Thread: Should Ron Paul Be Allowed In Sunday's Debate?

Originally Posted by PatriotDreams

Bloomberg's appeal will be to the socially liberal side of the republican party.
& the fiscal conservative side of the Dems. He could in some ways end up being like Perot was, kind of a draw away from the republican camp.

He would be very bad for this country.

If he wants to waste his money thats fine

Another thing going against him as well as Hillary and Rudi

Joe and jane 6 pack in most cases don't like or trust NY people

Agreed

RON PAUL SHOULD 100% Be running.. as well as Duncan Hunter.

Who you should ixnay on is.. Huckleberry, Romeny, Thompson and just give Ghouiania..

I mean they are all the same candidate.. CFR controlled, elitist and open mentality (regardless of how tough they talk now)..

They should only allow Ron Paul , Duncan Hunter, Ghouliani and thrown in Keyes for entertainment sake and keep everyone on their toes.

I don't agree with Hunters Kill everyone mentality, but he is the only TRUE anit illegal immigration dude still running, with Paul a second and everyone else a FAR third.

So yes, RON PAUL SHOULD DEFINETLY BE INCLUDED.

************************************************** ************

What is more important? MSM and special interests generated polls or fundraising? Even fundraising is a curious thing as if you go to "opensecretes" they should who are the real special interest shills.

So, to me.. if you are running you are included. Simple.

Originally Posted by PatriotDreams

Bloomberg's appeal will be to the socially liberal side of the republican party.
& the fiscal conservative side of the Dems. He could in some ways end up being like Perot was, kind of a draw away from the republican camp.

He would be very bad for this country.

Who's behind the "push"? Dems I think as they have the most to gain from him getting in the race.

I think you are right, I can picture the Dems behind him, and he would be a complete disaster for this country, not to mention he is another with absoultely no qualifications to be president of the U.S.A.

BrightNail wrote:

I don't agree with Hunters Kill everyone mentality

Nope, but you do agree with Paul's 'let's bury our head in the sand and let everyone build and/or possess nuclear weapons' mentality. If I was you, it's Paul I'd be worried about.

Originally Posted by MW

BrightNail wrote:

I don't agree with Hunters Kill everyone mentality

Nope, but you do agree with Paul's 'let's bury our head in the sand and let everyone build and/or possess nuclear weapons' mentality. If I was you, it's Paul I'd be worried about.

I suppose your suggesting we should just be the police of the whole World forever. We are paying, what, 30% + now for federal taxes and with this Iraq war soon we will be paying way more.

Nuclear power is a reasonable source of energy if safety is the overiding priority. For foriegn countries to use this energy they must then ask for our permission?

If we eliminate the IRS then all the sanctuary safe houses for illegals will be gone. We fund are military with tarrifs from foriegn goods in turn more jobs for us here. Win win for all Patriots and not just Haliburton, News Corp and all the other CFR cartel groups who want "control"!

IMO the countries surrounding threats of nuclear attacks need to deal with these thugs not us. We can be nearby with our carriers, subs, etc... if issues get to far out of hand. The way we are going our descendents will be paying 60% + in taxes to make sure some thug in Pakistan does not launch a suitcase nuke to India!