PDA

View Full Version : Good chance to win voters @ my school




bc2208
10-17-2007, 03:04 PM
The President of the Boston College Republicans Club invited me to represent the Anti-war position in a debate on October 30th on campus. Sounds like a great chance to sway some voters. I will have to gear it towards the fiscal sanity part as well as the idea that the war perpetuates terrorism.

Any thoughts?

risiusj
10-17-2007, 03:06 PM
Just wear a receiver in your ear and have someone else play Ron Paul speeches to it and you just repeat what Paul says. :)

jrich4rpaul
10-17-2007, 03:06 PM
Bring up the constitution as well :)

And good luck

Grandson of Liberty
10-17-2007, 03:08 PM
Just be well prepared, and keep your wits about you!

Edited to add: The fiscal sanity part is pretty much bottom line obvious, I would imagine the perpetuating terrorism part is a bit tougher to nail down in a debate. I might (carefully) bring up the hypocrisy of whether the administration is really that concerned about terrorism when they leave the borders wide open.

jake
10-17-2007, 03:08 PM
be sure to stress his rising viability as the GOP candidate due to the grassroots uprising

UCFGavin
10-17-2007, 03:09 PM
bring up the constitution

use a lot of sources (especially those that show the lack of quality training and equipment for the soldiers and using border patrol, this hits on the "support the troops" and the anti illegal immigration).

do not debate the moral issue of the war unless forced to. debate it from a stand point of logic and economics. if you use proof, facts, and sound logic in a calm and professional way, you will destroy your opponent.

Jordan
10-17-2007, 03:10 PM
1. No declaration of war
2. $450B has been spent, it was supposed to be $87B
3. Every terrorist killed recruits 10 more
4. Ron Paul is the only antiwar candidate.

Eric21ND
10-17-2007, 03:20 PM
Basically because people in the middle east have LONG memories and Americans have incredibly short memories. Most Americans also do not understand history, I'm not even talking about World History, I'm talking U.S. History. People in this country don't remember us meddling in the affairs of other countries, whereas the people of that particulair country seldom forgot.

Bottom line there will always be terrorists in the world and within our own country, like Tim Mcvey, but through misguilded actions the United States doesn't have to enable these people and literally set-up franchises for them. That's what our actions do when we go after terror suspects all wrong and start rolling out the tanks like it's WWII. You combat terrorism with good police work, special forces, and world cooperation. That's how we caught Ramsey Usef. We need to come to grips about terrorism in this country. Terrorism will always be an ingrown toenail for us, but you need to deal with it with surgical precision. You don't use a chainsaw and cut your leg off, and that's basically U.S. foreign policy right now; chain saw tactics that kill the patient. When we overdue our military aggressiveness this actually legitimizes the Bin Ladens and inspires the next generation of terrorists; then they say "see the Americans want to occupy our lands and steal xyz".


These Ron Paul videos sum it up nicely.

Title - Is Ron Paul serious? Blowback in 1979 from a 1953 coup?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldgbOxDX6DE


Title - Educating Rudy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcQQ05XtAQ4

Lord Xar
10-17-2007, 03:27 PM
remember, they will antagonize you and say

"WE NEED TO BE SAFE".. so by talking about being 'anti-war'.
1. Why are we there in the first place?
a. greenspan said it was oil
b. ALL the excuses used are now invalid
c. so now its "terror" - that is the new WMD.

2. we are borrowing billions a day from china etc.. to fund this war
3. our children will be debt babies...
4. pro-military, anti-war

I would also like to point out that "this is not a patriotic" war and thus this idea of "not supporting the troops" is erroneous. it is precisly WHY we are anti-war, because we support our troops dying in causes that are trumped and serve "others" agenda, not our own...

I am sure you will do great...

me3
10-17-2007, 03:27 PM
I'm an (self defined) expert on debating neocons about the war. Feel free to PM me to bounce any ideas off. I might be able to help you prep for the particular attacks on your positions, particularly the idea that peace is weakness.

shadowhooch
10-17-2007, 03:27 PM
Straight from the website....

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/?tag=Terrorism

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/?tag=Foreign%20Policy

Good stuff.

Eric21ND
10-17-2007, 04:25 PM
Also use good sources. Bring up the 9/11 Commission Report. Peace is the best atmosphere for commerce and prosperity for our nation. Site the end of WW I and how that lead to the depression and ultimately to WW II.

You may also want to work in something speaking about strengthen the 2nd Amendment to bear arms. Not only might have this Constitutional protection prevented 9/11 if Pilots were allowed to defend themselves. Raising this point also shows that you are not some naive peace-nik picking daisies...you're practical. This will win people over to your side.

Use the fact that oil prices have went up dramatically since the war has began
Pre Iraq war I think they were $35/barrel and now it's nearly $90.

Stress that we should fight in declared wars only. Undeclared wars last far too long, are too costly in men and material and we lose them in the end.

For whom does war benefit? Is it the conquered? Is it our citizens here at home? Follow the money and you will see a select few gain extreme wealth through war, while the average citizen and the poor are the ones who fight on the battle field. Military Industrial Complex.

You might want to add that those who are eager to go to war and use the military to solve every problem, usually have never seen war for themselves up close or served in the military. You might be able to find some quotes by Colin Powell and others about this...I think he said something like they never even been in a school yard fight.

billm317
10-17-2007, 04:29 PM
3. Every terrorist killed recruits 10 more

How did you come up w/ this stat?

billm317
10-17-2007, 04:34 PM
blowback may be good to mention
I think it's a mistake when I sometimes see ppl saying blowback is Ron Paul's opinion. This isn't opinion. This is fact and he's just repeating it. Know about Michael Scheuer and use his name if necessary.

bc2208
10-17-2007, 04:53 PM
Wow, thanks for all the help guys. I plan on having every single possible argument planned out with a retort.

I know all the reasons why the war was a mistake, but I have a tougher time convincing people that it's rational to leave now. Not that I don't believe it, but it's tougher to convince people that the "bloodbath" and "civil war" is an erroneous argument.

The one-liner I came up with in reply to Huckabee's "you break it you buy it" argument is:

"'You break it, you buy it' is a rule that applies to people who accidentally drop things in a store.

We didn't accidentally break Iraq. We broke into the store, picked it up, and smashed it against the wall."

I could also cite all the recent Iraqi leader quotes about reducing troops.

I plan on videotaping this, so you all can see how it turns out.

Eric21ND
10-17-2007, 06:27 PM
Here are some interesting quotes that you may be able to fit into your analysis.

"I think that people want peace so much that one of these days government had better get out of their way and let them have it." -Dwight D. Eisenhower


"If you want total security, go to prison. There you're fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking... is freedom." -Dwight D. Eisenhower


"This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience…we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist." -Dwight D. Eisenhower


"All of us have heard this term 'preventative war' since the earliest days of Hitler. I recall that is about the first time I heard it. In this day and time... I don't believe there is such a thing; and, frankly, I wouldn't even listen to anyone seriously that came in and talked about such a thing." -Dwight D. Eisenhower

""The only way to win World War III is to prevent it." -Dwight D. Eisenhower


"I do not know with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." -Albert Einstein


"War is the Health of the State" - Randolph Bourne


“Peace is not absence of conflict, it is the ability to handle conflict by peaceful means.” - Ronald Reagan

“The best victory is when the opponent surrenders of its own accord before there are any actual hostilities... It is best to win without fighting.” -Sun Tzu

“For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.” -Sun Tzu

jonahtrainer
10-17-2007, 06:53 PM
Wow, thanks for all the help guys. I plan on having every single possible argument planned out with a retort.

I know all the reasons why the war was a mistake, but I have a tougher time convincing people that it's rational to leave now. Not that I don't believe it, but it's tougher to convince people that the "bloodbath" and "civil war" is an erroneous argument.

The one-liner I came up with in reply to Huckabee's "you break it you buy it" argument is:

"'You break it, you buy it' is a rule that applies to people who accidentally drop things in a store.

We didn't accidentally break Iraq. We broke into the store, picked it up, and smashed it against the wall."

I could also cite all the recent Iraqi leader quotes about reducing troops.

I plan on videotaping this, so you all can see how it turns out.


I would stay away from the 'break it so bought it' argument. It is a strawman argument and a hollow trap. It presumes we should be engaged in Empire building. Ron Paul is attacking the Empire building philosophy of Democrat Woodrow Wilson who instituted the Federal Reserve and Income Tax. The best response is "What business do we have being involved in other people's countries and governments?"

Here is a good YouTube (http://youtube.com/watch?v=sjqGBBFiowE) by the Southern Avenger.

Also, be sure to turn the fear tables on them. IN 2002 the US$ index was at about 120. Now it is at 78 (http://quotes.ino.com/chart/?s=NYBOT_DX). Because of our Empire building foreign policy we are going bankrupt.

How will we protect ourselves from the terrorists, much less China and Russia, if we are bankrupt? We are going bankrupt; look at this chart:
http://www.amergold.com/email2/GMU_9-06_5-yr_USD.gif

katao
10-17-2007, 07:22 PM
Simple equation:

1. Over 1 million Iraqis killed in the war so far

+

2. Every one of those Iraqis has family that likely now hate Americans

= MORE TERRORISTS

eloquensanity
10-17-2007, 07:51 PM
What everyone else said

.........And don't forget GW standing on the aircraft carrier with a huge banner behind him saying 'mission accomplished' for all the world to see.

So if GW said mission accomplished why are we still there?

Alan Greenspan says because of oil

reaver
10-17-2007, 07:53 PM
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=26076


Use this.

Corydoras
10-17-2007, 07:57 PM
At a Catholic school, you would want to use certain key phrases:

----"St. Augustine's theory of just warfare as described in his book The City of God and upheld by St. Thomas Aquinas in the Summa Theologiae." This is a really important thing to bring up. You might want to add something about how these two saints are "Doctors of the Church." (You can look that up in case you are unfamiliar with what a Doctor of the Church is.) I mean, if the Doctors of the Church are against pre-emptive, nondefensive war, how can a good Catholic support one?

----"Culture of life." Anti-death penalty, anti-abortion, and against pre-emptive non-defensive war. This was a favorite phrase of Pope JP2.

----"Seamless garment." The way that being against the death penalty, abortion, and unjustified war are concepts that are consistent with one another.

----"Consistent ethic of life." Same thing but a non-JP2 phrase.

specsaregood
10-17-2007, 08:11 PM
Not necessarily anti-war argument, but I have good results pointing out that:

1. Ron Paul introduced the legislation to Declare War in Iraq.
2. The Chairman (Henry Hyde) of the Committee on International Relations said that ,"Why declare war if you don’t have to?…We are saying to the President, use your judgment…"
3. Even if you DO agree with the reason for the war, how can you hold it against the LONE REPRESENTATIVE that WANTED TO FOLLOW THE RULES.

From: http://www.givemeliberty.org/NoRedress/Update12-31-02.htm
Congressman Ron Paul reminded the Chairman of the House of Representatives Committee on International Relations that the Constitution required a congressional Declaration of War before the armed forces of the United States could be applied in hostilities overseas, not H.J.R 114, a congressional Resolution authorizing the President to decide if and when to apply that force.

However, Chairman Henry Hyde is quoted, for the record, "There are things in the Constitution that have been overtaken by events, by time. Declaration of war is one of them…There are things no longer relevant to a modern society…Why declare war if you don’t have to?…We are saying to the President, use your judgment…So, to demand that we declare war is to strengthen something to death. You have got a hammerlock on this situation, and it is not called for. Inappropriate, anachronistic, it isn’t done anymore…."

The 50-member Committee then went on to vote against the substitute amendment offered by Rep. Paul, which read simply (after the resolving clause), "That pursuant to Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution, a state of war is declared to exist between the United States and the Government of Iraq and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the United States Armed Forces to carry on war against the Government of Iraq and to bring the conflict to a successful conclusion."

The Committee then went on to approve H.J. Resolution 114, which was eventually approved by Congress.

klamath
10-17-2007, 08:21 PM
Simple equation:

1. Over 1 million Iraqis killed in the war so far

+

2. Every one of those Iraqis has family that likely now hate Americans

= MORE TERRORISTS

If you are arguing with other Republicans don't use this. Too many leftist have used this statistic and said American troops killed 1 million Iraqis. This is absolutely false. This number was derived but calculating how many rounds have been expended in the war.

klamath
10-17-2007, 08:34 PM
Did we get Bin Laden? Wasn't that the whole objective, not invading foreign countries? Bin Laded still roams free laughing at us while we blunder around like idiots. All that blustering chest puffing "You can run but you can't hide. Wanted dead or alive." and he still runs free makes us look like absolute fools. The longer he avoids capture the more he will be respected in the radical islamic world.

ronpaulitician
10-17-2007, 08:47 PM
I will have to gear it towards the fiscal sanity part as well as the idea that the war perpetuates terrorism.
Re: finances

Look into:

China talking about their "nuclear option" (dumping US assets on open market, popping dollar bubble and crashing US economy)

Israel requesting US foreign aid to be sent to them in euros

Saudis debating whether to use euro as standard currency

Canadian dollar trading on par with US dollar

Re: perpetuating terrorism

Make sure to bring up the fact that our borders and ports, more than six years after we were attacked, have not been secured.

blamx8
10-17-2007, 09:09 PM
The constitution is essentially a contract between the federal government, the people of the US, and the individual state governments. It was designed to:
1.enable the States to retain their sovereignty in all activities not affecting the union as a whole.
2. prohibit any government from taking from the people the rights that they were born with to life, free concience, and control of ones property.
3. protect the people from tyrannical actions by the federal government. This was an extremely important part of its purpose. The colonists had just suffered abuse at the hands of one tyrannical government and wanted to be absolutely sure that the new government was permanently held in check. They limited its' power with a clear list of enumerated responsibilities which were broken down for each branch and chamber within that government. Because of the checks and balances put in place, if each branch acted within its properly designated responsibility no one branch could become more powerful than another and begin to assert their own interests upon the american people. The balance of power could not change without amending the constitution. This keeps any branch from usurping power and using it in a detremental fashion against the rights of the people.
When congress voted to give the president an open door regarding agressive action toward another country, they illegally transfered their authority to another branch of this government, thereby eliminating the proper checks of power, and enabling abuse of that power in any area, including against the citizens of the United States.
If the arguement is given that congresses statement was a declaration of war it can be addressed with the legal precedence set up through WWII and never changed by consent of congress.

Hope I'm clear enough on the philosophy here.