Bill Kristol challenges Ron Paul to foreign policy debate!

[Mini-Me]

Also, its fitting that there be debates between candidates and candidate-advisers. I recall Romney in the last campaign always saying that he had to ask his lawyers about when to do things such as go to war. So, better that Ron get to debate the decision makers rather than their spokes-puppets.

I disagree with this for three reasons:

• Most people don't recognize that Kristol and his ilk are the ones making the calls.
• Ron would degrade himself to debate Kristol during the race. Ron is a candidate for President of the United States. Kristol is a talking head (although much more behind the scenes). Where was Kristol with this challenge during the lull two years ago? Oh yeah, he didn't offer it...because back then, it would have only legitimized Ron and given him more exposure. Now, such a debate would do more to legitimize Kristol and his dying views.
• Kristol fights dirty, he's talented with words, and he has the network on his side. Ron has the truth on his side, but debates are all about perception. Ron is a brilliant man, but he's not as quick on his feet as others. In short, he's simply better equipped verbally to debate slick know-nothing puppets than actual demons straight from the bowels of hell. Let Tom Woods (etc.) do that.

 

[Marky]

Sounds like a great idea to get Ron's real positions across.

"Bill, how does giving Egypt 4 times as much foreign welfare as Israel help Israel? How about no foreign welfare to any of them?"

Can you provide me evidence of this claim? I’ve always heard that the State of Israel receives considerably more foreign aid (welfare) from the U.S. than any other country. Am I mistaken?

 

[unknown]

Ron Paul doesnt have time for this.

Whats more concerning is that these are the same talking head guests and pundits that are trotted out to voice their opinions on the candidates.

 

[devil21]

There's absolutely no reason to engage Mr. Neocon Bill Kristol in a debate. What's he running for? Not President so fuck'em. I would like to see Scheuer vs Kristol though.

 

[Pyruuub]

Can you provide me evidence of this claim? I’ve always heard that the State of Israel receives considerably more foreign aid (welfare) from the U.S. than any other country. Am I mistaken?

Total aide to Israel is 2.4b.
Total aide to Egypt is 1.7b.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_foreign_aid

 

[Hyperion]

This spot is just tailor made for Thomas Woods. He would send Kristol home crying to his Communist Manifesto.

 

[Patrick Henry]

Tom Woods would destroy him lol.

This spot is just tailor made for Thomas Woods. He would send Kristol home crying to his Communist Manifesto.

 

[Deborah K]

Fein or Woods. Scheuer is too hawkish, Kristol would get him to concede too much. Doug Wead? Good lord people, he's good for interviews surrounding the campaign, but he doesn't have the chops to debate foreign policy.

I disagree. Scheuer is a non-interventionist. Period.

 

[kylejack]

Let's be honest, nobody but us would watch this but there would be a bunch of commentary on it after the fact with mischaracterizations. It would be almost 100% downside.

Besides, we need to talk about the issues of today, not spend the rest of the campaign defending Ron Paul's position on the Civil War when we're trying to win an election.

 

[GeorgiaAvenger]

Oh gosh he would destroy Ron. Sorry thats the way it is. Ron cannot explain foreign policy

 

[libertybrewcity]

He doesn't deserve to be in the presence of the good doctor...just sayin

 

[sailingaway]

I disagree with this for three reasons:

• Most people don't recognize that Kristol and his ilk are the ones making the calls.
• Ron would degrade himself to debate Kristol during the race. Ron is a candidate for President of the United States. Kristol is a talking head (although much more behind the scenes). Where was Kristol with this challenge during the lull two years ago? Oh yeah, he didn't offer it...because back then, it would have only legitimized Ron and given him more exposure. Now, such a debate would do more to legitimize Kristol and his dying views.
• Kristol fights dirty, he's talented with words, and he has the network on his side. Ron has the truth on his side, but debates are all about perception. Ron is a brilliant man, but he's not as quick on his feet as others. In short, he's simply better equipped verbally to debate slick know-nothing puppets than actual demons straight from the bowels of hell. Let Tom Woods (etc.) do that.

It isn't a matter of quick on his feet, it is a matter of not thinking defensively. Ron is making points, not looking for disingenuous attacks and if attacked doesn't think 'how do I look best giving this answer' he, personally, just doesn't figure into his equations.

 

[sailingaway]

I tend to agree. Ron should have a standing invitation for all comers--be they candidates or their policy-givers such as Kristol.

Austrian economist Bob Murphy offered to donate nearly $100,000 to charity if Paul Krugman would debate him, but Krugman wouldn't bite.

This seems like the kind of grave error made by a big, lumbering, arrogant power that a guerilla campaign needs to seize upon.

And while we're doing debates between candidates and candidate-advisers, we should insist that the undercard for the Paul vs. Kristol bout be Scott Horton vs. Gingrich. What a hoot that would be seeing that fat dingbat womped up the side of the head by the 2 x 4s of of Scott's facts and logic.

No, Kristol is a goon. Ron is a Presidential candidate polling tied for second place for the GOP nomination. When Kristol can get that sort of support, Ron can debate him.

 

[zweezey]

Kristol says he is mildly pro gold standard and is against the fed in his latest C span interview.

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/PrimaryFie

 

[pen_thief]

Bill Kristol, when you manage to drag your ass out of the cheap seats, and actually get in the game, at that point you MIGHT have earned the honor of taking on the Paul family in a debate.

Until then sir, you and your neo-con-founding-family can suck a debate out of...

Well, you get the picture.

^ Couldn't agree more

 

[affa]

"Don't argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience."

 

[Voluntary Man]

You know, back in '92 or '94 -- I think it was '94, but correct me if I'm wrong -- they (the news) suddenly flipped the party colors, without explanation. Until then, the Democrats had always been red and the Republicans blue. I wondered why, at the time, but blamed it on Clinton. In reality, though, it was a sign that the marxists had finally seized absolute control of the Republican party. Newt and Santorum were part of that coup. Kristol was a hereditary mastermind.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

I disagree. Scheuer is a non-interventionist. Period.

Ron Paul would never say things like:

We're not killing enough people
We're simply apologizing (in reference to Afghanistan)
The despicable remarks about the only chance we have of our government being violent enough to protect us would be if bin Laden detonated a major weapon in the US

etc

 

[Ssd]

Ron Paul should challenge Romney to a debate instead after SC and if Gingrich finishes behind Paul

 

[sailingaway]

Kristol says he is mildly pro gold standard and is against the fed in his latest C span interview.

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/PrimaryFie

neoconservative doctrine is to coopt any populous fever they can, to their own ends.