11 thoughts on “Discuss The Debate Here

  1. Sean Scallon

    The Rick vs. Mitt show. You didn’t miss much. Oh, and Mr. 1% Jon Huntsmann got more questions than Ron Paul.

  2. roho

    It was an obvious MSNBC agenda, to create talking points in the General Election for Obama. The GOP was MSM ambushed, and should blackball MSNBC in the future. 80% of the format was geared to create conflict between Romney vs Perry, and gotcha moments for all.

  3. Jedipastor1

    Before commentating on the debate, let me preface by saying I love Ron Paul and his views and would vote for him if nominated. Having said this, I thought RP looked a little flustered at a couple points in the debate. I really believe it comes down to ‘being on the clock’…He is such a smart man that he has an immediate flood of many related thoughts when an issue is posed, but being on the clock it almost seems as if he doesn’t have enough time to organize/prioritize the thoughts and hence, a couple times blurted out a thought that was less essential/more peripheral to the issue being discussed. But this is typical to many who have a genius IQ like Ron Paul. But even when he had time to do so, for example, when he was the last to speak on illegal immigration/securing the southern border issue, after everyone had given basically the same points, i.e., boots on the ground and fence (Perry excepted on the fence issue), Ron Paul then warns about the dangers of a fence in terms of not merely keeping illegal immigrants out, but also of keeping legal citizens in. While yes, I understand the ultimate point of the potential consequences of being “fenced in” (which is much akin to the Police State fears regarding the Department of Homeland Security), it still is something that is at best on the very fringes of general concern to most viewers of the debate concerning illegal immigration/securing our borders. Perhaps he thought he better say something “original” to the issue, rather than parroting what the other candidates were saying. But whatever the reason, I didn’t think it played well.

    I do NOT think Ron Paul is “out there” by any means. Rather, I think he is a true genius. But when he gives such peripheral answers it makes it harder to refute the O’Reilly’s who deem him to be just that, “out there”. Alas, prophets with genius IQ’s are never recognized in their own time. Such may be the case with Ron Paul for the majority of voters, although I hope I’m completely wrong!

    I did notice Herman Cain at least crediting and agreeing with views of Ron Paul during the debate, which I thought was classy on his part.

    As for the other candidates, indeed, as Red Phillips and most pundits have suggested, it largely was a Romney vs. Perry event. While I don’t like either candidate, I think Romney came out looking like we all knew he was, as well as Perry. Though I agree with Perry’s critique of Social Security as a Ponzi scheme (which would play well to young voters), I think Romney scored more overall points in terms of pandering to senior citizens on that issue. I also noticed that Romney didn’t exactly attack Perry on the use of “executive order” with regard to the vaccination issue in Texas, as he himself is not averse to using such executive order himself when he divines that such is expedient for the public good (in his eyes). Yeesh. Mitt Caesar. Kudos to Paul for warning of how dangerous such an attitude is (tyrannical), emphatically pointing out that he would never use an executive order. But too many ignorant sheeple it seems to stop the rising of another Tyrant on their ground. We get the leaders we deserve.

    Bachmann was largely stuck on the sidelines watching the Romney vs. Perry show with everyone else.

    It’s not over yet–Ron Paul is still in the game (arguably more than Bachmann), but I think Romney scored big last night and it will come down to picking your poison, i.e., to which Big Government Globalist Republican Candidate with great hair you want: Romney or Perry. Status quo reigns. Sigh. In the words of Yogi Berra, “It’s déjà vu all over again”.

  4. Walter

    “Ron Paul then warns about the dangers of a fence in terms of not merely keeping illegal immigrants out, but also of keeping legal citizens in”

    This was an absolutely horrible answer by RP. It made him appear to be an open-borders libertarian ideologue.

  5. Not Libertarian

    Yes. Clearly there is no record of countries building border barriers to “keep people out” when in fact keeping people in was a motivation. Er…

  6. Sempronius

    Does anbody have an electoral map of where Paul and the others stand in the Repub primaries?

    The fence issue illustrates nicely why Paul is inadequate. He’s right about the fence, but for the wrong reasons. A fence is insufficient. What the situation calls for is electrified barbed wire. Even the Spanish Leftist Zapatero realizes this.

    By the way, who was it who said that the English-speaking world doesn’t have a true Rightist tradition, but rather, varying shades of Leftism? I’m too lazy to look it up.

  7. Not Libertarian

    Electrified barbed wire won’t do it. What we really need to do is set up nuclear land mines on the border.

  8. RonL

    Ron Paul is an open borders fanatic. He has ditched his past opposition to illegal alients years ago. RON PAUL OPPOSES EVERY SINGLE SERIOUS EFFORT TO KEEP ILLEGAL ALIENS OUT OF AMERICA OR TO RETURN THEM HOME VOLUNTARILY THROUGH ATTRITION OR INVOLUNTARILY. At best he will give the standard libertopian cop out about welfare. In the real world, we always have welfare, so in the real world, Paul like open borders.

    You all love his his foreign policy. Fine. But don’t imagine him to be anything more than the enemy on immigration.

    There are only two candidates who believe in restricting immigration in any serious manner, Michele Bachman and Thad McCotter.

  9. Jedipastor1


    Ron Paul is just as concerned about illegal immigration as you and I are.

    Yet, we’re concerned about terrorism too, but that doesn’t mean the creation of the Dept. of Homeland Security along with things like the TSA, or at least how it was hastily constructed without consideration of its negative ramifications upon liberty, was a wise thing. The security supposedly offered has as a price a taking away of freedom. So likewise, while Ron Paul does support boots on the ground relative to the border, he nevertheless warns about creating a border fence, which, after all, after the example of the former Soviet Union, can just as well become something which keeps people in as it does keep people out.

    We can debate whether that is a valid, essential concern or something very hypothetical, but needless to say, to accuse a constitutionalist like Ron Paul of ignoring the need to secure our borders is completely nanny poop. The issue is not whether or not Ron Paul is against illegal immigration. He is. The issue is how to go about combating it in the right way, in a way which secures our borders and yet does not contradict the principles of liberty for the legal citizen in the process.

    In that vein, to steal from Romney’s rhetoric, Ron Paul is more focused on the existing “magnets” that inspire illegal immigration. In the vein, he is against amnesty for illegals, wishes to end birthright citizenship to newborn children of illegal immigrants, and end the welfare statism in general. Remove such incentives and such securities to break the law, and you’ll be combating illegal immigration in the right way, and certainly off the backs of taxpaying legal citizens.

    One concrete example of his stance is the bill he was the main sponsor of back in 2009, namely, H.R. 160 (Social Security for Americans Only Act of 2009). This bill would have prohibited an alien, for purposes of determining Social Security benefits, from being credited for earned income while he/she was not a citizen or national of the United States. Furthermore, it would have required any future Social Security totalization agreement to mind this prohibition and require present agreements to conform to this regulation no later than December 31, 2009.

    Like so many who hear falsehood about Ron Paul and run with it without ever double-checking, please do your research on Ron Paul before making such ill-informed comments. Remember, we’re on the same side! We want the same things….yet the harder thing to think about is how to go about it in the right way, in a constitutionally-abiding way in which liberty for legal citizens is not taken away in the process. After all, once it is gone, it is impossible to get back. :)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>