Reagan Library Debate

Congressman Ron Paul has accepted Nancy Reagan's invitation to participate in a presidential debate to be held at the Reagan Presidential Library on May 3, 2007. MSNBC will moderate and televise the 90-minute debate starting at 5:00 p.m. ET. The debate will also be simulcast by politico.com to give citizens the opportunity to submit questions online.
Source
Let's use the comment section to start gathering questions for the debate.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

No Gold, Federal Reserve, or other nonsense

People care about jobs, healthcare, national security, etc. They do not understand how the Federal Reserve impacts the economy other than they think interest rates are too high. Americans are used to a debate that is bi-polar. More of X, or less of X. More regulation. Less regulation. More taxes. Less taxes. That's it. If you want to move the debate, you can only do it by an inch at a time. Education can be a part of the campaign. That's a good idea. But in national forums, if he talks about competing money, people's eyes will glaze over. They simply do not understand the link between reforming the Fed,monetary policy and their daily life.

I strongly support Ron Paul's ideas, but if he puts gold and monetary policy and any other issue that 0.02% of voters care about as his top issues it will be a true waste of his and his supporters time and money. There are huge issues: immigration, terrorism, taxes, Social Security! If he has the right answer for one- just one- of those issues, he can become a serious contender.

People understand common sense. They can grasp that having more control over their life will make them happier than turning more power over to Washington. Keep the message simple and bring every issue: healthcare, taxes, education, back to a recurring theme. Every debate question should allow him to reiterate the same theme on a different major topic.

"I favor tax reductions under any circumstances, for any excuse, for any reason, at any time." -Milton Friedman

"I favor tax reductions under any circumstances, for any excuse, for any reason, at any time." -Milton Friedman

Yep.

I agree. Right now I seem to be interacting with gop-ers and the big misinfo they are passing about is that Ron wants to shut down the reserve and that's stupid. Unfortunately, it's also wrong. We're talking about both those that understand the fed and those that don't and are just repeating what they have heard.

He already said it on the CNN interview, but he'll probably need to restate at some time in the future when this comes up. It seems to me that GOPs are using this as a reason to dismiss him out of hand, spin, you know.

I avoid talking about monetary policy when I bring up Paul. I focus on whatever issue seems most important to the person I'm talking to.

I'm just hoping that the questions for the debates be left up to those who don't know Paul. They are the one's that need their questions answered and RP speaks pretty darn well for himself. If a bunch of constitutional and economics geeks (like myself) call in with silly questions then we're in trouble.

'Scuse My Rambling....

... I'm just wired about all of this.

In researching the republican party line, and trying to get beyond the media spin, it strikes me that the hard-party-line pubs, as a rule, either do not know who he is at all or are falling for the spin of "kook" and "fringe" and dismissing him out of hand. A republican debate is a good place for people to meet him. I'd like to see some questions that illustrate his standing on those issues which are important to Joe Republican - taxes, liberty, small gov't, abortion, etc. What I'm wondering, for myself, is how to reach them otherwise. Any thoughts? So far I've just been myspacing individual pubs that don't have anything about Paul on their sites and asking them what they think of him. Where I get responses I am letting them know about the debate. (Hard line pub sites don't even mention him, as a rule.)

It sort of breaks my heart that even the conservative media is spinning it's own on this.....

Posit for the Pubs

Dr. Paul, many people in the party are concerned about your position on the Federal Reserve. Wouldn't it disrupt our economy to abolish it? And what in the world could possibly be that wrong with it anyway?

Ron is sooooo great at making concepts that are really difficult for Joe Six Pack to grasp, well, graspable. I'd like to hear him dispel this rumor that he's gonna lock the door on his first day. Misinformation will be very easy to spead on this subject.

This has been answered

Ron Paul has answered this question. He advocates eliminating the gold and silver tax and floating it as currency along side of the dollar thereby gradually reducing dependency on it.

http://thenewliberty.com/?p=71

~I'd rather die at the hands of terrorism than enslaved by my own government.~

~I'd rather die at the hands of terrorism than enslaved by my own government.~

Just Trying to Think Ahead

Ron Paul is already the object of spin and media control. News sites, it seems, are almost deliberately trying to exclude him from the overall debate. Pundits push him off as "kook" "extremist" and "fringe" without a discussion of the reasons behind his positions. Debates are a great way for Ron to explain himself. One way that he is being portrayed as a "kook" is to imply that he wants to shut down the Fed completely on his first day - this is misinformation used against him. The idea of messing with our money (meaning the money that people still think is worth something) scares people, and they are very willing to avoid him because they don't understand this subject. I'd like to see Ron given the chance to put off this kind of spin - give him the chance to explain to people that he has no intention of turning this cake upside down. Give him the chance to explain simply, as he is soooo good at doing, why it's important to begin, just begin, dismantling the power of the reserve over the price and cost of our very labor. I know the answer, which is why we are here and supporting him, but there are people out there who are listening to Limbaugh, who labels him as a kook. We have to find a way to counterract that influence.

Another informative Ron Paul site

http://gopaulgo.ning.com/

~I'd rather die at the hands of terrorism than enslaved by my own government.~

~I'd rather die at the hands of terrorism than enslaved by my own government.~

The pitch only Paul can hit.

Question: Why should we believe any of you. You all promised various things when campaigning. Newt gave up when the government closed down and the media wasn't nice to him. Everyone says they are pro-life and then ignore the issue. They say they are for smaller government but spending takes off. They say they want secure borders, but want amnesty and won't stop illegal immigration. They say we went to war to get Bin Laden and he is still alive and not in prison.

We've heard all this before for most of our lifetimes. What evidence can you offer you would deliver on your promises.

(The number of 400+ to 1 votes, with the 1 being Dr. Paul...)

It's all in the record tz

We can only believe any candidate on his past record. Ron Paul's record is consistent, solid, unwavering, and pure American. Sure we've heard it all in our lifetime and that's the beauty of this candidate. Ron Paul is the refreshing once in 100 years kind of personality needed to run this country and restore its founding principles. I challenge you to find negatives with this candidate. You can search the internet on all the candidates and negatives abound with all but Ron Paul.

~I'd rather die at the hands of terrorism than enslaved by my own government.~

~I'd rather die at the hands of terrorism than enslaved by my own government.~

WOW! Right to the point...

What's the worst the other candidates can say about Dr. Paul?

"You're too consistent."
"Your kind of Conservative is too old-school."
"You're too pro-life."
"You're not flexible enough on immigration."
"You want people to have Liberty!!??"
"You'd cut taxes too much."

Brian Heyer, CPA
Owner, Heyer Capital, LLC

Brian Heyer, CPA
Owner, Heyer Capital, LLC

Not quite "too pro-life"

The way to put the question is "why don't you bomb abortion clinics or assassinate abortionists if the issue is so criticial?".

As far as I can tell, Ron Paul will do more in the first 24 hours or 1 week to end federal support (including the entire police power of protection) of abortion than Reagan and papa and baby Bush combined by issuing whatever executive orders to nullify roe v. wade, because the decision is unconstitutional AND Ron Paul considers the branches co-equal. It would be a Marbury-v-Madison, ok, let THEM enforce it kind of thing. Then the choice will be for Paul's actions (he could make them explicit) v.s. the hot air of the chorus.

The difficulty is it seems that many pro-life people (returning to the first sentence) want someone corrupt but on their side willing to use the corruption to enforce their views. The "he may be an SOB, but he's our SOB" idea.

Return it to the states (where it belongs, and where existing laws are generally 100% pro-life), and fight the battle there. A lot of politicians will then have to declare themselves by their actions instead of saying "I'm against it but can't do anything".

Well put, sir.

They want to call him fringe or extremist or whatever the spin is these days, and you have turned that to his advantage.

And the Crowd Roars !!!!!!

tz that is awesome.

I suspect that each candidate would pick one of those issues and spend their time blathering poetic about what fine work they have done ... *clench right fist with thumb protruding upwards* "but still more needs to be done" ... and thats why when I am president yawn yawn.

But if they were forced to actually answer, I agree only Paul could field that one successfully.

http://ronpaul.rescue-us.org

This Debate Will Be SO Interesting

Ron is in the position of having to appeal to Republicans first. The press tells us that they are aching for another Ronald Reagan - most probably war sentiments at play. If that is accomplished, there is a large group of voters who will be put off simply because he is pro-life.

"We know you are pro-life. Please explain how this position relates to your feelings about the Constitution and the role of government."

Aside from this one issue, I think Ron is a shoe-in once he has the nomination. The only thing to do is quell the fear of change, and bolster the desire for it.

Nuances...

As I've put it on other blogs, although I'm a Catholic, I would vote for a bigoted anti-catholic who would destroy the government's power over a pro-Catholic who would use (and expand) the power to force everyone to act how they saw fit.

Yet libertarians are divided. The strongest pro-life arguments I've heard are from Doris Gordon, l4l.org, a pro-life atheist! The problem is some libertarians would deny rights by definition. OK, so if as an individual, I believe that women should not have rights, do I have the right to act upon my personal belief?

Being an OB, I think Dr. Paul would be able to argue in both ways for libertarians. That it is appropriate as a states rights issue (so make the case to your legislature or move), and that scientifically they are human and entitled to human rights, so the pro-abortionist is in error on the issue. If they want to be able to kill human beings before birth so much they would reject someone else who is closer on 99.5% of the rest of the issues, there is no hope for them.

On the war, Ronald Reagan brought the troops home from Lebanon after the truck bombing. It was a sit-and-bleed situation and he saw the wisdom that there could be no victory. And the support for the war is probably softer than you think - another fine question would be Define victory in Iraq or on terror and explain how you would achieve it. Reagan also banned shipments of cluster bombs to Israel when they used them in Lebanon in civilian areas. The answer to the war problem is to point out all the proper and constitutional things they should be doing HERE, and wouldn't it have been better to have the militia available to help in New Orleans instead of sitting and being shot in Iraq?

Agreed - Paul's Demonstrations of Character

I have been thinking more about this.

Paul's Demonstrations of character are the most impressive to those unfamiliar with him. A recent poll indicated that more than half of voters say (perceived) character is more important than position details.

Paul:
- Won't take junkets
- Won't cater to lobyists
- Stands up to either party
- Offered to use his own money rather than the taxpayers to buy medals for Rosa Parks et. al.
- Returns money from his budget every year.
- Doesn't vote for his own raise
- Won't participate in the lucrative congressional pension program
- delivered a zillion babies ... most politician's kis babies, Paul smacks em' in the but ;)

The details of his positions will take education but the resources are there for the grass roots and the campaign to direct others (and one another) to.

It will be the regular, honest guy, beltway outsider persona that attracts joe 6 pack. Then we will have to deal with the massive criticism of his kookiness etc. for his more unpopular positions on things such as the FED.

http://ronpaul.rescue-us.org

Absolutely.

All the old and new stories I've been reading on voter sentiment indicate that honesty/integrity come before the issues every time.... but there's that bit about being "kooky" again... He's a little goofy, and certainly fringe, but that doesn't make him crazy. I've been focusing on his unwavering service, and the juicy bits such as refunding his budget money. Well, I guess that is kind of kooky, in a "founding fathers" kind of way. To those that think he's too fringe - I mention that this is a spin word used to discredit the candidate without actually making a statement about his positions or admitting you don't know what they are. Stop spinning, people! You'll get dizzy and fall down...

I really see the internet pushing this along. James at CHBN had a good suggestion for Ron, to publish more videos, and the internet influence is playing heavy in the news even if Ron isn't. More Ron on Internet = More Ron in News. On the street and on the net, pushing AFTF wouldn't help either. He comes off as probably the least kooky person in that movie.

A Little Somethin' For the Ladies

My official shirt. Not so effective for the intersection debate reminders due it's small print, but fetching when talking to boys on the street about their liberty being at stake. Never underestimate the power of cleavage in pushing your, er, points.

http://www.cafepress.com/cp/customize/product.aspx?clear=tru...

A Girl Can Dream, Can't She?

How can the people understand the debate over economics if they don't understand economics? How can people understand how their gov't works (or doesn't) if they don't know the difference between a democracy and a republic? How can people make reasonable decisions of their own when all they get is spin? It's an easy call for those of us that understand how these things work. It's the people that don't that are being swayed by misinformation. Without even mentioning Ron Paul, I see a path to getting him votes.... INFORMATION.

For example, economics is played out to be a complex set of theories that only academics and politicians get. Bologna! It's flippin' easy, yo! That said, I have a tiny germ of an idea, and would appreciate help or ideas:

I want to make up a packet that enables, uh, 'regulah folk', to have an intelligent hand in their own decisions. Just real information in plain language about how our gov't works, how economics works (I'd like to get permission to reprint the first 40 pages of Thomas Sowell's Basic Economics), and how spin works. Even under the most objective of circumstances, it would be difficult for the average Joe to deny, having that information, that Ron Paul is the man for the job.

Like I said, I'm dreaming here.... and as the net goes, any inquiries end up on Ron's speeches and statements. I guess I could just print and distribute those... ho hum.

Michael Nystrom's picture

The issues that matter

Yes, I see the points being made here. I don't think the debate is the time and/or place for the history lesson. There simply isn't enough time. Most politicians use the time to say things like "I have a plan that will blah, blah, blah..." And surprisingly, that is good enough for the American people. Nixon got elected because he said he had a "secret plan" to get us out of Viet Nam. That plan remained secret for the duration of his Administration, and remains secret to this day.

But I think along these lines Dr. Paul could say - and in all truth and honesty - that he has a plan to reduce inflation, end the war, and create good jobs for Americans. That plan was written over 200 years ago. It's called our Constitution.

The only way to make sense out of change is to plunge into it, move with it, and join the dance. - Alan Watts

Debate questions.

M3? I was going too get one for the wife, but the BMW dealer was all out.
Ft. Knox gold? Isn't that stuff just some ancient relic of the past? "We" print money now. How much do you need?
Don't call them gold and silver traders short, that's mean spirited. They are height challenged.
Inflation? We have inflation? Must be big oil's fault.
CPI? Is that the guy from the Star Wars movies?

Enough joking. Let's get serious.

I like your idea Michele, KISS....Keep it simple, stupid.
Sorry to say, but many of the undecided viewers we need to win over in this debate are not well educated or at least not well read.
How do we reach them? We need to talk to them in their own language. What matters most to the average voter is work, rest and play. Keep more money they make at work, have more time to rest and some money to go out and play.
Questions about taxes and freedom will hit them the most. That along with keeping more high paying jobs in this country.
(Note: don't say "great sucking sound" even though it's true)
Pork barrel spending questions work well. Hits on the IRS are good. Just showing Mr. Paul as being sensible will work best. Many people I talk to are looking for a candidate with common sense. Common sense in politics is just not that common today.
Exact questions? I need to sleep on it.

No Time To Waste

We already know why we support him. The information we know he has and want the public to have will bubble up on it's own. I'm more interested in showing how Paul can appeal to those who think he doesn't. Most pressing in that for me is the number of people who would vote for Ron Paul, but won't because of a single issue - abortion.

I am pro-choice and support Ron wholeheartedly, including his pro-life stance, because he keeps it constitutional. You can read my personal views about this on my blog at www.myspace.com/avbw. I'm saddened that there are libertarians that will not vote for him because of this - it shows me that they want a lib utopia instead of a contitutional republic. I'm not sure how to phrase it, but I think an important question would be one that allows him to explain States' Rights, and why it's important to leave this issue to the states, and how any law about abortion - either for or against - belongs out of federal jurisdiction.

The debates are a good time for him to win people he doesn't have yet. He's got me all over - I'll answer my own questions.

Pro choice, including Slavery?

The distinction is one of competence or which unit of government - neighborhood, city/county, state, or national is best able to decide and handle such issues.

Some will want to own slaves, or not respect property rights, or have abortions. But none of these have any cause to be a national concern.

Murder is not a federal crime, nor should it be (excepting when treason and piracy are involved, or perhaps other serious things involving the feds as a prime factor).
If I'm standing in Ohio, and you are across in Pennsylvania, and I shoot and kill you, the only question is one of jurisdiction. Murder is and ought to be illegal on both sides of that line.

If some state decides abortion is not immoral, or equally not something they ought to address at the state level, it should be their choice too, just as a state that decides the opposite. There were slave and free states before the secession and war. I don't know if it would have died out (but a Wilberforce didn't arise to find a peaceful way to end it), but ripping thing apart was not good.

Nor was Roe v. Wade which overrode the laws at the time - there were abortion states and life states (I'm not going to try to shift vocabulary to be polite - you know what I mean). Abortion might have died out, or it may have spread, but it would be on a state by state basis, and with restrictions (partial birth or past viability would likely never have been made legal anywhere, 1st trimester maybe more places).

But the right end requires the right means. We don't go around shooting every abortion doctor and destroying the clinics. Nor would it be appropriate to threaten to set off a nuclear bomb if it wasn't banned. Banning it at the Federal level is equally evil to permitting it (there is the case of military and veterans health care though which would apply).

The reason you shouldn't ban abortions at the federal level is at root the same as the reason we shouldn't use terror to stop them - it is the wrong - evil - means.

Just a Request

I'm beginning to lean in the pro-life direction personally, but I'm not even close politically, and this is why. The discussion must continue and it can only do so completely and truthfully where the fear of coercion is not present. The issue of government and majority coercion is VITAL in this debate, as we move toward a socialist, unchecked government that disregards the individual. I support the appeal of Roe V Wade for this reason, and am TOTALLY PSYCHED that Ron is up for the climb. RoeVWade did nothing to protect individual women from the will of the majority - it's just another form of judicial activism and majority rule. That's all fine and well when you're the majority. The focus of all my ideas on this issue is the protection of individual liberty.

Like I said, before we convince the choice league that this is in their ultimate best interests, it is important to show the Pubs the strength of his pro-life stance, which I am very impressed with. Liberty for all is the most important thing. As abortion goes, the liberty of the baby and the liberty of the mother have not been resolved, and the will of either a government or a majority is not the way to do that. It is through the community, open discussion and social evolution that we will become our best selves. I hope that Ron's position can show that it is possible for government to stay out of it and let the states, and thereby the people, decide.

Under state decision, I'm pretty sure we'll be a primarily pro-life nation within 10-20 years, by INDIVIDUAL CHOICE and in the meantime we can stop forcing it down people's throats by demanding abortion as a right (it is not!) and also stop terrifying women with the idea that a national government is going to start regulating their person - either by bans on abortions or nationalized healthcare - that's a step backward too. We don't know. We can only discuss and evolve.

I'm in love with Ron because I think he can help ALL of us move FORWARD, without anybody getting dragged by the hair.

Right now I'm just freaked out watching the liberal media try and bait Pubs with Mitt "Flipper" Romney and Rudy... oh, Rudy. He wants to give abortions away for free to the poor - are you kidding me? I'm going to try and get as many pubs, especially, watching this debate as I can. It's time to show who is the true pro-life, pro-states rights, pro-small government, pro-individual liberty candidate.

Ah, but you don't have a choice on HPV vaccine

Several states - and NOW and Planned Parenthood are apparently pushing - MANDATORY vaccinations against the HPV virus. So they plan to drag teenage women kicking and screaming "it's my body" into the clinic so they can be forced to undergo immunization against their will.

But as to abortion, some evils might need to be tolerated until people come to their senses. Women's sufferage also varied by state as did slavery.

And then it comes down to this - you have to defend the speech of which you disagree with the most, and defend the civil liberties of those whom you hate or hate you. And if a state wants to be barbaric by keeping abortion, or for that matter rape, vandalism, or anything else wrong legal, they should have the collective free will to do so.

You cannot impose righteousness at the point of a federal gun, nor can you long maintain a policy against the will of a majority of a state. One thing not noted was that although the Federal government was a Republic, the States were far more democratic - for good or ill.

Very Good Point to Raise

I think the ideas behind democracy being bad and then the states being democratic overall is a wonderful discussion. Tz should come over to myspace (myspace.com/avbw) and talk to me about abortion too. We have a lot to learn from eachother. I'm looking forward to what Ron Paul is going to teach me. Although my feelings about abortion haven't changed too much, yet, I'm glad to keep my mind open - my husband says, "conclusions are cairns marking where your thinking stopped". I prefer to keep hiking....

To compel, coerce or control...

Right on, tz. Take control out of the equation and the truth will emerge. The fear of compulsion causes blindness and deafness on both sides. I read Ron's statement at Libertarians for Life and was simply glad to see a secular argument against abortion. I am still pro-choice, but I'm also still up for discussion, and will be indefinitely. The rule of law, however, is not. Why is this so important to me?

When I read the statement, my ideas about abortion changed. I had some new ideas of my own, and was able to appreciate the feelings of others more deeply. Coercion and control only serve to stifle the discussion, to stunt our own evolution as individuals and as a society. We must have a means to interact peaceably in spite of extreme emotions and differences of opinion, to continue the discussion even when we feel like going to war with eachother. No other issue illustrates the importance of States Rights and the rule of law in a free society than does abortion.

Even if I were to make the leap to a pro-life attitude, I will remain politically pro-choice: it's up to the states. Ron Paul is the ONLY one who has any respect for what the Rule of Law means to a free society.

Convince. Now that's a better word. This is a good time to convince people that even when he disagrees on such super-charged, heavy weight issue, he can still represent you fairly in government.

Anti-choice? Anti-life? We need a new swing.

Michele, abortion is one of those difficult but vote swinging issues.

Ron Paul should start a new abortion position: Pro-existence. This will take away the ability of attackers from labeling him due to his abortion beliefs. They will have to stop and say "What's that?"

He is pro-life, but willing to let others practice pro-choice.
How? He will take the Feds out of it and put it back in the states hands. As President, he can promote pro-life, but each state could choose to be pro-choice. We can all believe in pro-life but must accept pro-choice, if that's what the majority decides in each state. This will open up the possibility of swinging some libs over to the dark side,

Our goal right now is make his election a possibility. Once people believe it is possible, momentum will take care of the rest.

I Disagree.... sort of.

The last thing the people need is a new term for the same old argument. I live in the greatest country on earth, made so by the amount of freedom guaranteed to all of us, including those with whom we have strong disagreements. It is in the chasm of our different beliefs where our greatest strength lie, and I prefer debates about liberty to stay open, indefinitely. The job of the president is to uphold the constitution, which allows for the greatest play between free individuals and communities, which is the basis of our great social evolution. This is just my little horse, I know, but I'd really like to see some pro-choice folks step up and say that it is important to allow the STATES the freedom of choice, just as much as individuals, and to understand that coercing people into accepting abortion without question is just as bad as coercing people out of control over their own person. We, as supporters of choice, must understand how hurtful it has been for people who oppose abortion to see their taxes used to promote or provide it on a global scale. That is not the kind of place I want to live in, any more than I would if my taxes were used to fund global evangelising... I guess I figure the momentum will take care of most things - we can see it happening in spite of poor or entirely missing press, in spite of juvenile attempts at ridicule. Ron speaks quite well for himself, and we can rely on his character to stand on it's own without our help. I'm going after those who think it's okay to sell your country down the tubes over a moral argument which has no place in politics. I'm going after those who don't know any better, but will vote for him because he is so purely and logically pro-life, not as an activist, but as a person. Much of this life/choice debate is run by fear, understandable fear, from both "sides". When you take the coercion of government out of the equation, the fear becomes irrational, and true discussion can begin. True discussion... yeah, my favorite thing about Ron is that "Mr. Rogers" style class.... We could all stand to be a little nicer to eachother.

You Speaka My Language!

I do go on.... You hit it on the head with "speaking their language". Work, rest and play, and don't forget freedom. I've been reading a lot of articles, current and old, about what 'people' think makes a 'good president'. (One has to weed out those articles which only confer what the -press- thinks...) In spite of who gets voted in, the people still think that "honesty" is the most important quality. In light of that, it seems that Ron has a trick up his sleeve that is quite rare in politics - integrity. Other things, too which came up often that seem to describe Ron, such as "speaking well". Ron is able to confer upon folks an understanding of complicated principles in very simple language. And he's nice - I think the public is tired of sarcasm and spin taking the place of intellect and inquiry, and Ron can bring a measure of civility, smarts and class to the debates which have been missing, and will be very much appreciated by those who feel lost in the spin. Ron is just Ron, and in a field of candidates that flip-flop or double-speak or don't do anything at all, that is his greatest strength.

Question:

How do you suggest dealing with Islamist extremists who want to cut our heads off? How should the US negotiate with people who want to kill us?

Brian Heyer, CPA
Owner, Heyer Capital, LLC

Brian Heyer, CPA
Owner, Heyer Capital, LLC

Ignore them.

Let the islamic extremists bellow (after all our troops, bases, and other buttinsky practices are gone). They can trade with us or not - their choice. They can denounce us, and fight among themselves - that is their land, not ours. It isn't even our continent, and on the far side of the one they are on across an ocean.

If they do something overt, then retaliate. Dr.Paul has already suggested letters of Marque and Reprisal. Terrorism is a police and not a military problem. If there are military problems, I don't think he would have any problem using the military to defeat a real and present and aggressive enemy. It will be healthier when it isn't wasting away bogged down fighting illusory and exaggerated threats, then trying to do anything in the midst of an undeclared civil war, or as an occupying force. The latter has never worked even from the Mexican American war.

(We negotiate with narco-terrorist warlords when we wanted the Taliban out, and the Opium flows, and Bin Laden is still quite alive - has your policy worked any better? - and Saddam and Bin Laden were our friends in the previous decades, and some in Iraq today are calling for our heads, but we need to cooperate so we do).

Thanks TZ

I didn't know Dr. Paul had already suggested Letters of Marque and Reprisal. That was the path I was thinking of. After all, that's how Thomas Jefferson dealt with the Barbary Pirates (eventually also sending Old Ironsides.)

Brian Heyer, CPA
Owner, Heyer Capital, LLC

Brian Heyer, CPA
Owner, Heyer Capital, LLC

Michael Nystrom's picture

Ask why

Brian,

I think the best place to start would be to ask why they want to cut our heads off. Are we innocent? Do they hate us because we are free? Or is there a deeper root?
In 1953, Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh - Iran's democratically elected Prime Minister - was overthrown by a United States/CIA coup, arrested and tried as a traitor in military tribunal court.

This was clearly an unconstitutional act by the United States government, and is at the root of most of our problems with Iran to this day. After overthrowing Mossadegh, the US installed a puppet dictator - the Shah of Iran. The Islamic revolution of 1979, which overthrew the Shah was just Blowback - our own evil plot coming back to haunt us. This was the first of many such secret adventures by the CIA.

The CIA were the original funders and allies of both Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. There is evidence that supports the idea that this radical form of Islam was even invented by the US CIA.

For more information on how the CIA operates, I urge you to watch The Secret Government. All of the CIA's budget and activities are completely secret - secret from everyone, including you, me as well as our representatives in Congress and the Senate. This is clearly unconstitutional.

Rather than dealing with symptoms (there are people that want to kill us), I think we would do better in the long run to deal with the root causes and work towards rectifying those. The first step towards this is a return to constitutional government, as Dr. Paul advocates.

Michael

The only way to make sense out of change is to plunge into it, move with it, and join the dance. - Alan Watts

As always Michael, you are

As always Michael, you are right on. The problem with using that line of thinking, is the ignorance factor. Even though it's absolutely true and not a conspiracy theory(the fact that the CIA planted the Shaw Of Iran is a good start), people are so ignorant of even relatively recent US history, it's almost impossible to get them to listen.

I use the "we in effect funded Osama Bin Laden" all the time, and I get blank stares. People don't understand the fact that the Muhajadeen(spl) in Afghanistan were heavily support and trained by the CIA and NSA to fight the invading Russian army. The radical form of Islam you are talking about is called Wahabism. It wasn't created by the CIA at all, it's an ancient form of Islam akin to maybe Christianity's dark days in the middle ages.

There is plenty of evidence that the CIA and NSA were responsible for supplying text books to Pakistani schools throughout the mid to late 70's. Most of these books dealt with radical Islam. Now this gets to be very conspiratorial sounding, but if taken in correct context makes PERFECT sense. Russia was an atheist country infringing on the borders of Islamic countries. The United States COULD NOT allow this to happen. Afghanistan(as we now know), is the key to the middle east, especially from Russia's point of view(at the time).

As Michael pointed out, 9/11, the USS Stark, the USS Cole, Nigerian bombings, etc are all BLOWBACK. And is a known outcome of covert operations.

After the Russian's pulled out of Afghanistan the Muhajadeen(spl) morphed into two different sects. One became the Taliban and ultimately through 5 years of bloody civil war, became the ruling party of Afghanistan. The other became portions of al qaeda. Both follow the extreme version of Islam called Wahabism. And both immediately started biting the hand that had fed them. They denied western oil company's request for trans-Afghani pipelines out of the Caspian basin(which was the whole freaking point of capturing Afghanistan). The Talibans days were numbered the day they decided to interfere with the Narco-Oil economy of the region. Before the Taliban took over Afghanistan, the country was producing something like 700k tons of opiate, poppys to the world market(number 1 ingrediant in Heroin). After the Taliban that number plunged to something like 80 or 90. After the 2001/2002 invasion that number lept to 850K.

Now the funny and tragic thing about Iran and Iraq, is the fact that they at one time or another were very moderate countries. Before the overthrow of their popularly elected president and the installation of the Shaw of Iran in the 50's, Iran was an ardent ally of Britain and the US. It was their uppity stance on nationalizing the Oil fields that got them into trouble.

Same went for Iraq. The Bath' party was installed in the 50's also as a hedge against any nationalization of the oil fields and ultimately spawned Saddam Hussein.

But to answer the guys question. WHAT DO WE DO ? All of these country's now hate us and want to kill us. We are now fatally addicted to their oil, and it's this oil that keeps our economy afloat and in turn the world's economy.

Whomever the president is, we are going to have to come to terms with the fact that the US is not a pristine shining beacon on the hill. And that we have for too long lived beyond our means. Its time we started living within our limits and GET THE HELL out of their backyard.

We have the energy here at home to supply us with a standard of living that was enjoyed in the 1950's or 60's about 7 to 8 million barrels of production a day. Bring our troops home and protect our border. Bring our dollars home and regain through production and ingenuity our rightful place as Number 1 producer in the world.

Stop the gutting of our sovereignty by the evil power that corporations and globalist wield. It's time to turn in wards for awhile and regain what we have lost.

He shouldn't mince words. I think America at it's heart is ready to hear this message. I feel it all around me, AMERCAN'S are scared, but they don't know what they are afraid of. If someone with Ron's credibility and sensible ideas were to just level with the American people, I think it would catch on like wildfire.

American's are NOT fat stupid and lazy. They have been lied to and deceived for well over 2 generations now. It's time for someone to turn the light on, so we can see the mess we have all made and start the all important job of cleaning it up..

Robert NW Ohio

Robert NW Ohio
"The freedom tree is watered by the blood of both patriots and tyrants alike".........."time to water the tree"..Authors Unkn

MONEY IS NOT THE PURVIEW OF THE SOVEREIGN OR THE BANKING ELITES.... MONEY BELONGS TO THE PEOPLE...FREE THE MONEY!! Member for 4 years and 3 months :) :)

Questions:

Proposed questions for the debate:

  • Would you support a complete accounting of the nation's gold reserves that are stored in Ft. Knox?
  • Would you support a complete and total audit of The Federal Reserve?
  • Would you reinstate the calculating & printing of the M3?
  • Would you use the M3 to calculate inflation instead of the CPI?
  • Would you support a full investigation into the claims of Ted Butler and the COMEX/NYMEX silver short position and manipulation?
  • Would you support a full investigation into the claims of Bill Murphy and the Gold Anti Trust Action committee regarding the manipulation of the gold market?

Come debate the best questions in IRC. (Instructions)

PS I realize this is a bold statement but I have figured out the
problem
plaguing the District of Corruption.

RiverRat
Dr. Ron Paul to save America in 2008!!
co-founder / co-operator of the #RonPaul IRC channels on
Freenode, EFnet, OFTC, Undernet, & Solitox.
FreeNode

Questions

So who is going to explain to the others in the debate what M3 is?

http://ronpaul.rescue-us.org

No Kidding

Unfortunately, there are a lot of us that are SO DERN EXCITED to have this information come up in public debate that we may lose focus... is the point just to bring it up, or to get Paul into the White House? I think both options are great, but pushing Paul to the White House will accomplish both of those goals... if only we don't stand in his/our own way. A ninety-minute debate should not be wasted by Paul giving lessons in history and economics. It should be spent winning those he hasn't won yet - and most of them don't know or really care about M3....

Question

"Having all sworn an oath,

(I, Loyal Citizen of the Republic, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.)

give 3 specific examples of how you have supported and defended the Constitution of the United States, and faithfully discharged the duties of the office?"

~I'd rather die at the hands of terrorism than enslaved by my own government.~

~I'd rather die at the hands of terrorism than enslaved by my own government.~

Another question

Define what it means in the congressional oath of office the phrase "without mental reservation or purpose of evasion"

~I'd rather die at the hands of terrorism than enslaved by my own government.~

~I'd rather die at the hands of terrorism than enslaved by my own government.~

Role of Gov't Should Be Discussed

There are a lot of folks who misunderstand the role of government in their lives or at least only have a "vague feeling of misgiving" about what might be wrong in politics. I think engaging discussion regarding the president's responsibilities and motiviations is a good way to go. Polls show people value "integrity" over "issues" and this is a good way to show Ron's absolute integrity regarding his role in government. Good idea. Especially given Bush's comment that the Constitution is "just a goddam piece of paper". Yeaugh. I guess his oath was just a goddam bunch of lipservice. OATH, folks, the OATH.