Ron Paul Vs Newt

Ed Meese threw a softball to Newt in the "debates" in which Newt declared the patriot act a good thing in need of no changes.  Newt said we need a clear line between criminal acts and terrorist acts.  For criminal acts the government needs to be on the defensive, but for terror acts they need tools to prevent a nuclear attack.

Ron Paul responded by saying we can defend the country without totalitarian means.

A real debate would yield better results.  Paul and Newt are on opposite sides of this, and time and opportunity to argue would tach us more, the point of a debate.

Newt appealed to false authority to make his point, and then set up a straw man.  "Experts say Patriot Act is good... we don't want nuclear attack."

The problem is we have as many responsible law enforcement people who say the patriot act is pointless as those who adore it.  So its efficacy is doubtful.

So what the argument really gets down to is differences in vision as to what is America.  Newt sees us in perpetual war.  Paul sees us engaged with the world in peaceful trade.  We provoke hatred by invading other lands.  Bring the troops home, nd fix USA, get rid of vestiges of the police state.

Let China sweat the middle east.  We've got better things to do.

Bookmark this post --- Email this post