Ron Paul vs. Any Other Candidate

Fed Up · 11-09-2007, 09:49 PM

Would like to debate issue vs. issue anyone who is for a candidate other than Ron Paul.

I dont claim to know verbatum all of Paul's issues, but he has written enough for me to respond issue vs. issue against any other candidate.

The problem that I visualize is that there aren't any candidates who have written as much about the issues as Ron Paul has.

I'll start responding tomorrow. Just list your candidate and their issue and I'll respond. I'll keep it friendly. This is more for understanding each other's positions than to prove who is right or wrong. We can agree to disagree...that's OK.

Fed Up

Dumpy Dooby · 11-10-2007, 09:52 PM

Why not just debate on each issue, rather than on a per-candidate basis.

I'd like to see you debate Paul's stance on embryonic stem cell research and abortion, as well as some of his statements regarding the IRS and federal spending and federal revenue.

Fed Up · 11-10-2007, 11:46 PM

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

Why not just debate on each issue, rather than on a per-candidate basis.

I'd like to see you debate Paul's stance on embryonic stem cell research and abortion, as well as some of his statements regarding the IRS and federal spending and federal revenue.

As you can tell, no one who was spouting off about Paul in this forum and The Floor, has taken me up on this challenge. This is what I expected.

Donkey and Octavius have not responded, yet are very capable themesleves of asking questions expecting answers about Paul.

On an issue vs. issue basis, Paul stands alone.

I don't need to debate Paul's stance on his issues unless it is mano y mano or beatch. This is the point in my saying in the original post, "Would like to debate issue vs. issue anyone who is for a candidate other than Ron Paul."

If I get no takers to this challenge, then that proves (to me) his stance on the issues are superior to any other candidates.

Don't you find it ironic that no one has replied? I do. It's easy for someone to attack Ron Paul's chances or talk about his low polling numbers, but when it comes to debating his stance on the issues vs. any other candidate, I hear nothing but crickets chirping on this thread.

Fed Up

IminWonderland · 11-11-2007, 02:52 AM

What his his stance on No Child Left Behind?

Dumpy Dooby · 11-11-2007, 02:57 AM

I'm willing to debate his stances on the two issues I brought up. The abortion and embryonic stem cell issue isn't consistent with libertarianism as a philosophy, but more importantly, I find both to be rather regressive and silly, and I'm certainly willing to debate that issue and explain my position. His position on getting rid of the IRS is rather absent-minded and rhetorical. He doesn't explain much of anything about it, and the few figures that he has cited time and time are blatantly wrong (i.e., reduce spending to FY2000 levels and income tax isn't needed).

Dumpy Dooby · 11-11-2007, 02:57 AM

Originally Posted by IminWonderland

What his his stance on No Child Left Behind?

He's against it 100%.

Fed Up · 11-11-2007, 07:55 AM

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

I'm willing to debate his stances on the two issues I brought up. The abortion and embryonic stem cell issue isn't consistent with libertarianism as a philosophy, but more importantly, I find both to be rather regressive and silly, and I'm certainly willing to debate that issue and explain my position. His position on getting rid of the IRS is rather absent-minded and rhetorical. He doesn't explain much of anything about it, and the few figures that he has cited time and time are blatantly wrong (i.e., reduce spending to FY2000 levels and income tax isn't needed).

Dumpy Dooby,

I understand you wanting to "debate his stances," but that would be debating issues that he supports that you disagree with, not what this thread is about which is the issues he supports vs. any other candidate.

If you'd like to start a thread called "Ron Paul's stance on the Issues," I'd be happy to reply.

I was lectured on "The Floor" in a thread about Ron Paul's fund raising in a post trying to corner Donkey on an unrelated but similar issue and he said I was off topic and to start my own thread. That is why I started this thread and basically am telling him and anyone else to put up or shut up when it comes to attacking Ron Paul on the issues. They can't when they expose whom they are voting for.

Fed Up

Ardentfrost · 11-11-2007, 11:23 AM

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

I'm willing to debate his stances on the two issues I brought up. The abortion and embryonic stem cell issue isn't consistent with libertarianism as a philosophy, but more importantly, I find both to be rather regressive and silly, and I'm certainly willing to debate that issue and explain my position. His position on getting rid of the IRS is rather absent-minded and rhetorical. He doesn't explain much of anything about it, and the few figures that he has cited time and time are blatantly wrong (i.e., reduce spending to FY2000 levels and income tax isn't needed).

I thought his stance on abortion was to leave it up to the states or even smaller governments... that's the libertarian stance verbatim when posed at the federal level.

Dumpy Dooby · 11-11-2007, 12:42 PM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

I thought his stance on abortion was to leave it up to the states or even smaller governments... that's the libertarian stance verbatim when posed at the federal level.

That's the Libertarian Party's position. I made sure to qualify my statement with "libertarianism as a philosophy." To be more specific, when I say that I am talking about our unalienable right to property and self-ownership (ownership of one's own body).

Galactic Gigolo · 11-11-2007, 02:26 PM

Originally Posted by IminWonderland

What his his stance on No Child Left Behind?

He wants to eliminate the DOE, so yeah, he's against it.

Galactic Gigolo · 11-11-2007, 02:28 PM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

I thought his stance on abortion was to leave it up to the states or even smaller governments... that's the libertarian stance verbatim when posed at the federal level.

He proposed an amendment that would ban the federal courts from ruling on it. He also proposed an amendment that defined life as beginning at conception, which I've always found off, as you can't exactly leave it up to the states if that's written in the law.

Ardentfrost · 11-11-2007, 02:33 PM

Originally Posted by Galactic Gigolo

He proposed an amendment that would ban the federal courts from ruling on it. He also proposed an amendment that defined life as beginning at conception, which I've always found off, as you can't exactly leave it up to the states if that's written in the law.

I hadn't heard the second part before. Though he's made no secret about his PERSONAL beliefs on the matter. HE doesn't want abortion to happen at all, but the fact that he can look past his own beliefs for the ideal of personal liberty is admirable.

And Dumpy, I'm not sure what you're proposing. No way a libertarian (philosopher or party member) would tell the states what they could or could not do when it comes to a personal matter such as abortion. I guess I'm missing what YOU think is the optimal solution at the federal level for this issue. Because if you think they should say explicitly that abortion is up to the mother and the doctor (the optimal solution in libertarian utopia) at the federal level, then that's pretty statist of you.

nbiggershaft · 11-11-2007, 03:23 PM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

he can look past his own beliefs for the ideal of personal liberty is admirable.

You guys try to phrase it so it fits Libertarian ideals. When Paul talks about it he usually says something like, "We need to overturn Roe v. Wade so that states will be free to protect the unborn".

While it isn't: lets ban abortion, it doesn't really sound like "he can look past his own beliefs for the ideal of personal liberty is admirable" to me.

nbiggershaft · 11-11-2007, 03:27 PM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

And Dumpy, I'm not sure what you're proposing. No way a libertarian (philosopher or party member) would tell the states what they could or could not do when it comes to a personal matter such as abortion. I guess I'm missing what YOU think is the optimal solution at the federal level for this issue. Because if you think they should say explicitly that abortion is up to the mother and the doctor (the optimal solution in libertarian utopia) at the federal level, then that's pretty statist of you.

Also why (and this is more out of curiosity than anything else) would a libertarian philosopher or party member not dictate things regarding abortion on a national level. Would they also legislate on freedom of speech, press, search and seisure, other personal liberties?

RMNIXON · 11-11-2007, 03:33 PM

More Political Opinion from Ron Paul:

lgf: Ron Paul's Old Newsletter Revealed

Ardentfrost · 11-11-2007, 03:59 PM

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

You guys try to phrase it so it fits Libertarian ideals. When Paul talks about it he usually says something like, "We need to overturn Roe v. Wade so that states will be free to protect the unborn".

While it isn't: lets ban abortion, it doesn't really sound like "he can look past his own beliefs for the ideal of personal liberty is admirable" to me.

Libertarians want to overturn Roe vs. Wade because it makes it a federal issue. That has been the case far longer than RP has been running for prez. If you think every state will make abortion illegal (as you imply is RP's desire) upon the overturn, you're just being silly.

Ardentfrost · 11-11-2007, 04:08 PM

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

Also why (and this is more out of curiosity than anything else) would a libertarian philosopher or party member not dictate things regarding abortion on a national level. Would they also legislate on freedom of speech, press, search and seisure, other personal liberties?

True constitutionalists and libertarians (or anyone else) who know their history know why freedom of speech is dictated in the first amendment: because the anti-federalists felt it needed to be spelled out even though it was implied in the rest of the document. That's the entire Bill of Rights, the anti-federalist contribution to the constitution not being specific enough when the federalists thought that by defining those 10, it would imply the opposite of the document without them (that those 10 things are our only rights).

Personal issues aren't for the federal government. The federal government simply cannot regulate and police issues of a personal matter. There are always exceptions and special circumstances which the local governments and courts are far better equipped to handle.

Ardentfrost · 11-11-2007, 04:12 PM

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

More Political Opinion from Ron Paul:

lgf: Ron Paul's Old Newsletter Revealed

Not to split hairs here, but the most recent complaint in that list is from 1993. 5 complains in as many years as he's been a congressman?

I thought I saw an article about these things explained once also, but I think the fact that they're from at LEAST 15 years ago makes them pretty silly to bring up

Dumpy Dooby · 11-11-2007, 11:01 PM

Originally Posted by Galactic Gigolo

He wants to eliminate the DOE, so yeah, he's against it.

DOE is "Department of Energy"

ED is "Department of Education" (colloquially known as "Education Department")

motivez · 11-11-2007, 11:11 PM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

but I think the fact that they're from at LEAST 15 years ago makes them pretty silly to bring up

I don't think so, unless he's changed his mind about those issues... I think people's past, especially their past professional lives as they relate to official policy stances, world view, etc.. matter a lot and it's something people need to be able to take