“Just because I disagree with you doesn’t make me rude and disruptive. This is America, we are allowed to disagree with each other.”

“Oh really? Do you work for the Pentagon, Kevin? Because obviously you have access to intelligence the general public does not. Why then, Kevin, are the expanding several of the billion dollar bases there?”

Follow your own suggestion Scott. Debate the points without resorting to condescension and arrogance.

That poll is all voters. Among Republicans alone, the pro-war numbers would be in the 60s-70s.

Okay, besides having a clear majority in the general election (or open primaries), 70% or Republicans, in your scenario, on this issue, being split among 8 candidates, and Ron Paul having a clear and sole shot at the other 30, with no other candidate even making an OVERTURE in that direction.

Again, why is that bad news?

The PBS debate did it that way, and it was great. Everyone got equal time, everyone answered every question, and everyone got a chance to go first.

That poll is all voters. Among Republicans alone, the pro-war numbers would be in the 60s-70s.

That’s bad news?

This may not be the most compelling debate, but if people wanted to compare all the candidates stances on the major issues this would be the best way to go about it. This would be the best way for the media to be fair to each candidate and get out the real information that the voter should need to know before they vote.

I would envision then that each candidate would have the opportunity to send people to their website or come up with pamphlets that would discuss even further their ideas about these as well as other issues in more depth than 1 1/2 minutes will allow.

When Ron Paul talks about economics, he invariable descends into the war issue and foreign policy. The truth is cutting departments of Education, Energy, and Homeland Security merely put a small dent into the federal budget.

I think the fiscal perspective is actually the best way to talk about the foreign policy. It sounds better to people than the other approaches – at least to Republicans. But repeatedly harping on it won’t make Republicans feel good about themselves. Unfortunately, the reality of the situation is pretty dire, and you can’t feel good about any of it.

To put any meaningful dent into the budget, you have to talk about cutting the Defense and Military, Social Security, or Medicare. Ron Paul’s chosen Defense and Military and he’s framing it as reducing it to a non-interventionist policy. And then he has a transition plan that weans people off of Medicare and Social Security and then destroys those two entitlements. You’ve got to love that.

Although it will be expedient to call for a slower draw down, I think Ron Paul’s trying to drive home to the American public that the president needs to make tough decisions. The call for immediate withdrawal with care for the safety of the troops is his commitment to not half-assing anything. Although that will hurt him among Republicans, the image that he’s building will help in a general.

Ron’s really not a calculating politician. And he’s going to pay for that in the primary. He just has to hope that the independents and the party jumpers come through for him.

One thing Ron Paul could do is post answers to those questions he doesn’t get to reply to on youtube.

And why would you do THAT, Kevin? Do you think they are the measuring stick of what is right?

For comparison sakes. I’m not saying they’re right or Ron Paul’s wrong. I’m simply making a point about analysis.

Of course, he also figures it will take approximately 537 years to perfect beaming technology, so he’s settled for moving the troops out as quickly as possible while maintaining their safety.

Just because I disagree with you doesn’t make me rude and disruptive. This is America, we are allowed to disagree with each other. I am free to say what is on my mind and you are free to be offended (and visa versa.)