Michigan GOP leader wants Paul barred from future debates

[Naturalized-Texan]

Michigan GOP leader wants Paul barred from future debates (http://www.mlive.com/newsflash/michigan/index.ssf?/base/news-44/117935695635230.xml&storylist=newsmichigan)

The chairman of the Michigan Republican Party said Wednesday that he will try to bar Ron Paul from future GOP presidential debates because of remarks the Texas congressman made that suggested the Sept. 11 attacks were the fault of U.S. foreign policy.

Michigan party chairman Saul Anuzis said he will circulate a petition among Republican National Committee members to ban Paul from more debates. At a GOP candidates' debate Tuesday night, Paul drew attacks from all sides, most forcefully from former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, when he linked the terror attacks to U.S. bombings.

Actually, I don't believe that he is a serious candidate. He is just running to help his Democrat buddies win next year's elections.

[Lubbock]

Whatever his game is, he definately should be barred from any more "debates," such as they are.

[Republican_Legion]

I'd like to see a gag order put on Ron Paul.

[The_Elucidator]

I'd like to say a gag order put on Ron Paul.

Ron Paul makes me gag!!

[Timberwolf]

Sooooo....republicans ARE into censorship? I thought you guys were beyond that...I thought LIBERALS did that.

I find it of great interest that REPUBLICANS have joined with the democrats in dissing the Constitution.

Tex rails about Paul being a traitor, according to the Constitution...where in the Constitution does it say that we can stiffle POLITICAL speech because we disagree with it? Ron Paul, btw, is not a traitor...he points out the Constitutional aspects of the situation in which we now find ourselves. What he says is certainly unpopular, but it ain't treason...not by a LONG shot.

I do find it disturbing that someone who wants us, as a country, to following the clear definitions of our own Constitution is as unpopular and brow-beaten as Ron Paul has been.

Sad indictment as to the direction of our country.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Sooooo....republicans ARE into censorship? I thought you guys were beyond that...I thought LIBERALS did that.

I find it of great interest that REPUBLICANS have joined with the democrats in dissing the Constitution.
You are misreading the First Amendment, which only applies to the GOVERNMENT. The Republican Party is not the GOVERNMENT and banning a nutcase from their debates isn't and can't be censorship.

Tex rails about Paul being a traitor, according to the Constitution...where in the Constitution does it say that we can stiffle POLITICAL speech because we disagree with it? Ron Paul, btw, is not a traitor...he points out the Constitutional aspects of the situation in which we now find ourselves. What he says is certainly unpopular, but it ain't treason...not by a LONG shot.
See my comments above. It can't be censorship unless the GOVERNMENT is stifling POLITICAL speech. For example, FreeConservatives.com is not the GOVERNMENT, so when one of our Admins bans a nutcase from FC, there is no way that that can be called censorship.

I do find it disturbing that someone who wants us, as a country, to following the clear definitions of our own Constitution is as unpopular and brow-beaten as Ron Paul has been.

Sad indictment as to the direction of our country.
Ron Paul has voted to restrict the actions of the Commander in Chief in a war that he voted to declare. That is a clear violation of Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution, so don't give us the malarkey that Ron Paul is following the Constitution.

[Timberwolf]

OK...then ban Guiliani from the debates. He's nothing more than a social liberal who will control spending. Why let a liberal into the debate?

Oh, that's right...he's popular.

[UnkHiram]

Ron Paul is an idiot dont ban him, ignore him

[Naturalized-Texan]

OK...then ban Guiliani from the debates. He's nothing more than a social liberal who will control spending. Why let a liberal into the debate?

Oh, that's right...he's popular.
Whatever else one may say about him, at least Giuliani is sane.

[Jimmy Wesson]

Ron Paul, a social liberal ?!

I believe that the traditionnal and conservative right supported isolationnism in foreign policy ?

It's true we have fanatics in the world who wants to destroy America values... It's true that we must to kill them before they destroy us. Probably we must to reiforce our spends in military and the funds of governemental agencies like CIA, NSA...

But when I see Rudy Guliani, Mc Cain, Romney, who are rinos, who are not fiscally conservative ( or just for the elections ) who don't want to control the spends in Education, Healtcare and others, I prefer Ron Paul to them.

I think that Ron Paul, is he growth in popularity, will be elected by a lot of differents electorates, like Reagan : reagan democrats, conservatives pro-life, centrists, independants, etc...

[Naturalized-Texan]

Ron Paul is also a RINO because he toes the hate-America leftist line on the War on Terror.

[Timberwolf]

Ron Paul is an idiot dont ban him, ignore him
Thank you for the voice of sanity, Unk.

[Timberwolf]

Whatever else one may say about him, at least Giuliani is sane.
According to WHOM??? Not by my measure. That he'd be running as a REPUBLICAN, to me, is the HEIGHT of insanity.

[Timberwolf]

Ron Paul is also a RINO because he toes the hate-America leftist line on the War on Terror.
Rudy, McCain and Romney all fall into that category (albeit, for different reasons), too...what's your point?

btw - his naive, narrow-minded stance on the WoT is about the ONLY thing wrong with his position(s), to the best of my recollection. Rudy is a pro-abort, gun grabber. McCain is into censorship. Romney...well, he's flipped or flopped on so many issues, I have no clue what his REAL positions are.

Tex, have you ever heard of Midol or Pamprin? I'm thinkin' yer hormones are ALL outta whack. If Paul is a hate-America leftist because of his stance on the WoT, then Bush is a hate-America leftist because of his "open border, embrace illegal immigrants, bankrupt the country" position.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Tex, have you ever heard of Midol or Pamprin? I'm thinkin' yer hormones are ALL outta whack.
I see that you are making a habit of launching ad hominem attacks. Oh, well. Maybe you'll grow up some day. Unfortunately, I may not live long enough to see it happen.

[Jimmy Wesson]

In these candidates, Rudy is the worst.

[Naturalized-Texan]

In these candidates, Rudy is the worst.
Rudy is bad, but since the War on Terror is by far the most important issue facing this country, Ron Paul is far worse than Rudy because Ron Paul wants to surrender to the terrorists.

[Jimmy Wesson]

I want a real conservative... like a lot of members in this website... Ron Paul is best in State Reform and fiscal issue, but in the others subjects...

[Naturalized-Texan]

I want a real conservative... like a lot of members in this website... Ron Paul is best in State Reform and fiscal issue, but in the others subjects...
Ron Paul is as much a nut case as Micheal Moore and George Soros. I could never vote for him again.

[Timberwolf]

I see that you are making a habit of launching ad hominem attacks. Oh, well. Maybe you'll grow up some day. Unfortunately, I may not live long enough to see it happen.
What OTHER conclusion could I POSSIBLY come to? You ignore what I say/write. I can only conclude something is wrong. I only cite the obvious. That was NOT an ad hom, it was an observation based upon your ignoring what was said.

[Timberwolf]

Ron Paul is as much a nut case as Micheal Moore and George Soros. I could never vote for him again.
...and you think I've gone 'round the bend...:rolleyes:

[Madbomber]

Ron Paul is as much a nut case as Micheal Moore and George Soros. I could never vote for him again.

Sorry but I dont see it. He is more of a constitutional purist, it might not make himd the ultimate conservative but it doesnt make him a nutcase either.

For instance: Legalizing Pot. I dont agree with it. I can however see how a person could put it in the same class as alcohol. They both are detrimental on the relatively same scale, yet one is legal and the other is a pariah. Id say ban both as they are equally harmful. Conversely, if one can be accepted its not a huge stretch that the other is equally ok. That opinion doesnt make one a nutcase. Sometimes logic truly Is a bitch.

and that is his most controversial stance.

Ultimately, I thing Ron Paul is interested in total freedom. Thing is if you truly want to be free that also means freedom to make mistakes. Id much rather be on my own hook than have the federal government pretending to be my nanny.

I am also partial to my fathers stance LOL. He says that drugs should be legalized and that it should be illegal to treat any overdoses period. let the problem solve itself LOL.

[BaronKelan]

They tried to ban alcohol once before - didn't work out too well.

Total freedom doesn't work. I'm sorry, but there are laws to protect those who would otherwise be unable to protect themselves. We don't always agree with the laws, but without them you would have caos.

Therefore, if we must have laws, we go with the laws the society deems to be of value. Where we get into trouble is when someone thinks they know better than anyone else how things should be run and they try to perform social engineering to modify society without society's consent.

Ron Paul's problem, as far as I can see, and to be honest I really don't know much about him, just what I've seen in the debates, is that he's been a fringe candidate for a very long time. He has run for President several times as a liberarian and chooses to run as a Republican this time. Why should I trust him any more than any other candidate who changes sides? Plus the ideas he's expressed during the debates have not impressed or pursuaded me to his view. He just comes off sounding like a flake. Not trying to be argumentative, just my impression.

[Madbomber]

They tried to ban alcohol once before - didn't work out too well.

Yes. The prohibition of pot is about as effective as the prohibition of Alcohol was. If its going to be around anyway might as well tax the hell out of it.

Total freedom doesn't work. I'm sorry, but there are laws to protect those who would otherwise be unable to protect themselves. We don't always agree with the laws, but without them you would have caos.

Naturally there are is a need for laws. No debate there. What I dont understand is why is it nessicary for the government to restrict everyone in an attept to save stupid people from themselves. (this logic is applies to many things, its not just a pot yes/no thing) The more you have to rely on the government to tell you not to be a bad boy the closer you come to socialism/communism, and thats something Im sure none of us want.

Therefore, if we must have laws, we go with the laws the society deems to be of value. Where we get into trouble is when someone thinks they know better than anyone else how things should be run and they try to perform social engineering to modify society without society's consent.

The problem that laws are often ignored and not inforced or inforced in an inconsistant manner. Our criminal justice system is a joke. Many in the judicial branch are corrupt and can be baught. for instance my old boss got a DUI, he went to his lawyer and asked how much it would be to beat it. Cost him 15k but its no longer on his record. Many of the law makers today ignore what the public wants as well. I donno, maybe Im just terribly Jaded.

Ron Paul's problem, as far as I can see, and to be honest I really don't know much about him, just what I've seen in the debates, is that he's been a fringe candidate for a very long time. He has run for President several times as a liberarian and chooses to run as a Republican this time. Why should I trust him any more than any other candidate who changes sides? Plus the ideas he's expressed during the debates have not impressed or pursuaded me to his view. He just comes off sounding like a flake. Not trying to be argumentative, just my impression.

Yah I admit some of the things he does can be outlandish. The real reason that I like him is becuase when I researched into his voting record I noticed that when he said he was going to do something he did it, even if it was unpopular. I also understand that in order to get this country right again you are going to have to do a lot of unpopular things. If you have a candidate out there that can eliminate our debt without pissing people off Im all for it, but as far as I know God isnt running this year.

See right now it's more important to me to have someone in office that will not just sit there while the government bankrupts itself. Part of the solution would be to stop giving money away to other countries as foriegn aid. Ron Paul's Isolationist policy works for me there. Im tired of the US paying the bill to police the world while the people we are protecting curse our name.

We need to protect our country against the invasion from Mexico, and yes when you have 20 million people here illegally it is an invasion. Ron Paul would stop that too.

So the way I see it on the Major issues to me he is pretty much in line with how I feel. I want to see the country get back on the right track, Ill worry about wether or not someone is taking bongswats after Im sure that we arent going to fall apart as a nation.