Would you vote for Ron Paul if given the opportunity?
Yes
41%
[ 12 ]
Perhaps
27%
[ 8 ]
No
31%
[ 9 ]
Voted : 29
Total Votes : 29
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
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
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. _________________
Post #42055
Joined: 16 Jun 2004
Posts: 2115
Total Words: 631,026
Average words per post: 298.36
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Sat 2007-05-12 03:19
Politics: Communist
Country: United Kingdom
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
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."
Post #42079
Joined: 04 Sep 2004
Posts: 3259
Total Words: 460,056
Average words per post: 141.16
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Sat 2007-05-12 14:53
Politics: Just plain NUTS!
Country: Scotland
Re: Paul supporters conquer teh internets
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
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
Post #42216
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Posts: 3003
Total Words: 1,168,808
Average words per post: 389.21
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Tue 2007-05-15 21:37
Politics: Libertarian-Syndicalist
Country: American Empire
Big Fight Tonite!!
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
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...
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. _________________ "The Aim of an Argument ... should not be victory, but progress." - Joseph Joubert (1754-1824)
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful." - Seneca the Younger
"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
Post #42224
Joined: 04 Sep 2004
Posts: 3259
Total Words: 460,056
Average words per post: 141.16
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Wed 2007-05-16 00:34
Politics: Just plain NUTS!
Country: Scotland
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
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
Post #42229
Joined: 04 Feb 2006
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Wed 2007-05-16 02:20
Politics: Libertarian
Country: American Empire
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
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
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
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
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!
Post #42235
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Posts: 3003
Total Words: 1,168,808
Average words per post: 389.21
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Wed 2007-05-16 02:53
Politics: Libertarian-Syndicalist
Country: American Empire
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
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. _________________ "The Aim of an Argument ... should not be victory, but progress." - Joseph Joubert (1754-1824)
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful." - Seneca the Younger
"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
Last edited by Big Brother on Wed 2007-05-16 03:06; edited 1 time in total
Post #42236
Joined: 04 Feb 2006
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Wed 2007-05-16 03:06
Politics: Libertarian
Country: American Empire
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
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."
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
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
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!
Post #42242
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Posts: 3003
Total Words: 1,168,808
Average words per post: 389.21
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Wed 2007-05-16 07:27
Politics: Libertarian-Syndicalist
Country: American Empire
The 2nd Debate
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
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.
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. _________________ "The Aim of an Argument ... should not be victory, but progress." - Joseph Joubert (1754-1824)
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful." - Seneca the Younger
"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
Post #42244
Joined: 04 Sep 2004
Posts: 3259
Total Words: 460,056
Average words per post: 141.16
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Wed 2007-05-16 08:42
Politics: Just plain NUTS!
Country: Scotland
Re: The 2nd Debate
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
Big Brother wrote:
Is the potency of a politician’s sperm really an important issue in this election?
I suppose returning triumphant from a war and parading through the capital with purple make-up, with your soldiers singing songs about your sexual prowess, gigantic phalluses abounding and taking on the role of the avatar of Jupiter is one Roman aesthetic touch the USA didn't take on. Pity.
BB wrote:
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.
It's not news though. News, from a Fox perspective, is whatever they deem the public need to know. Yes, this does mean that Ron Paul's existence is not technically news.
BB wrote:
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.
What can be less conservative than appealing to the founding document of the US? I mean, if a conservative isn't a neo-conservative, then they're some sort of ridiculous oxymoronic term, like "new-conservative"... Hmmm, maybe "neo" in this context refers to the Matrix.
BB wrote:
Don’t they read the poll numbers?
Based on the last election you had over there, they've clearly started listening to their own polls. Based on this recent fiasco with Ron Paul, they've now even stopped listening to those.
BB wrote:
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?
BB wrote:
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.
Are you suggesting that it may be wise not to use public transport until mid-2008? The only problem with this is that the Republican party has been in power for so long, it may just make it seem that they're incompetant. Then again, since no-one ever takes (or is made to take) responsibility for the success of a terrorist attack, this may not be such a problem. _________________ 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
One final thought before Sunday: if it's Ron Paul against either Clinton or Obama, it will be a cross-over candidate against a limited candidate. Hilary and Barrack aren't getting any love from the right; many on the left love Ron Paul because of his views on privacy and his foreign policy. I don't know about the US, but in the UK elections are won by moderate swing-voters. Ron Paul seems to be a natural way of pulling such a thing off, ironically by holding a variety of fairly extreme views.
Has it really got to the point that neo-conservatives aren't just anti-American, but anti-Republican as well? _________________ 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
One final thought before Sunday: if it's Ron Paul against either Clinton or Obama, it will be a cross-over candidate against a limited candidate. Hilary and Barrack aren't getting any love from the right; many on the left love Ron Paul because of his views on privacy and his foreign policy. I don't know about the US, but in the UK elections are won by moderate swing-voters. Ron Paul seems to be a natural way of pulling such a thing off, ironically by holding a variety of fairly extreme views.
Has it really got to the point that neo-conservatives aren't just anti-American, but anti-Republican as well?
Look at the ratings. 1 to 1.5 stars. Ugh. _________________
Rudy Giuliani Vs. Ron Paul, and Reality
John Nichols
Rudy Giuliani made clear in Tuesday night's Republican presidential debate that he is not ready to let the facts get in the way of his approach to foreign policy.
The most heated moment in the debate, which aired live on the conservative Fox News network, came when the former New York mayor and current GOP front-runner angrily refused to entertain a serious discussion about the role that actions taken by the United States prior to the September 11, 2OO1, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon may have played in inspiring or encouraging those attacks.
Giuliani led the crowd of contenders on attacking Texas Congressman Ron Paul after the anti-war Republican restated facts that are outlined in the report of the The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.
Asked about his opposition to the invasion and occupation of Iraq, Paul repeated his oft-expressed concern that instead of making the U.S. safer, U.S. interventions in the Middle East over the years have stirred up anti-American sentiment. As he did in the previous Republican debate, the Texan suggested that former President Ronald Reagan's decisions to withdraw U.S. troops from the region in the 198Os were wiser than the moves by successive Republican and Democratic presidents to increase U.S. military involvement there.
Speaking of extremists who target the U.S, Paul said, "They attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We've been in the Middle East [for years]. I think (Ronald) Reagan was right. We don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. Right now, we're building an embassy in Iraq that is bigger than the Vatican. We're building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting."
Paul argued that Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda are "delighted that we're over there" in Iraq, pointing out that, "They have already... killed 3,400 of our men and I don't think it was necessary."
Giuliani, going for an applause line with a conservative South Carolina audience that was not exactly sympathetic with his support for abortion rights and other socially liberal positions, leapt on Paul's remarks. Interrupting the flow of the debate, Giuliani declared, "That's really an extraordinary statement. That's really an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of Sept. 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don't think I have ever heard that before and I have heard some pretty absurd explanations for Sept. 11. I would ask the congressman withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn't really mean that."
The mayor, who is making his response to the 9-11 attacks on New York a central feature of his presidential campaign, was joined in the assault on Paul by many of the other candidates.
But congressman did not back down, and for good reason. Unlike Giuliani, the Texan has actually read the record.
The 9-11 Commission report detailed how bin Laden had, in 1996, issued "his self-styled fatwa calling on Muslims to drive American soldiers out of Saudi Arabia" and identified that declaration and another in 1998 as part of "a long series" of statements objecting to U.S. military interventions in his native Saudi Arabia in particular and the Middle East in general. Statements from bin Laden and those associated with him prior to 9-11 consistently expressed anger with the U.S. military presence on the Arabian Peninsula, U.S. aggression against the Iraqi people and U.S. support of Israel.
The 9-11 Commission based its assessments on testimony from experts on terrorism and the Middle East. Asked about the motivations of the terrorists, FBI Special Agent James Fitzgerald told the commission: "I believe they feel a sense of outrage against the United States. They identify with the Palestinian problem, they identify with people who oppose repressive regimes, and I believe they tend to focus their anger on the United States."
Fitzgerald's was not a lonely voice in the intelligence community.
Michael Scheuer, the former Central Intelligence Agency specialist on bin Laden and al-Qaeda, has objected to simplistic suggestions by President Bush and others that terrorists are motivated by an ill-defined irrational hatred of the United States. "The politicians really are at great fault for not squaring with the American people," Scheuer said in a CNN interview. "We're being attacked for what we do in the Islamic world, not for who we are or what we believe in or how we live. And there's a huge burden of guilt to be laid at Mr. Bush, Mr. Clinton, both parties for simply lying to the American people."
It is true that reasonable people might disagree about the legitimacy of Muslim and Arab objections to U.S. military policies. And, certainly, the vast majority of Americans would object to any attempt to justify the attacks on this country, its citizen and its soldiers.
But that was not what Paul was doing. He was trying to make a case, based on what we know from past experience, for bringing U.S. troops home from Iraq.
Giuliani's reaction to Paul's comments, especially the suggestion that they should be withdrawn, marked him as the candidate peddling "absurd explanations."
Viewers of the debate appear to have agreed. An unscientific survey by Fox News asked its viewers to send text messages identifying the winner. Tens of thousands were received and Paul ranked along with Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney as having made the best showing.
No wonder then that, when asked about his dust-up with Giuliani, Paul said he'd be "delighted" to debate the front-runner on foreign policy.
One of the highlights of the debate came when Paul said the United States has been bombing Iraq for 10 years and doesn't understand how the Middle East operates.
"Right now, we're building an embassy in Iraq that is bigger than the Vatican. We're building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting," Paul said in explaining his opposition to going to war in Iraq.
"They are delighted that we're over there because Usama bin Laden has said, 'I'm glad you're over on our sand because we can target you so much easier.' They have already now since that time they've killed 3,400 of our men and I don't think it was necessary," he continued.
"That's really an extraordinary statement," Giuliani said, interrupting FOX News panelist Wendell Goler. "That's really an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of Sept. 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don't think I have ever heard that before and I have heard some pretty absurd explanations for Sept. 11. I would ask the congressman withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn't really mean that."
Paul did not, eliciting a flurry of candidates seeking to get their 30 seconds to rebut him.
Because he's obviously wrong y'all. Notice no mention that ex-CIA members and the 911 commission report agree with him...but whatever, terrorist hate our freedoms. Elvis didn't do no drugs.
On defense for much of the evening, Giuliani switched gears nearly an hour into the debate, challenging Rep. Ron Paul’s suggestion that the U.S. bombing of Iraq had contributed to the terrorist attacks of 2001.
As mayor of New York at the time of the attacks, Giuliani said sternly, “I don’t think I’ve ever heard that before, and I have heard some pretty absurd explanations.”
On defense for much of the evening, Giuliani switched gears nearly an hour into the debate, challenging Rep. Ron Paul's suggestion that the U.S. bombing of Iraq had contributed to the terrorist attacks of 2001.
As mayor of New York at the time of the attacks, Giuliani said sternly, "I don't think I've ever heard that before, and I have heard some pretty absurd explanations."
His rebuke to Paul drew some of the loudest applause of the night from the partisan audience.
Underlined is exactly the same. Pentegon Psy Op guys?
I knew when Paul said that, he ended his chances at winning. People are too irrational about this. His only hope now is that there really is a silent majority which is so drawn in by his views, that his stumbling public demeanor won't be that important to them.
The mainstream media has attacked him savagely and he'll be known as "that liberal guy who thinks the U.S. brought on 911." He needs to come across cogent and articulate in upcoming interviews or he's toast.
I'm emailing the infowars boys the fact that cnn and msnbc used the exact same paul quote.
_________________
Quote:
It looks like this is going to be a Nader-type scandal if neo-conservatives try to discredit Ron Paul-
Little strange that someone would make an anti-page this early in the primary process...
_________________
Quote:
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?
I think Fox deliberately tries to dumb down it's own audience. I found interesting Paul's use of "protestant" as his denomination. He's either not religious at all or he belongs to a zany Alex Jones church (where they believe the NWO is fulfilling Revelations.)
On the issue of dumbing down, the media is selling it to us that we should be outraged at Paul's comments. However, most Americans, if asked honestly, would acknowledge that the terrorist attacked because they didn't like our foreign policy (if our foreign policy was right or wrong, that's not the issue.) The worst is all the Italians I know supporting Giulliani because he's a ginzo. He's a total authoritarian and social liberal, and though I don't mind him running a city, I doubt he's fiscally conservative enough to be a good President (I mean, he wants to federally fund abortions.) It doesn't matter that his father was a Mafia hitman and that he ghoulishly profitted of the 911 attacks, sending the men into the fray only to get lung cancer so he could win Man of the Year and become "America's Mayor." He's a "cavone" if I even seen one and I would vote for a "medegone" like Paul over Giulliani any day of the week.
At least no one in my house is dumb enough to think that Giulliani was right in his assertions against Paul, though we all agree it helped Giulliani and hurt Paul.
Quote:
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.
I totally agree. To be honest, I'm disappointed that Ron slipped to 25%. A victory would have been outstanding.
What I hate most was Hannity and that black Republican guy were like, "It's a phone poll, it doesn't matter." If Giulliani won, they would had said, "The American people really responded to Rudy putting Ron in his place."
Where's the criticism of Romney's support after an overall poor debate?
Quote:
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.
Yes, they're trying to make him look like a libertarian preparing for his 3rd party run.
The lib party is quite at odds at his immigration and abortion stances. Paul really should make known his xenophobia...it would curry favor with Republicans...he ain't gonna lose libertarian voters.
Quote:
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?
A greaseball who had 3 wives will never win in this country. My sister, who does work in Maryland and Texas gets looks and comments about being Italian in the year 2007. Giulliani is simply not squeeky clean enough. The only chance the Republicans have is with Romney, who is liberal enough to get swing votes, or with Paul who will rob the war issue from the democrats. The vote would essentially be big versus small government. The nation can finally make a clear assertion if we are to be socialist or we are to return to days of smaller more accountable government.
Quote:
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?
Don't you know being Republican entails being in favor of big government and blowing people up? That's all they stand for anymore.
Quote:
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.
I can see them gloating how Paul was wrong, that we need an aggressive policy.
People tell me, "We haven't had a large terrorist attack in 6 years. We need to keep on doing what we're doing.
I always say that before 911, we didn't have terrorist attacks every single year. We had ONE muslim incident on U.S. soil in the 90s, and we had international incidents in the 80s. All were a response to American presence overseas. Worse yet, we (the FBI) gave the FUCKING BOMBS BY MISTAKE to the first WTC terrorists (the NY Times reported about this years ago.) Gross government negligence and over-participation in dealing with terrorism has indisputably imdirectly and directly caused terrorism...all for the cost of 3500 troops in Iraq and 57,000 Iraqi deaths. Disgusting.
Quote:
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.
Paul stumbled over words and did not exude confidence. He's not the best public speaker in the world and he was in a scary situation.
Debate Compilation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTIRRThOTCQ _________________ 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 11:50; edited 1 time in total
Post #42258
Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 1141
Total Words: 150,439
Average words per post: 131.85
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Wed 2007-05-16 11:48
Politics: Democratic Socialist
Country: Confederate States of America (C.S.A.)
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
sorianofan wrote:
Quote:
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.
Paul stumbled over words and did not exude confidence. He's not the best public speaker in the world and he was in a scary situation.
So, are you ready to start implementing the Plan B I discussed if Paul is excluded from the 3rd debate?
Like if we can?!!
To say the truth, Paul is more competent than anyone in the republican category, but if FOX outs him, what can one do?
Post #42260
Joined: 04 Feb 2006
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Wed 2007-05-16 11:54
Politics: Libertarian
Country: American Empire
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
Comrade Chairman wrote:
sorianofan wrote:
Quote:
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.
Paul stumbled over words and did not exude confidence. He's not the best public speaker in the world and he was in a scary situation.
So, are you ready to start implementing the Plan B I discussed if Paul is excluded from the 3rd debate?
Like if we can?!!
To say the truth, Paul is more competent than anyone in the republican category, but if FOX outs him, what can one do?
Sit and watch American Idol.
I'll tell you exactly what one can do...Plan B.
The plan calls for organizing a boycott of the companies who sponsor the station with the next debate. Easily, we can enlist 1,000 Paul supporters online. Petitions are signed, sent to the station and company, and created as a press release to several media outlets. This works in politics all the time for guys like Al Sharpton and such. Yes, it's playing dirty, but so was freedom riding, and if something is important enough, there's nothing wrong with legally holding a boycott when there is a conspiracy (of sorts) to silence an unpopular candidate.
Sitting around and just watching American Idol doesn't cut it.
"It's a bad bad PLAN. I like it because it's bad!" -Betty in Kung Pao, Enter the Fist
________
The next debate is on CNN, June 5th.
CNN so far on Paul:
Quote:
Giuliani to Paul: 'Take back' 9/11 comments
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Why did terrorists attack the U.S. on 9/11?
According to Texas Congressman Ron Paul, "They attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We've been in the Middle East."
Restrained, but clearly angry, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani jumped in, calling Paul's statement "extraordinary."
"As someone who lived through the attack of September 11 -- that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq -- I don't think I've ever heard that before, and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th," he said.
Giuliani's fiery response prompted applause and the following demand from the former mayor: "I would ask the congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn't really mean that."
In response, Paul stood by his comments and said that "if we think that we can do what we want around the world and not incite hatred, then we have a problem ... They come and they attack us because we're over there."
-- CNN Senior Producer Alex Wellen
Paul is a ghoul, vote Giuliani, your God!
Quote:
Ron Paul and 'The Gipper Ticker' Redux
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- At the first GOP debate at the Ronald Reagan Library earlier this month, not surprisingly, the former president's name was invoked frequently -- nearly 20
times.
Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani topped the Gipper Ticker saying the name a total of 5 times.
Texas Rep. Ron Paul was the only White House hopeful to restrain from uttering the former president's name.
But not tonight. Paul swept the evening, invoking the former president three times, while Sam Brownback and Tommy Thompson each mentioned Reagan once.
-- CNN's Cody Combs and Alex Wellen
Paul specifically quoted Reagan's memoirs regarding why it was smart to withdrawn from Lebanon...oh, let's not talk about that...
Very contrived and very negative. I used to not be so critical of the media, but this looks extremely contrived. 70% of the country opposes the war in Iraq...we are not seeing 70% positive coverage regarding Paul on neither "rightist" or "leftst" news sites. See http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/index.html
I'm listening to all the news stations. Praising Giuliani and paraphrasing Paul (albeit incorrectly.) _________________ 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."
Post #42263
Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 1141
Total Words: 150,439
Average words per post: 131.85
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Wed 2007-05-16 12:26
Politics: Democratic Socialist
Country: Confederate States of America (C.S.A.)
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
sorianofan wrote:
Comrade Chairman wrote:
sorianofan wrote:
Quote:
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.
Paul stumbled over words and did not exude confidence. He's not the best public speaker in the world and he was in a scary situation.
So, are you ready to start implementing the Plan B I discussed if Paul is excluded from the 3rd debate?
Like if we can?!!
To say the truth, Paul is more competent than anyone in the republican category, but if FOX outs him, what can one do?
Sit and watch American Idol.
I'll tell you exactly what one can do...Plan B.
The plan calls for organizing a boycott of the companies who sponsor the station with the next debate. Easily, we can enlist 1,000 Paul supporters online. Petitions are signed, sent to the station and company, and created as a press release to several media outlets. This works in politics all the time for guys like Al Sharpton and such. Yes, it's playing dirty, but so was freedom riding, and if something is important enough, there's nothing wrong with legally holding a boycott when there is a conspiracy (of sorts) to silence an unpopular candidate.
Sitting around and just watching American Idol doesn't cut it.
"It's a bad bad PLAN. I like it because it's bad!" -Betty in Kung Pao, Enter the Fist
What a bad, bad plan!
If American Idol doesn't cut it, I'll watch 1984...at least I'll prepare for tomorrow's world. And in the meantime, lets make Plan C, D, E, X, Z, Z1, Z2, Z26, Z112358132134. Perhaps Paul would be dead by then.
Hey, how 'bout if the petitions don't work? Bomb the white house?! _________________
Post #42275
Joined: 14 May 2007
Posts: 18
Total Words: 2,640
Average words per post: 146.67
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Wed 2007-05-16 13:16
Politics: Anarchist
Country: United States of Oppression
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
sorianofan wrote:
Easily, we can enlist 1,000 Paul supporters online. Petitions are signed, sent to the station and company, and created as a press release to several media outlets.
I like it. And along with signing the poll everyone who signs it sends a personal Email to the news outlets also. Flood their damn box with
Subject: More Ron Paul
Body of message: More Ron Paul
Or something like that, nothing rude, nothing long, just more Ron Paul. _________________ Ron Paul in 2008! Life, liberty and a hammer down on the debt!
Post #42278
Joined: 14 May 2007
Posts: 18
Total Words: 2,640
Average words per post: 146.67
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Wed 2007-05-16 13:38
Politics: Anarchist
Country: United States of Oppression
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
I just sent emails for more Ron Paul to CNN, Fox and MSNBC. My appointment got put back an hour so I'm gonna hit NBC, ABC and CBS.
If others of you will send Emails also that would be nice. I think they count 1 email or a call as getting 10,000 or so, so even 10 emails might make a difference. I know 100 would. _________________ Ron Paul in 2008! Life, liberty and a hammer down on the debt!
Post #42279
Joined: 04 Feb 2006
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Wed 2007-05-16 14:02
Politics: Libertarian
Country: American Empire
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
vettesky wrote:
I just sent emails for more Ron Paul to CNN, Fox and MSNBC. My appointment got put back an hour so I'm gonna hit NBC, ABC and CBS.
If others of you will send Emails also that would be nice. I think they count 1 email or a call as getting 10,000 or so, so even 10 emails might make a difference. I know 100 would.
I look forward to the upcoming Presidential Debates on your networks. I hope, after all the controversy and high poll numbers Gravel and [Ron] Paul made, I think it is important that these men are invited to attend then next debate. Their diverse views help broaden the debate...and make it a real debate. Genuine disagreement helps us find out which candidate really stands for our issues!
Thanks a lot!
____________________
Wow, a balanced look at the Paul-Giuliani cat fight:
Rudy vs. Ron Paul
Giuliani tangled with anti-war Rep. Ron Paul after the Texan suggested that Islamic terrorists "attack us because we've been over there," specifically citing that "we've been bombing Iraq for 10 years." A ticked-off Rudy disrupted the debate format: "That's really an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of September 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don't think I have ever heard that before, and I have heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11. I would ask the congressman withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn't really mean that."
Paul, who was asked twice during the debate why he was running as a Republican, refused to do so, noting that he believes "very sincerely that the CIA is correct when they talk about blowback."
In an interview afterwards, Giuliani compared Paul to the Saudi prince who tried to donate $10 million to New York City after the 9/11 attacks—Giuliani refused the donation after the prince blamed the attacks on U.S. policies. Interestingly, Giuliani said this during an interview with a network that is partly owned by that very same Saudi prince—Fox News.
Winner: Split decision
Rudy maintains ownership of 9/11 sanctimony—but Paul was winning last night's Fox News viewers post-debate text message poll
_________________ 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."
Post #42300
Joined: 18 Dec 2006
Posts: 151
Total Words: 119,872
Average words per post: 793.85
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Thu 2007-05-17 06:49
Politics: Libertarian
Country: Canada
Glenn Beck discusses Ron Paul, 2nd Debate...
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
This thread's getting pretty big, very cool.
I saw Glenn Beck's show today (up to a point; he makes me sick if I watch too long), and he happened to be commenting on the second Republican debate, and specifically commenting on Ron Paul. Glenn Beck is a real douche, and if anyone's heard him before you know his attitude. I couldn't find a video, but I found a trascript of the show. Here's what another neo-con has to say about the second debate and about Ron Paul. The bold section is mainly about Ron Paul.
Republican Presidential Candidates Take Shots at Each Other During Debate; The Moore-Thompson Feud
Aired May 16, 2007 - 19:00:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
GLENN BECK, HOST: Tonight, the Republican candidates finally took off the gloves.
RON PAUL (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Osama bin Laden has said, "I am glad you`re over on our sand."
RUDY GIULIANI (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I don`t think I`ve ever heard that before. And I`ve heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11.
BECK: We have the debate highlights. Plus, I`ll tell you which candidate the evangelicals are playing will win the nomination.
And the feud heats up between heavyweights Michael Moore and Fred Thompson.
FRED THOMPSON, ACTOR: You`re no institution, Michael. I do something, you ought to think about it (ph).
BECK: All this and more tonight.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BECK: Believe it or not, politics was worth watching last night. The highlight of last night`s Republican presidential primary debate was clearly the exchange between America`s Mayor, Rudy Giuliani, and Congressman Ron Paul.
Paul actually suggested that our foreign policy was responsible for the terrorist attacks on 9/11. I can`t believe I actually have to say this to the Republicans, but here`s the point tonight.
Stop blaming America for Islamic terror. And here`s how I got there.
If you think I`m exaggerating, I want you to watch this clip from last night`s debate.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PAUL: I`m suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it. And they are delighted that we`re over there, because Osama bin Laden has said, "I am glad you`re over on our sand, because we can target you so much easier."
GIULIANI: That`s an extraordinary statement of someone who lived through the attack of September 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don`t think I`ve ever heard that before, and I`ve heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BECK: I`ve got to tell you, my blood was shooting out of my eyes.
As someone who has worked hard to understand the Middle East over the last seven years, I can tell you, that`s not even a kindergartner`s understanding of what causes terror.
Look, did we make mistakes in the Middle East? Have we? Absolutely. Have we backed dictators? Uh-huh. Have we been seen as two-faced and duplicitous over in the Middle East? Absolutely again. But does all of that cause terrorism? No. What causes terrorism is when brutal ideologues hijack a religion for their own political goals. In a way, honestly, it`s no different than it is here.
To understand the Middle East, let me just break it down for you in about 30 seconds. If the Democrats didn`t have the Republicans and vice versa, if they couldn`t blame the other party, they`d have to come up with actual solutions to our problems.
But over in the Middle East, most countries only have one guy. The leader seems to need somebody to blame, because he`s a dictator, some reason to explain why their people are starving to death. They don`t have the Democrats or the Republicans. So the best way to keep people in line is to, one, use God and, two, find an enemy.
Remember, we`re talking about Dark Ages mentality here. And who makes a juicier religious enemy to them than us?
We don`t cause the madness, but we do help them make the case that we`re evil. I mean, come on, if you were over there and you just saw all the stuff that is spilling out of movie theaters around the world that came from us, what would you think? Look at what`s on TV every night.
And as Ron Paul should have said last night, we are in bed with terrible, awful dictators in the Middle East. Now, does that make us responsible for 9/11? Absolutely not. But we do make it easier for the terrorists to make us their enemy.
Still, I am shocked and saddened that some of our leaders don`t have a better idea of what`s really going on.
So here`s what I know tonight, I know that Ron Paul ain`t going to win. It`s too bad, actually, because some of his libertarian ideas are actually kind of good. Abolishing the IRS, who`s with me? The Department of Education. Bye-bye. Basically, get rid of most of the yahoos in Washington and pare the government down to a manageable size. Good idea.
But this is why libertarians always lose. They need to realize that 9/11 changed everything. If we don`t kill terrorists faster than they kill us, it is going to mean the end of our civilization.
So here`s what I don`t know. Does Ron Paul know that he doomed his chances last night? No, let me rephrase that. Did Ron Paul actually think he had a chance of winning until last night?
I invited him to come on the program today, and he accepted until scheduling conflicts made him back out at the last minute. But before I get to the candidates who are here, Jonathan Martin, the senior writer for the Politico, is with us. He was at last night`s debate.
Jonathan, who was the winner last night?
JONATHAN MILLER, SENIOR WRITER, POLITICO.COM: Well, look, I think certainly, Mayor Giuliani`s comment that you were just talking about, Glenn, regarding 9/11, catapulted him back onto much more safer terrain.
When Mayor Giuliani is talking about issues like national security and terrorism and especially 9/11, you know, he is somebody who is a very, very tough candidate.
When the conversation is about those thorny cultural issues like abortion, which has been sort of the topic of debate the past ten days, he`s not on as good a ground. So for him, it was good last night to get the conversation back onto national security.
I'll stop here because that's the main point of me posting this, but the rest is good reading too. It's interesting to note that Glenn is on board with Ron when it comes to the I.R.S. and whatnot, but he has issues with his take on the War of on Terror and America's foreign policy. Glenn is the CNN version of O'Reilly so it makes sense, but he surprised me with the I.R.S. But did you catch this part:
"But this is why libertarians always lose. They need to realize that 9/11 changed everything. If we don`t kill terrorists faster than they kill us, it is going to mean the end of our civilization."
Now, I know what he's hinting at with the why libertarians always lose bit, because people have already expressed why it's difficult for one to win on this board, but what's with the bloodlust for killing terrorists? Why isn't he over in the middle east 'killing terrorists' if he's so eager and believes it's just that simple, that we can just kill every single person designated a terrorist. That part made me laugh.
BECK: Jonathan, how come I don`t hear -- it makes me feel like I`m just the dumbest guy in America. How come I`m the only one that`s saying, don`t you guys see it? Don`t you -- Rudy Giuliani, the only thing he really has going for them, his real appeal, is when he looks at people and says, "Back off. We`re going to crush these guys."
MILLER: Right.
BECK: When he does that, that`s when he connects with people. That says to me a ton about the psyche of the American people. We`re not losers. We want to win. We just need a leader to lead us to a win.
MILLER: No, absolutely. And he projects the kind of, you know, powerful optimism and, really, you know, tough guy machismo that appeals to a lot of Americans and especially a lot of Republicans.
BECK: Yes. Did you see any of the other candidates backstage? How was Romney last night?
MILLER: You know, I thought Romney didn`t have as good a night last night as he did in California, about ten days ago. But he still cuts a very impressive figure.
BECK: He seemed...
MILLER: Go ahead.
BECK: He seemed a little rattled or something. He just didn`t seem on his game last night.
MILLER: Well, he got five really tough questions, you know, that came his way. They were really adversarial sort of questions about his past conversions.
BECK: Yes. And then McCain? How did he do?
MILLER: I thought McCain actually did well last night. I thought, you know, McCain has had two sort of pretty good, but not great performances.
BECK: yes.
MILLER: But look, here`s the important thing to remember. When you`re one of those top guys, it`s better to have a good performance and not have a gaffe, because these guys have everything to lose and not a lot to gain in these first few debates.
BECK: Yes. I will tell you, first of all, I thought the FOX News Channel did a fantastic job. I mean, it was like they put actual journalists there to ask the questions. I could -- it was almost unwatchable on MSNBC. Last night I thought it was -- it was watchable and you got a lot, even out of the other people that, you know, are not on the first tier.
Did you feel at all that McCain -- I don`t know. He`s better in conversation. When you watch him, he just -- he seems tired. Not old, but tired.
MILLER: Right.
BECK: Is it me?
MILLER: Well -- well, I think his folks were pretty happy, because he was able to sort of get his message out, you know, which is, "I`m somebody who is ready to lead. I don`t need on-the-job training." And he was able to talk about issues of national security and government spending, which is really where he wants to keep the conversation.
BECK: All right. Thanks, Jonathan.
Now let`s go to Congressman Ron Paul from Texas, who -- oh, sorry, forgot. He canceled on us on -- at the last minute.
So, let`s go now to the man who was in the middle of the fireworks last night, Congressman Tom Tancredo.
Congressman, thank you for keeping your word and being with us today.
TOM TANCREDO (R-TX), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Always good to join you.
BECK: It was good last night. How frustrated were you, because I know you. You believe in the border. You are a man who says what you mean and mean what you say on the border. When you see these guys...
TANCREDO: I hope that`s the case with everything I say, but certainly it is, you`re right, on the issue.
BECK: I see these guys on the border, and they are flipping and flopping. And you think to yourself, you`re kidding me, right? You don`t actually mean this. How frustrating is it?
TANCREDO: Oh, man. When John McCain said, "I have never voted for an amnesty," I had -- it`s a good thing I had a podium in front of me so I wouldn`t collapse. Because honestly, it was just absolutely incredible.
It would be like me coming on that stage or on your show and saying, "You know, I`ve never really been against illegal aliens coming into this country. What gave you that idea, Glenn? What a strange thing to say."
BECK: You know, I will tell you, Congressman, I was frustrated as a viewer last night, because I`m really to a point where I`d like to see somebody with big vision.
I`d like to see somebody say, "Let`s get rid of the IRS. Let`s -- let`s build that border. In the first year I`m president, I`m going to have that border secure, and I`m going to build that fence."
I`m looking for somebody with big vision, and it`s a little sparse.
TANCREDO: Yes, absolutely. People always ask me, what`s the first thing you do on your first day? And I say, "Well, after I, of course, pardon Ramos and Compean, who I pray are not still in prison, I would send the Corps of Engineers down to the border and start building it." That is exactly what you need to do.
And you know, the bill that Mr. McCain actually introduced a year and a half ago or so had a provision in it, as I mentioned last night, that said if we had -- if we build a fence, we have to do it in consultation with Mexico. They`d have to agree with it.
BECK: You know, on Friday, we have Johnny Sutton on with us. We have a whole hour on immigration that you don`t want to miss.
Let me go to Ron Paul. How did you feel about -- oh, gosh darn it, I forgot again. Didn`t show up.
Congressman, how did you feel when Ron Paul blamed us for 9/11?
TANCREDO: Ron has really -- he`s been a good friend of mine for -- I say has been. I hope he still is. I`m not sure.
BECK: Does he believe this?
TANCREDO: I think so. I mean, Ron is truly a -- I guess you`d say an isolationist. He is a libertarian of the first order and is someone who is saying, look, we have absolutely no business anywhere else in the world.
And I wish he was right. Wouldn`t it be wonderful if we actually lived in a world where we didn`t have to worry about that, where we didn`t have to actually defend ourselves?
BECK: When we had -- when we had the oceans protecting us, we could. But the oceans don`t protect us anymore. We can`t just unplug from the world.
TANCREDO: Plus, there is this assumption, I think on the part of a lot of people, and certainly Ron, I think, is there, that if we had not done anything, if we had not been in the Middle East or especially if we hadn`t been friends with Israel, that all of a sudden we`d be living happily ever after in the United States.
But I believe there is, in fact, a radical Islamic element that wants to kill us...
BECK: Yes.
TANCREDO: ... that wants to establish a caliphate and impose Sharia law. And they don`t care whether or not we`re over there or if we exist.
BECK: They`ll kill us where we stand. Congressman, thank you so much, I appreciate.
Of course, Congressman Ron Paul, thanks. Oh, not so much I guess.
Notice how whenever Glenn is about to "introduce" Ron Paul he acts like a dick about it and makes it seem like Ron was afraid to come on his show because of what he said were schedual conflicts. Nice Glenn. And Glenn had high praises for Faux News didn't he?:
"Yes. I will tell you, first of all, I thought the FOX News Channel did a fantastic job. I mean, it was like they put actual journalists there to ask the questions. I could -- it was almost unwatchable on MSNBC. Last night I thought it was -- it was watchable and you got a lot, even out of the other people that, you know, are not on the first tier."
That's right Glenn, get right in their and kiss some ass for neo-cons everywhere. I didn't watch either debate so I can't really say which one was "better." But I bet MSNBC's wasn't as horrendous as he makes it out to be.
If I find a Youtube video I'll update this post. That's it for now.
EDIT: I managed to find a video of Glenn Beck discussing Ron Paul's position on 9/11 and American foreign policy. Contrary to what the transcript above shows him saying, the first part of the video is him admitting that "in a way, we give bad guys the ammunition to say 'Look how bad those Americans are...'" But, it does show a clip of the beginning of the trascript with Glenn voicing his concerns with Ron Paul's position. The video is badly edited, but you get the idea. I'll find a better video eventually.
"It is not difficult to avoid death, gentlemen; it is far more difficult to avoid wickedness, for it runs faster than death." - Socrates, in Plato's Apology
Post #42307
Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 1141
Total Words: 150,439
Average words per post: 131.85
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Thu 2007-05-17 09:55
Politics: Democratic Socialist
Country: Confederate States of America (C.S.A.)
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
I sent one to CNN, based on sorianofan's:
I really look forward to the upcoming Presidential Debates on your networks. I hope, after all the controversy and high poll numbers Gravel and [Ron] Paul made, I think it is important that these men are invited to attend then next debate. Their diverse views help broaden the debate...and make it a real debate, which can properly show each candidate's views.
Thanks a lot! _________________
Remember my earlier doubts that Fox News would run an honest poll? The video speaks for itself.
Here are some more clips from the debate and post-debate dog show. Take a look at the ebnd of the video where the Neocons attempt to entirely dismiss Paul's poll victory. Would they have dismissed the poll if McCain or Giuliani had won? I think not.
_________________ "The Aim of an Argument ... should not be victory, but progress." - Joseph Joubert (1754-1824)
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful." - Seneca the Younger
"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
Post #42351
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Posts: 3003
Total Words: 1,168,808
Average words per post: 389.21
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Fri 2007-05-18 06:04
Politics: Libertarian-Syndicalist
Country: American Empire
Re: The Faux Poll
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
Hey sorianofan..
It looks like you're not the only person concerned about the GOP and the Media trying to exclude Paul from the 3rd debate. I found a petition that is attempting to keep that from happening:
And don't forget to e-mail Comedy Central and request that they ask Paul to appear on the Daily Show.
BTW... Has anybody watched The Daily Show the past couple days? I watched the clips that were available on Comedy Central's website. I found it interesting that they made absolutely no mention of Paul or about his exchange with Giuliani. They showed a montage of clips from the debate, but didn't show a single image of Paul. They didn't even bother calling him "Mr. Pickles" or give him any recognition at all.
On the one hand, I suppose this is good. I think they know a significant portion of their audience supports Paul. is it possible that they received some complaints about the "Mr. Pickles" thing? Or perhaps I'm not the only person to e-mail them to request that they have Dr. Paul appear on the show.
I wonder why the Daily Show has been so silent about Dr. Paul. I realize that it isn't their job to proselytize in favor of politicians, but I'm surprised by their decision to ignore him completely. The Giuliani-Paul thing was the most heated part of the debate. How did they miss it? I suppose that they just couldn’t think of anything funny to say about it.
Big Brother wrote:
For all of those who did not have the patience to watch the entire post-debate charade on Fox News, here is a brief summary....
_________________ "The Aim of an Argument ... should not be victory, but progress." - Joseph Joubert (1754-1824)
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful." - Seneca the Younger
"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
Post #42360
Joined: 04 Feb 2006
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Fri 2007-05-18 10:33
Politics: Libertarian
Country: American Empire
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
I hate it when people think Alex Jones, prisonplanet.com, or infowars.com are the gospel truth, but they are indeed entertaining and motivate people. They have the biggest petition running to keep Paul in the debate:
Call the Republican Party themselves and ask that they keep Ron Paul in the debate or that they will get not one Republican vote or one red penny for their party this election cycle. Their number is here: 1-202-863-8500
Don't call up like an asshole and say: FUCK YOU BUSHIES! RON PAUL HAS TO BE IN THE DEBATE. 911 WAS AN INSIDE JOB, A SELF INFLICTED WOUND--YOU ARE UNAMERICAN. I'M GETTING MY GUN READY FOR A SECOND REVOLUTION!
Be respectful. I am a registered Republican. I'm sure many of us here actually liked the direction we were going in the 1990s, with actual decreases in the budget and the military. It is fairly recent history where the Republican Party opposed terror legislation (http://www.cnn.com/US/9607/30/clinton.terrorism/) and attempts to take away our freedom of speech.
So, call up like this:
"Hello! My name is [blank]. I'm a registered Republican and believe our party has the potential to bring America back on the right course. Judging from the enthusiasm about the recent Republican debates, I believe the Republican base can gardner the suppoert to win the next Presidential election.
However, I am dismayed by the attempts of some to take out Ron Paul out of future debates. I believe he speaks to some of the Republican Old Guard's values and livens up the discussion. I ask that you make sure that Ron Paul continues to be in future debates, because judging from the polls and all the phonecalls you have been getting, he's got a huge amount of support, right? Please consider what I am saying, because the country is in dire straights, and if the Republican Party silences Paul and stops standing for Republican values, I will not be able in good faith to contribute to the part vote-wise or monetarily.
Thank you for your time!"
Call up in a level headed fashion and don't say Ron Paul in the first sentence, unless you sound irratye and say, "I gotta say somethin' about that friggin' Ron Paul guy." Then they might think you're going to bash him. Calm phone calls will be remembered. Irrate, caustic phone calls will be ignored.
Finally, it is coming close to the time to begin "plan B." We should probably know whether Paul is in or out by this weekend...I'll be in Arizona, so keep me updated boys and gals and fight in my stead.
____________________________
For your future Ron Paul polling needs:
http://www.ronpaulpresshub.com/wiki/index.php?title=Polls _________________ 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."
Post #42375
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Posts: 3003
Total Words: 1,168,808
Average words per post: 389.21
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Fri 2007-05-18 20:36
Politics: Libertarian-Syndicalist
Country: American Empire
3rd debate
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
sorianofan wrote:
I hate it when people think Alex Jones, prisonplanet.com, or infowars.com are the gospel truth, but they are indeed entertaining and motivate people. They have the biggest petition running to keep Paul in the debate:
I am now signer number 7,800 and 10,858 on those two petitions.
sorianofan wrote:
Finally, it is coming close to the time to begin "plan B." We should probably know whether Paul is in or out by this weekend...I'll be in Arizona, so keep me updated boys and gals and fight in my stead.
8:42 AM - New Hampshire Debate
Category: News and Politics
The third debate among GOP presidential candidates will be held on Tuesday, June 5th from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. ET at the Thomas Sullivan Arena on the Saint Anselm College campus in Manchester, New Hampshire. The debate will be broadcast live on CNN, CNN Radio, CNN.com, WMUR-TV, WMUR.com and UnionLeader.com. CNN's Wolf Blitzer will moderate with questions from Scott Spradling of WMUR-TV and Tom Fahey from the New Hampshire Union Leader.
Campaign supporters will have a designated rally area in the parking lot in front of Joan of Arc Residence Hall. That parking lot is in sightline of the Sullivan Arena. The earliest supporters can arrive is 4:00 p.m. on debate day. All signs must be carried in and carried out. No 4' by 8' signs will be permitted. No signs allowed/staked in the ground -- including along Saint Anselm Drive. No blow horns, bands, loudspeakers, audio systems will be allowed.
Hopefully, the CNN debate will be a little more "Fair and Balanced" than the Fox debate. If Paul gets invited to this debate, this could be his moment to shine. Wolf Blitzer is going to moderate, and we already have a glimpse of what a Paul/Blitzer conversation would look like.
As far as I'm concerned, the 3 front runners are Giuliani, Romney, and Paul. In a 3-way race between these three guys, I think Paul would do extremely well. Giuliani has the whole 9/11 thing going for him, but I'm not sure if he could withstand the scrutiny that a presidential run would bring. He's got a lot of dirty laundry. And besides, the 9/11 rhetoric is starting to get a little old. Plus, little slip-ups such as laughing at Paul when he talks about defending habeas corpus are going to do him in with the conservative base.
Romney, on the other hand, is probably one of the slimiest guys in the race. He got good looks going for him, but he looks like a huge phony. He is a politician, and it shows. Apart from that, the guy is a Mormon. I'm not sure how the republican fundies are going to react to a Utah cult member. Most people in the country know very little about Mormonism. Once the bible-belters start to learn more about it, I doubt they're going to give Romney much support.
So what does that leave? I suppose McCain still has a shot, but he seems to be slipping in the polls after the debate. It's not a good thing when you fall further and further behind after each public debate.
So seriously.... Between Giuliani, Romney, and Paul, who has the best shot at winning the general election against Hillary? I may be a little biased, but I think there is only one person who can help save the GOP from certain defeat.
You mentioned Alex Jones earlier. And yes, he is a bit of a tin-foil-hatter. But when he's not talking about missiles hitting the pentagon he does make a few good points. Here's a clip of him talking about just how bad things are for the GOP (and the Democrats as well).
_________________ "The Aim of an Argument ... should not be victory, but progress." - Joseph Joubert (1754-1824)
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful." - Seneca the Younger
"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
8:42 AM - New Hampshire Debate
Category: News and Politics
The third debate among GOP presidential candidates will be held on Tuesday, June 5th from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. ET at the Thomas Sullivan Arena on the Saint Anselm College campus in Manchester, New Hampshire. The debate will be broadcast live on CNN, CNN Radio, CNN.com, WMUR-TV, WMUR.com and UnionLeader.com. CNN's Wolf Blitzer will moderate with questions from Scott Spradling of WMUR-TV and Tom Fahey from the New Hampshire Union Leader.
Campaign supporters will have a designated rally area in the parking lot in front of Joan of Arc Residence Hall. That parking lot is in sightline of the Sullivan Arena. The earliest supporters can arrive is 4:00 p.m. on debate day. All signs must be carried in and carried out. No 4' by 8' signs will be permitted. No signs allowed/staked in the ground -- including along Saint Anselm Drive. No blow horns, bands, loudspeakers, audio systems will be allowed.
As the invading Mexican hordes might say, "iExcellente!"
To be honest, I'm a proponent of immigration even though I find it more important to secure our borders in a midst of a "war."
Quote:
Hopefully, the CNN debate will be a little more "Fair and Balanced" than the Fox debate. If Paul gets invited to this debate, this could be his moment to shine. Wolf Blitzer is going to moderate, and we already have a glimpse of what a Paul/Blitzer conversation would look like.
Wolf was trying to savage Paul too. He's just isn't a drooling moron like Hannity and did not look as bad. CNN even has on the banner, "Blaming U.S. for 9/11." Very balanced butt-wipes.
Paul really needs to make his stance on guns and immigration public, or conservatives are not going to support him. In the next debate, it's absolutely necessary.
Regardless of what Fox News thinks, even Republicans aren't wild about the war...they just really hate Democrats. And, they don't want to vote for a Republican that sounds like a Democrat.
So, if Paul goes up there saying, "There are people in the GOP who want to increase waiting periods, ban assault weapons, increase carry laws. It is absolutely necessary that the next President veto any such bills and appoint justices to the Supreme Court that will uphold the right of the people's to bear arms"
AND
"We are in a war against terrorists who will stop at nothing to get student visas, go through our porous Mexican border, or whatever else to deal us a death blow. I swear as President I will put my foot down that instead of making our domestic situation more dangerous by fighting a war 15,000 miles away, I will make sure that our borders are absolutely closed. No one here can say they want to defend this country unless they are willing to close the borders, deny amnesty, and take away the welfare state incentives for ILLEGAL ALIENS to invade this country."
This is shit Republicans want to hear.
Quote:
As far as I'm concerned, the 3 front runners are Giuliani, Romney, and Paul. In a 3-way race between these three guys, I think Paul would do extremely well. Giuliani has the whole 9/11 thing going for him, but I'm not sure if he could withstand the scrutiny that a presidential run would bring. He's got a lot of dirty laundry. And besides, the 9/11 rhetoric is starting to get a little old. Plus, little slip-ups such as laughing at Paul when he talks about defending habeas corpus are going to do him in with the conservative base.
People don't care about Habeas Corpus. They got pissed off at Bush for not invading New Orleans after Katrina (don't worry, they confiscated guns 2 weeks after the fact.) All Paul has to do is call Rudy out for being an anti-gun, pro-gay, pro-immigrant, anti-constitution liberal. The same applies to Romney. What will they say back, "You want to close down the federal reserve"? Most people don't even know what the Federal Reserve even is...
Quote:
Romney, on the other hand, is probably one of the slimiest guys in the race. He got good looks going for him, but he looks like a huge phony. He is a politician, and it shows. Apart from that, the guy is a Mormon. I'm not sure how the republican fundies are going to react to a Utah cult member. Most people in the country know very little about Mormonism. Once the bible-belters start to learn more about it, I doubt they're going to give Romney much support.
Paul does not play the relgion card. With a Mormon, Catholic, evangelical-hater (McCain) and "Protestant" (Paul) running, the evangelicals will be dissatisfied with everyone...enter Huckaby, an ex evangelical minister who doesn't believe in evolution. He will displace McCain and it's best for Romney to stop picking fights with a guy losing his base already.
Quote:
So seriously.... Between Giuliani, Romney, and Paul, who has the best shot at winning the general election against Hillary? I may be a little biased, but I think there is only one person who can help save the GOP from certain defeat.
The Dems are most likely going to win. Giuliani has no chance. Romney, with his leftist tinge and good looks, actually has a damn good chance as any. Paul is a wildcard. He'll flop, or he will rob the Dem's disingenuous anti-war stance. I doubt even neo-cons would vote for hillary if she supported the war as opposed to Paul.
Paul needs to play up his conservatism.
Quote:
You mentioned Alex Jones earlier. And yes, he is a bit of a tin-foil-hatter. But when he's not talking about missiles hitting the pentagon he does make a few good points. Here's a clip of him talking about just how bad things are for the GOP (and the Democrats as well).
As confessed in my wiki profile, I listen to the man whenever I can. He's entertaining and...sort of informative. I think he hurts himself by exaggerating. Of course, "You can't make up stuff this bad" is a cliche of his, but take for example that audio clip of his'. Everything he said was true, but then he claims Rudy's father was a "mob boss." Now, no one is going to believe such drivel. It would have been more accurate to say that Rudy's father was a stick-up man/leg breaker for "connected" (that's what Italians mean by "in the mob") loan sharks. Furthermore, I don't even think Giuliani is Sicilian, which you need to be in order to be "made."
I had members of my family who paid for "protection" and have done odd jobs like numbers, but that is not "mafia membership," if such a thing exists. It matters how connected you are and you only have any sort of established power if you are made. Giuliani's family, though they might be connected up the hilt with the NY metropolitan and GOP crime families, are no typical Italian gangsters.
Then Alex Jones makes up crap about the amount of times the NWO tried to induct him (read the stories here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alex_Jones_%28radio%29#Alex_Jones.27_contacts_with_the_NWO they're hilarious). He claims that they put AIDS viruses in African vaccines to cull the world population and that the government dumped 6,000,000 gallons of nerve gas off the south carolina coast. He cites long disproven claims about Bin Laden staying at a U.S. hospital. His credibility comes from misquoting some main stream news sources. The best misquote he ever did was in Police State III: Total Enslavement where he quotes the ex CEO of sun microsystems talking about the need to kill the majority of Earth's population. The problem with this quote, if any of Alex's fans ever did any real research, was that the ex CEO of Sun Microsystems was quoting an article written by the unibomber. Thus, it was the unibomber who wrote such things.
These things dishearten me, because Jones is one of the most talented entertainers I have ever seen with unparalleled creative energy. He is months ahead of the curve on several news issues and brings up the latest in gun rights and eminent domain. However, when you start making claims that there is no income tax law (when the government passes new ones all the time, the latest in 2001) and that the government blew up the WTC by scrapping together a bowl full of shit and seeing if any of it sticks when he throws it against the wall, he ruins any chance he has of being a real source of news.
Well, in this fight for Ron Paul, he's probably the second most important guy in it. Plus, I like the guy, so I don't feel bad about it. However, if you think Romney's Mormonism and leftist streak, and Rudy's philandering and leftist streak are going to hurt them with the Republican base, Paul's alliance to the 911 Truth community will equally if not more so hurt him. Paul has been careful not to flat out say 911 was an inside job...his other stances, about the fed reserve and the income tax can be too complicated to make light of in sound bites. But Paul has some dirty laundry too.
At least Ron Paul isn't evil...and I'll go for that. _________________ 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."
Post #42381
Joined: 14 Feb 2006
Posts: 553
Total Words: 124,320
Average words per post: 224.81
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Fri 2007-05-18 23:14
Politics: Republican (U.S. Conservative)
Re: 3rd debate
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
Big Brother wrote:
As far as I'm concerned, the 3 front runners are Giuliani, Romney, and Paul. In a 3-way race between these three guys, I think Paul would do extremely well. Giuliani has the whole 9/11 thing going for him, but I'm not sure if he could withstand the scrutiny that a presidential run would bring. He's got a lot of dirty laundry. And besides, the 9/11 rhetoric is starting to get a little old. Plus, little slip-ups such as laughing at Paul when he talks about defending habeas corpus are going to do him in with the conservative base.
Surely you're more subtle than this, O Big Brother! When Ron Paul spoke on habeas corpus he was speaking in political code; translated, his remarks are a quiet reminder that he doesn't support the Patriot Act or the controversial NSA spy program. The best way to express these sentiments to a Republican audience is that he doesn't stand for the abuse of habeas corpus. Ron Paul is taking a respectably huge risk by even broaching this in his alloted time. Most Republicans don't accept the premise that the Patriot Act abuses habeas corpus. They see it as a wartime measure with historical precedent in previous conflicts. And certainly, the Republicans present at the debate are largely those who would tow the conservative line on the matter. If he cited the Patriot act directly he'd get booed on TV quite dramatically, securing a very decisive loss of ground for his campaign. Getting booed on TV is bad, no matter the context. So instead he goes about the statement very diplomatically--that is, in a manner that brokers no booing-- saying that he "would never abuse habeas corpus." Rudy Guiliani is not an idiot, nor is he an opponent of habeas corpus; he knew full well the subtext of Ron Paul's diplospeak as did many people in the audience. You can see that Rudy turned to face the audience and laughed towards them (not towards Ron Paul) in order to share their amusement with the circumlocution. In any case, he was not laughing at habeas corpus, because of course Ron Paul wasn't even talking about habeas corpus.
I've not formed a terribly good opinion about Ron Paul in watching him. His domestic views are dead in-line with my own, as are his overall human values (I think). But there's also a side of me that's a very partisan fighter... I think my "Politics" descriptor suits me pretty damn well because for now, I'm Republican first and conservative second. In fact, since US-Conservatism has become increasingly religious I'm probably not even conservative- just Republican. What this means is that I'm looking for more of a leader than a revolutionary in this nomination. The individual needs to be able to manage his own party and use its power to get stuff done. I fear that Ron Paul would be similar to John McCain: too much at odds with his own party on media-charged issues, and too willing to compromise with Democrats, to approach the Presidency as a partisan fighter. As such, his administration would be paralyzed by poor relationships with other power-holders in the government. Compromising with members of a different party never, ever, ever, EVER buys their good will. That goes for all parties, everywhere. Parties look out for themselves and want their nominee to win! Not the other party's "moderate."
Whoever cinches the Republican nomination needs to understand that the only "good will" he can purchase during the course of his campaign and (possibly) his first term as President is that of Republicans. Ron Paul is a principled libertarian. Bravo I say. But it means that in his effort to bring non-Republicans over to support his side, he will alienate the base. Many of his Republican colleagues in Congress learned the folly of this when they lost their jobs in the 2006 midterm elections. Republican voters didn't show up at the polls to support Republican-In-Name-Only Congressmen.
Post #42418
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Posts: 3003
Total Words: 1,168,808
Average words per post: 389.21
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Sun 2007-05-20 04:07
Politics: Libertarian-Syndicalist
Country: American Empire
Re: 3rd debate
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
Tristan wrote:
Whoever cinches the Republican nomination needs to understand that the only "good will" he can purchase during the course of his campaign and (possibly) his first term as President is that of Republicans. Ron Paul is a principled libertarian. Bravo I say. But it means that in his effort to bring non-Republicans over to support his side, he will alienate the base. Many of his Republican colleagues in Congress learned the folly of this when they lost their jobs in the 2006 midterm elections. Republican voters didn't show up at the polls to support Republican-In-Name-Only Congressmen.
I’m not sure what makes you concerned that Paul is going to “alienate the base”. He certainly has a lot of disagreements with the Neocons who run the party, but all of his positions are old-fashioned rock solid conservative.
The reason Paul is gaining support on the other side of the isle is due to his libertarianism. So even though Paul advocates a very conservative government, this is tempered by the fact that he has a slightly different rationale behind is views than NeoCon/Fundie Republicans.
For instance, one thing that hurts republicans in general elections is their pro-life stand. Nobody likes abortion, but nobody wants to see young girls bleeding to death in an alley or doctors locked up in prison. But Paul’s desire to eliminate Roe v. Wade is tempered by the fact that he doesn’t want the federal government to prohibit abortions either. He wants it to be dealt with at the state level. A couple states will probably be tempted to ban it, and afterward we can look at those states to see how well their desire to regulate morality has worked.
He also advocates a literal interpretation of the first amendment, which means he thinks that the federal government should neither support nor suppress religion. This leads him to agree with the fundies from time to time on certain issues. So, for instance, he disagrees that it’s the federal governments job to remove the 10 comandments from STATE courthouses, or interfere with religious expressions in STATE schools. But again, he isn’t supporting these positions because he thinks a deity wants him to. He does it because he believes in religious freedom.
So even where I disagree with his positions, there seems to be a logic behind them that is lacking from most Neocon/fundie arguments. I think James touched on this in another unrelated thread, but it’s easier to respect a person you disagree with as long as their opinions are based on some sort of logical rationale. And this is something that is desparately missing from the arguemtns of mant politicians. And additionally, for instance, there is a big difference between somebody who wants to prohibit abortions at the federal level, and a guy who wants the federal government to butt-out of the issue.
All in all, even where I disagree with Paul, the disagreement is fairly minor. And this is a lot more than I can say about any other candidate in this race.
About the only position that might get him in trouble with the general electorate is his strong desire to eliminate most federal social programs. But again, this is tempered by the fact that I have to wonder how many people are going to miss the Department of Education, the DEA, and the Department of Energy as long as the IRS disappears along with them.
( BTW… for the benefit of our Euro friends…. Most government assistance programs are already handled at the state level in the US. Unemployment compensation is handled by the states, along with “welfare” and food stamps. )
But apart from his politics, a lot of people seem to be supporting him because he actually seems to be a pretty honest guy. And after 8 years of Slick Willy and 8 years of Bush’s … I don’t even know what I would call the Bush administration, but I definitely would not use the word “honest” … after decades of being lied to continually, having a guy like Paul in office would be a breath of fresh air.
I have a pretty low opinion of politicians. I don’t think I have ever had as much respect for any other politician as I do for Ron Paul. I am 34 years old, and each and every election I have ever voted in has been a complete let down. Bush/Clinton? Clinton/Dole? Bush/Gore? Bush/Kerry? What a cock of shit. I’ve never supported any of these fuckers. I’ve always felt like I was voting in the Soviet Union – being forced to vote for a candidate from a single party. And if Paul wouldn’t have come along, what would have I had to look forward to in the next election? Giuliani/Hillary? … Romney/Obama?
Just shoot me now.
The good news is that the media shut-out of Paul is starting to disintegrate. Bill Maher is now talking about Ron Paul on his show and he's even referring to him as "My Hero".
Now we just have to wait to see what Jon Stewart does. I looked at the Comedy Central discussion board today, and it is being flooded with comments about Ron Paul. Hopefully, the message is getting through to the people at The Daily Show. _________________ "The Aim of an Argument ... should not be victory, but progress." - Joseph Joubert (1754-1824)
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful." - Seneca the Younger
"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
Post #42445
Joined: 04 Sep 2004
Posts: 3259
Total Words: 460,056
Average words per post: 141.16
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Sun 2007-05-20 16:45
Politics: Just plain NUTS!
Country: Scotland
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
He probably delayed bringing up the gun issue because of the timing: the Virginia Tech massacre, I imagine, is still pretty deep in the minds of most Americans. Winning the approval of your core 20% customer basis is vital in business and important in politics, but in politics there's a higher motivation to gain that 60%-odd swing section who are somewhere between convinced and absolutely opposed.
The immigration issue would seem to be a winner, if only because no politician in the US seems to talk about it any more. No longer does a conservative politician (in the US) who brings up immigration seem like some sort of cynical throwback. In the UK, the Conservative party has tried this approach too many times and is now consciously trying to get off traditional issues like immigration and taxation.
Anyway, all of the visiting US students I've met at Edinburgh university this week are either vaguely in favour of Ron Paul (with one fanatic supporter) or vaguely interested/apathetic towards the whole thing. _________________ 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
Post #42452
Joined: 14 Feb 2006
Posts: 553
Total Words: 124,320
Average words per post: 224.81
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Sun 2007-05-20 18:09
Politics: Republican (U.S. Conservative)
Re: Ron Paul and the party base?
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
Ron Paul is cruising to alienate the base because of his foreign policy and his non-spiritual stance.
As to foreign policy: The conservative outlook on foreign policy pivots upon 9/11, because prior to then they were isolationist (like libertarians). Now they are a lot rowdier, and I doubt Ron Paul could find many friends among such voters when there are other candidates who want to proceed with Bush's heavy-handedness. I want to re-emphasize for your benefit in particular, that Neocons aren't the only demographic within the Republican party that supports a war on terror. Cultural conservatives are solidly behind it, and I daresay that the majority of fiscally-conservative Republicans are-- even as we criticize Bush's execution of it and are more heavily divided on the subject of Iraq than the rest of the party.
As to the uh, spiritual thing: You speak truly on how Ron Paul intersects often with fundies' views even while he's not an expressed advocate of religion. I think the problem here is that every Republican Pres since Richard Nixon has been a man of rather deep faith who lets faith flow in his rhetoric. Ron Paul and Rudy Giuliani both have an uphill battle to fight on this one, since they lack this... personal... attunement to the struggle. A black leader needs to be black. But while Giuliani could still come across as a "man of convictions" because he's an ardent, anti-terrorist fighter, Ron Paul will alienate the base on this one I'm afraid.
Post #42479
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Posts: 3003
Total Words: 1,168,808
Average words per post: 389.21
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Mon 2007-05-21 07:07
Politics: Libertarian-Syndicalist
Country: American Empire
Re: Ron Paul and the party base?
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
Tristan wrote:
As to the uh, spiritual thing: You speak truly on how Ron Paul intersects often with fundies' views even while he's not an expressed advocate of religion. I think the problem here is that every Republican Pres since Richard Nixon has been a man of rather deep faith who lets faith flow in his rhetoric. Ron Paul and Rudy Giuliani both have an uphill battle to fight on this one, since they lack this... personal... attunement to the struggle. A black leader needs to be black.
I'm not too worried about him alienating the fundies. Even though he's not a raving fundie himself, he's somehow managed to get elected 5 times in a Texan bible-belt district. It is true that Paul doesn't utter the name of his deity in every other sentence. But then again, take a look at the other front-runner candidates. Neither Giuliani (liberal Catholic), Romney (Mormon), nor McCain (Episcopalian) are what I would consider "fundies" either. And besides, if Paul gets the Republican nomination, do you really think that southern bible-thumpers are going to vote for a Democrat? Rest assured, if Paul gets the nomination, he will have the support of the fundies.
Tristan wrote:
But while Giuliani could still come across as a "man of convictions" because he's an ardent, anti-terrorist fighter, Ron Paul will alienate the base on this one I'm afraid.
I'm not too worried about alienated the 25% of Americans who still think that the war in Iraq was a good idea. Again, most (if not all) of this 25% are hard-core Republicans. I don't foresee this group jumping ship in order to vote for a pro-war Hillary.
Paul gets more and more supporters every time he speaks. It doesn't really seem like he's alienating anybody (other than the Neocons and the media). When you look at all the comments about Paul on Youtube or any other website, they are overwhelming positive.
There are only a few people (about 3, to be exact) who are attacking Paul. But their arguments against him are extremely weak and juvenile. They all seem to be associated with a website named RonPaulExposed.com. Take a look at it. It's simply pathetic.
I took the liberty of doing a "whois" on that domain, and it turns out that the domain is registered by DomainsByProxy.com. This is a company that registers domains of other people, and who keeps the name of the actual domain holder a secret. Very odd.
Since I couldn't find out who owned the domain, I did a traceroute to RonPaulExposed.com's servers. It turns out that they are in Phoenix, Arizona.
Isn’t that John McCain’s hometown?
Admittedly, it’s probably just a coincidence. But I really can’t help but think that the few people who are attacking Paul must be connected with one of the other campaigns. The people who are attacking him don’t seem to have any substantive arguments against him, but are instead simply trying to smear him. It’s just a political dirty trick, and it seems likely that there is a dirty politician behind it.
The domain was registered on Mar 23rd 2007, and was only registered for one year. And even though they have the option to renew, it seems that the people who registered it didn’t think they would need to run the site for very long. It’s also interesting that the site was created before Paul gained any sort of notoriety. These people apparently recognized the threat posed by Paul to the Neocons before any body else. And I think the very a good reason to be afraid.
But let me move on from my little conspiracy theory and get back to my original point. Most people who hear Dr. Paul speak like what he has to say. And as long as the Republicans and the media don’t rig the process to exclude him, I think he has a very good shot at getting the nomination.
I truly believe that this guy has a chance. As long as he succeeds in overcoming the hurdles that the Neocons and the media are going to lay out in front of him, I really think that he has a shot at the white house. Apart from that, about the only thing that I foresee that could end Ron Paul’s chances is if the war in Iraq suddenly takes a turn for the better. I don’t really think that will happen, but if it does, the NeoCons will rub it in everybody’s face – and Dr. Paul will lose much of his broad-based appeal. _________________ "The Aim of an Argument ... should not be victory, but progress." - Joseph Joubert (1754-1824)
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful." - Seneca the Younger
"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
Post #42493
Joined: 04 Sep 2004
Posts: 3259
Total Words: 460,056
Average words per post: 141.16
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Mon 2007-05-21 14:23
Politics: Just plain NUTS!
Country: Scotland
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
This is certainly re-writting over 250 years of stereotypes for the American south. In fact, it increasingly seems that the people who live below the Mason-Dixon line (or in other parts of Jesusland) are the only people with a issue-based, non-partisan and rational view of politics. Then again, CSPAN (which gets played late on BBC News 24 for insomniacs) has been revealing this to me for some time.
I still like how Ron Paul compares himself to President Taff. Taff did a lot of work in establishing the relative independance of the US judiciary; he began the process of trust-busting that was continued by Roosevelt; he had a sensible foreign policy; he was a jolly fat old man who kept a pet cow in order to get fresh milk. That's the sort of politician I trust. _________________ 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
Post #42497
Joined: 30 Dec 2005
Posts: 2659
Total Words: 306,608
Average words per post: 115.31
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Mon 2007-05-21 19:33
Politics: Crusader
Country: Russia
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
Even though Paul's anti-war stance is unpopular among republicans, remember that he is the only person in the 10 to advocate this stance. This means that even if no more than 30% of republicans agree with him on this issue, he will most likely get most of the 30%'s votes, while the other 70% split votes between several other candidates. Of course, the Iraq war isn't the only issue most republicans are concerned about... _________________ To knock a thing down, especially if it is cocked at an arrogant angle, is a deep delight of the blood.
George Santayana
Post #42499
Joined: 04 Feb 2006
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Mon 2007-05-21 21:38
Politics: Libertarian
Country: American Empire
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
One Of The Few wrote:
This is certainly re-writting over 250 years of stereotypes for the American south. In fact, it increasingly seems that the people who live below the Mason-Dixon line (or in other parts of Jesusland) are the only people with a issue-based, non-partisan and rational view of politics. Then again, CSPAN (which gets played late on BBC News 24 for insomniacs) has been revealing this to me for some time.
I still like how Ron Paul compares himself to President Taff. Taff did a lot of work in establishing the relative independance of the US judiciary; he began the process of trust-busting that was continued by Roosevelt; he had a sensible foreign policy; he was a jolly fat old man who kept a pet cow in order to get fresh milk. That's the sort of politician I trust.
Ron Paul is invoking President Taft's son, Robert Taft (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Taft). This guy was an anti-new dealer, anti-FDR, anti-Truman, so anti-big government/war.
No offense Tritsan, but you should have more allegiance to a particular ideology than a Partty. I see no reason why we must worship the party.
Then again, I am very biased. I find the war and the consequent murdering of thousands to be so reprehensible, thaty I would vote for any left or right candidate that represented a true opposition to it...only if more Christians and Jews took thou shalt no kill to heart... _________________ 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."
Thanks BB, that actually helped a lot as I did not catch either debate. I've only seen various clips on Glenn Beck and CNN. Very good indeed.
One Of The Few wrote:
I still like how Ron Paul compares himself to President Taff. Taff did a lot of work in establishing the relative independance of the US judiciary; he began the process of trust-busting that was continued by Roosevelt; he had a sensible foreign policy; he was a jolly fat old man who kept a pet cow in order to get fresh milk. That's the sort of politician I trust.
Sir, I completely agree. Like sorianofan mentioned "at least Ron Paul isn't evil..." It's always hard now to trust any politician, but Paul seems like a human at least, a human who is capable of rational thought yet open to new ideas. He at least is willing to acknowledge past misdeeds by his country rather than sweeping it under the rug.
sorianofan wrote:
No offense Tritsan, but you should have more allegiance to a particular ideology than a Partty. I see no reason why we must worship the party.
My thoughts exactly, this has been my view for some time. Going along with a particular ideology seems fine if you truly believe in it and can defend that position, but to go along with a particular group of people and what they say (which changes whenever convenient) seems unattractive to me and dangerous. That's just my view though. For instance I like Alex Jones and his crew, but I will not completely align my philosophies with his, because I just don't agree with some of the opinions he espouses. Some things he uncovers and reports on are interesting to me, and while reading him (and researching what he says before taking it as 'gospel truth') I have stumbled upon things like operation northwoods or operation ajax which I probably wouldn't have read about otherwise.
In this same way, I wouldn't link myself to any particular party completely. I label myself as libertarian but that's not a complete description of my beliefs, and I haven't even voted for a libertarian candidate once. Actually I can't really commit to any ideology fully yet, I don't know enough.
_____________________________
I found a video of CNN's John King interviewing Ron Paul, thought I'd post it:
Rundown:
John King discusses several things with RP, the first being the Giuliani-Ron Paul exchange during the Faux debate, because we just can't let that go without twisting more words right? Ron Paul defends himself well, and then King puts forth a scenario where Ron is president and N. Korea attacks/invades S. Korea during the time he is in office, asking should we intervene if such a thing were to happen. Ron Paul answers by saying we need to go to Congress and find out if this event is a threat to national security (explaining that right now he feels it wouldn't be a threat to national security). Next he says that in his opinion the Korean states would be unified if America had not gone into Korea in the first place, citing the situation Vietnam is in. King jumps in and asks another hypothetical: If China suddenly took back Tiawan right now, would the president have the authority as commander in chief to intervene, where Ron Paul says, "Absolutley he does not have the authority, where does he get it?..." He defends his point fairly well, but I just want to say that although I believe that (as the constitution says) the president should go to Congress in order to get the go-ahead to get a conflict started, this is most often not been the case sadly, even before "9/11 changed the world." It's the same in Canada, the prime minister does not have the authority to declare war, that's the Governor General's (formal executive) duty as representative of the Queen. But in present times, as in America, the decision to declare war is often left to the political executive and not the parliament or formal executive. This is sad but true, and often war isn't really 'declared' everytime a conflict errupts.
Anyway, continuing with the video. Ron Paul says to King that we shouldn't go out "looking for dragons to slay." King goes on afterwards to discuss with Ron Paul the idea that, as some other republicans say, he shouldn't be in the republican party, quoting several news articles and people who believe this. Obviously Ron Paul retorts with the idea that he is, in fact, the most republican candidate of all the candidates. The rest of the interview proceeds similarly, I'll let y'all watch it.
Relating to this, CNN's Roland Martin wrote an article saying that Americans should allow Ron Paul's explination of why America was attacked on 9/11 to be debated and discussed, that "we need to understand history and how it impacts what is happening today." This surprised me because Roland is a Christian, and hosted the segment on CNN called "What Is A Christian?" and I wouldn't have expected him to say some of the things he says in the article. Check it out:
Martin: Paul's 9/11 explanation deserves to be debated
POSTED: 9:26 p.m. EDT, May 18, 2007
By Roland S. Martin
CNN contributor
Roland S. Martin is a CNN contributor and a talk-show host for WVON-AM in Chicago.
(CNN) -- Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani was declared the winner of Tuesday's Republican presidential debate in South Carolina, largely for his smack down of Texas Rep. Ron Paul, who suggested that America's foreign policy contributed to the destruction on September 11, 2001.
Paul, who is more of a libertarian than a Republican, was trying to offer some perspective on the pitfalls of an interventionist policy by the American government in the affairs of the Middle East and other countries.
"Have you ever read about the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years," he said.
That set Giuliani off.
"That's really an extraordinary statement," said Giuliani. "As someone who lived through the attack of September 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq; I don't think I've ever heard that before and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11."
As the crowd applauded wildly, Giuliani demanded that Paul retract his statements.
Paul tried to explain the process known as "blowback" -- which is the result of someone else's action coming back to afflict you -- but the audience drowned him out as the other candidates tried to pounce on him.
So when he mentioned blowback I realized this guy might actually know more than I thought he did, and may not be just a shill like Blitzer. The next couple of paragraphs are what surprised me the most, mainly because this is CNN, and the the guy writing this doesn't try to whitewash the facts.
After watching all the network pundits laud Giuliani, it struck me that they must be the most clueless folks in the world.
First, Giuliani must be an idiot to not have heard Paul's rationale before. That issue has been raised countless times in the last six years by any number of experts.
Second, when we finish with our emotional response, it would behoove us to actually think about what Paul said and make the effort to understand his rationale.
Granted, Americans were severely damaged by the hijacking of U.S. planes, and it has resulted in a worldwide fight against terror. Was it proper for the United States to respond to the attack? Of course! But should we, as a matter of policy, and moral decency, learn to think and comprehend that our actions in one part of the world could very well come back to hurt us, or, as Paul would say, blow back in our face? Absolutely. His real problem wasn't his analysis, but how it came out of his mouth.
What has been overlooked is that Paul based his position on the effects of the 1953 ouster by the CIA of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh.
BAM!! Out of nowhere Roland hits us with history, and a prime example of actions the U.S. and Britian have taken which have resulted in hostility towards them from the middle east for decades. Let's continue...
An excellent account of this story is revealed in Stephen Kinzer's alarming and revealing book, "Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq," where he writes that Iran was establishing a government close to a democracy. But Mossadegh wasn't happy that the profit from the country's primary resource -- oil -- was not staying in the country.
Instead, the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (now known British Petroleum, or BP) was getting 93 percent of the profits. Mossadegh didn't like that, and wanted a 50-50 split. Kinzer writes that that didn't sit too well with the British government, but it didn't want to use force to protect its interests. But their biggest friend, the United States, didn't mind, and sought to undermine Mossadegh's tenure as president. After all kinds of measures that disrupted the nation, a coup was financed and led by President Dwight Eisenhower's CIA, and the Shah of Iran was installed as the leader. We trained his goon squads, thus angering generations of Iranians for meddling in that nation's affairs.
As Paul noted, what happened in 1953 had a direct relationship to the takeover of the U.S. Embassy in 1979. We viewed that as terrorists who dared attack America. They saw it as ending years of oppression at the hands of the ruthless U.S.-backed Shah regime.
As Americans, we believe in forgiving and forgetting, and are terrible at understanding how history affects us today. We are arrogant in not recognizing that when we benefit, someone else may suffer. That will lead to resentment and anger, and if suppressed, will boil over one day.
Does that provide a moral justification for what the terrorists did on September 11?
Of course not. But we should at least attempt to understand why.
First, that last statement is something that should be obvious, but I wouldn't expect someone on CNN to say it, especially following that history lesson. Roland does a pretty good job defending Ron Paul's position on American foreign policy and 9/11, and I applaud him for not being a douche bag
Think about it. Do we have the moral justification to explain the killings of more than 100,000 Iraqis as a result of this war? Can we defend the efforts to overthrow other governments whose actions we perceived would jeopardize American business interests?
The debate format didn't give Paul the time to explain all of this. But I'm confident this is what he was saying. And yes, we need to understand history and how it plays a vital role in determining matters today.
At some point we have to accept the reality that playing big brother to the world -- and yes, sometimes acting as a bully by wrongly asserting our military might -- means that Americans alive at the time may not feel the effects of our foreign policy, but their innocent children will.
Even the Bible says that the children will pay for the sins of their fathers.
Dear lord, he even puts forward the idea that (gasp!) it may be wrong to fuck with other countries simply because they won't do what we say or what's good for our business (which really means what's good for a bunch of rich assholes with politicians in their pockets who don't care about American people or otherwise).
It's nice to see someone explaining and defending Ron Paul's foreign policy position. _________________
"It is not difficult to avoid death, gentlemen; it is far more difficult to avoid wickedness, for it runs faster than death." - Socrates, in Plato's Apology
Post #42515
Joined: 25 Apr 2006
Posts: 664
Total Words: 67,197
Average words per post: 101.2
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Tue 2007-05-22 01:43
Politics: Meritocratist
Country: American Empire
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
I dont understand why you guys are so hyped up by Ron Paul because except for the few libertarians living in New Hampshire, very few people consider his speeches during the debates very successful. Although some of his policies may be integrated into the next presidency he stands no chance against Romney, McCain, or Guliani, let alone the Democratic lineup. _________________ We have buried the putrid corpse of liberty.
-Benito Mussolini
Anyone who is not a socialist before he is 30 has no heart; anyone who is still a socialist after he is 30 has no head.
-European Proverb
Post #42516
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 583
Total Words: 149,545
Average words per post: 256.51
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Tue 2007-05-22 01:50
Politics: Democratic Socialist
Country: United States
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
From External Site
GOP Leader Won't Try Barring Paul
Monday May 21, 2007 8:01 PM
LANSING, Mich. (AP) - The Michigan Republican Party chairman has changed his mind about trying to bar Ron Paul from future GOP presidential debates because of remarks the Texas congressman made that suggested the Sept. 11 attacks were the fault of U.S. foreign policy.
Saul Anuzis said over the weekend that he won't circulate a petition among Republican National Committee members to ban Paul from more debates. At a GOP candidates' debate last week, Paul drew attacks from all sides when he linked the terror attacks to U.S. bombings.
``After consulting with my fellow RNC members, I believe there isn't anything to be gained by advancing a petition aimed solely at removing Congressman Paul from the debates,'' Anuzis wrote in his daily blog Saturday. ``The primary is and will continue to work itself out.''
Paul campaign spokesman Jesse Benton said Anuzis was right to reverse course, adding that banning Paul is ``very unpopular among the people.''
During the debate, Paul asked: ``Have you ever read about the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years.''
GOP presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani rebuked Paul when he made the statement. Anuzis later called the comments ``off the wall and out of whack.''
I guess hes gonna get to speak his mind after all
but I don't think you guys should hate on Obama I mean he has definetly taken a stand on alot of things, I mean he can't help the fact that hes charismatic, its not his fault, I do agree however that in his case what he represents is a lot more than what he is _________________ "that doesn't make it right, just makes a whole lot of people wrong"-BSG
"Freedom is the freedom to say that 2+2 = 4 if that is granted, all else follows"-Orwell
Right and wrong are not concrete, rather they are relative to one's nature and nurture and fluctuate between each person.
"If you let him... he will broke your arm"-coach borris.
"We hold these truths to be self evident, to be sacred and undeniable, that all men are created equal." -older draft of constitution
I believe in reality..... if you believe in reality please put this in your signature
Post #42522
Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 1141
Total Words: 150,439
Average words per post: 131.85
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Tue 2007-05-22 07:24
Politics: X-tremely Silly Party
Country: Titan
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
Mao Zedong wrote:
I dont understand why you guys are so hyped up by Ron Paul because except for the few libertarians living in New Hampshire, very few people consider his speeches during the debates very successful. Although some of his policies may be integrated into the next presidency he stands no chance against Romney, McCain, or Guliani, let alone the Democratic lineup.
Um...see the first few posts for more details. _________________
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Search
Log in
FAQ
Usergroups
Memberlist
World War V
Medals
PoliMatch
Stats
