Debate

[Nathan Hale]

Hmm, I saw this video on Peden's site:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOo1thauiCM

It's at a Ron Paul townhall meeting, and a member of the audience asks Paul why he won't debate Peden. Paul, alas, offers a ridiculous dodge. Obviously, Paul doesn't want to debate Peden because Paul benefits from this primary getting as little attention as possible. Of course, you can't say that to the voters. Which puts the man in an awkward position. Paul, after all, has been a huge proponent of debate access for the last year (for obvious reasons). Now the issue is turned on its head because Peden is the outsider.

I, for one, think that a debate is a necessary. A debate is always necessary in every political race. Why is Paul ducking one in D14?

[The One]

It is somewhat ironic isn't it?

[heartless]

I heard that an incumbent agreeing to debate a challenger is a sign of weakness. Kucinich has agreed to debate his 4 democratic challengers in his district

[Nathan Hale]

I heard that an incumbent agreeing to debate a challenger is a sign of weakness. Kucinich has agreed to debate his 4 democratic challengers in his district

A sign of weakness? Talk to any political strategist - when you're an incumbent and you're challenged, you seek to make the race as dull as possible so as to not draw attention to it, a "non event" to use the terminology of Clinton's 1996 presidential campaign. When a race is dull, the incumbent is favored, because they naturally receive more attention.

Considering this strategy, a stronger candidate is one who is more able to break these rules and actually meet his challenger on the field of battle. I always thought Ron Paul was the kind of person who would rise to such a challenge. But it looks like the Presidential campaign has taught him a little too much about Washington-style campaigning.

[yongrel]

Considering what Peden is saying about RP, I don't balme Dr. Paul for not wanting to debate him.

Nathan Hale, why so negative?

[Nathan Hale]

Considering what Peden is saying about RP, I don't balme Dr. Paul for not wanting to debate him.

Odd.... Paul couldn't wait to get a shot at Giuliani, McCain, et al when they said outrageous things about him.


Nathan Hale, why so negative?

How am I being negative? I'm an advocate of honest, open debate in politics.

[itshappening]

he doesn't deserve a debate, as RP said he endorsed him not long ago and is viewed as an opportunist

[Rede]

it gives a bad impression about the national campaign if he is engaging in congressional debates.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Paul is doing the RIGHT thing in ignoring a nothing challenger like Peden.

[theseus51]

A sign of weakness? Talk to any political strategist - when you're an incumbent and you're challenged, you seek to make the race as dull as possible so as to not draw attention to it, a "non event" to use the terminology of Clinton's 1996 presidential campaign. When a race is dull, the incumbent is favored, because they naturally receive more attention.

Considering this strategy, a stronger candidate is one who is more able to break these rules and actually meet his challenger on the field of battle. I always thought Ron Paul was the kind of person who would rise to such a challenge. But it looks like the Presidential campaign has taught him a little too much about Washington-style campaigning.

Ron Paul is not a diety or something, he's just a politician running for office. He may be unconventional in his views and political stances, but when it comes time for elections, he is pretty traditional. Use tactics that work, don't use tactics that don't work. Use radio and television ads, get endorsements, don't debate opponents you are beating by 40% in the polls, etc.

I'm reminded of Ron Paul's first campaign, it's pretty funny the one tactic he used against Bob Gammage: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15016924

[DRV45N05]

To compare the scenario between his Presidential Run and his Congressional Run is a huge logical fallacy. What he was opposed to in the Presidential Run was the fact that the people who were putting on the debates weren't inviting him, not that debates should be taking place and not that his opponents didn't want to debate him. In this Congressional Campaign, Ron would not be actually putting on the debate; another party would be putting on the debate. He is saying that he doesn't want to participate in the debate if one takes place. He has every right to not participate if he doesn't want to, and he has no obligation to participate.

[The One]

To compare the scenario between his Presidential Run and his Congressional Run is a huge logical fallacy. What he was opposed to in the Presidential Run was the fact that the people who were putting on the debates weren't inviting him, not that debates should be taking place and not that his opponents didn't want to debate him. In this Congressional Campaign, Ron would not be actually putting on the debate; another party would be putting on the debate. He is saying that he doesn't want to participate in the debate if one takes place. He has every right to not participate if he doesn't want to, and he has no obligation to participate.

It's not apples and apples, but I wouldn't go so far as to call it a "huge logical fallacy".

[Prez4TheNet]

And this is exactly why I have stopped supporting Ron Paul. He runs around the issues and never clarifies anything.

[TRosen75]

And this is exactly why I have stopped supporting Ron Paul. He runs around the issues and never clarifies anything.

From your previous posts on these forums it looks as if you never did.

[nate895]

And this is exactly why I have stopped supporting Ron Paul. He runs around the issues and never clarifies anything.

He never clarifies anything. Then you sir, aren't listening, or are too stupid to comprehend what you are being told.

[Flash]

Certain members on this forum forget Ron Paul still is running for president. Yeah he won't win, but hes going to try to campaign and win over as many people as he can. He needs to start a movement.

So basically, he has better things to do than debate a nobody.



And this is exactly why I have stopped supporting Ron Paul.

Mysteriously this is the same person who was negative about the blimp and negative about the money bombs. Hmmm. I wonder if its a coincidence that all of a sudden he isn't supporting Ron Paul.

I don't know what trolls think they can accomplish. Instead of debating peacefully, they try to infiltrate a forum (poorly) and somehow change our minds that way.

[nate895]

Certain members on this forum forget Ron Paul still is running for president. Yeah he won't win, but hes going to try to campaign and win over as many people as he can. He needs to start a movement.

So basically, he has better things to do than debate a nobody.




Mysteriously this is the same person who was negative about the blimp and negative about the money bombs. Hmmm. I wonder if its a coincidence that all of a sudden he isn't supporting Ron Paul.

I don't know what trolls think they can accomplish. Instead of debating peacefully, they try to infiltrate a forum (poorly) and somehow change our minds that way.

We can still pull this thing off.

[Prez4TheNet]

From your previous posts on these forums it looks as if you never did.

Wrong buddy, I was a supporter of Ron Paul before it was the "cool thing" to do. I was actively involved in his 1988 presidential bid and became disillusioned after the scandal that broke out with his remaining funds after his run.

I thought he had become more competent in running a campaign since then. I was the most active in my meetup group and was even featured in my local newspaper for political activism (a whole front page story too). Then the newsletter scandal hit and I was waiting for a competent response from Ron. All I heard was run around after run around. No satisfactory explanation has been given so far... and I hope Peden does make it an issue so we can settle the truth once and for all.... anyhoo, thats when I became disillusioned with the campaign and disavowed myself from it.

If anyone has been an opportunist its Ron. He is using his presidential email list to solict funds from people who are not in his congressional district. That is borderline unethical. I think Ron needs to be paying more attention to the needs of his CD instead of sending out scare tactic emails to get funds to fuel his congressional campaign. He needs to extend the courtesy to Peden that he was denied and railed against, and give him a debate. If he is so sure that his CD is in line with his ideals, then why is he so scared?


You know what, I'm probably going to get banned after this post, but I don't care anymore. I've had it with the campaign mismanaging the funds that I donated, the hours that I put in... and I hope everyone in this forum push the official campaign to give a satisfactory explanation of what happends to the funds after the run, lest you want to relive the '88 scandal again.

Thanks and good bye.

[Flash]

He needs to extend the courtesy to Peden that he was denied and railed against, and give him a debate.

He is running for president.
He is running for president.
He is running for president.
He is running for president.
He is running for president.
He is running for president.
He is running for president.

How many times do I have to say it.

[Sandra]

And this is exactly why I have stopped supporting Ron Paul. He runs around the issues and never clarifies anything.


And yet you still post to this forum? How nullifying.

[theseus51]

Wrong buddy, I was a supporter of Ron Paul before it was the "cool thing" to do. I was actively involved in his 1988 presidential bid and became disillusioned after the scandal that broke out with his remaining funds after his run.

I thought he had become more competent in running a campaign since then. I was the most active in my meetup group and was even featured in my local newspaper for political activism (a whole front page story too). Then the newsletter scandal hit and I was waiting for a competent response from Ron. All I heard was run around after run around. No satisfactory explanation has been given so far... and I hope Peden does make it an issue so we can settle the truth once and for all.... anyhoo, thats when I became disillusioned with the campaign and disavowed myself from it.

If anyone has been an opportunist its Ron. He is using his presidential email list to solict funds from people who are not in his congressional district. That is borderline unethical. I think Ron needs to be paying more attention to the needs of his CD instead of sending out scare tactic emails to get funds to fuel his congressional campaign. He needs to extend the courtesy to Peden that he was denied and railed against, and give him a debate. If he is so sure that his CD is in line with his ideals, then why is he so scared?


You know what, I'm probably going to get banned after this post, but I don't care anymore. I've had it with the campaign mismanaging the funds that I donated, the hours that I put in... and I hope everyone in this forum push the official campaign to give a satisfactory explanation of what happends to the funds after the run, lest you want to relive the '88 scandal again.

Thanks and good bye.

That whole newsletter crap was a BIG issue in the 1996 campaign. And yet Ron Paul persevered. That's why Peden isn't using it this time around, cause he knows it didn't work last time as a smear issue.

Every single member of Congress has many donors outside their Congressional District, and nobody returns money donated from outside their district. When they run for re-election, they actively seek donations from all previous donors. I guess you think every member of Congress is unethical for that?

And Peden said last year he wouldn't challenge Ron Paul, then starts his campaign out with blatant lies against Ron Paul. So why should Ron Paul "extend the courtesy" to this idiot?

[BuddyRey]

I hope everyone in this forum push the official campaign to give a satisfactory explanation of what happends to the funds after the run, lest you want to relive the '88 scandal again.

Thanks and good bye.

Forgive my ignorance, but what scandal is this? I've never heard of it.

[Johncjackson]

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=ron+paul+1988+embezzlement+scandal

[Nathan Hale]

he doesn't deserve a debate, as RP said he endorsed him not long ago and is viewed as an opportunist

He endorsed Ron Paul in the past, before this election cycle. It's not uncommon for a candidate to run against an incumbent that he used to support. And whether or not he is an opportunist is irrelevant - most politicians are opportunists, but they still deserve a debate. You're not giving me a reason why the two shouldn't debate. Peden, for all that we disagree with him, is a viable candidate. This is a serious primary. Why shouldn't there be a debate?

[Nathan Hale]

From the Wall Street Journal:

Another sign of vulnerability: Mr. Kucinich agreed to debate his four opponents on Tuesday -- a rare concession for a safe incumbent. "When all is said and done, people know they can count on me," Mr. Kucinich told the crowd, according to the Associated Press.

Source (http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB120364487659384883-V6ua29cOYO_J_kQ_X_vD15fLe1Y_20080322.html?mod=tff_ main_tff_top)


This article proves my point. Strong or weak, the strategic move is to avoid debate if you're the incumbent. It takes strength (of character, not necessarily tactical positioning) to actually debate when you don't have to. For Kucinich it's likely different - he's in a really tough spot with aggressive candidates who are calling him out. And, in truth, they're right. Because Kucinich should sit down and discuss the issues in a public forum with his competition for the seat, especially if its what his party wants.

But there's a long road between the best strategic move and the best moral move.


Paul is doing the RIGHT thing in ignoring a nothing challenger like Peden.

He's doing the right strategic thing, ignoring his primary competition. But he's not doing the right moral thing. Peden is a viable opponent. How would you feel if Paul was denied the right to a debate because he wasn't considered viable enough by the incumbent?

[Nathan Hale]

To compare the scenario between his Presidential Run and his Congressional Run is a huge logical fallacy. What he was opposed to in the Presidential Run was the fact that the people who were putting on the debates weren't inviting him, not that debates should be taking place and not that his opponents didn't want to debate him. In this Congressional Campaign, Ron would not be actually putting on the debate; another party would be putting on the debate. He is saying that he doesn't want to participate in the debate if one takes place. He has every right to not participate if he doesn't want to, and he has no obligation to participate.

There is no moral difference between not being invited to a debate and being denied the opportunity to have a debate. In both cases you have a candidate denied the right to debate his opponent(s) by the opponents themselves and/or the establishment entities that control the process. Whether its the opponent directly or the institution, a candidate is still denied the right to debate.

Ron Paul has an obligation to debate. An ethical obligation. Peden, for all that we hate him, is a candidate who is running a serious campaign. Paul is undermining the democratic process by ruling out the opportunity for the two to debate.

[Nathan Hale]

Certain members on this forum forget Ron Paul still is running for president. Yeah he won't win, but hes going to try to campaign and win over as many people as he can. He needs to start a movement.

So basically, he has better things to do than debate a nobody.

He's not running for President. He hasn't withdrawn, and his name is still on the ballot, but he's running for his congressional seat. It's plain as day.

[Nathan Hale]

He is running for president.
He is running for president.
He is running for president.
He is running for president.
He is running for president.
He is running for president.
He is running for president.

How many times do I have to say it.

You can say it all you like, but that won't make it any more true. He's on the ballot for the Presidency, but his strategy is based around winning the congressional seat. Hence all the vague rallies around the state (but mostly in or near his district) that don't quite clarify exactly which race is being represented.

[Nathan Hale]

And Peden said last year he wouldn't challenge Ron Paul, then starts his campaign out with blatant lies against Ron Paul. So why should Ron Paul "extend the courtesy" to this idiot?

So you're arguing that Peden isn't a credible candidate because he previously stated he wouldn't run and, after announcing his run, lies about the incumbent. Honestly, I would have an easier time naming the Congressional races where this sort of thing DOESN'T happen. Peden is a serious candidate for the office. This is a real race. Paul should debate him.

[bcreps85]

There are SEVERAL reasons why Ron Paul should NOT debate Peden, and there is nothing hypocritical about it.

1. Peden is not running a serious campaign, he is running a smear campaign. He has nothing to debate with except name-calling...why bother? If he can't run a real campaign with true debating points, then he doesn't deserve a podium to speak from.

2. Peden is LOSING in the polls. If he is losing, why should Paul give him the chance to get his name out to people who don't know who he is? It is a common tactic for the politician who is winning to deny those who are losing debates.

3. The reason Ron Paul being kept from debates was an issue is because the ORGANIZERS of the debates kept him out, when he was indeed a viable candidate. Everyone who attended was free to choose not to attend. In this case, Paul is simply choosing not to attend a debate, and that is his prerogative. He isn't denying Peden a seat at the table, which would indeed be wrong and undermining Democracy.

And last, why are you guys doubting his tactics in this? How many times has he won his district over the years? I think he knows what he is doing by now, and he has a full war chest that we have given him to defend his seat with. I understand SOME of the criticisms of the presidential campaign, but there is nothing to criticize here.

[khorbis]

But there's a long road between the best strategic move and the best moral move.



I've never considered Ron Paul to be Morality incarnate. Can any of us claim to be? Ron Paul is, however, the most moral man with the most moral message. That's all there is to it. None of us have the right to expect moral perfection from Ron Paul, or each other for that matter. If Ron Paul dips below the "moral standard," I'm sure it's because he understands that self-righteousness won't win him any elections.

[Flash]

You can say it all you like, but that won't make it any more true. He's on the ballot for the Presidency, but his strategy is based around winning the congressional seat. Hence all the vague rallies around the state (but mostly in or near his district) that don't quite clarify exactly which race is being represented.

Hes trying to create a market for his ideas, like Goldwater did. So then a 'Reagan' can come around and pick up his fanbase plus some. Hes focusing on his presidential campaign, but he knows he has to still focus on his congressional one aswell, since he would lose both otherwise.

[JohnnyWrath]

Peden is a nobody who doesn't have the money to advertise...he wants a debate because it would be free advertising and get his name out ....

I wouldn't bother with this nobody in a debate. Not worth the trouble when all this guy wants is free advertising a debate offers, that he can't afford because only his own family donates to him.

No Ron Paul commercials or fliers should EVER mention Peden by name, and if interviewed, he should only even say the guys name if he has to.

[Nathan Hale]

There are SEVERAL reasons why Ron Paul should NOT debate Peden, and there is nothing hypocritical about it.

1. Peden is not running a serious campaign, he is running a smear campaign. He has nothing to debate with except name-calling...why bother? If he can't run a real campaign with true debating points, then he doesn't deserve a podium to speak from.

Peden is running because he doesn't like the incumbent. It's one of the basest reasons for running for office. Sure, he's name-calling, most politicians do it. But the guy does have a platform that he's running on, it's not all name-calling.


2. Peden is LOSING in the polls. If he is losing, why should Paul give him the chance to get his name out to people who don't know who he is? It is a common tactic for the politician who is winning to deny those who are losing debates.

As I've already stated, it is the strategic move for Paul to not debate, but it's not the moral move. If it was our guy losing in the polls and being denied the right to debate by his opponent because he wasn't polling enough, we'd be pissed.


3. The reason Ron Paul being kept from debates was an issue is because the ORGANIZERS of the debates kept him out, when he was indeed a viable candidate. Everyone who attended was free to choose not to attend. In this case, Paul is simply choosing not to attend a debate, and that is his prerogative. He isn't denying Peden a seat at the table, which would indeed be wrong and undermining Democracy.

This isn't a ten man race, where the debate will go on even if a few choose not to attend. This is a two man race. There's only a debate if both candidates attend. Sure, it's Pauls prerogative to not debate, but its wrong for him to do so. If the GOP presidential race was just Paul vs McCain, and McCain refused to debate, it would be just as wrong as if debate organizers kept Paul out of a debate in a 10 man field. The moral issue is the right of a candidate to debate his opponents. It's part of the electoral process. It deserves to happen.


And last, why are you guys doubting his tactics in this? How many times has he won his district over the years? I think he knows what he is doing by now, and he has a full war chest that we have given him to defend his seat with. I understand SOME of the criticisms of the presidential campaign, but there is nothing to criticize here.

Last I heard, Peden is one of Paul's more serious challengers. This is a race, not a formality before Ron's nomination.

[Nathan Hale]

I've never considered Ron Paul to be Morality incarnate. Can any of us claim to be? Ron Paul is, however, the most moral man with the most moral message. That's all there is to it. None of us have the right to expect moral perfection from Ron Paul, or each other for that matter. If Ron Paul dips below the "moral standard," I'm sure it's because he understands that self-righteousness won't win him any elections.

You're right.

But excuses don't make what Ron Paul is doing any less wrong.

[Nathan Hale]

Hes trying to create a market for his ideas, like Goldwater did. So then a 'Reagan' can come around and pick up his fanbase plus some. Hes focusing on his presidential campaign, but he knows he has to still focus on his congressional one aswell, since he would lose both otherwise.

We're going to have to agree to disagree, as neither of us can provide evidence on the matter, but judging by his actions, it looks as though he's using his presidential campaign money to benefit his congressional race, and from the looks of it, he's concentrating on winning the latter, because let's face it, that's more important now.

[Nathan Hale]

Peden is a nobody who doesn't have the money to advertise...he wants a debate because it would be free advertising and get his name out ....

Ironic, how many pro-liberty candidates have done the same thing over the years. Alas, Peden has strong support - didn't the district's two biggest newspapers endorse him?


I wouldn't bother with this nobody in a debate. Not worth the trouble when all this guy wants is free advertising a debate offers, that he can't afford because only his own family donates to him.

Care to support this claim with evidence?


No Ron Paul commercials or fliers should EVER mention Peden by name, and if interviewed, he should only even say the guys name if he has to.

Agreed. THis is base strategy. As a matter of strategy, Paul shouldn't debate Peden. My disagreement stems from the Golden Rule, a matter of morality.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Care to support this claim with evidence?


http://countyseat.blogspot.com/2008/02/chris-pedens-cash-redux.html


...a closer look (http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/dcdev/forms/C00435776/319077/sa/ALL) reveals much more in common than a simple coinciding placement. You see, the majority of Chris Peden's cash haul from the last quarter, and to be specific $150,424.49 out of $174,750.80 raised (of which $143,949.92 remain unexpended on banner ads), did not simply come from "local" addresses in towns like Friendswood. It came from one single address in Friendswood: 1878 Flat Rock Street, as in the abode of the candidate himself.

One "William Chris Peden" of 1878 Flat Rock Street, as in the Honorable Mayor Pro Tem of Friendswood, also happens to be the aforementioned CPA who keeps donating to the Chris Peden for Congress campaign. Let's take a look at what this "man of the people" has managed to give himself:

Donor:
William Chris Peden
Peden & Associates, LLP
CPA

Carry-over loan balance - $14,428.02

4th Quarter loans from Chris Peden to Chris Peden -
10/01/2007 - $129.33
10/04/2007 - $21.61
10/06/2007 - $99.86
10/11/2007 - $1,000.00
11/29/2007 - $12,000.00
11/30/2007 - $18,000.00
12/07/2007 - $59,875.00
12/10/2007 - $20,000.00
12/31/2007 - $25,000.00

Grand Total: $150,424.49

Of the remaining actual donations from persons other than the Honorable Chris Peden himself, approximately half came from his relatives, Messrs. Bill Peden, also of Peden and Associates, and Greg Peden, of the Alvin Chevron station each gave the maximum allowable donation of $4,600. Ellen and Lois Peden, co-managers of the Hope Village Tea Room. similarly maxed out, bringing the Peden Family's self contributions to a total of $16,100 for the quarter.

That places just over $166,000 of Peden's claimed total haul of $174,000 "in the family."

[Nathan Hale]

http://countyseat.blogspot.com/2008/02/chris-pedens-cash-redux.html

Thank you for providing evidence - too few people do on these boards. Regarding the evidence, I can't say that Peden's move is uncommon. Usually the first $100K or so comes from their the candidate or their closest associates/friends. Still, I don't consider this revelation enough to classify him a non-candidate. The media should be grilling the campaign on their fundraising this last month to clarify.

[njandrewg]

Nathan Hale is an obvious Pedenbot, seriously dude, your guy is losing by like 40%, he has raised only about 25K and the rest was donated by himself and his family. Those 2 newspapers you tout have always endorsed Ron Paul challengers. They especially like to endorse Democratic challengers.

The guy has lied about Paul's positions. Lied about his fundraising. Lied about his poll #s. Seriously I wouldn't bother debating such a scumbag either.

Debate is the dumbest thing an incumbent can do is because that gives name recognition to the other guy. People know Ron Paul, they don't know Peden. Everyone knows Paul's position, so he has no reason to debate a new guy who is mudslinging and lying about his positions. And you wanting Paul to waste time debating that Peden loser shows exactly what kind of supporter you are. And morals have nothing to do with politics, if Peden ran an honest campaign, then sure the moral thing might have been to debate him, but he hasn't. I mean look at this:

Nathan Hale is a racist, pedophile and a cannibal. Oh and he likes getting knotted by dogs. Now lets debate...oh wait you don't want to debate someone who says you hate Black people, have sex with children, eat people and have anal sex with dogs? Why not? Don't you think the moral thing would be to debate?

[njandrewg]

Thank you for providing evidence - too few people do on these boards. Regarding the evidence, I can't say that Peden's move is uncommon. Usually the first $100K or so comes from their the candidate or their closest associates/friends. Still, I don't consider this revelation enough to classify him a non-candidate. The media should be grilling the campaign on their fundraising this last month to clarify.
true, but then you don't go around saying "haha I raised 185K to Ron Paul's 60K, its an obvious show that Ron Paul is a loser"

[Nathan Hale]

Nathan Hale is an obvious Pedenbot, seriously dude, your guy is losing by like 40%, he has raised only about 25K and the rest was donated by himself and his family. Those 2 newspapers you tout have always endorsed Ron Paul challengers. They especially like to endorse Democratic challengers.

First off, asshole (since we're name calling), I've been on these boards since early in the presidential race, and I'm a Ron Paul fan all the way. I don't support Peden, I just support an open and honest debate in every race in this country.


The guy has lied about Paul's positions. Lied about his fundraising. Lied about his poll #s. Seriously I wouldn't bother debating such a scumbag either.

The only way to clear up these lies is with a debate. Otherwise it's just he said-she said newspaper back and forth.


Debate is the dumbest thing an incumbent can do is because that gives name recognition to the other guy. People know Ron Paul, they don't know Peden.

And I've already said on these boards that debate is not good strategy.


Everyone knows Paul's position, so he has no reason to debate a new guy who is mudslinging and lying about his positions.

If it's all mudslinging and lying then a debate should clear things up.


And you wanting Paul to waste time debating that Peden loser shows exactly what kind of supporter you are.

I'm a support of open and honest debates. Whether it hurts our guy or helps our guy, the discussion is the higher priority.


And morals have nothing to do with politics, if Peden ran an honest campaign, then sure the moral thing might have been to debate him, but he hasn't.

You're right, morality has nothing to do with politics. As such, many politicians are like Peden. But that doesn't mean that it's not morally superior to have the debate.


I mean look at this:

Nathan Hale is a racist, pedophile and a cannibal. Oh and he likes getting knotted by dogs. Now lets debate...oh wait you don't want to debate someone who says you hate Black people, have sex with children, eat people and have anal sex with dogs? Why not? Don't you think the moral thing would be to debate?

Actually, I would debate if those were the accusations. In fact, I'd be more likely to debate if you espoused falsehoods that I could easily put down.

[Nathan Hale]

true, but then you don't go around saying "haha I raised 185K to Ron Paul's 60K, its an obvious show that Ron Paul is a loser"

And I personally wouldn't. Peden's a politician. He's no worse than most other politicians, who do equally immoral things.

[newyearsrevolution08]

You're right.

But excuses don't make what Ron Paul is doing any less wrong.

What side are you on again? I keep forgetting.... :D

[newyearsrevolution08]

A sign of weakness? Talk to any political strategist -

That seems to be your best come back, do you simply write the words "political strategist" to feel important? :p

[Nathan Hale]

That seems to be your best come back, do you simply write the words "political strategist" to feel important? :p

No, I write the words political strategist because I am one, and I know many others. So I talk to them a lot, and thus, I have the perspective to offer admonitions like "talk to any political strategist...".