Notes on the Fox News Republican debate Sept. 6th 2007
Posted on September 5th, 2007 by bile Categories and Tags: Uncategorized, Benjamin Franklin, Bill of Rights, Constitution, debate, Entertainment, Executive Branch, Internal Revenue Service, Iraq, Islamic Republic of Iran, Mike Huckabee, New Hampshire, politics, Ron Paul, Rudy Giuliani, Sean Hannity, terrorism, TV, United States, your rights- Debate started at approximately 9:00PM EST
- Ron Paul, the only doctor on the stage, was ignored when the question of abortion came up
- At 9:32PM Ron Paul is given his first real question after all other candidates were given a question and some more. The question about his comment on how letting the passengers on the 9/11 flights to have guns may have prevented the hijacking.
- 9:45PM 2nd Ron Paul question: about the war in Iraq
- 9:47: Paul mentions taking marching orders from the Constitution which receives a round of heavy booing mixed with applause. The booing while talking about following the Constitution was unnerving.
- 9:51PM still on the Iraq war question Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul go back and forth in the most entergetic moment in some time in any debate. Huckabee says regardless of whether invading was a mistake we must keep our honor and see it through which receives a large applause as does Paul’s reply that it’s just trying to save face and we need to correct the mistake.
- 10:02PM: Romney talking about bugging mosques. “Some people say, but wait, we have civil liberties” and goes on to imply that those liberties aren’t as important as the one he expects the government to protect most and that being life. The second unnerving moment. Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. –Benjamin Franklin
- 10:13PM: Giulani, talking about why he hasn’t and won’t sign the pledge that he won’t raise taxes like 6 others running have, says the only pledge that matters is the one about supporting the Constitution. Article 2, Section 1: I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Funny, I heard all kinds of unconstitutional things coming from his mouth.
- 10:18PM Paul gets 3rd question: Talks about getting rid of government programs/bloat. Getting rid of the IRS while Huckabee just advocated the Fair Tax. Approximately adjusted for inflation. We could have the same budget we had in 2000 and completely eliminate the private income tax. At about $1.1T in private income tax subtracted from the nearly $3T for next year’s federal budget with the 2000 budget at $1.8T. It’s definitely the case if we go back to 1995. So while a consumption tax would be better (though the 23% quoted for FairTax is misleading) it’s not as good as a complete removal of the private income tax.
- 10:26PM: 4th Paul question on Iran. Big applause.
- 10:32PM: Huckabee makes similar comment about supporting the Constitution.
- After Debate on H&C: Rudy Guilani makes a smartass comment about Ron Paul not belonging on the stage and how a Paul vs. Gravel debate would be entertaining to watch. “Lots of boos”
- Hannity makes several complaints about Ron Paul’s score in the text message poll Fox is running. Says that the Paulites must be voting multiple times. This however is a lie. You can only vote one per phone and this was confirmed personally. While it is possible Paul supporters could have multiple phones… so could any other candidate supporter and I find it unlikely that people would be hording other’s phones to do this.
- Ron Paul won the text poll with 33% of the votes.
10 Responses to “Notes on the Fox News Republican debate Sept. 6th 2007”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
September 6th, 2007 at 8:51 am
I’m sure I could google around for these, but I figured easier to ask here:
1 - What was Paul asked about regarding Iran (and his answer).
2 - Assuming Paul doesn’t get the Republican nomination, would he consider running as an Independent?
September 6th, 2007 at 9:13 am
1: Basically… What to do about Iran. If they do not threaten us we should leave them alone. Talk to them but another war as is being talked about is absolutely wrong if they pose no actual threat. Check out at about 6 mins in to this compilation of Paul’s responses. I’d recommend obviously watching the whole thing though some good parts were cut. It’s sad to note this video is less than 10 minutes. Paul got 10 minutes of air time out of a almost 100 minute debate with 8 people.
2: He has said many times he would not. Last week he said something to the affect: “I’m 99.9% sure I won’t.” I hope he changes his mind but if not I’ll start checking out the LP field. Funny thing is he gets upwards of 75% of the LP vote in polls.
September 6th, 2007 at 11:34 am
while watching the debate last night and observing some of the audiences and candidates responses to supporting stricter government control and abandonment and surrendering of civil liberties for this false idea of safety, i was reminded of this fable i read a long time ago. i wanted to share this:
The Frogs Desiring a King–An Aesop Fable
The Frogs were living as happy as could be in a marshy swamp that just suited them; they went splashing about caring for nobody and nobody troubling with them.
But some of them thought that this was not right, that they should have a king and a proper constitution, so they determined to send up a petition to Jove to give them what they wanted.
“Mighty Jove,” they cried, “send unto us a king that will rule over us and keep us in order.”
Jove laughed at their croaking, and threw down into the swamp a huge Log, which came down splash to the swamp. The Frogs were frightened out of their lives by the commotion made in their midst, and all rushed to the bank to look at the horrible monster; but after a time, seeing that it did not move, one or two of the boldest of them ventured out towards the Log, and even dared to touch it; still it did not move.
Then the greatest hero of the Frogs jumped upon the Log and commenced dancing up and down upon it, thereupon all the Frogs came and did the same; and for some time the Frogs went about their business every day without taking the slightest notice of their new King Log lying in their midst.
But this did not suit them, so they sent another petition to Jove, and said to him, “We want a real king; one that will really rule over us.” Now this made Jove angry, so he sent among them a big Stork that soon set to work gobbling them all up. Then the Frogs repented but it was too late.
“Better no rule than cruel rule”
in times of crisis, the people may desire a stronger ruler or larger government to protect them, but both can quickly and easily become tyrannical. without freedom and liberty you have nothing.
September 6th, 2007 at 12:33 pm
Let me start by saying I don’t really want to overtly offend anyone.
A list of things that piss me off:
1. The quote “Those who would give up…”. I constantly hear that and I vehemently disagree with it. Quotes prove nothing. The fact the Benjamin Franklin said it doesn’t really prove much either. Society is sacrificing liberty for safety.
2. The idea that we should respect a largely ignored and misinterpreted document. The constitution was supposed to be a living document. The fact that it has been crapped on consistently shows that it did not establish a decent way of defending itself or that the mechanics to change it are broken. Either way, it requires revision and shouldn’t be “worshiped”.
3. Fables. Fables are designed by people who think they are more intelligent than the populace to explain complex issues easily. They are often condescending over-simplifications.
This thread hit three of my buttons at once. It was like a blinding white light searing my retinas from my Google reader. Sorry if I offended you.
September 6th, 2007 at 12:55 pm
1. It’s important quote because he was a founder of our country and better than anyone would understand what they were trying to do. Society by your definition is sacrificing liberty for safety. There are plenty of social and political philosophy, including our Constitution, which would disagree.
2. A living document means it can change. That it bears the scars of change. Not that you can change it’s meaning at will because you don’t like what it says. That’s absolutely ridiculous. Perhaps you should become educated on rule of man vs. rule of law. This statement of yours goes completely against your previous claims that the law should be followed regardless of your opinion of it. The fact it’s ignored shows the fallibility of man. All government work wonderfully on paper. It’s their practice that weeds out the bad ones. Given all the evidence… the Constitution was pretty damn good. No one worships it… they pay it respect for being the best foundation ever set for a government. For those who believe in rule of law it’s the highest law of the land.
3. You over simplify plenty and base things on the assumption that you know better than the populace as to what is good for them. That is condescending. You opinion also includes forcing those ‘correct’ values on them… that’s authoritarian.
September 6th, 2007 at 1:35 pm
3. to simply write off fables as “often condescending over-simplifications” is to ignore the impact they had on the social construction of ones culture. these stories, often passed verbally were the earliest forms of free speech in that most of them challenged the church, the local government, and their fellow mans actions. these crucial building blocks of our history reveal our social, political, and cultural development. we may not communicate in the fables like the one i listed above, but if you research beyond that, youll see the the issues and struggles have not changed much. youll also find that aesop wasnt the only writer of fables. some more recognizable classics: chaucer’s canterbury tales most if not all of shakespeares cannon, and a modern day example: orwells animal farm should not be shrugged off as condescending works. art will always imitate life.
September 8th, 2007 at 3:40 pm
On a humorous note we recently change our class schedule so that we have blocks on different days. On a certain day I have 86 minutes of sitting in a hallway. This is when I do most of my online stuff. After reading this post and xyz’s fable I let out an audible “Gaaaaahhh”. Another teacher actually came into the hallway to make sure nothing was wrong. That was the highlight of my day.
1. Benjamin Franklin was an intellectual man of leisure. He gets much more credit than he deserves. As far as trading safety for liberty, that’s exactly what I see when I read the constitution. It tries to maintain as much liberty as possible, but you’re still losing some of it. I’m pretty sure we have the same version too, although yours probably looks much nicer.
2.
I agree with this.
OK.
I don’t think it’s a good thing to ignore it. I would rather change it to reflect the people’s views.
The fact that it is ignored shows the fallibility of the government established by the document and hence the document itself.
No.
I agree with this. As soon as you start revering documents and not questioning them, you run into problems no matter how good they are. If reborn today, our founding fathers would look at the results and be major critics of the constitution.
3.
Condescending would be if I refused to explain it to them. Or if instead of explaining it to them I couched my reasoning in an anecdote because I thought they were to stupid to understand it otherwise. Granted you don’t always have time to explain things to people, but usually people are smart enough to grasp things without stories.
This is your major bone of contention with me and you seem to link condescension with being told what to do.
Written in fable form to get past the church and reach the “common man”.
Written to entertain the “common man”.
Also written with the idea of reaching the proletariat. Let’s not even get into Orwell’s politics.
We live in a world where we have some much freedom (of time and thought) that we can openly discuss politics. On top of that we are all relatively well educated. The crutch of fables reeks of “Baby’s First Pop-up Politics Book”. While metaphor may still be necessary (based upon previous debates) it almost always breaks down under scrutiny.
September 9th, 2007 at 8:54 pm
1. It gives up very little freedom. In fact much of the 18 thing delgated to the federal government have confict with state governments and not people generally. You have the ability to lay taxes. They had to be equally collected if direct though. In the least people were to be treated the same. The fed can try people for treason which isn’t destruction of person or property as common law generally was. There is patents and copyrights. Which in my opinion should be nothing but property and contract rights. There simply isn’t much there. Not nearly to what it has become. It’s a far better place to strive for than most.
2. You claim to agree but you don’t to have any real conviction behind that belief. If I’m going to be forced into this might of opinion makes right, supposed rule of law environment I’d like those professing those beliefs to play their own game. Don’t like the Constitution fine. Change it. Don’t get soft on the fact because you agree with the current outcome. I would expect you to be just as ardent to be following the rules in the least as I.
Governments aren’t real. They exist only in the minds of man. To say a document is fallible for the humans implementation is to say a computer is fallible for bad code. The ideas only continue if man continues to implement them. Man is the fallible one. The one’s who will not agree on the whole on much of anything. Especially for the long term. Which is why the idea of liberty is so important. Stop assuming what is right for people. Stop trying to play God. Men are not your pawns to experiment with. They are independent sovereign entities which have every right as you to be left to their own devices.
The Founders were critical of it then. Recall that it was their second attempt at a government. Primarily they were critical of men… because men implement it. As I’ve said before and will repeat here…. read the many quotes and works around the Constitution and government in general. Look at some of them on my quotes page.
3. Condescending would be simply assuming you know better with an absolute conviction. You can suggest to people how they may optimize their life… to tell them they are incapable to handle that and think it’s OK to dictate through force is repulsive. You’re damn right I have a problem with being told what to do. It’s my life and I will do with it what I damn well like. That is my attraction to freedom I’m not forcing anyone to do anything against their will. I’m not holding a gun on people and threating them to make my life simpler. I have no desire to force anyone to do anything nor do i want someone else to do that to me. I find it equally confusing and repulsive to think that man has some end goal. That we aught to be some arbitrary way. It is very obvious that they are a very diverse group. Analog. They do not want and will not fit to any one mold. Why then deny that and attempt to make them what they aren’t? Why is your vision of the world more valid than the 6 billion? The extreme to your belief is what so many dystopian sci-fi authors have written about. The creation of the perfect little androids. The extreme to libertarianism is absolute freedom and the utopian view of so many anarchists and hippies. Government does nothing but grow and control and destroy. Read a history book and tell me that’s not the case. As Jefferson said… is a constant struggle to stop that from happening. That inconvenience is IMO far better than that of the encroaching tyranny that naturally occurs otherwise.
“We live in a world”… no you and I live in a country with currently relatively few restrictions on transmission of ideas. There are plenty of restrictions here and if you’d like to take a trip over to the Middle East and many other parts of the world I’d be happy to show you people who would put a bullet in your head for being white, no of a particular religion, an American… whatever. If we are to set an example for the people of the world who share no where near our level of comfort we must follow our own laws… our own founding ideas. We, otherwise, are nothing to be imitated. If only Bastiat had lived 15 years longer.
Fables are a perfectly good way to give the uneducated or young ideas as to what one thinks is right. A child is not going to understand Paine but would understand the idea of a authoritarian King in general and that can be made into something easier to digest. No one is claiming an otherwise educated adult would be given these tales. Not unless they were to be used as code in the ways the American slaves.
September 10th, 2007 at 12:39 pm
I was reading about Bastiat. I never knew there were so many different types of anarchism.
September 10th, 2007 at 12:52 pm
I’m finishing up The Law ATM which is why I mentioned it. As for anarchism… sure. The word basically only means without government. As with most ism’s… there are many variations to it. Look up libertarianism some time. Some interesting tweaks out there.