Ron Paul excluded from FOX News debate in NH Primary
By John Amato Friday Dec 28, 2007 7:20pmWow, what's up with that? For a guy raising the type of money he is---I don't understand how they can justify his exclusion.
Ron Paul said the decision to exclude him from a debate on Fox News Sunday the weekend before the New Hampshire Primary is proof that the network "is scared" of him.
"They are scared of me and don't want my message to get out, but it will," Paul said in an interview at a diner here. "They are propagandists for this war and I challenge them on the notion that they are conservative."
Paul's staff said they are beginning to plan a rally that will take place at the same time the 90-minute debate will air on television. It will be taped at Saint Anselm College in Goffstown...read on
I have to agree with him on that front. FOX Noise has a very set agenda on the Iraq war in place and Paul only mucks things up. LGF and many other warmongering right wing bloggers will be happy though since they exclude him from their polls already...He'll probably raise another boat load of cash and stay in the race much longer even if his poll numbers are very fairly low. Way to go Roger Ailes...And as Scarce says: Ron Paul is ahead of Fredrick of Hollywood in NH:
Billw says: "...and the one month trend between both of their polls shows Paul's doubled while at the same time Frederick's halved. That's significant."
Login or Register to post comments.
Media rigs the elections.
The popularity of a candidate among the people has LITTLE to do with the popularity of a candidate whom the network is not bankrolling (or vis versa). The MSM could easily be termed a JOKE, but I feel that would slight the atrocity that the MSM has TRULY become within our nation. He who controls the media, controls EVERYTHING.
Priceless.
Yes, just further proof that the corporate media wants total control of government via "elections".
I read your blog when I was a obama supporter and can continue to read it now as a paul supporter, as you're not only devoted to getting democrats elected like daily kos no matter how weak they are on the issues but you stick to the issues.
thank you.
My sincerest apologies to the phrase "Fair and Balanced"
p.s. FRIST !
AARGH!
I can't stand the guy but they sure shouldn't exclude him. Another reason to hate Rupert Murdick.
And the Dems discount Dennis.
This damn sElection is not a debate on ideas, its a rigged beauty and wealth contest.
So FOX claims that democratic candidates are afraid to debate on FOX yet FOX is to chicken shit to have a republican with a totally different view than the usual chickenhawks. Look who's scared now. Pretty hilarious.
I'd say certainly, not probably. There's no better tool for raising money from paranoid delusional conspiracy theorists--i.e. Paulbots--than having high profile idiots take actions that feed into and justify those paranoid delusions.
chlorocardium @ 8:
and those of you who can't support ron paul should do something about it. look at what we've done for ron paul and get behind kucinich.
Even though Ron Pauls politics are despicable, he is representative of the modern GOP. Racist, misogynist, and authoritarian. He does differ in that he is an isolationist and they are all imperial warmongers. But if I was one of the other gooper candidates I'd want him gone too. He cleans their clock. They as a group are the filthiest pandering whores I can remember in a race.
btw, it's not the debate(the debate is on ABC the day before, including ron paul), but a "forum" on fox news.
it's still sponsored by the republican party, so the outrage is justified.
I don't get it- he would be great for ratings...he has people watching him and raising money- I thought that was something that even Fox liked...
moondancer @ 12:
you sir, should go to dailykos, they like this kind of bullshit there. disagree honestly or shut up.
"Wow, what’s up with that? For a guy raising the type of money he is—I don’t understand how they can justify his exclusion"
I write them every hour. heh
:twisted:
Even C&L has fun with Paul. Here's the index categories on the let side of the front page:
# Republican Party (631)
* Fred Thompson (52)
* Katherine Harris (13)
* Ken Mehlman/RNC (16)
* Mitt Romney (70)
* Newt Gingrich (28)
* Rick Santorum (32)
* Rudy Giuliani (169)
* Tom Delay (34)
Hmmm, who's missing? If you notice, all Ron Paul stories are tagged as uncategorised, or something else, but never under 'Ron Paul'. Evil conspiracy hatched in a dark lair, or just good old fashioned loathing of a guy that makes some people's blood boil?
enigma4ever @ 14:
It's called framing the debate. They don't want they're sheep to hear anything that Paul has to offer. They may actually take notice.
Ed @ 17:
I write them every hour. heh
:twisted:
Rob J @ 10:
My theory is that people trying to send money to evangelical preacher Luis Palau, but those donors just can't read.
But what's the difference. Both Palau and Paul are seen as prophets, in a sense. Or at least they're both able to save souls.
Yep, those leaping lizards have another enemy .
Ron Paul.
Geez.
Ed @ 17:
Not really sure what point you're trying to make but if you read your own list, it's not just Paul they excluded as far as presidential candidates go. I think your conspiracy has no wheels. Even McCain and The Huckster aren't on the list.
"I challenge them on the notion that they are conservative.”
It's true, they aren't conservative. They're Conservative™, as in the branding campaign pitched by Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Grover Norquist, Newt Gingrich, etc.
Fox News is just the propaganda wing of the GOP.
This election? All elections these days are a choice of which corporate sponsored puppet they want you to choose.
Look at the Dean Scream. Dean's grin is obvious, he just wasn't in the pocket of the controllers. The general obviously was. As was Kerry.
Now, what's the difference between Guiliani and Hillary? I think if elected both would conduct the corporate policy they've been given, and the media obeisance to them is obvious. There might be some differences on domestic spending, but the borders would still be open, NPP would go forward, and we wouldn't be any closer to a national health plan.
This is a script and the sponsors get really upset when we deviate from it.
If we really wanted neutrality, give the debates back to the League of Women Voters.
chlorocardium @ 8:
Ron Paul scares the hell out of the Globalists.
On paul cultists; this morning a caller on CSPAN said she wanted Social Security off budget and didn't want politicians fooling with it and she had another fairly liberal position when the host asked her who she was supporting she said Ron Paul. It as if these people see in paul whatever they want to see. Even Glenn Greenwald has defended paul against "smears."
And Faux can exclude him from the debates because they are a wholly owned subsidiary of the Greedy Old Perverts
Somehow it's always either about some whackjob like Paul or Kucinich, yes I admire him for his Impeachment efforts and should he prove successful will gladly have his baby, or the 'overwhelming favorite but never,ever about the guy who could not only win but has the balls and the savvy to take on the oligarchy and give 'em a tussle. Even win if people would pull their heads out of Ron Paul's and Dennnis the Menace and Senators Cackle and Compromise asse's and get out there and support....
John Edwards.
Just a few more days and the heads start exploding.
Those guys are listed alphabetically, not under the repubs:
Mike Huckabee (10)
John McCain (140)
I don't think that this is an attempt by C&L to bury Paul stories, but most likely rather a reluctance to see him as a real candidate. And by now it'd probably just be a pain in the ass to retag all of the past stories.
Fox News is a threat to our democracy. Ron Paul's pro-Constitution message is spreading far and wide. There's nothing Fox can do to stop it now...
That was referring to Greg's comment:
Greg @ 22:
This is satire, right?
A.Citizen @ 27:
Thanks John!
"I know no safe depositary of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power." --Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:278
-Thomas Jefferson
The Cival War meme must be kept...don't ask questions.
By the way, Bhutto said Osama Bin Ladin was murdered a while back:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIO8B6fpFSQ
go to 6:12
Thanks!
A.Citizen @ 27:
It's going to be insanity regardless of who's in the running.
klyde @ 26:
ron paul always voted against using the social security fund for other stuff.
he's not going to abolish social security(and he couldn't if he wanted to btw, he's running for president, not dictator), he only wants to offer young people to get out of it.
which you can't afford, of course, as long as you're running an empire around the world.
that woman has found the right candidate for her.
CivalCivil...I've been wondering if this is really to create independence, to drop a program that's quickly becoming a welfare program as we live longer (a conservative agenda, not mine), or to prop up the stock market as baby boomers pull there money out of 401k plans and we watch the Dow go splat.
Stefan @ 35:
Ron Paul has been swiftboated by his fellow GOP'ers, just like Dennis Kucinich was excluded from the last Democratic Debate.
Coincidence? I think not.
Ed @ 28:
Yet here it is, Ed, a thread that even has Paul's name in the headline...And you found it, didn't you?
Now I just perused the threads from earlier in the day, and ya know what name I didn't see on any of the comments? I didn't see any comments from "Ed".
And it wouldn't surprise me that I woul;dn't see that name until I got all the way back to another thread that somehow involved Ron Paul. Am I wrong?
Ed @ 28:
There's also no Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo, or Alan Keyes. I still don't see your point. And other Republicans on your original list are not presidential candidates. 5 out 8 aren't. I don't think the classification or any other listing has anything to do with candidates. It's more news makers than anything else.
[Thanks for the grammar check. We'll keep your astute appraisal of this blog's shortcomings in mind when we do all of our posts. Here's your 'Flame Warrior' appellation Enjoy! Sitemonitor]
Dec. 3 SF Republicans cancel their straw pole when too many Ron Paul supporters show up.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=kiM10StfyBA
What's up with the people paying "33" dollars getting to vote?
Good thing we still got the intertoobs.
I hope Paul webcasts his rally.
OT:
there has apparently surfaced a new video in the Bhutto assassination, which seems to prove the Pakistani govt. has been lying with regards to her cause of death.
Ditching Paul???....Oooo, they are running scared.
Yakov Smirnoff has moved back to Russia and is writing jokes about the U.S. ...." "In the United States.....there are 4 TV networks, channel 2 shows government propaganda, channel 4 shows corporate propaganda, channel 5 shows plain old propaganda for the mentally challenged and channel 7 shows a White House spokesperson telling you to go back to channel 5".
Andy K @ 39:
I commented that I didn't see Ed's point but I should correct myself. I do see the point he's trying to make, the defense of FOX excluding Paul or trying to compare C&L's marginalizing Paul to FOX's, but he's dead wrong.
I just sent the following letter to the head of the FCC, Kevin Martin:
"I have just learned that Fox News has made the decision to exclude Rep. Ron Paul from its January 6th, 2008 Republican debate.
Rep. Paul is currently polling even or better than other candidates who are being included in the debate. He is actively campaigning there and draws bigger crowds with his grassroots campaign than any other Republican candidate. Even Giuliani commented to Ron Paul at a recent debate when there were hundreds of his supporters lined down the street, "Wow! You have lots of supporters!"
As you are probably aware, Dr. Paul is pulling voters into his campaign from every political persuasion and over $6 million was raised for him in ONE DAY online by a supporter! It set a historic fundraising record for any presidential candidate!
It is un-American, unpatriotic and against our First Amendment rights that we be prevented from hearing a candidate with his popularity and stature at a debate a few days before a very important primary! The FCC must step in and tell Fox that unless they include Rep. Ron Paul, a man who has been in Congress representing his district in Texas for at least 10 years and sits on the House Finance Committee, they will be in danger of serious repercussions from the FCC.
This is a very critical turn of events in our democracy Mr. Martin. I sincerely hope you realize how important it is for you and the other FCC members to take action on this immediately. Newscorp is acting against the public interest."
Here are the key FCC email contacts:
Chairman Kevin J. Martin: KJMWEB@fcc.gov
Commissioner Michael J. Copps: Michael.Copps@fcc.gov
Commissioner Jonathan S. Adelstein: Jonathan.Adelstein@fcc.gov
Commissioner Deborah Taylor Tate: dtaylortateweb@fcc.gov
Commissioner Robert McDowell: Robert.McDowell@fcc.gov
...and make sure to comment how NewsCorp is "acting against the public interest."
And one last thing. If you haven't seen this speech Ron Paul gave in New Hampshire about a week ago on Executive Power, it would be far more enlightening than any dumb football game! Here's the link:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7493899900883927358&loc=interst...
Are they afraid that Ron Paul debating on their station would sully their reputation as a Propagandist Station. Paul ranks higher that a couple of the others that WILL be allowed to debate.
It seems there is no level that FOX wont sink to.Their debate will be all about gays, religion and heterosexual marriage. They will avoid real issues, like the wars and how much damage their PNAC/NeoCon Corporate friends have done to America.
Stefan @ 35:
I wouldn't expect Paul to abolish anything, since, as President he wouldn't have the power.
But it's very easy for me to imagine President Paul vetoing almost every bit of spending legislation that crosses his desk, making the 67 vote Senate override a necessity.
And it's also easy for me to imagine the man, as President, failing to execute the laws with which he disagrees.
So, no, I don't see President Paul abolishing anything. I see him strangling it to death.
With corporations, banks, politicians, media and so called religious leaders espousing all manner of lies, one has to avoid, as best they can, the next snake oil salesman and predator lurking around the corner. Thats all the survival skills you need.
More power to ya' Dr. Paul. Go kick some FOX BUTT.
While I am a Kucinich supporter and am by no means endorsing Ron Paul for president, I am more upset about this than I am over Dennis's exclusion from an earlier debate. Dr. Paul has raised record-breaking amounts of money and has many supporters (I saw quite a few signs while visiting my girlfriend's family over the holidays). It feels a little weird to be supporting Paul's election efforts, but if anyone could make me do it, I guess Fox News could. While I do not want him to be president, I hope he gets his message out in spite of Fox's attempts to shut him up. If Alan Keyes can be a participant in a debate, surely someone I actually knew was running should be allowed a say in this forum.
Ron Paul will be giving Grover Norquist a woody with snuff films?
Thank you very much for that image.
Personally I think Ron Paul is looney tunes--certainly his supporters have shown themselves to be so-- still, he should be in all the debates-- at least until the primaries start weeding out the lesser candidates--if this is still up in the air by say, March 1, then I can see winnowing down the debates to the leading candidates--but until then, no way. All voices should be heard.
The media has their respective 8 or so selected for the masses. No matter how much money Ron Paul raises, it doesn't matter and shouldn't. Since when does "well I raised more than you" qualified anybody to be president? He stands the chance of a snowball in hell, and the media already knows that. Get used to it. One more year of this crap. Hillary, Obama, Edwards....NO....Romney, McCain,Giuliani...NO...Hillar...........yep, some choice ya got there.
Andy K @ 49:
I can the spending part but as far as I know Paul is the only republican who gives a **** about the Constitution and the limits of executive power.
Tony Iovino @ 54:
So, I take from your comment that you think Huckleberry and Romney are perfectly sane?
Tooth faerie anyone? Guys that think the sky-guy made this mess of a world in the last 6000 years? Guys that don't believe in evolution?
You think they are on firmer grounds?
the deal is, to fox news, ron paul isn't defined as a "fellow republican" so he doesn't deserve inclusion. he doesn't foam at the mouth. he doesn't call for torture. he doesn't support warrentless wiretapping, or fearmongering off imagined terrorist based "threats". he has the guts to say so, and he out fundraises them to boot.
amazingly enough, fox news *does* however for other venues define lieberman as a republican. very telling don't you think?
Greg @ 22:
Did you ever stop to think that not including Ron Paul on a list found on CROOKS & LIARS is a GOOD thing!?
Slocum @ 56:
Thats what worrys The Bilderbergers.
Fuck that crazy Mother Fuckin Paul! His views only look good because the Republican choices are so awful. Please research this goof. He's an enemy of the Constitution.
If its going to be a republican, I'll take Ron Paul over those bible-thumping armaggeddon-driven other republican crazies.
If its going to be a democrat, I'll take Kucinich.
Anyone else is pretty much the same as Bush.
curtilingus @ 62:
I'd say Amen to that but I wouldn't want to be mistaken for a believer in Sky-King.
ConcernedCanuck @ 55:
How about showing a little respect for a ten term congressman who's also an OB/GYN?
Will Senator Craig be the moderator due to his wider stance on many things? They might team him up with O,Really?
ConcernedCanuck @ 55:
he's polling much better than fred thompson, who is invited
A.Citizen @ 27:
John Edwards? So basically you say "vote for more of the same ol' political douchebaggery". He's a CFR member. They and their philosophies are not "conspiracy". A vote for a CFR member is a vote for globalism, warfare and the raping & manipulating of our economy.
I am not a fan of Paul's, but I do not have any animosity toward him either. Regardless, every candidate officially running, and meeting a minimum criteria, should get equal airtime in a public debate. I do not like seeing these debates where the top 2-3 front-runners get most of talking time. There is really no question here, the media has continued to increase their manipulation of who gets to run, and (often) who wins.
I am a late-comer to the blogosphere. Over the past year, it has been an education for me. I did not realize how much it has grown. The wealth of information and diversity of opinions is very impressive. The traditional media sources have taken notice, and they are not dismissing it any longer. Ultimately, the blogosphere can become the prime source of information, and an enabling tool to bring democracy back to the country. I had hoped it could happen with this election. However, that now seems unlikely. With the primaries just ahead, I fear that the best candidates will not be the ones we vote for in November.
We have so many issues to deal with, I am not interested in someone who can say, "Well, I am better than Bush". That is not the kind of leadership that is going to take on, and make the tough decisions. As I look at all of the candidates, I ask myself, "Which one of them would be willing to kick the lobbyists out of DC, so the loudest voice is the American people?".
I am getting off-topic here, sorry. The only way we will beat the corporate media is to replace them. If we get another 4 years of authoritarian rule, watch them come after us.
Rob J @ 10:
maybe they are not all paranoid delusions.
image I swooped up from MSNBC showing Ron Paul beating the crap out of every other GOP candidate after one of the earlier GOP debates... - MSNBC had a bunch of articles about how well Giuliani performed and how badly Fred disappointed but he still might come back. no articles at ALL about Paul, and the survey results was pulled down pretty quickly.
http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p300/djburnt/repub_rating_10092007.jpg
MSM really really wants you to vote for Giuliani vs. Clinton next year.
American Citizen @ 64:
Respect a ten term congressman? Um, ok...'nuff said
Stefan @ 66:
I read that. I also think, like I said, the media has chose your reps. Good luck.
And they wonder why the Democrats won't debate on Faux.
I would also say that if the rest of the Republicans had any balls they would boycott the debate.
Shit! Well, fuck it! I’m just not going to watch the damn thing. That will show them.
Slocum @ 56:
Look, I'm no fan of what has become "The Imperial Presidency". The War Powers Act should be repealed. Transparency should be restored. The Congress should take back its prerogatives.
But I don't believe that a man who wishes to devolve all power back to the states is the correct choice to be the President, no matter how well he claims to understand the Constitution.
Paul believes, amongst other things, that each state should be able to right it's own law regarding a woman's choice to abortion- to hell with the 14th Amendment; That the EPA should be gotten rid of, in the face of the Commerce Clause(Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution), despite the fact that polluters in one state effact the ecology of other states.
Seems to me that Paul is rather selective when it comes to the Constitution.
Fox is actually doing Ron Paul a favor! Several people I know of, including myself, have been convinced that the MSM is controlled by some group intent upon "framing" our elections. This made them supporters of Paul. I'll see to it that this covert censorship is publicized. Whoever is not recognizing Paul is insuring that he will be recognized.
Andy K @ 39:
You're absolutely correct.
I get 95% of my political news from C&L & have for some time now. Which says a lot for the site, considering that I'm a libertarian. I rarely post because posters to this site are rarely as thoughtful and fair as the bloggers. Threads usually turn into hate-filled pissing matches.
But Paul stories get me motivated to get involved anyway. And so I'll post. I'm guessing you'll find that a lot on the web - folks who only pipe up when something really gets them interested.
Funny thing is that I won't vote for Paul because he's anti-choice and anti-evolution. But I would still love to see him, or someone like him take on the system. The way I see it, anyone who likes a site call Crooks and Liars, should only ever consider supporting someone like Paul or Kucinich.
I'm not a Mad Paulian raiding your blogs, but a fellow C&L'er who prefers to lurk until something interests me enough to speak.
As for Greg @ 46+, just think of my POV as if it's Kucinich - everywhere you go, he's treated like he doesn't, or shouldn't exist. Whether it's on purpose, or just from laziness, the effect is the same, and the frustration felt by those who would like to see these candidates get a fair chance is identical. And it's not just about newsmaking whenyou've got Huckabee(10) listed up there with the big boys.
curtilingus @ 1:
Elections in the US are totally rigged. Is it the media? Is it the corporations who support the media? We will never have true democracy in this country until we get real leaders like Kucinich or Paul elected. Both of these men are good men but with different biases. They are not extremists like the rest of the lot. If only more Republicans were like Ron Paul, we would have a decent country with debate. This is because both Dennis and Ron believe in the constitution. That means that even our leaders are subject to the rule of law. Bush doesn't believe in it and thus we are lawless.
Wow. I'm no fan of Paul, but this is flat out wrong.
Typical FAUX News!
Andy K @ 76-
L. Step @ 77:
Not so covert. Actually pretty overt in your face censorship.
A.Citizen @ 27:
The same John Edwards who whispered to Hillary Clinton during one of the debates that they need to exclude some of the candidates from the debate because it wasn't working to their favor.
Andy K @ 81:
I can see why, even though I do not agree with it, that the networks have excluded old what’s his face from Alaska from the Demo debates but he had nowhere near the following as Ron Paul.
Are they going to exclude Fredrick of Hollywood?
You know what? This is really ridiculous. If I was Ron Paul’s campaign I would be very very vocal. Paul is a very viable candidate.
Left&Left @ 61:
Prove it....Asshat.
Speaking of Edwards and the Council on Foreign Relations, seems that Mike "New World Order" Huckabee has some TOP TOP CFR advisers:
http://www.nationalexpositor.com/News/840.html
I am shocked!!, shocked!! that Fucks News would allow a guy like Mike "I shot these pheasants because they said they weren't going to vote for me!" Huckabee into the debate and not a solid fiscal conservative, pro-life guy like Ron Paul.
Jeez oh peez.
''...The best way to take control over a people and control them utterly is to take a little of their freedom at a time, to erode rights by a thousand tiny and almost imperceptible reductions. In this way the people will not see those rights and freedoms being removed until past the point at which these changes cannot be reversed..."
- Adolf Hitler
"...I challenge them on the notion that they are conservative.”
Good for Paul, hopefully this is the beginning of the end for Fux.
Faux news is neoconservative, Paul is ultra or paleoconservative like Buchanan and Buckley. Neocons are not real conservatives, they are ex liberals, communists or Trotskyites who are followers of Leo Straus, a real ass who thought it was okay for leaders to lie to society.
Stefan @ 15:
Hey Stefan, YOU SHUT UP.
Fox news excludes Ron Paul from possible marijuana debate
http://pr.cannazine.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=69&I...
Ron Paul, US President, January 20 2009!
Abbybwood @ 87:
So what, exactly, is the problem with the CFR?
flubb @ 92:
No republicans, no Texans and no christian zealots in the white house in January 2009.
Election '08: The Collapse of the 'Frontrunners'
A new contrarian spirit rules American politics
http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=12124
MacDaKnife @ 94:
"No texans" ...Wow... THATS american
Left&Left @ 61:
Ron Paul wants to limit the powers of the Executive branch youtube link.
Rob J @ 10:
Spoken like a low profile idiot!
Nothing stopping him from representing by remote control as it were. He could answer the questions, videotape them and post them on you-tube. You can practically do that in real time.
Ieatonlyshellfish @ 96:
Yeah, well, the Lonestar State's last couple of contributions to the Presidency haven't done a whole bunch to inspire confidence, have they? ;)
Medical Diagnosis by Video @ 90:
Hey Medical, YOU SHUT UP!!
I guess Paul was too lenient on immigrants for them.
Gerald @ 101:
Nice cluster fuck. Are you girls finished?
Medical Diagnosis by Video @ 90:
Stefan is right in calling for people to not post garbage. If someone is going to post comments critical of a candidate, then they should post the sources that those claims are based upon or pulled from. Otherwise, the post is really nothing more than propaganda and we get plenty of THAT from the MSM.
Tequila @ 102:
He's not lenient on it he wants to prevent the North American Union.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GE8FKPH8t0g
Tequila @ 102:
The fact that Rupert Murdoch supports Hillary tells me that A) He knows the next president is going to be a democrat and B) Rupert Murdoch will stand behind anyone who promotes war (the military industrial complex) and aggression (xenophobic idiots in the bible belt).
I keep hearing about these so-called Paul Bots and how loony they are. But whenever I see or read what the majority of them have to say, they usually back up what they say with facts. The people that insult them as retarded conspiracy buffs have nothing worthwhile to contribute but ad-hominem attacks and childish name calling.
As a person viewing this from the sidelines, I can clearly see who is winning the argument.
Medical Diagnosis by Video @ 90:
Hey diagnosis, you're childish and pathetic. Just like moon.
Gerald @ 97:
False, or at best extremely misleading.
Ron Paul wants to generally limit the powers of the Federal government, regardless of branch. He wants to dramatically increase the powers of state governments, regardless of branch. He hasn't taken much of a coherent position on how power should be apportioned between branches. Ron Paul wants and actively supports tyrannical government, just from Albany and Austin rather than Washington D.C.
Ed @ 17:
Another Category man. We've posted more RP than most Liberal blogs...And I'd say there are tons of Repubs I haven't bothered putting in categories...We actually have a "search function."
i just read that this "debate" was cancelled weeks ago and everything was just a big mixup!!!
http://www.nolanchart.com/article797.html
Rob J @ 109:
Why did you edit my link out of my post. I backed up my claim with info can you back up yours? Here is the link of my info link
Rob J @ 109:
He HAS spoken out against the things this executive branch has done. He IS for limiting the exective branch back to what is described in the constitution.
The constitution was written to protect us from a tyrannical federal government. Saying Paul is for tyrannical state government is flat out ridiculous. He is no more for tyranny than Patrick Henry or Thomas Jefferson. If you'd bother to actually listen to the man, this point would be obvious.
If your state government is tyrannical, it is only that way becase YOU and your fellow state citizens let it get that way. You are pointing the finger in the wrong direction.
Still on about that Kucinich thing? Wow. Again, he wasn't held out of the Dem debate by black helicopters, body snatching aliens, and the mystical power of tinfoil hat thinking... he failed to keep an office in Iowa. He failed to follow the rules. So no soup for him! That's how it works, people. Why he or his supporters failed to do this basic task is beyond me -- they have no one to blame but themselves.
The Paul situation doesn't appear to be the same thing to me. Plus Paul polls at 8x-9x higher than Denny ever did. What IS the Fox criteria? Did he drop the ball or is Fox just being... Fox? Not that it matters, he'd be a damn horrible president. But it would be nice if the GOP moved back that direction rather than the Holy Huckabee or Anamatronic Romney-tron 2000 direction.
Edwards looks to offer far more realistic and practical reform in my view. Maybe Ron Paul should turn to late night informercials to get his message out -- he has plenty of cash. He could use pie charts. And talk about chickens. It'd be awesome.
McDuff @ 103:
HEY! Who are you calling 'girls' as if it's a bad thing?
Andy K:
"So what, exactly, is the problem with the CFR?"
Here is one link that is directly related to the subject of Ron Paul that might give you the hint of an answer to your question:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=-jTpQSLCq_Q
Gerald @112-
This the THIRD TIME IN THIS THREAD that that vid has been kinked. Give it a rest.
Ya know what? A lot of us who don't support Paul actually agree with him on a few of the issues. Yes, the Executive Branch is too powerful. Yes, the Patriot Act is bad. Yes, the telecoms shouldn't get immunity for their role in illegal wire-tapping.
But most of us who have been hanging out at C&L for a much longer time than Paul's candidacy believe in things like universal healthcare, net neutrality, a woman's constitutionally guaranteed right to choose to terminate a pregnancy, unionism, enviromental protection, Social Security, etc., etc.. And Paul is against most of these things that the liberals- who make up most of the readership of C&L- belive in. (And, yes, it's a liberal blog. It just happens to be a liberal blog that is- unlike most first tier blogs of any political stripe- that is tolerant of Paulist swarm tactics. Don't believe me? Go through the archives and look at the candidates the site has supported- if there's a non-Democrat included, I haven't found 'em yet.)
So don't expect every commenter here to agree with, or even be friendly to, your every post.
noitaluspacne @ 113:
[emphasis added]
Yeah, 'cause who in the hell would ever think that the systematically disenfranchised would ever need the federal government's aid to enforce their 14th Amendment rights? I'm talkin' to you, Scottsboro Boys! Fix it yourselves!
Simply because one opposes our invasion of Iraq does not make that person a. suitable for office, or b. right on any other issues.
His opposition is not out of respect or compassion, it's out of his dogmatic libertarian views which would not only limit our war mongering (a good thing), but would eliminate the Dept. of Education, most gov subsidies, income tax, etc.
The guy's a wacko.
I agree that Ron Paul is a complete wacko, but he deserves to be heard.
And the American people should hear the views of ALL of the candidates.
Fox News has no right to determine which candidates get to share their views.
Another example of just how anti-American Fox News really is.
Vote for the hushed candidate that is the real deal.
Dennis Kucinich 08
No matter your opinion on Paul, this really exposes FOX Noise as being nothing more than a Republican, Imperial stooge of right wing fascist corporatists that suck on the tit of the war machine
I certainly don't like or support any of the policies of Ron Paul, except the return our our young people in Iraq, however he should be thrilled, they don't want him on Fox News, because not many people watch it anyhow so it should be no loss of votes for his ass anyhow.
John Amato @ 110:
Fair enough, and regardless of Paul time & treatment (which is well fair), it's hugely appreciated that this blog covers politics in an even-handed way, as opposed to "our guys great, their guys evillll" kind of way, as do 99% of so-called conservative blogs.
So let me back off the criticism a bit, and ask nicely: John, since Paul is becoming more newsworthy and relevant - can he have his own category? Because even though it's clear that categories aren't there say who is important and who isn't, it does have that unintended effect. And the guy does seem to have earned the respect of those who support the voice of the people and are angry with the mainstream, corporate, political machine.
Abbybwood @ 116:
Ya know, ya'd think that the CFR was a bunch of nameless, faceless folk who impose their will on the federal government. But, outside of the discussions that these named people have, there are very few secrets about that group.
Ya do realize that those CFR members who hold elected office must answer to their constituents over the votes they cast, right?
And, ya know, David Rockefeller has stated publicly, in his Memoirs(printed by Random House in 2002) that he's a proud to be a member of the CFR. And he knows that some people dislike the organization.
Think about this- if I had a private conversation with my Congressman about some piece of legislation or public policy matter, and that Congressman agreed with me and acted on my behalf, would that be a conspiracy?
"he is representative of the modern GOP. Racist, misogynist, and authoritarian."
What makes you say that Ron Paul is an authoritarian?
Andy K @ 117:
He is not apposed to these things but apposed to them at a federal level. I don't agree with him on everything and I am a Liberal. Some things have to be done on a Federal level like regulating Corporations and the environment. But these issues will continue to be trampled on by both parties until someone gets in and cleans some things up first. Paul and Kucinich are the only ones that are for limiting executive the powers of the presidency and for bringing the troops home. All the others seem to just want to do something different with the military. And the one very important thing that Paul can do as President and says he will do is bring the troops home and not just from iraq but from around the world. This would be an extreme blow to military equipment manufacturers in this country that have way too much power. Most things that I am for Paul as president can't effect like saving the environment. That would be up to congress.
John Amato @ 110:
what did ya have to tell them that for............
thesidster @ 126:
Well, his belief that the Bill of Rights simply doesn't apply at all to the states--i.e. that it doesn't list any rights at all, just restrictions on federal power--is kind of a dead giveaway. If Paul had his way you could be forced to pray to Krishna and denied the right to even hire your own attorney for criminal defense.
Gerald @ 127:
mind if I jump in here........ok States rights...How is each state going to moniter...say......The Clean Water Act.....(hope your state isn't down stream)..or The Clean Air Act.....hmmmm...Denver,LA,Detroit...Miami...and what about the EPA,or the Federal "Endangered Species Act.......tell me...are you for drilling in ANWAR?...........And he is most cetainly against "Choice".......................and women came from adams rib.
Hank @ 119:
He's suitable for office because he represents the beliefs of a great many American people (although clearly not yours). And he's faithful to that belief system & hasn't been bought by the corrupt political and corporate interests.
Just imagine a country where your political opponent was truly representative of his voters. Imagine if you weren't fighting against a corrupt and destructive machine, but were fighting to win other voters over to your political views and ideals. Imagine an election that isn't Giuliani vs Clinton.
you see Gerald that's the point.......you don't know what he is really going to do.....but he has said what he is against.......and who wouldn't agree with pulling out our troops in Iraq.....that ain't gonna happen in the near future....he says he will.......but he can't......
Ed @ 131:
stop imagining........the guys a nut case.......ok ,ok lets say he does Everything he says he's against, everything....
...Now what do you do?No Dept of Ed,No EPA,NO FDA.....NO IRS..........ok...now what.....the country is already in a hole so deep.......China isn't that far away.
Gerald @ 127:
Sorry, that's bullshit. Universal healthcare, Social Security and net neutrality are all things he opposes on fiscal grounds, and noner can be addressed effectively by state governments.
Abortion is federally protected under the 14th Amendment. Paul has stated too many times that he would- again, in the face of the Constitution- like to have that right stripped by the individual states as they wish.
And he leaves the control over corporations to the states- and the states already have that power. Or don't you know why it is that little Delaware is the home to so many corporations? Have you heard Paul state that he'd like to amend the Constitution to limit corporate power? I haven't and I certainly don't expect to any time soon, given Paul's record as a constitutional minimalist.
Sorry, but your just seeing what you want to see in Paul.
miss_kitty @ 115:
There's a difference between girls and women. When I say girls I'm referring to grade school girls....you know....the kind that say things like, "well, she started it...".
Anyway, it wasn't meant as an insult to you or any women who frequent C&L.
Happy New Year!
You Paul fans might be interested in this: http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/71834/?comments=view&cID=798684#c798684
One of his fascist supporters has outed him.
McDuff @ 135:
Then ya shoulda used "kids".
Quit while yer behind, pal. ;)
UnEasyOne @ 136:
the linl took me to the middle of the comments section - it was the article I was linking - sry not too net savvy. Just scroll up.
Me @ 134^^
You're...
Unforgivable, really.
Andy K @ 137:
I think you mean, "quit while you're ahead", buddy. ;)
Like I said, most of what Paul stands for I don't want. But he can not as president and should not decide on a lot of those things. Congress does. If he vetoes then congress needs to pass it anyway.
Again I am for the EPA at a federal level and many other things. I will vote for my congressman to make those votes for me.
He can as Commander and Chief bring the troops home. He doesn't need congress to do that. Congress didn't even give the president the right to begin with.
The biggest thing I am worried about is the national debt which I think he can effect. If our national debt continues nothing else will matter. It trumps everything else. If USA is bankrupt there is no EPA there is no 14th amendment there is no one payer health care. I want these things and they can't happen if we are bankrupt.
McDuff @ 140:
No.
Because you were never ahead on this one.
Then you fell further behind.
Andy K @ 142:
He's such a sexist pig.
UnEasyOne @ 136:
This is the same information The New York Times got burned on last week, and they were forced to retract it.
Rob J @ 10:
Just because we read the congressional records, the federal register, government purchase agreements and follow the money and look into the back ground of our "so called leaders" does not make us nuts. Dumb asses like yourself getting all their info from the television and you probabaly do not even read. The decisions you make in life are only as good as your information and you decide not to look at things and find out the real truth. YOU are the fool. You and other libs and republican (that don't even know what republican means) think that this administration is a bunch of incompetent fools. NO. They are a bunch of fucking Thugs. 300,000+ mercenaries in Iraq contractors AND SUB Contractors. The New Freedom initiative No Heabus Corpus. No Forth amendment. ect. You better be fucking hoping that people like me are wrong about things. I post on C&L because I'm tired of this administration myself but some of you don't read shit or no history and quick to lable everything as a conspiracy theory. One of the greatest conspiracy theories was the declaration of independence. I bet that if this was Nazi Germany you would have loved your Führer. Just because someone says it does not exist does not mean that it is true. Investigate it and you will find the truth no matter how painfull it may be. Times are getting serious. The tone is changing and if you are not with us you're going to get run over. A movement of partyless constitutionalist sovereigns are growing.
Gerald @ 141:
the Constitution and The Bill of Right will always be there.......they may tamper with them from time to time....but they will never get away with it for long.............as for the country going bankrupt(I think we're already there).....RP wants to abolish the IRS......now I'm no banker or mathematician......but the IRS supplies funds to the Country.....do I like it.....most of the time..NO........but there are some programs that are needed....and to me..they represent some of the greatness that is this country.
Well, his belief that the Bill of Rights simply doesn't apply at all to the states--i.e. that it doesn't list any rights at all, just restrictions on federal power--is kind of a dead giveaway. If Paul had his way you could be forced to pray to Krishna and denied the right to even hire your own attorney for criminal defense.
And your source for this belief about Paul?
ok...gn.......
mudshark @ 133:
To discuss what happens next would be a great way to hijack the thread. And much on the net has already been written about the libertarian concept of minimal government authority.
But my point is that if he's a nutcase in your mind, you then have to accept that a huge number of people in your country are nutcases. Most of America is conservative. Nearly all of it is Christian. You live in perhaps the only first-world Christian fundamentalist country on Earth. And at least 25% of the voting population will continue to support George Bush even if he does a "Will It Blend" YouTube video with Arab babies.
Do you want a left-wing, single party dictatorship, or would you prefer a republic that has representatives who represent the many wills of the many people?
Personally I'd like to scrap the whole vote-for-a-new-dictator thing and have a direct democracy. But nobody else really wants that.
thesidster @ 147:
And your source for this belief about Paul?
Paul's campaign webpage
A direct translation from legalese to English of calling the incorporation doctrine "phony" is that Paul is saying that the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to the states. Clear as day.
Login or Register to post comments.