| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Would you vote for Ron Paul if given the opportunity? |
| Yes |
|
42% |
[ 12 ] |
| Perhaps |
|
28% |
[ 8 ] |
| No |
|
28% |
[ 8 ] |
|
| Voted : 28 |
| Total Votes : 28 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Acebrock
Minster of Plenty
Post #42053
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 1741
Total Words: 306,554
Average words per post: 176.08
PoliMatch: n/a
  
  
|
Posted: Sat 2007-05-12 02:12
|
 |
| Politics: Anarcho-communist |
Country: United States of Oppression |
|
| |
|
| sorianofan wrote: |
| I was not aware of the history of the term, so I apologize for the mistake. |
s'alright. A whole wikipedia debate erupted over whether or not lib-soc actually doesn't contradict itself on wikipedia.
| Quote: |
| Now, for the sake of precision, if American libertarians are not libertarian, then what are they? Regardless of when the term was initially coined, in America, it is defined as in line with the theory of government conceived by John Locke. No one calls it Lockeans. I believe at this point, now that libertarian no longer holds its original meaning as you define it (neither does "marxist," most marxists are actually "marxian"...), so isn't it a little hyper-critical to accuse someone in the year of 2007 hijacking the term libertarian, when its definition has changed 100 years ago? That's like me resenting leftists here calling themselves liberal, when the term initially concerned 1700s political thought which is essentially considered libertarian now. |
For the sake of convenience these days libertarianism is pertty much divided up into two forms: libertarian capitalism (american libertarianism) and libertarian socialism (european libertarianism) and many lefties (such as myself and, apparently, JD)tend to get rather annoyed when terminology is misused, though admittedly there are some systems (mainly the totalitaran systems) that I don't know mych about, which is why I'm taking a pair of classes this summer on political systems (though I wouldn't be suprised if I knew more than the rest of the class because of my knowledge on the more libertarian and socalistic systems). I know I didn't deal with all your questions and comments but I'm not in the mood right now to do some deeper thinking
| Quote: |
| Now it might be an ocean thing (that pesky Atlantic has created a long list of misunderstandings), but I do not know the answer to that, so I concede my ignorance on that issue. |
Can't know everything, that and we americans tend to be fairly ignorant of political systems.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
JD-sama
Minister of Truth
Post #42055
Joined: 16 Jun 2004
Posts: 2107
Total Words: 629,411
Average words per post: 298.72
PoliMatch: n/a
  
   
|
|
Posted: Sat 2007-05-12 03:19
|
|
| Politics: Communist |
Country: United Kingdom |
|
| |
|
| sorianofan wrote: |
Unlike English Royalty, who if they attempted abolish parliament the mendable uncodified English Constitution would be adjusted to protect parliament, Americans have a relatively stable vision of what the Constitution states. No one can force Paul to support the Federal Reserve, to sign spending bills, to not put soldiers on the borders, not allocate funds to executive agencies...these things are with little debate under executive authority, because congress has ceded authority. What you are missing here is if Congress got pissed off at Paul and used a 2/3s majority to override him and place the agencies under Legislative juristiction, that would be an outstanding success to Paul's camp--executive bureaucracies never go away. Those under the gun from representatives elected every 2 years get changed much more quickly.
So, the worst case scnerio is if Paul were to be elected (again, not going to happen but work with me here), the real danger would be that he'd do too much. It is not within the realm of fantasy whether he CAN do it, would is a different story, but he certainly can do all those things. I am a history teacher (I know something about it), I have read and reread the Constitution and have taken relevant courses on the subject. The reason no Peresident has done the stuff I fear is possible is because no President would cede that much authority...besides possibly Ron Paul.
Furthermore, a mainstream libertarian candidate definitely changes discourse just like a mainstream socialist would. You are already backing up from your original argument (that it would somehow send the tiny little libcap movement in America backwards.) Thus, like Ross Perot did in the 90s (and the Republicans moved further to the right to respond to this), Paul theoretically can do the same for whatever fucking decade this one is now. |
My comparison with the royal family was deliberate. The political apparatus will move flexibly to the ends of the majority of the active political class, if the executive is in opposition to the general political hegemony the executive will become weak and other parts of government will become strong. If necessary, and for the record it isn't, the constitution would be completely ignored; it is at root a piece of paper, it requires intelligent, observant and powerful people to support it to give its words power. In cases like this the legislative labyrinth of a particular nation state is simply a smokescreen for a far more fluid balance of power. I'm not talking about some grand new world order, simply the logical behaviour of politicians in line with their interests. A year of an executive being laid siege to, being assassinated by the media and sabotaged by other concentrations of power; no politician with a brain cell can risk this eventuality. Ultimately out of self preservation and pragmatism the executive no matter how noble would concede, compromise and become moderated by those he shares power with.
| Quote: |
Sir, it is you who is hijacking the word libertarian. |
I could get annoyed that you didn't look it up before "sir"ing me, but seeing as I'm so nice and Ace dealt with the issue reasonably well.
The problem with you claim that the word has shifted meaning is that America, from what I can tell (Australia also maybe? they seem to follow American lingo), is the only country in the world who as adopted this shift. In Europe libertarianism refers to that which one might logically expect from the word, libertarian capitalists are perhaps better represented by the term liberal ^^. But yes it is annoying, because it means anyone who isn't a capitalist has to be supposedly against liberty. The term LibCap has long been the accepted terminology on this forum, but we seem to be slipping back.
| Quote: |
For example, I would love if everyone did the following:
James 1:27
| Quote: |
| Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world. |
|
This quote is way more colourful in my bible, but admittedly makes less sense.
| Quote: |
People in my mind should help their fellow humans and avoid immoderate behaviors. However, that does not mean the government should force people to help the widows and orphans, or uphold moral standards regarding drug use, sodomy, or anything else. Libertarianism in my mind is the willingness to not use government to compell people to act in any fashion. Libertarian socialism (or Communism!?!?) is a rhetorical fallacy as much as a Libertarian Theocracy.
|
Not to be tellingly terse, but don't make assertions about that which you do not know.
I'm curious, have you read much Marx yourself? I think you might benefit from penning over Das Kapital or some such, not that Marx is the utmost authority on modern socialism, but I've notice you make a few less than apt generalisations about socialism in the past. If you understood where we were coming from you'd make more convincing arguments.
Libertarian socialism, as a modern political school of thought, is not about forcing people to be nice through the state apparatus. The difference in LibCap and LibSoc thought stems from a fundamental disagreement about the nature of fundamental rights on which to build a society. The LibCap famously asserts that all persons must have the right to their life, liberty and property and that this is the only basis for a just and sustainable society. The socialist begs to differ, saying that whilst Life and Liberty are all fair and dandy Property is a restriction on liberty in disguise based on a fundamentally unjust mechanic of forceful restriction. To a libertarian socialist property is not a right but a useful tool for promoting equitable and just social mechanics. So when the socialist gives(figuratively) the means of production to a group of workers the capitalist would call it un-libertarian because the workers are stealing that means of production from its bourgeoisie owner. On the flip side when the capitalist "protects" the means of production from the workers by means of force for the interests of the bourgeoisie employer the socialist sees this as un-libertarian because the state is forcefully attacking the workers to control sole usage over a resource, an act which libertarian socialism has no mechanic of justification for.
Ultimately where the LibCap says "fear the state", the LibSoc begs the citizen to fear all centralisation of power around individuals whether they are formed through a representative democracy or a capitalist market. Socialism in its initial stages could be fairly characterised as the democratisation of the economy and production, the libertarian variant is about achieving this with guards against the tyranny of the majority effect one can find in democracies. Usually this is done through decentralisation with only a few key federal democratically defined rights.
| Quote: |
Alex Jones and Paul Joseph Watson are pretending that Paul is a household name. No one here is saying that. What we are saying is that the Republican pool is so incredibly lackluster and similar, that Ron Paul is raising heads. Everyone I talked to about the debate has heard of him "sort of." He's "the guy who doesn't like the federal reserve." No one knew that before. So, I think we have cause to be excited that the man is actually being mentioned on television, is actually delibrately being censored...it means that something is actually happening, and that's a VERY rare thing in libertarianism.
Furthermore, though I hold a very negative view as humanity as a whole (they all suck), I do think that there are relatively few good guys in politics out there as compared to the absolutely zero you posit. For example, a friend of my father's is an elected judge, and guess what? He's actually a good guy. Ron Paul, as far as humans go, strikes me as this. If he were an opportunist, he could have easily sold out on several issues and avoided a costly and career ending campaign for the Presidency, which he may actually be nuts enough to believe threatens his life. I honestly think he's a guy who means what he says. Is he perfect? No one is. But as Zoon points out, most people who have looked into the man's background can say with confidence that at least he's not a terrible human being. And at this point, I'll take a guy who's not totally evil. It's what makes him attractive. To be honest, I was sort of dismayed by Howard Dean's failure for the same reason.
And do all political movements begin the bottom up? No, neo-conservatism definitely didn't. Neither did Communism in the nations where it took hold. I agree, bad things usually happen top-down. Luckily, I don't believe the Ron Paul gambit is of the sort. It is very much a grassroots movement, not directed by him. Libertarians are notoriously hard to organize (unlike statists, go figure.) No he's not the messiah. The messiah will only return after then end of days, riding a cloud.
|
My point was more that to attain power one must seek it, if Ron Paul goes all the way he will have sold out to do it and if he doesn't sell out he won't make it to a position of real power. The system has evolved such that it requires a dearth of moral substance to foster success. This is a plague which effects all large scale representative democracies of this form.
If you think ideological statists are easy to organise you've never ... well you've never tried to organise statists. I'm not a statist myself but I've had to try and put them in the same camp before and it turns out a big state is just a great big bunch of new things to argue about.
You're right that neo-conservatism and the vanguardist leninist/stalinist state-capitalist model were both instituted from the top down. I meant that the will of the people is rarely instituted from the top down, when things come from the top they have a funny tendency to benefit the top.
| Quote: |
Figure 1: An artist's rendition of what the Second Coming may look like.
|
Oh God... "aha! Jesus your power may be 3000 but I was actually artificially lowering my power, it is in fact 999489544XXX no backsies"
| Quote: |
To be honest with you Sama, please correct me if I am wrong because I often am and when I am I retract what I say, it seems to me you are being sophistic here. You are part of a youth communist organization and you try to organize Communists. Is the political change you are looking for going to happen when 50.1% of Britain becomes Communist? I honestly do not think that you believe that grassroots bottom up organizing is the way one should seek political change. You seem to be claiming such in order to use it as an arguing point in order to make us look bad for supporting Ron Paul in an election which would actually rely upon majority rule (let's not get into the electoral college!)
I'm not quite so pragmatic. If the majority of the country wants neo-conservatism to rule, then I accept it. I wouldn't want some militant takeover for the sake of libertarianism. That is more than one can say for any Communist (correct me if I'm wrong here, how else do you word a workers revolution?)
Now, I apologize for the ad hominem, because I am obviopusly not trying to be disrespectful. I am questioning your motivations however. |
Again your a bit mistaken here. Communists don't think that 50.1% of Britain has any particular meaning over 50.1% of any other arbitrary geographical group. Workers revolutions are about the workers taking their means of production through popular uprising, within the context of the uprisings themselves we'd need far more than a scraping majority. Communists (at least the ones like me) don't think it is important to poll Newcastle on the revolution in Devon, countries are just lines on a map after all. More importantly than this, we tend to think that movements so large as to encompass the size of traditional nation states are too unwieldy to maintain momentum of resist oligarchy. I believe political change should happen through isolated groups taking control of their own affairs and encouraging their neighbours to do the same; in theory this should lead to a domino effect or a reactionary counter-revolution.
I honestly don't think movements based around leaders aimed at homogenising a vast population with a single political stance (however forgiving and unrestricting that stance may be.) can work in a desirable fashion.
_________________
"I wanted to know the world that was outside of the well.
So I tried hard to get out from the bottom of the well.
I wanted to know the world that was outside of the well.
So I climbed up numerous of times despite falling down over and over again.
But then I realized it.
The higher and higher I climb, the pain increases when I fall down again.
When my interest in the world outside of the well began to equal the amount of pain,
That was when I finally realized the meaning of the story to Der Froschkönig."
-Frederica Bernkastel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
One Of The Few
Minister of Truth
Post #42079
Joined: 04 Sep 2004
Posts: 3246
Total Words: 458,586
Average words per post: 141.28
PoliMatch: n/a
  
|
|
Posted: Sat 2007-05-12 14:53
|
|
| Politics: Just plain NUTS! |
Country: Scotland |
|
| Re: Paul supporters conquer teh internets |
|
| Big Brother wrote: |
As you can see from this thread, Dr. Paul has motivated me to get interested in libertarian politics once again. Apart from Paul, I have absolutely no interest in voting for any of the other presidential candidates. If Paul quits this campaign, so will I. I have no interest in wasting my time arguing between the Republicrat's facetious Coke-or-Pepsi candidates. Mainstream colas don't interest me. I want a Dr. Pepper in my glass and a Dr. Paul in the white house.
If the mainstream media forces me to have another Coke, they better put some rum in it. They can at least get me drunk before they try to fuck me again.
[/bad_metaphor] |
I certainly see your point in general. At the very least, Ron Paul is a potential step in the right direction that I would have never expected a few months ago. An Obama vs Ron Paul race would be fascinating, since Obama is the ultimate "style over substance" candidate and Ron Paul is the ultimate "substance over style" candidate. Obama brims with juicy charisma, but has no hard policies I'm aware of. Ron Paul is an unassuming, low-key, unattractive and miniscule man in late middle-age, but his willingness to take controversial and definte stands on issues has won a huge variety of people (from anti-war lefties to NWO-fearing farmers who sleep with shotguns). Obama offers a new and utopian America. Ron Paul, by his own admission, offers little more than sensible fisical policy and common sense politics.
In fact, Ron Paul is a politician out of the Vespasian/Ed Koch mold: frugal, unassuming and yet still revered.
| BB wrote: |
I have always viewed the internet as the new printing press. Gutenberg's invention helped bring Europe out of the dark ages, and I have always hoped that [joke]Al Gore's invention[/joke] would do the same. I guarantee that if it weren't for the internet, nobody outside of Galveston, Texas would be aware of Paul’s candidacy.
But there is still cause for concern. The Ministry of Truth is probably not happy about the proles discussing things that they didn't tell them to discuss. The media may have no choice to recognize Dr. Paul, but I am doubtful that this recognition will be favorable. Most proles still have never ever of Dr. Paul, and even with the internet on his side, most of the people in general public will get their first glimpse of Paul through the lens of the mass media. And that lens will undoubtedly be extremely cloudy. |
I suppose this is what the media and government mean when they say that the internet isn't "fit for purpose", a phrase ironically invented by programmers and stolen by government bureaucrats and politicians.
| BB wrote: |
Also, another point of concern is that the 2008 elections are still a year and a half away. There is plenty of time for this momentum to die down on its own, or be superceded by other major events. Perhaps the Neocons will be able to dig up a candidate that can talk the libertarian talk, but still walk the neocon line, and steal some of Paul’s uniqueness. There is no doubt that the Neocons are keeping a close eye on this potential libertarian coup d'état of "their" party, but I doubt that they are panicking yet. There is still plenty of time for them to "fix" this situation (and/or the election).
The battle has only just begun, my dear comrades. |
On the bright side, they might do a "Let's discredit Ralph Nader", and the US could get the second Watergate-esque scandal that is so desperately needs.
| BB wrote: |
| I never really considered that idea, but I see your point. Perhaps somebody should teach Iraqis how to use MySpace and YouTube. |
Another advantageous aspect of the internet is the lack of central authority. If the internet just existed in the US, it could be regulated to the same ridiculous extent that television is regulated.
| BB wrote: |
| Out of all the neocon presidential hopefuls, McCain probably has the best shot. But I fear that the public at large has grown weary of the Republican's Coke and will probably be tempted to switch to Hillary's Pepsi (or Obama's Black-Crystal Pepsi). But in my opinion, all of the current media-blessed front-runners are wholly repulsive. Whenever I try to imagine what an administration under Hillary, McCain, or Giuliani would look like, it doesn't look pretty. |
Hillary versus McCain or Giuliani could be the most depressing US presidential race in a long time. It doesn't even have the comedy value that Hillary versus Rice would have, in that that could cause millions of brains in America to explode under the weight of their own prejudices.
_________________
If you can't say what you mean then you'll never mean what you say
God holds no fears
Death no worries
And while good is readily attainable
Evil is readily endurable |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big Brother
Administrator
Post #42216
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Posts: 2872
Total Words: 1,134,593
Average words per post: 395.05
PoliMatch: n/a
  
 
|
|
Posted: Tue 2007-05-15 21:37
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian-Syndicalist |
Country: American Empire |
|
| Big Fight Tonite!! |
|
The 2nd GOP debate will be on Fox News tonight at 9pm EDT. Here is what loyal disciples of the Apostle Paul can do to help spread the libertarian gospel...
| From ronpaul2008.typepad.com |
Your Help Requested
May 15, 2007
As you already know, Congressman Ron Paul will appear tonight in the 2nd GOP debate in South Carolina on FoxNews.com. This is another fantastic opportunity for Ron Paul to convince potential Republican primary voters of how critical it is for our nation to return to its founding principles.
You can help Ron Paul garner more media attention and support – before, during, and even after tonight's debate in Columbia. The following is a list of powerful actions you can take to help Ron Paul:
Before the Debate
1. Fox News is accepting questions from the public to ask the candidates. Email your question today to debate@foxnews.com. Remember to include your name, town, state and contact number for verification.
2. Email your friends to remind them to watch tonight and encourage them to join our effort at RonPaul2008.com. You can also leave a "comment" to your MySpace friends so that their friends and site visitors will see the reminder as well.
3. Find other Ron Paul supporters in your area through RonPaul.meetup.com and organize a debate-watching party in your area. It's always more fun that way!
During the Debate
1. Make your voice heard on blogs during the debate.
After the Debate
1. Vote for Ron Paul via text-message using your cellular phone. The number to which you can send your text-message is 36988. It will accept your vote between 7:30 p.m. EDT and 12:30 a.m. EDT. The code for Ron Paul is "R7"
2. Engage with others in the blogosphere about why Ron Paul is the only real conservative in the race who values the Constitution and the core values of America. Many of these sites will be querying their audiences about who won the debate – so please help promote Ron Paul!
3. The next day, Wednesday, May 16, take an hour out of your day to call and email your friends, family, neighbors and associates and encourage them to "Join us" at RonPaul2008.com. They can also sign-up by phone at (703) 248-9115.
4. Be sure to check back often at RonPaul2008.com for all the latest updates on post-debate coverage, as well as what people are saying.
Your efforts to support Ron Paul are greatly appreciated and we hope that you will continue to be a part of the Ron Paul Campaign – Hope for America!
Warm Regards,
Justine Lam
eCampaign Director
|
Be sure to send your text-message after the debate to vote for the debate winner (I think we all know who that will be).
I don't mean to sound paranoid, but does anybody really expect Fox News to run an honest poll? After the last debate MSNBC ignored their own poll results and declared the 2nd place guy the "winner", and ABCNews.com resorted to deleting comments from Ron Paul supporters on their website -- comments which questioned ABC's failure to include Paul in their first poll and which questioned the media's decision to ignore Paul's success. I can only imagine what FoxNews might be capable of.
If Ron Paul doesn't post numbers similar to the MSNBC poll on tonight’s Fox poll, I think you’re going to see a lot of questions being raised by Paul’s supporters.
_________________
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." - Mahatma Gandhi
"It is often argued that religion is valuable because it makes men good, but even if this were true it would not be a proof that religion is true. That would be an extension of pragmatism beyond endurance. Santa Claus makes children good in precisely the same way, and yet no one would argue seriously that the fact proves his existence. The defense of religion is full of such logical imbecilities." - H. L. Mencken
"The Aim of an Argument ... should not be victory, but progress." - Joseph Joubert (1754-1824)
http://freeme.tv |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
One Of The Few
Minister of Truth
Post #42224
Joined: 04 Sep 2004
Posts: 3246
Total Words: 458,586
Average words per post: 141.28
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Wed 2007-05-16 00:34
|
|
| Politics: Just plain NUTS! |
Country: Scotland |
|
| |
|
It'll be interesting if there's any more shenannigans against Ron Paul. Or, as he really should be known, the Thrifty Therapist.
_________________
If you can't say what you mean then you'll never mean what you say
God holds no fears
Death no worries
And while good is readily attainable
Evil is readily endurable |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sorianofan
Inner Party Member
Post #42229
Joined: 04 Feb 2006
Posts: 684
Total Words: 512,933
Average words per post: 749.9
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Wed 2007-05-16 02:20
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian |
Country: American Empire |
|
| |
|
| Quote: |
| I don't mean to sound paranoid, but does anybody really expect Fox News to run an honest poll? |
Hell no. Howard Stern News out of all media outlets have uncovered the fact that American Idol is set up, which uses the exact same text message system. (http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/169889/Is_American_Idol_s_Voting_System_Rigged_)
American Idol does the following:
| Quote: |
| Production will have in place weekly monitoring procedures designed to prevent individuals from unfairly influencing the outcome of the voting by generating significant blocks of votes using technical enhancements. The producers reserve the right to remove any identified ‘power dialling’ votes. |
Think of it. Ron Paul supportes are tech savvy. If it was a honest vote, he would have a major edge.
________
Ron Paul blows chunks tonight. He should interject in mainstream conservative issues (guns and anit-immigration, give less libertarian answers to what we should cut. I mean, you don't say the first thing you would cut is homeland security! Arg, that's just asking for trouble.)
Also, Paul should have been more forceful once he stepped into the "u.s. brought on 911" bit. Of course, it's true. He shoul;d of accused Giulliani of being complicit in the injuries of rescue workers. This is a debate damn it! Now Giulliani is the hero.
Edit: My God, his last response was awful, he ended good, but his "uhs" and stumbling. It's over guys. I mean, he still has my vote regardless, but the public will be turned off unless there is a very big silent mahjority...sadly, most conservatives are too stupid and do not care about the sactity of human life that is not American.
-Fox news plays Giulianni's response to Paul and claims Paul said the u.s. brought on 911 without context. They played not a single clip. Then they interview Giulliani first...jeez, Paul blew it.
-Fox News then reports that Paul's comments will lead to the "willowing of the field." We're looking at no Paul in the next debate.
_________________
Luke 6:37:
"Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven."
Last edited by sorianofan on Wed 2007-05-16 02:43; edited 3 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vettesky
Prole
Post #42231
Joined: 14 May 2007
Posts: 18
Total Words: 2,640
Average words per post: 146.67
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Wed 2007-05-16 02:30
|
|
| Politics: Anarchist |
Country: United States of Oppression |
|
| |
|
| Big Brother wrote: |
| Nice. He's becoming popular enough to warrant attacks. Sweet. And if the best argument against him is that he doesn't trust the government, I don't think that is going win many people over. |
Wait till later tonight or tomorrow. His statement that 9/11 was because of our Middle East policy over the years is going to get him on the map. Rudy was mad. Hannity should also be mad. Drudge should have it! They are going to flame him to the core and he's going to get some air time! Finally!
No matter if he was right in his statements. Let's have a chance at freedom again! Ron Paul for president!
My God Ron Paul has big brass American balls! He is the most awesome politician I have ever seen.
I went to Fox news to vote on the poll and there doesn't seem to be an Internet poll it's text message! Are they going to skew the results and hide it like MSNBC did? Ron Paul won the 1st debate according to the MSNBC poll.
_________________
Ron Paul in 2008! Life, liberty and a hammer down on the debt! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big Brother
Administrator
Post #42235
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Posts: 2872
Total Words: 1,134,593
Average words per post: 395.05
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Wed 2007-05-16 02:53
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian-Syndicalist |
Country: American Empire |
|
| |
|
Ron Paul said the word "newspeak" on national television. I'm in love.
I'll write more later... right now I'm waiting for Dr. Paul to get his turn to talk to Hannity & Colmes. It should be interesting.
UPDATE!!!!
RON PAUL IS WINNING THE FOX NEWS POLL!!!!
News at 11. 
_________________
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." - Mahatma Gandhi
"It is often argued that religion is valuable because it makes men good, but even if this were true it would not be a proof that religion is true. That would be an extension of pragmatism beyond endurance. Santa Claus makes children good in precisely the same way, and yet no one would argue seriously that the fact proves his existence. The defense of religion is full of such logical imbecilities." - H. L. Mencken
"The Aim of an Argument ... should not be victory, but progress." - Joseph Joubert (1754-1824)
http://freeme.tv
Last edited by Big Brother on Wed 2007-05-16 03:06; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sorianofan
Inner Party Member
Post #42236
Joined: 04 Feb 2006
Posts: 684
Total Words: 512,933
Average words per post: 749.9
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Wed 2007-05-16 03:06
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian |
Country: American Empire |
|
| |
|
RON PAUL WINS THE DEBATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
PAUL SUPPORTERS KNOW HOW TO USE CELL PHONES...PROVING ANYONE WHO WANTS ANOTHER CANDIDATE HAS AN IQ OF 20.
Furthermore, maybe people realize that conservatism does not equal fascism...yet the fox news people say nothing about Paul...they are declaring Giulliani the winner.
___
Hannity: Ron Paul did not win that debate by any stretch of the imagination.
You know what? Hannity knows better than the American people. Let's propose a new 28th amendment, because Hannity knows best:
Amendment XXVIII
All Republican Party Presidential candidates will be deecided on a May 15th vote every election cycle by a majority vote of a 1 man Committee headed by Sean Hannity and staffed by Sean Hannity. No other methods of choosing a Republican Presidential candidate are acceptable.
_________________
Luke 6:37:
"Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vettesky
Prole
Post #42237
Joined: 14 May 2007
Posts: 18
Total Words: 2,640
Average words per post: 146.67
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Wed 2007-05-16 03:25
|
|
| Politics: Anarchist |
Country: United States of Oppression |
|
| |
|
I was turning into the Daily Show, I'll switch back. I couldn't imagine Fox would show Ron Paul after that. I'll wait to see him too. It's hard as Hell to listen to this crap from these morons, I'm sure Ron Paul will be worth it.
I do wish on his last question he would have continued with the question about taxes and the deficit. He's strong as an ox on that too. Of course he probably knew....
Ron Paul 30% he's the leader in the poll! Awesome! I bet hey stop with the poll soon, Rudy is 16% even with his "great strong debate winning moment." Hahahahahahahaha!
If he went to far into that he would be over most heads in the crowd.
[/quote]
_________________
Ron Paul in 2008! Life, liberty and a hammer down on the debt! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big Brother
Administrator
Post #42242
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Posts: 2872
Total Words: 1,134,593
Average words per post: 395.05
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Wed 2007-05-16 07:27
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian-Syndicalist |
Country: American Empire |
|
| The 2nd Debate |
|
Before I start my rant I just want to make one small observation.
Did anybody else notice the information that was displayed next to each candidate as they were introduced? The four pieces of information displayed were:
- Age
- RELIGION
- Number of Children
- Political service history
Why did Fox News feel it was so important to include #2 and #3? I suspect one of the reasons for the "Religion" data was to show just how "diverse" the Republican nominees were. The Democrats might have Women and Blacks on their ticket, but the Republicans have everything from Catholics to Baptists to nutty Mormons.
What the fuck ever.
And why is it so important to know how many children a candidate has? Is the potency of a politician’s sperm really an important issue in this election?
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| I don't mean to sound paranoid, but does anybody really expect Fox News to run an honest poll? |
Hell no. Howard Stern News out of all media outlets have uncovered the fact that American Idol is set up, which uses the exact same text message system.
American Idol does the following:
| Quote: |
| Production will have in place weekly monitoring procedures designed to prevent individuals from unfairly influencing the outcome of the voting by generating significant blocks of votes using technical enhancements. The producers reserve the right to remove any identified ‘power dialing’ votes. |
Think of it. Ron Paul supporters are tech savvy. If it was a honest vote, he would have a major edge.
|
It seems I was wrong. Fox News didn't skew the poll results. Their tactic seems to be to ignore them. The poll ended over two hours ago, and yet there is still no mention of it on their website. You can bet your ass that if one of Fox’s “good ‘ol boys” had one the poll, the results would have been plastered all over FoxNews.com’s main page. What a joke.
After Dr. Paul's success in the first round of internet polls, the media insinuated that Paul's victory was due to tech-savvy internet hackers and proceeded to skip Paul and declare the 2nd-place guy the winner. It will be interesting to see how the media tries to spin the results of this telephone poll. There is no way to skew these poll results unless you try to claim that some "tech savvy" Paul supporter went out and bought 10,000 cell phones.
During and after the debates, there were several times that the political hacks at Fox suggested that Paul run as Democrat or an independent. The media is attempting to say that Paul is not a "true Scotsman".... er ... I mean ... "true conservative". This is absurd. The problem is that Ron Paul is an old-fashioned libertarian conservative, not the neo-conservative that Fox News wants to win the primaries.
But doesn't the Republican Party realize that if they try to run against the Democrats with a candidate like Giuliani or Romney, they are going to lose this election? Don’t they read the poll numbers?
Sean Hannity seemed entirely shocked when the preliminary results of the telephone poll came in with Ron Paul in the lead. I really don't think these people realize that the American people are sick to death of neocon rhetoric. These people simply can’t fathom why a non-neocon candidate could do so well in their polls. Are they fucking stupid?
I can only suppose that they are thinking that the reason that Paul is winning these polls is because evil democrats are voting for Paul to skew the results. But just home many Democrats do you think watched FOX NEWS' coverage of the GOP debate? If there really are more Democrats watching the debates than Republicans, what does that tell you about their interest for the current neocon crop of candidates?
And even if it were true that Democrats are supporting Ron Paul, what would that mean when it comes time for a general election? To me, it seems to indicate that a lot of people who normally vote democrat are going to be casting a ballot for Paul.
Hello? … Republicans? … Are you paying attention?..
If the Republican Party wants to have any chance of winning the next election, they need to start paying attention to Ron Paul. Either that or they need another "New Pearl Harbor" to scare the electorate into voting for them.
It's going to be hard for Faux News to explain away Ron Paul's success. So for now, the only thing they can really do is ignore these polls completely. Fox hasn't posted the results of the poll yet. I can't wait to see if Fox is really going to shove this thing down the memory hole and act as if nothing happened.
| sorianofan wrote: |
Ron Paul blows chunks tonight. He should interject in mainstream conservative issues (guns and anit-immigration, give less libertarian answers to what we should cut. I mean, you don't say the first thing you would cut is homeland security! Arg, that's just asking for trouble.)
|
I think the problem here is that the debate moderators pretty much ignored him. It was a 90-minute long debate, yet I think Paul only spoke for about 3 minutes of it. After the debate, each candidate was supposed to get 2 minutes to talk on Hannity & Colmes, but I think Paul got gypped. Dr. Paul talked to Colmes for a minute or so, but after that Hannity ranted for the last minute and wouldn't let Paul get a word in edgewise.
Long story short, I think Paul did better in the first debate because he actually got a chance to talk during the first debate. But I think that Paul finally got the attention of the American media. Hopefully, this fame will lead to appearances on television. I think the more the American public hear him speak, the higher Paul’s national polling numbers will go.
| sorianofan wrote: |
Also, Paul should have been more forceful once he stepped into the "u.s. brought on 911" bit. Of course, it's true. He should of accused Giuliani of being complicit in the injuries of rescue workers. This is a debate damn it! Now Giuliani is the hero.
|
I agree. Paul should have torn him a new asshole. But that's a little hard to do when you have an angry mob of 9 neocon lackeys screaming over you.
| sorianofan wrote: |
Edit: My God, his last response was awful, he ended good, but his "uhs" and stumbling. It's over guys. I mean, he still has my vote regardless, but the public will be turned off unless there is a very big silent mahjority...sadly, most conservatives are too stupid and do not care about the sanctity of human life that is not American.
-Fox news plays Giulianni's response to Paul and claims Paul said the u.s. brought on 911 without context. They played not a single clip. Then they interview Giuliani first...jeez, Paul blew it.
|
I thought that was cute too. Hannity talked about the exchange between Paul and Giuliani, and played a clip of Giuliani’s response, but edited out Paul's comments before and after.
| sorianofan wrote: |
-Fox News then reports that Paul's comments will lead to the "willowing of the field." We're looking at no Paul in the next debate. |
I'm sure that's what Fox News wants, but we can't let that happen. The media, of course, will invite whoever they like to the next debate. But it's difficult to see how they could justify excluding a candidate who has won all of the post-debate polls thus far. I'm not saying that the won't try to exclude him, but I think that they are going to have a hard time justifying their actions.
Not that I think that the media has any qualms about thwarting the democratic process. But I do think that the media blackout of Paul is one of the factors that is spurring his strong grassroots support. Paul can't win the election with internet grassroots support alone, but if his level of internet support continues to rise, the word will eventually get out to the general public.
I take strong issue with people who say that Paul can't win. Why can't he win? I could certainly rattle off a list of people who views are so unpopular and controversial that they would forever be barred from reaching the White House. But is this true in Paul's case?
There certainly are un-electable people out there. Somebody like David Duke, Al Sharpton, or Pat Buchanan could never win the White House. They all have far too many people who would vote against them. But again, is this true in Paul's case?
The problem is not that Paul's views are unpopular with the American people. The problem is that his views are disliked by the leadership of the parties and their obedient media lap dogs. But if this is the reason that Dr. Paul can't get elected, I don't see why that should dissuade me from supporting him. Not at all.
UPDATE:
Fox had finally published the results of the poll.
| From Faux News |
FOX News asked you to tell us who you thought won Tuesday night's First-in-the-South Republican Presidential Candidates Primary Debate. With more than 40,000 votes submitted via text message, 29 percent said former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney made the best showing of all 10 GOP presidential hopefuls who made their cases to the American people at the University of South Carolina's Koger Center for the Arts in Columbia, S.C.
Texas Rep. Ron Paul, who ignited controversy at the debate with remarks that U.S. policy had invited the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, came in second with 25 percent. Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who strongly admonished Paul for his comments, came in third place with 19 percent. Arizona Sen. John McCain, who is the frontrunner in South Carolina polls, came in sixth with 5 percent.
You Decide GOP Primary Poll Results
— 29% Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney
— 25% Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas
— 19% Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani
— 8% Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee
— 5% Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif. Hunter
— 4% Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.
— 3% Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo.
— 1% Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan.
— 0% Former Virginia Gov. Jim Gilmore
— 0% Former Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson
The poll was conducted between 9 p.m. EDT, Tuesday, May 15, 2007, and 12:30 a.m. EDT, Wednesday, May 16, 2007. The poll reflects the opinions of those who choose to participate and may not reflect a scientific sampling of the population.
|
Interestingly. Paul was leading the poll for some time after the debate with 30%. I guess Mitt Romney's supporters are just a little slow.
In any case, 25% is hardly a dismal performance. If you’re looking for a "willowing of the field", I don't think I'd include Paul in the list of candidates who should throw in the towel.
It's getting late, so I guess I'll just have to wait till tomorrow to see how this plays out in the media.
_________________
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." - Mahatma Gandhi
"It is often argued that religion is valuable because it makes men good, but even if this were true it would not be a proof that religion is true. That would be an extension of pragmatism beyond endurance. Santa Claus makes children good in precisely the same way, and yet no one would argue seriously that the fact proves his existence. The defense of religion is full of such logical imbecilities." - H. L. Mencken
"The Aim of an Argument ... should not be victory, but progress." - Joseph Joubert (1754-1824)
http://freeme.tv |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
One Of The Few
Minister of Truth
Post #42244
Joined: 04 Sep 2004
Posts: 3246
Total Words: 458,586
Average words per post: 141.28
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Wed 2007-05-16 08:42
|
|
| Politics: Just plain NUTS! |
Country: Scotland |
|
| Re: The 2nd Debate |
| | 
Search
Log in
FAQ
Usergroups
Memberlist
World War V
Medals
PoliMatch
Stats
