The Official Republican Debates Thread

[Avatar4321]

I'm somewhat familiar with his currency position though and anyone that's unfamiliar with it is probably baffled. He's for raising the value of the dollar by reducing the printing of money and investing in gold and other valued currencies. That actually makes sense to me.

The Daily Kos has Ron Paul winning the debate on an online poll so that should tell you something.

Oh I understand that. But he was saying he was going to stop printing currency period and I think thats just rather stupid.

Yeah the DU was happy with Ron Paul as well and that should tell you something.

 

[Avatar4321]

Thompson's true homo-hating colors showed through!

Why? Because the man says employers should be allowed to hire and fire whomever they want? They should.

 

[JeffWartman]

Oh I understand that. But he was saying he was going to stop printing currency period and I think thats just rather stupid.

Yeah the DU was happy with Ron Paul as well and that should tell you something.

He wasn't inferring we should stop printing money forever. He was putting forth the very common Libertarian position that it is counter productive to increase spending and pay for that increased spending by simply printing more money.

Notice one of his lines hit it on the head...I'm paraphrasing...he said something like "We need to stop the big spending in Washington, and stop paying for increased funding by printing more money and letting the Chinese finance our debt."

His positions on money are very reasonable and true to reality. If only we had people in Washington who actually wanted to decrease the size of government. Congressman Paul seems like the only one nowadays.

 

[no1tovote4]

Oh I understand that. But he was saying he was going to stop printing currency period and I think thats just rather stupid.

Yeah the DU was happy with Ron Paul as well and that should tell you something.

What it tells me is that they believe that he would be easily beaten as a candidate. Not much more than that. Believe me, if the most liberal R ran against a Centrist D the extreme left would still vote for the D.

 

[maineman]

Why? Because the man says employers should be allowed to hire and fire whomever they want? They should.

yours shine right along with his!

 

[Dirt McGirt]

What it tells me is that they believe that he would be easily beaten as a candidate. Not much more than that. Believe me, if the most liberal R ran against a Centrist D the extreme left would still vote for the D.

Actually I've interacted with some liberals and they love Ron Paul. He's been on the same side as some of the libs on some major issues. He's against wire taps, the war on Iraq, legalizing drugs, the right to privacy, doesn't believe in boogeymen, etc. Many liberals like him.

 

[maineman]

Actually I've interacted with some liberals and they love Ron Paul. He's been on the same side as some of the libs on some major issues. He's against wire taps, the war on Iraq, legalizing drugs, the right to privacy, doesn't believe in boogeymen, etc. Many liberals like him.

liking him and voting for him are two different things.

politics is a team sport. If you believe in the platform and the ideals of a team over those of the other team, you vote for the candidates that team stands up for office. period.

 

[Dirt McGirt]

liking him and voting for him are two different things.

politics is a team sport. If you believe in the platform and the ideals of a team over those of the other team, you vote for the candidates that team stands up for office. period.

I think it depends on who he'd match up against. Among liberals, if Paul matched up with Obama he'd lose by a slandslide. If it's Hillary, I think a lot of liberals would actually consider Paul. You'd be surprised.

Besides if DU or Daily Kos actually wanted a shoo in candidate, they'd have voted for Brownback or Tancredo. Mitt Romney was 2nd at Kos so I think the liberals were actually being serious.

 

[no1tovote4]

liking him and voting for him are two different things.

politics is a team sport. If you believe in the platform and the ideals of a team over those of the other team, you vote for the candidates that team stands up for office. period.

As I told you. Believe me. If the most liberal Republican ran against an even somewhat conservative Democrat the liberal would vote for the Democrat. I don't even blame them. On that level the platform is more important than a person because they will be appointing many people that follow more of the platform than they do.

 

[maineman]

As I told you. Believe me. If the most liberal Republican ran against an even somewhat conservative Democrat the liberal would vote for the Democrat. I don't even blame them. On that level the platform is more important than a person because they will be appointing many people that follow more of the platform than they do.

absolutely....and people think being a yellow dog democrat implies that I do not care about the issues and only the party...

when in fact it means that I care about the BIG issues that are the planks of my party's platform and I KNOW that the only way to maximize the chances of seeing that platform become public policy is to elect more members of my party.

When all is said and done, a liberal nice guy republican will still run on the republican platform and will still govern to implement it.

 

[Dirt McGirt]

As I told you. Believe me. If the most liberal Republican ran against an even somewhat conservative Democrat the liberal would vote for the Democrat. I don't even blame them. On that level the platform is more important than a person because they will be appointing many people that follow more of the platform than they do.

I agree but would like to add that there are extremists in both parties that would consider an outside party and there are left/right of center voters that would consider one or the other party. The Presidency is pretty much decided on those voters.

 

[TeddyRoosevelt]

you could at least pretend to care about the health of the mother and keep abortions legal. Did anyone mention that? Didn't think so.

"if men had to bear the children, abortion would be a sacrament"

 

[no1tovote4]

you could at least pretend to care about the health of the mother and keep abortions legal. Did anyone mention that? Didn't think so.

"if men had to bear the children, abortion would be a sacrament"

I always love this tidbit of stereotype. There are many women in the republican party who are also against abortion, as well as some few that I know in the Dem party who are. Much fewer but they exist. The idea that suddenly the idea that a tiny innocent life is important would go away just because men bore children is plain fantasy.

And the question was never about the health of the mother, it was always, "Would it be a good day if Roe v. Wade was overturned?"

They all answered "yes" in one way or another. This doesn't mean that they wouldn't allow a woman to exercise her right to protect her life, it would just mean that states were once again allowed to make laws on the subject.

Probably only Thompson would have insisted that the life of the mother be overwhelmed by the fetus. And that is even in doubt.

 

[TeddyRoosevelt]

that's what the "partial-birth" abortion debate is all about (Cons like to use that inflammatory term to sensationalize and misrepresent).The ONLY reasons a woman would choose to have an abortion that far along AND have the doctor even legally perform it are either the child will not survive outside the womb AND/OR the health of the mother is in danger. Such an abortion seriously jeapordizes the chances of the mother EVER being able to bear another child.

How many candidates do you think would support late-term abortions?

 

[no1tovote4]

that's what the "partial-birth" abortion debate is all about (Cons like to use that inflammatory term to sensationalize and misrepresent).The ONLY reasons a woman would choose to have an abortion that far along AND have the doctor even legally perform it are either the child will not survive outside the womb AND/OR the health of the mother is in danger. Such an abortion seriously jeapordizes the chances of the mother EVER being able to bear another child.

How many candidates do you think would support late-term abortions?

Not many. And not many Ds support it either. However, more than most would have that caveat put into the law.

The current ruling by the SCOTUS made it so that instead of delivering the child first then killing it in a way that most of us would determine as inhumane, a lethal injection would need to be administered first before the delivery.

I guess that makes them horrible people. Or maybe it isn't just "republicans" that sensationalize and emote on this discussion.

 

[TeddyRoosevelt]

how so many anti-choice folks try to simplify the abortion issue into just a willy-nilly easy form of birth control only practiced by immoral and irresponsible people- using such inflammatory terms as "baby-killers" and "abortion is murder". We know it's WAY more complicated than that.

 

[Annie]

that's what the "partial-birth" abortion debate is all about (Cons like to use that inflammatory term to sensationalize and misrepresent).The ONLY reasons a woman would choose to have an abortion that far along AND have the doctor even legally perform it are either the child will not survive outside the womb AND/OR the health of the mother is in danger. Such an abortion seriously jeapordizes the chances of the mother EVER being able to bear another child.

How many candidates do you think would support late-term abortions?

That is not true.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcon...-parker_23edi.ART.State.Edition1.431d27c.html

...

Opponents of the ruling assert that this is a dark day for Americans' constitutional rights and women's right to choose. They say this ruling is merely part of the pro-life strategy for gutting Roe vs. Wade, one ruling at a time.

They also argue, correctly, that this ruling saves no babies from abortion. As stated previously, a fetus can still be disarticulated. And that "procedure" is, arguably, equally brutal, though perhaps not as painful as collapsing the skull.

According to expert testimony, a fetus from 20 weeks' gestation forward may feel "prolonged and excruciating" pain during a PBA – especially when the skull is crushed or punctured for "evacuation" of its brains. The other side did not rebut the claim.

The main argument from the pro-choice side, and the constitutional issue at stake, has been that the PBA is sometimes needed to protect the health of the mother. But in no single court case were doctors able to demonstrate that PBA was ever a medical necessity. Instead, all arguments were hypothetical.

Indeed, the majority of PBAs are performed on the healthy babies of healthy women. Meanwhile, other alternatives are available that are safe for the mother, if no less unpleasant for the fetus.

It is, of course, true that pro-lifers are celebrating this ruling and that they also hope eventually to see abortion regulation reverted to the states.

It is also true that many states now will pass PBA bans as well as "informed consent" laws that may require women to view a sonogram before consenting to abortion. Pro-lifers expect the informed consent laws to be challenged and hope for a favorable ruling.

Whatever legal battles lie ahead, Wednesday's high court decision seems a civilizing step forward, affirming as it does that the state has a substantial interest in protecting and preserving life. As an operating principle – and assuming it is not misapplied – it would seem to beat the alternative.

Kathleen Parker is a columnist for the Orlando Sentinel. Her e-mail is [email protected].

 

[TeddyRoosevelt]

and discover the myths about late-term abortions.






http://www.aclu.org/reproductiverights/abortionbans/12669res20040326.html

 

[JeffWartman]

The biggest problem for partial birth abortions is that the "health of the mother" clause has been interpreted by doctors as judges as that they may perform those abortions for ANY reason...if the birth will cause the mother a little discomfort, they say it's the health of the mother. It's kind of sickening, actually.

 

[Paul Revere]

Actually I've interacted with some liberals and they love Ron Paul. He's been on the same side as some of the libs on some major issues. He's against wire taps, the war on Iraq, legalizing drugs, the right to privacy, doesn't believe in boogeymen, etc. Many liberals like him.

, the right to privacy, doesn't believe in boogeymen, etc

1.He's against wire taps.
(He's against wire taps without a court order. That is the way it should be. Bush could have began a wire tap and then gotten the court order. He changed the rules because he wants to spy on people that should not be spied on. That is why I now use really big words on the phone, just incase he is listening.

2. the war on Iraq - was a bad move from the beginning. removing one dictator, creating a civil war, and losing and wounding American military, looting the US treasury, because of a war based on lies was wrong.

3. legalizing drugs - How long has the war on drugs been waged? Who is winning? Do we really know the full scope of just who is evolved with importing drugs? Why not have a law that states an individual is responsible for their own actions. If a person drinks alcohol or used drug, drives or becomes a nuisance
in public, etc. they will be arrested. If I bring my dog in public and he bites someone, under the same law, I should be held responsible for my actions.

4. The right to Privacy - ????? Who does not want the right to privacy?

5. Fearing boogey men? The only boogiemen that need be feared are the Bush regime, and Hilary's Henchmen.