I love the info and have bookmarked your blog. Haver you thought of doing a vlog describing this stuff?…

I appreciate the way we disagree more and more; think on this: if the rest of the world followed our good example, there would simply be no war, and not alot of arguements. That’s a good thing, and I thank you for that.

I didn’t say we couldn’t discuss what they say, but yes, the huge preportion of focus should be on what the candidates accomplished in a tangible way.

If you think this, then wouldn’t a governor be your most ideal candidate, not Giuliani?

Like Reagan, I think Governors have the edge in relevent experience without question though in the case of the mayor of NYC….

Or are you saying that running a large city like NY is equivalent to running a state like MA?

It’s tougher, in my opinion. The congestion coupled with anonyminity leads to a very high degree of crime, often violent crime (Giuliani’s record on addressing that with results is staggering – it’s too bad so many people take it for granted). Giuliani presided over the third largest economy in the United States, and did a great job of it wile lowering taxes. Short of eliminating the IRS, that should make him a dream candidate to most conservatives on fiscal management. The list could go on and on.

Quite frankly, you aren’t alone: nobody wants to compare what Giuliani actually accomplished to what the other candidates actually accompished. There are obvious reasons for that and they greatly inform my confidence in Giuliani as the best man for the job.

Disclosure: I’m not a 9/11 conspiracy nut; don’t wear a tin foil hat; don’t play video games; only voted once in each televised debate poll; and am not a white supremist.

Despite feeling that Paul can be amaingly unrealistic in my opinion, I never said you were anything of the sort. People who support candidates are always a mixed bag looking for who speaks to them on a variety of issues. I question Paul’s thinking alot, but you’re okay in my book.

Enjoy.

By stipulating what a candidate “has done” and debating only with this guideline, you are trying to make irrelevant what Ron Paul, as an elected member to the House of Representatives, does for his country. He does not “govern” but rather, as a member of Congress, “make laws, introduces bills, and votes on bills.”

You want to discount this aspect of his experience as if it is irrelevant because your view of it’s not “leadership experience.”

To compare a Mayor and what he has accomplished for his city to a person who has years of experience at the House of Representatives level is comparing apples to oranges.

Ron Paul has introduced 100’s of bills in Congress and if they were adhered to, America wouldn’t be in the mess it currently is with over 9 trillion of debt, inflation (the hidden tax), that funds our wars and results in a weaker and weaker dollar.

Am I not to discuss Ron Paul’s views on the Gold Standard and a sound monetary system and how it can solve inflation or his adherence to Austrian Economics, which would result in truly free markets and limited government?

He’s had these same views he is espousing today since he was first in office in 1986. He is unchanging in his views. Is this consistency not to be commended?

Am I not to discuss Paul’s bills that he has introduced to solve the illegal immigration issues, abortion issues (as I did above) or the Iraq War? Is not the writing of a bill a “measurement” of accomplishment and his conviction? Is it Ron Paul’s fault that no one listens? He’s been crying wolf for 20 years and its time people listened.

But I do understand your trying to categorize the running of the city of New York an advantage over Ron Paul in the sense that you’re claiming that this experience trumps Paul’s Legislative experience in Congress where he has served 10 terms in the House as a Republican.

If you think this, then wouldn’t a governor be your most ideal candidate, not Giuliani? Or are you saying that running a large city like NY is equivalent to running a state like MA?

Personally I don’t think this way. I look at what my candidate stands for, his conviction to make a real difference for We The People; A candidate that can’t be bought by lobbyists or other politicians who wants a favor in return for a favor; A candidate that wants to eliminate Federal programs that aren’t working but are just driving our nation deeper and deeper into debt. A candidate that understands the fallacies of a Keynesian economic system and the benefits of the Austrian School of Thought that was purposefully left out of our University education (ask an Econ major what Austrian Economics is – they can’t answer it (http://www.mises.org/etexts/austrian.asp).

I want a candidate that is more in line with the Old Republicans who got us out of wars (Vietnam and Korean) and stood for limited government and sound fiscal policies. I want a candidate that secures our borders first before securing the borders of 130 different nations where our troops are stationed.

I want a candidate who loves our neighbor as ourselves.

The Republican Party has been hijacked and I believe only Ron Paul can bring it back to its roots.

I appreciate the opportunity to debate, but unfortunately I don’t think we can come to any agreement at this point as we can’t compare the candidates when they come from different walks of life.

As a Cubs fan, I’m used to the underdog scenario, ha…perhaps after 100 years the Cubs will win in 2008 and so will Ron Paul…

I’ll let you have the last word and am glad you handled the exchange in a most respectful manner. We “Paulites” don’t get that too often, lol.

Disclosure: I’m not a 9/11 conspiracy nut; don’t wear a tin foil hat; don’t play video games; only voted once in each televised debate poll; and am not a white supremist.

For those who don’t know much about Ron Paul, please look at what he has written on the issues for the last 20 years at http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/

Now compare that to any other candidate…

Peace,

Fed Up

Understand, that when you say tangible, you are trying to compare what Giuliani has done in the city of NY versus what Paul has done in his district, when in reality, Paul has been writing and trying to get bills passed on a whole array of issues that can’t be measured.

I take your point, but rather than that situation being a flaw in the debate structure, it is, instead, my entire point about political debating in general. Most successful politicians can talk a good game, but what matters is if they’re really cut out for the job. Hillary strikes fear and distain into the hearts of many because what she says absolutely has no reliable bearing on what she will do as President.

What a candidate says can be important, too, of course, but what they say really has to be entirely secondary to what they have done, because A. it shows where they really tend to be despite what they say, B. it shows what they can do and C., – and this is where it applies more to Paul perhaps than the other candidates – it’s a measurable barometer of their actual leadership experience, or lack thereof.

Such a view might infuriate those people who support a candidate whose political experience is entirely legislative, but that too, is the point – being President is an executive job, not legislative one, and you always want a job candidate with the most relevent experience.

Specifically:

what Paul has done in his district, when in reality, Paul has been writing and trying to get bills passed on a whole array of issues that can’t be measured.

In my opinion this isn’t something to be forgiven about the candidate – in my opinion and with all due respect, when discussing the real and actual leader of the entire free world, then if his accomplishments cannot be measured, then he, along with many others, are simply not ready for prime time in this arena. If he has chosen a career path in which is talents for leading and getting things done as a President would cannot be measured, then he’s simply gunning for the wrong job. Otherwise, we’re electing people on their ability to simply talk us into electing them regardless of the evidence – or lack thereof – of their ability, and when discussing Presidents, that’s as bad a baraometer as can be imagined.

Show us what the candidates have done as leaders. If they can’t, then there’s no point in “promoting” them to the job of President.

Understand, that when you say tangible, you are trying to compare what Giuliani has done in the city of NY versus what Paul has done in his district, when in reality, Paul has been writing and trying to get bills passed on a whole array of issues that can’t be measured. So I’m not sure how this will go, but I’ll give it my best shot according to what you’re looking for in continuance of the exchange.

The next topic we’ll do economic policy…

I’ll post something tomorrow.

Fed Up

BTW, I agree….the Bush impeachment moveon.org is a waste of time and taxpayers dollars.

Not to mention no impeachable offenses, as is evidenced by the lack of lawsuit and credible impeachment proceedings by Bush’s political enemies.

In your debate post you chose lots of various quotes which in context elevated Paul and diminished Giuliani. But of course quotes run the gamut, and as a consequence that kind of debate is endlessly manipulative, and quite frankly it bores me as a participant. Once again I’d request that we stick more or less to what the candidates achieved in manifest, tangible ways, or with all due respect I’ll have to bow out of the debate.

Your turn. Pick a good one that favors Paul.

Go ahead and pick the next topic out of the list so we have 5 total and I’ll do that topic next. The 3 you chose are:

War on Taxes
War Against Crime
Bi-partisanship Capabilities

I’ll do any of those next.

BTW, I agree….the Bush impeachment moveon.org is a waste of time and taxpayers dollars.

Fed Up

I understand your concerns, but it seems to me that we can put them to rest right away:

ANYONE SHOULD COMMENT AND NOT FEEL INHIBITED BY THE SENSE OF A CLOSED DEBATE. FED UP AND AND I WILL SIMPLY IGNORE THE COMMENTERS AND KEEP THE DEBATE BETWEEN US, IF THAT’S OKAY WITH FED UP (I keep wanting to use Fed Up’s initials, but I can’t bring myself to address someone as “F U”).

Rick, if you get a complaint you’ll discuss it with us before shutting this down, right? My point being that any troller could complain between you and him or her just to be malicious.

Fed Up,

In my mind we need to iron this out a bit, because what you did was mostly quote the candidates. The one tangible, manifest thing that Ron paul seemd to have done is to author HR 1095 with which I am unfamiliar. Was it voted on?> presumably it didn’t pass, alas.

Everything else is more or less what I kinda didn’t want to debate, and that’s what they said, because every politician says one thing one day and then something else the next. Admittedly both candidates have remained firm on their stand on abortion, and I’ve always said that for me this was Rudy’s major weak point.

I’ll conciede this one to Paul, as I would to Romney (in his position today)or Huckabee. I think abortion should be illegal, Rudy thinks it’s a woman’s choice. Anyway, there is no perfect candidate, and I feel quite confident in continuing to feel that Rudy is perhaps the very best choice overall, enough for me to commit support, and Paul is nowhere near Presidential timber, and, no offense, his poll numbers show (and you don’t need alot of money – Huckabee is making quite a show for himself with a very limited budget).

Anyway, I’d rather not debate the minutia of what candidates “fought for” (talk about) or what they say yesterday and today. I’m at a big disadvantage in raising negatives about Paul as he’s an enigma to me, and I don’t want to go negative on him anyway just to bash the opposition into submission – we can save that for Hillary. Let’s keep this simple: you go positive on Paul, I’ll stay positive on Rudy, no negatives and only whay each tangibly accomplished. We could spend forever debating about just these two, and you have perhaps more motivation than I do, since Paul is way down and Rudy doesn’t need my help. But let’s keep this simple and direct, or as much as we can.

Anyway, first round to you on abortion, and while I appreciate Rudy’s position in a place like NYC, where talk about impeaching Bush is regarded as intellignet political discourse – but Paul and Huckabee and Romney win on this one regardless – like there was ever any doubt

I’ll be happy to discuss after the exchange with CC.

Fed Up

What Ron Paul has done to reverse the abortion trend in our country:

1. He authored and sponsored HR1094, the Sanctity of Life Act of 2007, which would declare that human life begins at conception

(http://www.prolifealliance.com/sanctity%20of%20life%20act.html);

2. He earned a 0% rating from NARAL (Planned Parenthood’s pro-abortion lobbying organization) for his votes in Congress in 2003;

3. He has consistently supported a majority of pro-life legislation over the past 10 years – if he is construed as voting against something that pro-lifers want, it is because Congressman Paul Dr. Paul never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution.;

4. In a 1996 questionnaire, he indicated that abortions should be illegal, except to save the life of the mother (http://votesmart.org/npat.php?can_id=296#408) – also if you watched the last debate, he said that in his 30 years of delivering over 4,000 babies, he has never had to do a “medically necessary” abortion;

5. Paul is the prime sponsor of HR 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn. This can be done without any Supreme Court Justice involvement, which I believe to be a brilliant idea.

6. Paul has also authored HR 1095, which prevents federal funds to be used for so-called “population control.” Title X funds are currently being utilized by Planned Parenthood, which means our tax dollars are fudning the aborting of babies.

Quotes by Giuliani; “Ultimate decision by woman, her conscience & her doctor
I believe the best way we can have common ground in this debate that you’re hearing is if we put our emphasis on reducing abortions and increasing the number of adoptions, which is something that I did as mayor of New York City. But I think ultimately that decision that has to be made is one that government shouldn’t make. Ultimately, a woman should make that with her conscience and ultimately with her doctor.”
Source: 2007 GOP Iowa Straw Poll debate Aug 5, 2007

And the biggie: Appoint constructionist judges, but no litmus test

Q: Would you personally be disappointed if the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade?
A: I don’t think it’s a question of being disappointed or being happy about it. I think it’s a question of not wanting to make this a litmus test for judges, so that a judge feels free to listen to the facts, listen to the arguments, and come to the decision they think is the correct interpretation of the Constitution. Some strict constructionist judges are going to decide it was wrongly decided. Other strict constructionist judges may give more weight to the precedential value of it, the fact that it’s been the law for this length of time. You can see the tension there between these two things. And I think the court should be allowed to decide this.

Q: Would you nominate someone whose record shows that he opposes a woman’s right to choose?

A: If I thought that on 20 other issues they would be terrific, I might be able to, sure. I don’t consider it a litmus test.”

Source: Fox News Sunday, 2007 presidential candidate interviews May 14, 2007

More quotes found here which show his inconsistency which worries me more than any other issue because of the choosing of future Supreme Court Justices that Christians want as pro-life: http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Rudy_Giuliani_Abortion.htm

When Rudy first declared, he was interviewed on Sean Hannity’s radio show and was asked about abortion. Rudy’s answer was; “I’m against abortion but I’m for a woman’s right to choose.” Spoken like a true politician.

(Let me know if this style of debate works for you…I stated my candidates views and what he has personally done (accomplishements) and offered a critque).

Fed Up

(heading out to see a movie and will be back tomorrow)