Debate on ABC - Aug. 5

This Sunday (August 5th), a live 90-minute debate with the Republican Presidential contenders on a special edition of "This Week With George Stephanopoulos."

The candidates: Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS), Former Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Senator Mike Huckabee (R-AK), Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA), Senator John McCain (R-AZ), Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX), Former Governor Mitt Romney (R-MA), Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO), and Former Governor Tommy Thompson (R-WI).

Amazingly enough, one third of the candidates in this debate are actually fit to be president.  Does this mean our chances are improving? I look forward to watching Ron Paul once again make mincemeat out of Guiliani.  Ya know, Guiliani really wouldn't be a bad candidate for the Democrats.  They need someone, maybe he should switch parties.

Thank you for that information, nwind.  I have been reading about the "August 5 debate" but did not know who was putting it on or if it would be televised.  I will pass the word.

This might be interesting.  Given that the networks are so left leaning, and Rudy McRomney is so favored in the polls, maaaaybeee, the top tier will not get so much attention.  Wishful thinking? Probably.

Domenico said: Guiliani shouldn't even be running because he received a title from the queen of england and that is forbidden by the constitution.

When did the Queen start handing out titles of "Royal jack@$$"?!

Very good lesser known point in the Constitution Dom!  I forgot about that one but yes it certainly is in the Constitution, anyone who doubts can look it up themselves. 

In my opinion any candidate who has less than a 50% Constitutional rating should never be allowed to run for president.  Ideally anybody who has less than 100% Constitutional rating would be impeached but I think 50/50 rule is fair enough in our fascosocialist form of current government.  

That would essentially just leave Tom Tancredo and Ron Paul on the GOP side excluding any governors, which is harder to measure up against the Constitution, though I guess the same principles could still be applied.

Since when do governors even care about the constitution? 

I was responding to this comment by RonPaul08.  I do not know who you are responding to, D.

-----------------------

 RonPaul08 said:

That would essentially just leave Tom Tancredo and Ron Paul on the GOP side excluding any governors, which is harder to measure up against the Constitution, though I guess the same principles could still be applied.

There are a number of former governors in the race.

msbobbie said:

Since when do governors even care about the constitution? 

They should, the federal government is essentially a government just for the states (not the people).  Oh yeah, states were removed from the equation when the 17th amendment was "ratified" and the people were also allowed to elect more representation further democratizing our Constitutional Republic of United States.  

I think the 17th amendment was a good thing.  Without it we in Oklahoma would not have Jim Inhofe and Tom Coburn in the U.S. Senate.  Yellow dog Democrats have controlled this State from the time of Statehood until 2004 when Republicans took control of the State Legislature.  In 2006 Republicans elected a 1 vote margin majority to the State Senate, and some gal got upset that she was not given a chairmanship, or something like that.  She had been elected as a Republican and switched to the Democrat party, spliting the State Senate evenly with Democrats and Republicans.

msbobbie said:

I think the 17th amendment was a good thing.  Without it we in Oklahoma would not have Jim Inhofe and Tom Coburn in the U.S. Senate.  Yellow dog Democrats have controlled this State from the time of Statehood until 2004 when Republicans took control of the State Legislature.  In 2006 Republicans elected a 1 vote margin majority to the State Senate, and some gal got upset that she was not given a chairmanship, or something like that.  She had been elected as a Republican and switched to the Democrat party, spliting the State Senate evenly with Democrats and Republicans.

What's wrong with blue dog democrats?  

How could you possibly state the 17th amendment is a good thing when you look at it from a 10,000 foot level?

The federal government was a government FOR the states (read the Constitution, you will see).  There was a reason its drafters called for the the election by senators by the states othewise there is really no reason to have the Senate since both houses of congress are still elected by the people and the senate is subject to more campaign financing issues than lobbyists since this election is further removed from the local populace.

you're not thinking fourth dimensionally Marty.  If the 17th amendment was not ratified than "states rights" would've never been an issue because they would've had direct representation in Washington D.C. as our Founding Fathers intended.  Tom Coburn may still be the senator but is it a NET profit for lovers liberty to possibly give up one good senator in exchange to have 80 of them gone, and the whole direction of our federal government having gone in a completely different direction if the 10th amendment and states rights were honored?  

Read this piece about the repeal of the 17th amendment.  Makes much more sense than I could explain it: http://www.articlev.com/repeal_the_17...

and this one too: http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?c...

After reading both of these articles I would bet money you no longer think that the 17th amendment is a good thing.  Well, after reading the Constittuion too than I would bet BIG money you would no longer think this to be the case.  

Just waiting now for Employers Employers to chime in on this one as the 17th is his #1 issue, and a very important one at that! 

RonPaul08 said:

msbobbie said:

I think the 17th amendment was a good thing.  Without it we in Oklahoma would not have Jim Inhofe and Tom Coburn in the U.S. Senate.  Yellow dog Democrats have controlled this State from the time of Statehood until 2004 when Republicans took control of the State Legislature.  In 2006 Republicans elected a 1 vote margin majority to the State Senate, and some gal got upset that she was not given a chairmanship, or something like that.  She had been elected as a Republican and switched to the Democrat party, spliting the State Senate evenly with Democrats and Republicans.

 

What's wrong with blue dog democrats

There are not enough of them.

msbobbie said:

There are not enough of them. 

Oh ok.

Now what about the rest of my reply?  In case you missed it here it is again regarding the urgency of repealing the 17th amendment:

How could you possibly state the 17th amendment is a good thing when you look at it from a 10,000 foot level?

The federal government was a government FOR the states (read the Constitution, you will see).  There was a reason its drafters called for the the election by senators by the states othewise there is really no reason to have the Senate since both houses of congress are still elected by the people and the senate is subject to more campaign financing issues than lobbyists since this election is further removed from the local populace.

you're not thinking fourth dimensionally Marty.  If the 17th amendment was not ratified than "states rights" would've never been an issue because they would've had direct representation in Washington D.C. as our Founding Fathers intended.  Tom Coburn may still be the senator but is it a NET profit for lovers liberty to possibly give up one good senator in exchange to have 80 of them gone, and the whole direction of our federal government having gone in a completely different direction if the 10th amendment and states rights were honored?  

Read this piece about the repeal of the 17th amendment.  Makes much more sense than I could explain it: http://www.articlev.com/repeal_the_17...

and this one too: http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?c...

After reading both of these articles I would bet money you no longer think that the 17th amendment is a good thing.  Well, after reading the Constittuion too than I would bet BIG money you would no longer think this to be the case.  

Just waiting now for Employers Employers to chime in on this one as the 17th is his #1 issue, and a very important one at that! 

I have already told you I will not help you build your soap box.  I've had your number for about a month now.

msbobbie said:

I have already told you I will not help you build your soap box.  I've had your number for about a month now. 

You've had my number but not being able to respond?

Nice copout Bobbie.   

Domenico said: About that amendment about foreign titles of nobility, it was approved, but never ratified. What does that even mean?

Which amendment was this? 

It's in Article I Sec. 9:

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

http://www.constitutioncenter.org/exp...

An active military soldier calls out Rudy in a question that MUST be asked at the debate. Please view here:

http://ugv.abcnews.go.com/player.aspx?id=562420

RonPaul08 said:

waiting now for Employers Employers to chime in on this one as the 17th is his #1 issue, and a very important one at that! 

Couldn't have said it better.  It's an issue that most have lived with all their lives, so they don't see it as a problem.  And it's difficult to get people off the couch and actually work at trying to understand something.

For those that don't wish to remain couch potatoes, or who don't consider themselves to be so defined, the link to the argument for the 17th's repeal is provided in the "signature" to this post (below).