What's the dealio with GOP candidate Ron Paul?

**Universal Mind** · 09-20-2007 12:46 AM

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

Now THAT is a straw man (not to mention a slippery slope)

Here's a link to the debate you mentioned so people can see for themselves if Ron Paul was really skating passed the questions and playing dodgeball.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=R7JPvbVsDdY

Ron Paul did his best to answer O'Reilly's questions but the man kept interrupting him claiming he was avoiding the questions when he was just trying to tell Bill O'Reilly that he was focused on the wrong people. Anyone can say what Bill O'Reilly said, he might as well have been asking if Ron Paul believed the world is a dangerous place. What Ron Paul was saying is that this country's focus is put on nations that aren't nearly as threatening to us as other ones, or don't require nearly as much attention.

Oh but you're right, the fallacy you used against Mystic was an ad hominem

I didn't use a fallacy with Mystic. I engaged in the silly insult war he wanted to have because he could not counter my point about Fox News. HE committed the ad hominem fallacy. His point was 100% pure ad hominem, so I threw it back at him. An ad hominem used back at a total ad hominem is not fallacious. That's like saying if somebody calls you a booty head and you call him a biscuit face that you have committed a fallacy. Don't be silly. Was I supposed to post my psychological history because, "There's something wrong with you," is a serious debate point? Get real.

Ron Paul did very briefly touch Bill's issue about Iran, but he mostly kept playing the, "But let's talk about this other subject instead," game instead of giving direct responses. Iran is a megaserious matter we have on our hands right now, and Bill was trying to get Ron to talk about what we should do about them. Ron barely did it at all. He just said we shouldn't be in the Middle East at all, even though he voted for the war in Afghanistan. How consistent. What a stable candidate. And Ron also said that what Iran is doing is legitimate. A Ron Paul presidency would be a horrifying nightmare for the entire world. It's a good thing we don't have to realistically worry about such a thing.

**Original Poster** · 09-20-2007 01:48 AM

You're wrong, Ron Paul addressed the issue thusly:

Iran is a threat, but Saudi Arabia has half the terrorists, so why are we ignoring Saudi Arabia and just focusing on Iran?

Bill O'Reilly was trying to set the stage of the world, stating opinions as facts. He wanted Ron Paul to asnwer yes or no is Iran a threat, but that's a bullshit question because if Ron says no then he can get attacked for an outrageous statement and if he says yes then O'Reilly would just call him a flip flopper. O'Reilly was trying to set the stage as if Paul didn't care about Iran, and that's just not true, he simply has his priorities straight and Iran should not be our top priority.

The biggest megaserious threat to our nation is the fucking plutocracy and the federal reserve, not Iran.

**Universal Mind** · 09-20-2007 03:38 PM

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

You're wrong, Ron Paul addressed the issue thusly:

Iran is a threat, but Saudi Arabia...

That's called dodging. Paul could have talked about the specifics of Iran and the full details of how to deal with them and then gone off about Saudi Arabia. Instead, he played the side step game.

Iran supports suicide bomber terrorism on a large scale, and we are their biggest enemy. They are working on nuclear weapons. That is a humongous problem. If Ron Paul does not have the capacity to understand that, then he is not even qualified to be the mayor of a hick town.

**Original Poster** · 09-20-2007 09:19 PM

The debate lasted 5 minutes, he wasn't dodging anything because the issue is this: The media is overrating Iran and ignoring other threats, Ron Paul has a responsibility to address these more severe threats for the safety of the American People. Just because people that don't care about our safety are placing Iran in a position of hyper-threat doesnt make it so.

**Universal Mind** · 09-20-2007 09:22 PM

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

The debate lasted 5 minutes, he wasn't dodging anything because the issue is this: The media is overrating Iran and ignoring other threats, Ron Paul has a responsibility to address these more severe threats for the safety of the American People. Just because people that don't care about our safety are placing Iran in a position of hyper-threat doesnt make it so.

The question was this: What should be done about Iran?

If there are bigger issues, which I don't think there are, then he could have brought that up after answering the incredibly important question. The idea of electing somebody who does not take Iran seriously is an absolute nightmare.