works of the Founding Fathers. We are to be a "friend of liberty everywhere" but a guarantor of it only here. That's LIMITED GOVERNMENT. We don't own the world. Our taxpayers cannot be made to defend the world. That's wealth redistribution. Foreigners need to pay for their own defense. Selfish? YOU ARE THE SELFISH ONE. You want to take taxpayer's money, at gunpoint, and use it to fund your ethnic-cleansing Jihad and other Team America World Police activities. If you weren't so selfish, you would get together with your other paranoid neocon friends and raise money to fund your Crusades on your own. It's awfully easy to be generous with other people's money. YOU ARE NOT A CONSERVATIVE -- you are a Woodrow Wilson liberal.

4. Hahaha. Your understanding of economics is so juvenile, I hardly know how to respond. Who "printed" the first money? Nobody. Money arises naturally as the most commonly accepted means of exchange. Throughout history, this has been gold and silver, most commonly. Free and private banks can issue paper notes backed by gold or silver in their vaults. There's no need for the government to have any role in monetary policy at all. This was the de-facto monetary policy of the United States for most of its most prosperous years, following the Civil War. Read what Thomas Jefferson had to say about paper money and central banks. Of course, like most Hamiltonian liberals, you probably despise Jefferson.

I don't subscribe to any "conspiracy theories" -- quit smearing me with that lie.

5. Liberals hate the Constitution and always have. Since WWII, conservatives have joined them. The CIA is clearly unconstitutional. There's nothing confusing about that at all. You are a Wilsonian Liberal, not a conservative as you claim. You defend the Fed and the World Police agenda that Wilson first espoused. Conservatives, throughout America's history, have been opposed to central banks and foreign intervention -- it has been liberals who have championed those things. You smoke weed, reject Christianity, love the Fed and big government, but you think you're a conservative? I wonder what Robert Taft would think.

6. He has a better chance of winning than your man, Fred Thompson. Disagree? Go sell some Ron Paul contracts and buy some Thompson ones. If you're right, you can make a fortune.

7. Fred Thompson is a Washington insider and CFR member. He's for the Fed, for the income tax, for Wilsonian foreign policy, etc. He lobbied for a pro-choice group; I could go on and on. The fact that he's the second-best choice is a sad statement on the quality of the candidates, aside from Ron Paul.

8. I do not have doubts about 9/11. Why would you say that? That's a smear. The only "conspiracy" of 9/11 is the overwhelming stupidity and incompetence of the security apparatus that you love so much -- socialism cannot work! The evidence that FDR knew about Pearl Harbor in advance is fairly convincing. Many conservative historians -- particularly in the era directly coming out of WWII -- share this view. There is no "conspiracy" involved.

You said that Ron Paul was not a "classical Republican." Well, in the sense of the ORIGINAL, Jeffersonian Republicans (they did NOT call themselves "democrats" -- their enemies did), Ron Paul most certainly is. That's why Fox News commentator Andrew Napolitano calls Ron Paul "the Thomas Jefferson of our day," and Rush Limbaugh guest host, Walter E. Williams, says Dr. Paul is "one of three congressmen the Founding Fathers would even want to talk to." Jefferson was against central banks and standing armies. If you don't think he would have been against the income tax and the CIA, then you're mixing too much colodial silver with your hashish.

Congrats on what is likely to be your first win, solarman. This debate is eerily similar to the course of questioning pursued by Tim Russert on today's Meet The Press. Did the neocons send out a memo?
Debate Round No. 3
23 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by clsmooth 9 years ago
clsmooth
I wouldn't phrase it the way she did, but she is right: The original neocons (were) are (ex) commies. Neocons do not come from the Old Right.
Posted by killa_connor 9 years ago
killa_connor
Get a brain? Do you even know what we're talking about? This discussion was about whether or not FDR practiced the kind of imperialism and neo-conservatism that clsmooth has charged him with. Please read back before you insult me!
Posted by thepinksquirrel 9 years ago
thepinksquirrel
The original neocons were ex-communists who were loyal to the dem party. Anyone with a brain knows this. They left the dem party after McGovern was nominated. Get a brain.
Posted by killa_connor 9 years ago
killa_connor
"But these Old Left liberals who became the original neocons were followers and worshippers of FDR and Truman."

Well whatever, I'm not trying to defend other liberals and their neo-con tendencies but to claim that the "original neo-cons" were liberals is ridiculous. The original Neo-con's were conservative! It has always been linked to the Republican party and just because some Democrats (NOT FDR!) embraced interventionist policies doesn't mean that the neo-conservatism ideology began from within the Democratic party or those with a liberal ideology because that isn't consistent with the movements origins or contemporary state.

Can you give me one reason that isn't historicallyd disputed (like the claim that Roosevelt knew and wanted Pearl Harbor to happen! Does anyone else find this ridiculous?). Because I've already given you two examples of how FDR practiced isolationism in the form of the Good Neighbor Policy and the Montevideo Convention. Challenge me to a debate if you want but mostly I'd like you to stop claiming that FDR was "just another war hungry Democrat that caused WWII" because it's an argument with no historical merit.

Republicans are horrible at blaming all their problems on Democrats. Dems have it easy =).
Posted by Solarman1969 9 years ago
Solarman1969
you know it , buddy

the MSM and demoncats are pure evil propagandists for their socialist cause and will do anything to get power

Fortunately we have talk radio and the internet to combat them and it is very effective

cheers
Posted by clsmooth 9 years ago
clsmooth
solarman - It was all in good fun. No offense taken. But no, I am not a "9/11 truther." I don't think the government is smart enough to pull off that kind of plot, and I'm really skeptical about anyone who thinks they are.

I'm glad you will vote for Ron Paul if he gets the nomination. I would consider voting for Fred, but I plan on writing Ron Paul in if need be!

One thing you're right about: Right now, Ron Paul is being ignored by the MSM, but a lot of Democrats like him. But as soon as he wins the nomination, they will turn him into the worst monster of all time.
Posted by Solarman1969 9 years ago
Solarman1969
We shall have to continue this discussion in another debate

It is refreshing to actually be chatting with an ADULT

I will of course lose this like I lose everything on this website populated with emotional silly chidren

It is a badge of honor and I hope I lose every vote

I think that Ron Paul and the Libertarian perspective is very conservative in nature, and that conservativism, or adherence to the constitutional government that gives us our freedoms, is quite the olar opposite of liberalism

I think with respect to foreign policy , modern day liberals are much more in agreement with your "pull the troops home now" point of view

this, altough they are SO ingnenious (the democrats( that they may just be hemming and hawing that point of view just to stir up hatred for Bush and the republicans

Now I do agree that Saudi Arabia is a major problem and worldwide funder of Wahhabist sects and terror. they have some in their own backyard that they have to deal with.

I think the Bushes in particular are WAY too chummy with the Saudis

I do take exception with your point of view that Germany was not hurting us- their U boats were taking out TONS of our ships and they had major plans for an invasion of our east coast(I can provide references if you like)

nonetheless, I think the debate topics that we should explore should stick to the modern day topics like

Crime
WOT
Financial Issues
Federal vs State issues
Education

and the like

and Im sorry if you feel I accused you of being a 9/11 nut, and Im glad that you are not- they are truly sad people

I wil vote for Ron in heartbeat if he gets the nomination

Prepare for the liberal democrat onslaught if he does

"he wants to end social security and medicare!!!"

"he wants to kill the poor and disabled!!!"

"he want big business to run everything and destroy the environment!!!!"

your know the mainstream media will repeat these lies over and over
Posted by clsmooth 9 years ago
clsmooth
I am discussing a side-point with a non-debate participant, not "continuing the debate."

Feel free not to read the comments.
Posted by Rousseau 9 years ago
Rousseau
Don't continue the debate in comments. If you feel you have more to say, start a new debate.
Posted by clsmooth 9 years ago
clsmooth
continued... Clearly FDR and Truman (or Wilson, etc.) were not "neocons" because neoconservatism did not yet exist. But these Old Left liberals who became the original neocons were followers and worshippers of FDR and Truman. They turned on cultural issues and on the Vietnam War. They held on to the Roosevelt/Truman foreign policy, and an only moderately scaled back domestic policy. Actually, they essentially affirm the New Deal, but just think The Great Society went too far.
26 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by griffinisright 9 years ago
griffinisright
Solarman1969clsmoothTied
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 DeATHNOTE 9 years ago
DeATHNOTE
Solarman1969clsmoothTied
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 Capt.Herp 9 years ago
Capt.Herp
Solarman1969clsmoothTied
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 mjvoss 9 years ago
mjvoss
Solarman1969clsmoothTied
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 Partyboat 9 years ago
Partyboat
Solarman1969clsmoothTied
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
Solarman1969clsmoothTied
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 Vlast 9 years ago
Vlast
Solarman1969clsmoothTied
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 HempforVictory 9 years ago
HempforVictory
Solarman1969clsmoothTied
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 RepublicanView333 9 years ago
RepublicanView333
Solarman1969clsmoothTied
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 killa_connor 9 years ago
killa_connor
Solarman1969clsmoothTied
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