-2 votes

The 10/3/12 Presidential Debate (Formerly titled "Tonight's Debate")

For those who prefer to KNOW what's going on: Tonight's Debate

http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/debates/first-presidential-...

It's allready funny..



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

1800. US Presidential Debate: Pres. Adams vs Thomas Jefferson

"A hideous, hemorphredite character w/ neither force nor firmness..."

        5¢ No reservations.
        Time: 2 minutes.

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul

Glenn Greenwald

I don't care anymore . . .

Not sure I ever did. I was born during the presidency of one of the most monstrous men who ever lived (Truman)--

and I don't believe I've ever seen a 'true' president of the U.S. I remember the debates between Kennedy and Nixon, and I remember being very upset about Goldwater losing the election--

I lost interest in the early 70s--completely.

I knew then that it was 'bunk'--

and I was taken by surprise when Dr. Paul began campaigning for president--

a real statesman, a man whose principles could make a difference--

to me this is all a joke, all a disaster--

and it saddens me, because I feel that America has been dying a slow death since long before I was born.

I doubt anyone cares what I think, though--

honestly and without malice.

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

John McRae, "Father, I Can Not Tell a Lie; I Cut the Tree," 1867

The Moral Washington: Construction of a Legend (1800-1920s)

John McRae, "Father, I Can Not Tell a Lie; I Cut the Tree," 1867 engraving after a painting by G.G. White

George Washington's reputation as a man of moral fortitude reveals more about America's view of morality than it does about the man himself. Washington was an exceedingly bland heroic leader, embodying an eighteenth-century ideal of republican virtue that emphasized duty, sacrifice and honorable disinterest. Flamboyance and daring were emphatically not required. Washington's virtue was admirable, but not overly interesting.

Perhaps this is why the most famous example of his fortitude of character is, in fact, just fiction. The story of Washington and the Cherry Tree, a tale which still lingers through probably every grammar school in the U.S., was invented by a parson named Mason Locke Weems in a biography of Washington published directly after his death. Saturated with tales of Washington's selflessness and honesty, A History of the Life and Death, Virtues and Exploits, of General George Washington(1800) and The Life of George Washington, with Curious Anecdotes Laudable to Himself and Exemplary to his Countrymen(1806) supplied the American people with flattering (and often rhyming) renditions of the events that shaped their hero. Weems imagined everthing from Washington's childhood transgression and repentence to his apotheosis when "at the sight of him, even those blessed spirits seem[ed] to feel new raptures" (Weems, 60). According to historian Karal Ann Marling, Weems was struggling to "flesh out a believable and interest ing figure ... to humanize Washington" who had been painted as "cold and colorless" in an earlier, poorly-selling biography. While it is likely that some readers of the time questioned the authenticity of the tales, Weems' portraits soared in popularity in the early 1800s.

More than a century later, Weems would be vigorously debunked by a new corps of biographers intent on resurrecting the real truth of Washington's life. Some favored dismantling the myth wholesale and dismissing it from the record. Others, however, intended to portray the story as apocryphal, but commend its inspirational value anyway. As Marling quotes from a woman who remembered every verse of the story from her days as school, "If the tale isn't true, it should be. It is too pretty to be classified with the myths"
------------------------------------------------------------------

"I am different from Washington; I have a higher, grander standard of principle. Washington could not lie. I can lie, but I won't."
- quoted in Mark Twain, Henderson

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul

Thank you, Mr. Clemens--

*wink*

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

If you are like me you are

If you are like me you are just whining about the apparent difficultly of the prospects of having to educate the American public. It is a massive undertaking, but for some reason, I think Dr. Paul has contributed more than all the other presidents even if he never becomes president. So we should not value the presidency for its own sake, but we should value truth and live knowing that an everlasting kingdom of God is coming, where true freedom will be realized once again, and probably in a better way than the garden of Eden. So why not give up? Because "the kingdom of God is within you." Think about it. Also, I like your comment. I get depressed too.

yes, I guess that is true--

even the 'whine' word--LOL!

And the 'kingdom of God'--agree . . .

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

I agree with you; America is dying a slow death

That's why we're fighting to restore the Republic. Romney is not the tool we wanted, but he's the tool we got. Now we apply the constitution to him. That's our job.

Perhaps if you can think about it like that, you might see that it's not an easy job, and we may suffer mo9re defeats, but the fact we have a goal, a mission.. that is rEVOLUtionary and worthwhile, and something to fight FOR with passion, not apathy.

Many here care what you think. You're a valued poster on DP. If I get downmarks on this post, it does not reflect your worth. I'm sure many here would rather see a dozen of your posts to an alphebet of one of mine.

Granger, I respect your posts

Granger, I respect your posts if not only because I think you know you will be down-voted and even slandered sometimes. I do not like following the crowd either.

Ron asked you to join the

Ron asked you to join the Republican Party to "change the system". He never asked you to vote for Romney.

You cannot change people (neo-cons, Romney, etc.) all you can do is provide evidence and let them decide for themselves.

they always talk jobs training

never ever talk about money for entrepreneurs or tax breaks for new companies starting out

none of the job training money spent actually helps anyone. ugh.

Granger, I thought you were

Granger, I thought you were voting Romney, not FOR Romney? This whole thread is you cheer leading for the douche. Talk about polishing a turd. How any self-described Ron Paul supporter could be so excited about a guy that Ron Paul called out today for being the same as Obama, blows my mind. I mean, Ron Paul railed on Romney on Fox today, and let it be known he won't vote for the guy, but here you are singing the praises of a fascist. You're all activism without the understanding of the libertarian philosophy or economics. While we all join Ron Paul in calling this election a meaningless sham, you actually fell for the sham and are cheering it on.

This does not make any sense! I can not imagine anybody

who gave their own hard earned money to support Dr. Paul would even vote for this scumbag let alone campaign for him. At least Obama did not change the rules to secure his nomination. I have negative respect for Mitt Romney and all of the talking heads cheering him on, and everything Ron Paul said about the RNC in the past was before what came down at the convention.

hthomas

well, do tell...

... just who exactly is Ron Paul endorsing or voting for? hmmm, it seems he is leaving it up for us all to vote our conscience, individually, and without animosity.

I don't know who Ron Paul is

I don't know who Ron Paul is going to vote for. Based on his latest interview it sounds like he'll vote for Gary Johnson, but I do agree that Ron Paul believes people should vote for whoever they want or even not vote at all. My point is that Granger has been going on and on about how she does not endorse Mitt Romney, and is only voting for him because she has to. She constantly says she is voting Romney, not For Romney. That statement seems pretty tough to square with her commits in this thread.

If someone likes Romney and wants to say it loud and proud, I think they are entitled to their opinion. I just think people should own the positions they hold, and not try to act like they are a reluctant voter for Romney when their statements belie a different truth.

it's hard for

granger to remember all her lies so that she can keep a single coherent argument. most of her spew that ends up on the pages of DP is so full of BS, she can't keep up with it all.

granger is an establishment shill that values power over substance, plain and simple. she will say anything -no matter how removed from reality- to get what she wants, and what she wants is for a constitution hating, ndaa loving, gun controlling, big bank backing, military interventionist (romney) to be our next president.

RP is NOT going to vote for GJ

We are all for open debates, but that is NOT our mission. Our mission is restoring the Republic to constitutional government.

Romney is the tool the fed gave us. While it's not the tool we worked to nominate, that is the tool we got, and now it's time to size up that tool and apply the constitution.

I think it would be great if we had open debates. Restoring the Republic will enable that.

Sorry, I'm with RonPaul on

Sorry, I'm with RonPaul on this one. I agree with him that there isn't a substantive difference between Romney and Obama. I also agree with his decision to not endorse or vote for Romney.

RP has not and will NOT endorse GJ

Ron Paul is a RepubliCAN in the GOP and has hundreds of people like me working on committees to Restore The Republic to Constitutional Government. That's where Ron Paul is at, and I'm with him IN THE GOP. Do what you want.

I don't care whether he

I don't care whether he endorses or votes for Gary Johnson, but the fact remains that he has had nothing but praise for Gary Johnson when ever he has talked about him over the last 5 or 6 years. He endorsed and voted for Chuck Baldwin the last go around. He hasn't voted for a republican for president since Reagan. So I'm not sure what he will do. I don't think he will endorse anyone, but if I had to guess, I think he will vote Gary Johnson, the only person in the race he speaks positively about.

Regardless, we know he has said he won't vote for Romney or Obama. We also know he is going to vote, and that only leaves third party as options. Whoever he decides to vote for, we know his message has been there is no substantive difference between either the republicans or democrats as a party, or their candidates for president.

Who do you think he is going to vote for?

Ron Paul endorsed

Ron Paul endorsed Constitution Party candidate Chuck Baldwin in 2008. He is not dedicated to the GOP. You have no idea what he may or may not do. Read my signature. Ron Paul likes Gary Johnson, and said he is 'wonderful'. Is Ron Paul a liar?

Jason

Happy Libertarian

Chuck Baldwin in back in the GOP

Ron Paul does not bash people.

There's nothing wrong with working with GJ on open debates. Do what you want. GJ is not in to win.. he's not restoring America to constitutional government.

We are in the GOP to restore the Republic to Constitutional government, as to many of us who have been working on open debates for decades... we would love to see GJ in the debates, BUT THAT IS NOT OUR MISSION this election.

I don't hate GJ. I'm not voting for GJ because I joined the rEVOLution, got in the GOP, and took a seat TO RESTORE AMERICA TO CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT. Ron Paul gave us a mission as RepubliCANs.

You can choose to NOT do that and work with GJ to open debates. Good luck.. it's not my top priority this election, though it would be nice.

One little spelling error correction

You keep misspelling it "RepubliCAN"... It's spelled "RepubliCON".

AWESOME POST :-)

And the other reason that it was so good was because you left out that other guys name (which I hope doesn't spontaneously appear) :-)

Up Vote!

"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul

fuss over symptoms, no causes addressed

Never thought someone could belly-flop and sink so fast that it would make another person treading water look like they're doing a butterfly stroke.

Ahh, I miss Ron already

Two men, two parties, neither featuring an honest regard for individual liberty and both showcasing their ignorance concerning the proper role of the federal government. Debating how much to trim off the edges with a paring knife is a waste of time when a hacksaw is what is needed.

Also, how, when 90 minutes are dedicated to domestic policy, does the issue of civil liberties not come up once? We have a Bill of Rights for a reason--to safeguard against the abuses by and intrusion from the federal government.

This charade was nothing more than a distraction from issues of substance. The two-party monopoly proves itself again to be antithetical to the integrity of the election process. Evidenced by: 1) near agreement on most issues by the two; 2) no presence of a third party on the debate stage.

"The rich man writes the book of laws the poor man must defend, but the highest laws are written on the hearts of honest men."

Would you prefer a one party monopoly like Communist China?

If you are in the GOP to fight to restore America to constitutional government, the debates are important.. we get a better idea what we are up against and can work on ways to materialize Ron paul's message.

What about corporatist

What about corporatist America? The Chinese and American governments are becoming more and more like the difficult to distinguish Romney and Obama products.

Honest debate is important

But I don't feel that is what we saw tonight. I saw the culmination of a hijacked nomination process in Romney's blatant return to statism, not to be outdone by the prevailing interventionist philosophy. My criticism of the two-party system, and my mention of the absence of a third party is to point out the vacuum left by a much-needed voice of brevity.

"The rich man writes the book of laws the poor man must defend, but the highest laws are written on the hearts of honest men."

I don't disagree

The debates should be open, and so should ballots.

But that is NOT our mission. Our mission is to restore the republic to constitutional government. We may not like the tools they give us, but that should not stop us. The debates help us size up the tool we have been given, and then hold that tool accountable to the constitution.