FOXNews GOP New Hampshire Debate Open Thread
By Logan Murphy Saturday Jan 05, 2008 7:00pm
FOXNews just can't win for losing. They're not just being snubbed by the Democratic presidential candidates, (see BillO getting the hand from Obama's camp) they're now being shunned by the Republican party itself for excluding Ron Paul from tonight's debate in New Hampshire. I find it most ironic that FOXNews, a network that dedicated itself to promoting the invasion of Iraq and supposedly supports the troops, would exclude Paul, who has received more campaign contributions from military members than any other GOP candidate. Watching FOXNews getting their comeuppance has been fun to watch. They made their bed, now they're having to lie in it and it's not too comfortable.
Much more from Open Left -- is this a sign of a total Republican meltdown?
Login or Register to post comments.
I'm confused. How is it that FOX and not the RNC gets to choose who is in the debate?
I would have paid money to see Obama's aide bitch slap that Nazi M..... F.....!
Fox should change their slogan to "Fox news,keeping the American dream alive by keeping the American people asleep!
Fredrick of Hollywood's snipes at the Huckster are pretty lame.
"Getting rid of death?"
He probably shouldn't have shown up to the debate drunk.
Yeah, at the last two debates Thompson's been attempting to be funny and he's failing miserably.
If it turns out that the GOP really does boycott the Faux debate, I will hold a celebration.
The idea of the media excluding candidates is totally unfair and the other candidates should have refused to appear until otherwise because someday it may happen to them too.
Ron Paul is the only candidate talking about the dangers of fiat money. As the next Great Depression wreaks its havoc through our national psyche, Ron Paul will finally get the respect he deserved.
Fox Noise should just come out and say they don't want Paul included because he's a Libertarian who has labeled himself as a Republican. After all, he is a Texas Congress critter.
"Is this a sign of a total Republican meltdown?"
We can only hope that this is true.
What the fuck am I doing? I just found myself out on my roof wiping the snow off my satellite dish so I could watch this dumbass debate. Have I lost my mind?
Excluding Ron Paul by Repugs is almost as bad as what Democrat Party is threating to
do to Dennis K. in Texas. Dennis has refused to sign a "Democrat Pledge" in Texas
stating, in essence, that "If you do not win, then you will support the Democrat who
receives the most votes." The Dem. Party is challenging his refusal to sign and are
threatening to exclude his name from the ballot in the Primary Election because he
refuses to do so. How's that for "fair and balanced"?
Captain Kangaroo @ 11:
Not only that but "The Amazing Race" is on.
(Am I really quoting myself? I've really lost it.)
Wallace just lied on the Fox debate, just saying that they had assembled the 5 leading GOP candidates. According to the latest USA Today poll posted at Huffington Post, Ron Paul is tied with Giuliani and ahead of Thompson & Hunter.
McCain 34
Romney 30
Huckabee 13
Paul 8
Giuliani 8
Thompson <3
Hunter <3
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/06/see-the-latest-nh-polls-_n_7998...
Not to mention, Paul came in ahead of Giuliani in Iowa.
if ABC/Mickey Mouse news can pick and choose which candidates the let on then why not FOX?
both parties - all candidates should boycott if the media controlls the message like this. the debate - stupid as they - are one of the ways that a few undecideds can make up their minds and fence sitters might be nudged. if the networks control this they are subverting the election process.
someone needs to sue and make a test case of this. this cannot be done fairly if it's done with entertainment and profit in mind.
put it on public television and maybe c-span, the corporate media has too much at stake to be fair.
p.s. at the dem ABC/Mickey debate the candidates they 'allowed' to talk were are recipiants of donations from big media.`
"ABC should not be the first primary,'' the Ohio congressman said in papers filed at the Federal Communications Commission.
www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-7199604,00.html
For all the Ron Paul haters out there, just know this: of of all viable candidates, he is the *only* truly antiwar candidate. Everyone else dances around the issue.
You can go around and shallowly say "oh, gosh, he's just kooky", but realize that five years down the road, you may just realize that you were misled to vote for a certain party at all costs regardless of stances on important issues.
The war, the economy, health care; these are the truly important issues of our time. Who else has a firm grounding in monetary policy, who is truly antiwar, and truly for investing in the American people and not other foreign states (Iraq, Israel, Korea, etc.)? Think about how the next president's decisions are going to affect your life on a very basic level for the next few years. This is what is at stake.
Do you hear the question Chris Wallace just asked Huckabee? "...You have said you think the U.S. should ban waterboarding, you didn't know martial law was lifted in Pakistan, you've made several mistakes talking about foreign policy matters..."
He put Huckabee's opinion that waterboarding shouldn't be used as somehow equivalent to not being aware of world affairs. Like if you knew what was going on it's obvious that waterboarding is okay. What a douche.
By alienating Ron Paul, Faux News blew it. Paul's supporters are rabid. They will not take kindly any insult. This is a case of "bite the hand that feeds". Lets hope they boycott and refuse to watch Faux anymore but don't count on it. These people need therapy.
Watching this debate reminds me of the time I bit into a habanero pepper, not as a sign of intelligence, but as a test of machismo. And I realize that that is exactly the lowest common denominator these old white men are racing each other toward.
Each of them is arguing that due to his unique background qualifications, he is the most capable and deserving of carrying on with the Republican program of the last quarter century: supply-side trickle-down voodoo economics, muscle-bound sand-kicked-in-your-face foreign policy, fear-mongering over shadowy enemies foreign and domestic, thinly-veiled disdain of the poor, especially racist disdain of the ethnic poor and a snide holier-than-thou smugness over social issues.
These guys are completely clueless. They think that Americans are going to elect another George Bush, when in fact we and the world need anything but.
JP
Oh my God!!
"They could get habeas corpus rights!!!"
This certainly is a Republic Party debate, isn't it?
Fred Thompson just said flat out that giving suspected insurgents habeas corpus rights was bad!
This is a good time for "independent operators" and Democrats to infiltrate the GOP as the rats leave the carcass of the rotten ship.
Captain Kangaroo @ 11:
No need to ask the question, Captain. I thought it was a given. : )
I'm not a fan of Paul's, but the guy has a right to be there and express his views. Plus I do like it when he makes Giuliani and Romney squirm because they have no fucking clue on foreign policy.
these dudes as well as faux news is all about who can kill the most foreigners
The more of THEM we kill the better WE are
and all this crap about illegal immigrants, lets throw the bastards out.
that isnt the answer....... punish the corporations that hire them..... charge them 10K per employee and see how quickly the problem disappears.
but this is the GOP...... anti American..... pro corporation.
Commence circular firing squad...
FIRE!
Blue Buddha @ 26:
they may all kill each other....... but who is in the middle of that firing squad??
thats right..... the American people
DickCheneyShotMeInTheFace @ 24:
Hell, even Huckabee's populism is making their heads asplode.
An evangelical Christian who actually cares for the little people?!?! That's crazy talk!
Global warming commercial on Fox? O.o
Someone help me on this. I've been slow on the uptake this weekend I guess.
The NH Republican Party has shunned Foxnews' participation in..what, exactly?
Right now I'm watching Foxnews, that has 5 GOP candidates, speaking from New Hampshire. What exactly is Foxnews losing out on? I'm not saying that to be wise, I honestly don't know. What has the New Hampshire Republican Party done that's going to be, or is now, detrimental to this shit channel?
Jo @ 23:
Watch it there Jo!!!
:lol:
Punchy @ 30:
Because Faux News didnt allow Ron Paul a seat on the debate, the RNP has backed out of its support of the debate.
The RNP was going to be a cohost but declined because the pro war channel is keeping the balanced voice off their air.
Rudy is upset by people who say we're going in the wrong direction: "This country is NOT moving in the wrong direction."
He's done.
JP
Blue Buddha @ 28:
Maybe that's why Marion Gordon "Pat" Robertson is for Giuliani.
Why are Paul's supporters so ardent? Because of the message. And because of the resistance to the message. The reality of training: You do not gain strength through doing what is already within your capabilities but by attempting to exceed your capabilities. This is the Paultards secret, strength through resistance training. Media blackout and snide opposition to an intelligent reasonable well-researched position is not the way to showcase your alternative. It is less than childish, it is churlish. I do not want to convince anyone of Paul's viability as POTUS. I would only ask that they take the hard classes, really research his positions. Do not fall for ad hominem attacks or repeat party line rhetoric. Research it, and if you determine that his arguments have merit ask the same of your candidate. We win if we elevate the dialog.
did u hear about Pat Robertson??
He said God was talking to him again...... said that Angels are gonna fall from the sky.
Last year he said God was talking to him...... said that there was gonna be a terrorist attack in the US as big as a nuclear bomb.
Obviously God is lying to Pat Robertson. (and laughing)
Boy, was that so-called "Focus" group off base, Romney sounded contrived and scripted all night long. And can Faux News get OVER calling their own pundits "All Stars?"
JP
I watched a video of Robertson yesterday where he said God has told him who will win the election. He is very distraught over what he heard and stated "I'm hoping I didn't hear him correctly." But when pressed he would not give a name.
It seems that when God is telling people in power important stuff, like "Please invade Iraq, then Iran for me.", he would speak pretty clearly and be sure his message is not misunderstood.
But anyway, apparently a Democrat wins the election. According to God. via Pat Robertson.
Sorry to spoil it for you folks.
"I find it most ironic that FOXNews, a network that dedicated itself to promoting the invasion of Iraq and supposedly supports the troops, would exclude Paul, who has received more campaign contributions from military members than any other GOP candidate."
Yank their license, lets end this crap now.
10% in iowa and a 20 million dollar quarter apparently is a joke to these "people". last i saw, ron trounced rudy, and is beating fred and I believe huckabee in NH polling.
hmmm...
whether you like ron paul or not is beside the point.
did anyone else catch all the ron paul signs in the windows of the focus group area? priceless. and where do they find these backward-ass people?
"fox is unfair and unbalanced!" <----- my favorite sign i saw.
romnitron lost the debate horribly with his attacking and interupting, but faux needs to try and spin it into a victory because they know huckleberry cannot win a general election. it is really quite amazing this channel is taken seriously by some people.
and "fox all-stars," really?
Fox all stars? Sunday group (that’s the other name they call their talking heads)? Who writes their stuff. Where do they get it. From Brittany Hume’s grandkid’s kindergarten class? Jesus H. Christ in a pickup truck they are stupid.
They should just refer to them for what they are:
"Our Sunday dip shits."
P.D. @ 18:
A good portion of Ron Paul's supporters are independents who don't watch Faux. He wasn't supposed to get 10% in Iowa. What the pollsters and spinmeisters didn't count on was the independents who caucused for Paul. They also didn't count on the first-time votes and younger people who are "cord cutters" (and thus not polled) voting for Paul. Considering the number of independents in NH, I fully expect him to exceed the poll numbers. NH has one of the highest per-capita contribution rates to the Paul campaign. I think the only state that beats it is Montana.
It is interesting that Rasmussen puts Paul at 14%, in 3rd place. It's also amazing the difference in numbers between different polls.
You know it's a bad day for the cons when a white man can't get iced tea, and a Pravda agent can't meet with anyone on the street. I mean, what is this? The USSR? /snark off. Meter broken.
Chris @ 43:
I just checked, and I was wrong. It turns out that New Hampshire now has the highest number of people per capita contributing to the Paul campaign. It's roughly twice what it is in Iowa.
ronpaulgraphs.com
I would think that someone who is motivated enough to give money to a campaign would likely go out and cast a vote. I'm betting that Paul will do significantly better in NH than he did in Iowa.
Is this a sign of a total Republican meltdown?
Neo-Conservatives aren't true Republicans at all, they've hijacked the party but things are changing.
The Republican party is having a Revolution from within. It's called the Ron Paul Revolution.
It is a great to watch FOX NEWS lose the credibility that was never even earned.
I just checked, and I was wrong. It turns out that New Hampshire now has the highest number of people per capita contributing to the Paul campaign. It's roughly twice what it is in Iowa.
ronpaulgraphs.com
I would think that someone who is motivated enough to give money to a campaign would likely go out and cast a vote. I'm betting that Paul will do significantly better in NH than he did in Iowa.
I fear that this meltdown on the right might lead to some real violence on their part soon. Another Timothy McVeigh, or maybe even worse, another Kent State massacre. They really do have some volatile elements, from the pseudo-Christian delusional fringe to the Orwellian types described in Naomi Klein's book. Not to mention the intersection of those two groups.
I just checked, and I was wrong. It turns out that New Hampshire now has the highest number of people per capita contributing to the Paul campaign. It's roughly twice what it is in Iowa.
ronpaulgraphs.com
Joe in L.A. @ 45:
It turns out I was wrong. Paul has roughly twice the P.C. in NH as in IA and NH is #1 in the country P.C.
Roger from Ohio @ 36:
I know the answer, but the question that comes to mind is, "Why would the all powerful creator of the infinite universe stop to speak with this miserable little pissant on this speck of a planet?"
curtilingus @ 38:
Then his god must be the invisible government.
Sam from Ithaca @ 46:
That is my fear as well. The good thing is we know who most of these people are, or at least there public figure heads. They would be foolish to underestimate the American people and our ability to unite when it matters most. We, as a society, may have fallen asleep a few decades and consumed with apathy. But we are beginning to understand the threat from these elements.
I'm always amazed and great full for the spirt of people who sacrifice of themselves and lend a hand when a fellow citizen is in need. That spirit will protect us against any foe who transgresses upon us and our liberties. Democrat of Republican won't matter then.
I heard that Ron Paul can turn water into wine and feed the multitudes with only a few loaves and fishes.
Rusty Shackleford @ 53:
Ron Paul helped me lose weight and whitened my teeth.
Okonkolo @ 54:
Ron Paul does windows!
Rusty Shackleford @ 53:
Really? I heard that if we elect a democrat, doesn't matter which one, and then tax the sh*t out of everybody, poor and rich, then we won't have to use foreign oil, the national debt will disappear, there will be no more war, there will be no more inflation, gas prices will be low, all kinds of jobs will be created and everyone will be happy.
P.S. Sorry for the multiple posts... my wireless router was having issues...
Chris @ 56:
You RP acolytes are very touchy. Is it because your messiah has no hope of winning?
RON PAUL, FOX NEWS INTERNAL MEETING
Ron Paul: Two First Names You Can Trust
Rusty Shackleford @ 57:
FOX News is here!
ON WINNING: We have already won. You and I are united in first principles now. The good Dr. has raised the bar. Any movement beyond lip service is a victory. Let us see how high we can aspire now.
Rusty Shackleford @ 57:
Rusty, you got me there, buddy. That's right, I think Ron Paul is the second coming of Christ. I drove as far as 2 (!) miles to see what the guy had to say. Too bad he's not a Democrat. Then he'd have your support too!
Brad @ 61:
FOX News is here!
Sssshhhh... don't blow Billo's cover!!!
Chris @ 63:
How nice of you to call Rusty 'shallow' in such a cack-handed way. I have a feeling St Ron could call himself a big 'D' democrat and it wouldn't matter. His views and plans are regressive and based on selfishness.
In short Chris, and I'm assuming you are too young to know this, it's not what you call yourself, it's what you DO that ultimately describes the kind of person you are. And Ron Paul has proven himself to be out of touch with women, with science and with basic human decency-ie supporting others-with his oft-stated plans for this country. Please. Go back to digg. we really don't care for St Ron and Ronnie's kids here.
Are you liberals starting to believe the conspiracies yet? Come to the light my friends, my Republican party has been decimated and so has your democratic party.
Chris @ 57:
So elect a Republican. That way you can have low taxes but no job and a dollar that's worth 0.0001 of a Euro. The Republicans have been doing SUCH a great job (has ANY economy in history tanked this badly during war? I don't think so. That takes some doing.). Hey, you Paulbots are supposedly good at math so help me out there...
Republicans promise 28% of $0.00 which equals $0.00
Democrats say keep 30% of $48,201.00 which equals $33,740.70
Hmm... sorry, I'm going to go with the Democrats here, Chris.
The Debt? What the hell are you talking about? The debt was reduced ONLY during the Democratic terms of the presidency. The debt INCREASED under Reagan, Bush, Bush v2.0(alpha). The policies are flawed. Period. How many times are you going to repeat the SAME behavior yet expect DIFFERENT results. I believe that's why some call Paulbots "crazy". Stop voting Republican!
Did a Republican House, Repubican Senate, Republican Court, and 2 terms of Republican Presidency leave this country BETTER or WORSE than during a Democratic presidency?
In 1993 2/3rd of the country though things would be WORSE for our children.
Then Clinton took over and brought that down to half and half by 2001 (even with the sad Republican Ken Starr scandal).
Now we're back to 2/3rds thinking the country is going down the drain.
No matter how you slice it, economic, personal, or whatever -- Republican leadership has been bad for the country. That's not to say all the Democrats are the same, or they are all good. Far from it. But if Ron Paul had a pair of balls at all, he'd have gone Independent a long time ago. Is he more chicken than Joe Lieberman? Sad.
But you're right about one thing... as a Republican, Ron Paul is the cleanest pig in the mudhole. For whatever that's worth to you. Let's not pretend he is innocent here.
BTW, the liberals in this thread are wrong too. The way I heard it, Ron Paul's tears cure cancer.
[Deleted. Off topic-Sitemonitor]
miss_kitty @ 65:
Funny how St. Ron's supporters always claim that anybody who doesn't back their boy just "doesn't really know Ron." In my case, the opposite is true. I was indifferent to him until I read his speeches and legislation. Now I adamantly oppose him. Fortunately for America, he is too extreme to acquire enough followers to get the nomination.
Ron Paul is a racist. Here's his immigration ad. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T-iJKwskH4 Anyone that defends Paul is a racist enabler
Doggiebobo @ 12:
the problem here in Texas is that the most of the Democrats in power are Republican lite ...and some of them are more than repub lite ... they just don't know how to spell Republican. Also, Hillary has had boots on the ground since last November and she has all the support of the in crowd ...wouldn't be surprised if the other Dems names disappear from the ballot also ...
Consumer @ 68:
I've done that several times on this blog. And I use his own writing from Lew Rockwell and his 'Life and Liberty' crock off of his own site.
Look 'em up yourself. I assume you have a computer and can copy and paste "Lew Rockwell Ron Paul Archives" into google. And I'm sure his site is in your faves.
Rusty Shackleford @ 69:
(emphasis mine)
That is EXACTLY how it goes... it's why you never actually see Paulbots talking in detail about his policy like #68. You'd think, "hey, if they are supporters why don't they SHOW me where the criticisms are wrong."
The problem? They can't. The policies ARE the problem. I'd like less government too. But getting rid of all corporate financial and environmental regulation while still restricting the rights of a raped woman to take the day after pill (Paul believes life begins at conception, and the state owns that life)? Uh, that's freaking nuts, especially from a "doctor" that has delivered 10 billion babies from a placenta that STILL can't fucking figure out evolution. Guess he's not an omelet kind of guy. Paul's a complete fraud. A dreamer, and sure dreams are important, but a miserable failure in reality, just like Ayn Rand.
By the way, Paulbots, why IS it that the "socialist" European countries are kicking our asses more, the more anti-socialist we get? Could it be there is such a thing as "balance"? (*gasp*) But why look at reality, you have a god to blindly worship.
I will say he should definitely be in the debates. 10% in Iowa and the support the public has shown him MORE than earns him a spot from here on out. Ron Paul's ideas need to be in "the conversation". So their flaws can be pointed out and we can all move on.
A Kansas City news website just removed their “presidential” poll after obviously not liking the results. After 3 days, Edwards and Paul were in the lead by a wide margin with Edwards at about 24% and Paul at about 21% (together about 45% of overall votes for all candidates). This election is not only about Democrats against Republicans, but Middle class America against the corporations and their media outlets. This example and the ABC news and FOX noise debate candidate exclusions also demonstrate just who is trying to decide this election.
Evidence of Fox using the same focus group members..
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=79365
Ayn Rand kooks for Paul in '08!!!!!!!!!!!
[Deleted. Off topic-Sitemonitor]
Although I don't agree with all of his policies, I think Ron Paul represents the best candidate to end the war in Iraq and restore civil liberties. He is also one of the few candidates that doesn't appear hungry for all the power that W has taken over these long 7 years.
Realistically all he could accomplish would be bringing all US troops home and cooling off the military industrial complex, as any legislation would have to be created by congress (it's almost like we'd have 3 branches of government again).
Shame on Fox for censoring his message. I hope they catch hell for it.
Consumer @ 77:
Just admit it. you're to lazy to look it up. I have. I would go to the very places I suggested to you as I've done several times before. I'm not your research slave. Pay someone to do it. It's not my job. I told you where to look. I told you I've posted it before-you could do a search on that.
I'm not reposting the same old crap for each and everyone of you Ron Paul trolls. If you don't believe me, attempting to insult me with some lame-arsed rejoinder isn't going to change what the facts are.
As for being uninformed, I think a quick glance in the mirror would be elucidating for you. You're projecting. You won't even look up your own guys shit.
BTW, it's 'bald faced lies,' and they're not mine. They're the lies of the Ron Paul rEVILution
Consumer @ 77:
Funny, for me your lies are in san-serif, regular. Darn lack o' web standards...
Joe J. @ 60:
How about, "First two names you can trust."
swarmofkillermonkeys @ 73:
Well, he votes how he feels. Good for him. Mind you, the President doesn't have full power to change these laws. Bush has certainly made us forget a lot. President does not equal divine decision maker... at least hopefully it won't anymore.
solid @ 51:
Because Robertson is a republican...... and we all know that God is a Democrat
those little republicans are so amusing.
Ron has some excellent ideas.
And the lack of them being addressed or distorted and then mocked....."amero harmster?" , speaks more
to the slavish, shallow, idealogicaly driven thought.
Do you know the hyper inflationary history?
Why is it this financial website agree's with Ron's assertion of economic destruction of non owners?
http://www.itulip.com/forums/archive/index.php?t-109.html
"AntiSpin: In 1999, the Fed finally took the punch bowl away but not until after the stock market bubble had reached outrageous proportions. Similarly, from 2001 until mid 2004, by leaving interest rates well below the rate of inflation the Fed has allowed asset bubbles to form in everything from real estate to hedge funds. You can argue that by a policy of small, predictable interest rate hikes the Fed failed to instill fear in the hearts of speculators as it intended, allowing the games to go on and on. Finally, the day of reckoning is upon us, and no one knows seems to know quite what's going to happen but our money is on a prolonged stagflation"
Infact they call dollars bonars, becuase their value destination is only down,
with current fiscal/monetary/military/welfare(corprate&social) policy.
Occupation/Genocide, Civil Liberties, Reduce Empire, Reduce Federalisim, Health Freedom, no National Id,
Responsible Monetary Policy, Balanced Budget's.
.
..
...
Dr. Paul for President
...
..
.
swarmofkillermonkeys @ 73:
It is very sad that you don't see how close minded you are with your slander and misrepresentation. It is not your fault that you've grown up in a society where people call names and listen only to respond rather than listening to understand, but it is your fault if you don't correct it. These are your neighbors you're talking about when you refer to "paulbots." These are real people who really believe that Ron Paul is the answer. I don't think that you have to accept their position, but if you have any decency at all, you should respect them as Americans, as humans. If there is any hope for this country, we have to start listening to one another, and we have to realize that "paulbots" are not the enemy -- sniveling douche bags that think they can take away democracy by limiting who we see on TV or hear on the radio, those people deserve your scorn.
"Paulbots," as you refer to them, want the same things you do. They want peace in the world. They want everyone fed. They want you to be able to choose what you do with your body (No, they don't hate women. Yes, they do think returning the question of abortion back to the state is right. Yes, you do a disservice to yourself and to others by so blatantly misrepresenting Paul's position.). They think that Paul has the best solution in the field right now. You might think differently, but it is absolutely ridiculous to slander them, to generalize that all people supporting this candidate are one way or another (To assert that the "personal freedom" candidate's following is made up of the all the same kind of people, which is what you do when you call them "paulbots," is laughable.).
These "paulbots" are people who've spent hours pouring over Paul's speeches, writings, and voting record. On the other hand, you think that you, with your (obviously) cursory glance at his positions, understand him so much better than they do -- that you have seen through him in a way that hundreds of thousands of people have not. Wow..
"while still restricting the rights of a raped woman to take the day after pill" -- Wrong, Paul is running for President and as president he would not restrict any rights. He would try to take the federal government out of the question.
"Paul believes life begins at conception" -- Paul's belief in the rule of law trumps that. He rallies against the federal gov't locking up medicinal marijuana patients from CA b/c the state law trumps that. He would not attempt to legislate state abortion / contraception laws.
"can’t fucking figure out evolution." -- Actually, he said it's not an issue when running for president, and he's right. He wants to get rid of the federal dept of education. What he believes about evolution simply doesn't matter.
"why IS it that the 'socialist' European countries are kicking our asses more, the more anti-socialist we get? " -- Because we're not. In Europe, if the gov't does something that pisses off the population, there are riots. In the US, we think we're the gold standard of free-market economics, but anyone who's given half a thought to our system realizes that the government is very intimately involved in every area that is lagging behind... Do you seriously think HMOs and Insurance Companies in the US would exist without the government propping them up and regulating health care? And what do we do when the government walks all over us over here? We write a blog. Of course the socialist European countries are kicking our asses.. We have big government, so do they, but theirs is at least a small bit accountable. After the past 2 terms any illusions of American government accountability should be gone.
"But why look at reality, you have a god to blindly worship. " -- Once again, I know it's hard to understand, but there's nothing blind about Paul's supporters. They are some of the most intelligent, open minded people I've met. Your close minded approach to the "paulbots" has blinded you.
I see this kind of crap everywhere, on all kinds of blogs and media, and it's really depressing -- not for Ron Paul or the movement surrounding him, but for our country. I know not everyone is going to be open minded, but to completely dismiss other people's view point, to presume that a huge group of people is misguided without seriously considering their view point, without taking for granted that these are intelligent human beings that believe this or that for a reason... You don't have to agree with them, but don't presume superiority and accept ignorance just because it's different..
oneporter @ 85:
No they don't. They don't at all. it's the big lie. I've read his writings and I don't want him in charge. It's that simple. Quit pretending to know what others are thinking. Because you are way off the mark.
miss_kitty @ 86:
Actually, on a fundamental level, they want good leadership. My post was about looking past the issues and seeing the humans behind them. I'm sorry if you missed the point..
Wait a Minute Mitt Romney has Mexican Roots?
When Tom Tancredo dropped out of the presidential race, he threw his support behind Mitt Romney. An article posted on AlterNet reveals Mitt's Mexican connection.
Mitt Romney's father George was born in Chihuahua, Mexico in 1907, the
son of Gaskell Romney and Anna Amelia Pratt. Three generations of
Romneys lived in Mexico because Miles Park Romney, a polygamist, moved
the family there in 1884 as it became increasingly clear that the U.S.
government would not tolerate polygamy in the Utah Territory. The 1882
Edmunds Act stripped polygamists of the basic rights of U.S.
citizenship, denying them the right to vote, serve on juries or hold
office. Not dissimilar to current immigration raids, U.S. federal
agents hunted and arrested polygamists. Polygamists were forced to
leave the country or risk jail.
Mitt's
grandparent's crossed back into the U.S. during the Mexican Revolution.
But that hasn't made this candidate any softer on the immigration issue.
Source : AlterNet
Image Source : NY Press
Wait a Minute Mitt Romney has Mexican Roots?
When Tom Tancredo dropped out of the presidential race, he threw his support behind Mitt Romney. An article posted on AlterNet reveals Mitt's Mexican connection.
Mitt Romney's father George was born in Chihuahua, Mexico in 1907, the
son of Gaskell Romney and Anna Amelia Pratt. Three generations of
Romneys lived in Mexico because Miles Park Romney, a polygamist, moved
the family there in 1884 as it became increasingly clear that the U.S.
government would not tolerate polygamy in the Utah Territory. The 1882
Edmunds Act stripped polygamists of the basic rights of U.S.
citizenship, denying them the right to vote, serve on juries or hold
office. Not dissimilar to current immigration raids, U.S. federal
agents hunted and arrested polygamists. Polygamists were forced to
leave the country or risk jail.
Mitt's
grandparent's crossed back into the U.S. during the Mexican Revolution.
But that hasn't made this candidate any softer on the immigration issue.
Source : AlterNet
Image Source : NY Press
oneporter @ 85:
Since I was chiding Paul supporters for NOT supporting their positions or engaging in debate, but just slandering the others here, your statement is more than a little ironic. Also, I EXPLICITLY stated that his ideas should enter the conversation. That seems open minded to me.
If they want to win over others, why not detail specific policies and support them instead of spamming thinks like:
"Are you liberals starting to believe the conspiracies yet? Come to the light my friends, my Republican party has been decimated and so has your democratic party."
in the thread.
See that's the danger in assuming that I'm just like you. Most likely I'm not. What society did I personally grow up in that you refer to? And of course, these people believe that Ron Paul is "the answer". Exactly. The answer to what? Everything? That's quite dangerous. And anti-intellectual. Why not believe in the IDEAS rather than the man? Why not vote with your BRAIN rather than just your "gut" like George W. Bush?
Belief is not the answer. Faith based government, even embodied in Ron Paul, is not the answer. Rationality is the answer.
So.. you're saying I must respect Ron Paul as a martyr? Oh please! Again, I just told you I think he should be in the debates. Are you typing this from script?
I'll respect each Paulbot when that person acts like a rational, thinking Ron Paul supporter (understanding and accepting the flaws in his policy) instead of an automaton.
No, they really don't. The majority of Ron Paul's suggestions are antithetical to most of my beliefs, because I live in reality, not a anarchic fantasy.
No, in fact they do not. That is a lie. Please show me where Ron Paul plans to implement a governmental policy as president where he would ensure every man, woman, and child is fed. Because that sounds like EXACTLY the kind of "big government" Paul rails against.
Slander? What slander. You speak and say nothing. If the government owns the fertilized egg from the MOMENT of conception, he will act to protect that life, no matter the preference of the mother to which it is attached -- a part of. Ron Paul says so. That's personal freedom? Not for a woman! It is simply NOT a libertarian viewpoint, no matter Ron's contortions.
Ron's words:
Q: What will you do to restore legal protection to the unborn?
A: As an O.B. doctor of thirty years, and having delivered 4,000 babies, I can assure you life begins at conception. I am legally responsible for the unborn, no matter what I do, so there's a legal life there. The unborn has inheritance rights, and if there's an injury or a killing, there is a legal entity. There is no doubt about it.
Source: 2007 GOP Values Voter Presidential Debate Sep 17, 2007
My personal experience says otherwise.
Wrong, the are MANY rights Ron Paul would restrict (one above) no matter how many close their eyes. The federal government enforces rights. As in, the right to own property. Here in reality, we call those government employees police. In Ron Paul's world, everyone just wakes up one day and decides not to steal. BUT, if you exercise control over your own reproduction -- look out! Here comes big goverment Ron Paul:
Q: If abortion becomes illegal and a woman obtains an abortion anyway, what should she be charged with? What about the doctor who performs the abortion?
A: The first thing we have to do is get the federal government out of it. We don't need a federal abortion police. That's the last thing that we need. There has to be a criminal penalty for the person that's committing that crime. And I think that is the abortionist. As for the punishment, I don't think that should be up to the president to decide.
Source: 2007 GOP YouTube debate in St. Petersburg, Florida Nov 28, 2007
That is, Paul believes THE state (not a State) owns your body, women.
But why stop there? The government also ensures that people of different skin color, or gender, are not disbarred from working because of racism. Here in the real world, the civil rights acts have enabled MANY people that would otherwise be held out of the system to succeed. I don't know if you noticed, but the Democratic front-runner was protected by this policy. Another is a woman. Both may win the presidency this year. How many women or people with dark skin ran for president before 1964 with a shot at winning? Yet Ron Paul would NEVER have voted to help eliminate racism, because he read in a book that theoretically this was "government intrusion" and in his world a country that had held violent racism for centuries would just wake up one day and not have acts of racism -- with no effort required, or government intervention! Wow.
Q: In a speech you gave in 2004, the 40th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act, you said: "Contrary to the claims of supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the act did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty." That act gave equal rights to African-Americans to vote, to live, to go to lunch counters, and you seem to be criticizing it.
A: Well, we should do this at a federal level, it'd be OK for the military. Just think of how the government caused all the segregation in the military until after World War II.
Q: You would vote against the Civil Rights Act, if it was today?
A: If it were written the same way...
Source: Meet the Press: 2007 "Meet the Candidates" series Dec 23, 2007
What the... why are you addressing a concern about the rights of women over their own bodies with marijuana? As for laws, he JUST SAID above that abortion would be a federal crime, and the feds would go after the doctor.
Your defence of a "medical doctor" that doesn't seem to understand the similarities of live birth mammals from other animals is to say "it's OK, get ride of Dept. of Education, let the Kansas school board decide"? So creationism in the classroom remains.
Q: Will you encourage a more open approach to the presentation of scientific facts that contradict the theory of evolution?
PAUL: Yes.
Source: [Xref Hunter] 2007 GOP Values Voter Presidential Debate Sep 17, 2007
So here is Paul advocating government having a role in teaching creationism.
Really? Becuase Bush may be a lot of things, but I sure wouldn't call him a socialist. Perhaps Katrina didn't happen in Ron Paul's world either? Or tax cuts for the rich? Or the wages stagnating? Or prices going up? Or the privatization or elimination of social services? Or UNFUNDING social programs like education (NCLB)? Bush is pretty anti-social to me. Ron goes even further.
You live a sheltered life if you've never heard of Rodney King, WTO (who would gain great power from Ron's policies) riots in many American cities, Florida... there have been a lot of U.S. riots. The country is pissed off. So that's a false distinction.
Honestly that makes so little sense I don't even know where to begin. Here's a question: are any of Ron Paul's major backers heavily invested in gold? In anycase, nothing you wrote distinguishes Paul in any way from a more qualified and realistic Democratic candidate in bringing about accoutability in government. Ron Paul is a REPUBLICAN and has served 10 terms in the most corrupt, scandalized REPUBLICAN congress possibly in history. The Democrats are uncovering the corruption and prosecuting it.
Now why would I vote for a Republican for president to go back in and cover it all up again?!
Ron Paul supporters intelligent? Yes, very intelligent quite often. But very, very blind. Willfully blind. It's OK not to understand reality or real social interaction (and the consequences of those interactions) but a man's got to know his own limitations. I sure have my own, but I don't claim them as virtues.
I am engaging in discussion, with verified quotes and rational analysis. Third time you've accused me of "close mindedness". I think people see through that.
I meet people all the time that support Ron Paul and believe that he supports a woman's right to choose in her reproduction. That believe innumerable falsehoods about Ron Paul. That's why I said he should be in the debate.
The majority of even his own supporters just might learn something about him. And vote Democratic.
Vote Democratic....please spare us the partisan line.
Look at the candidate, and their platforms, and their history....decide for yourself.
Abortion-wedge issue..we should amend the Constitution to protect women's reproductive right's. Up to the right of a viable
life( for me the point of viability should be the line of demarcaton).
Ron's a christian doctor trained to protect life I understand his posisiton, yet don't agree, and don't believe he would
be a significant force for change in how the system currently works.
swarmofkillermonkeys -- there are a few fundamental differences that we will have to address before we can accomplish anything in a discussion; however, it's 4am on the east coast. Thank you for your considered response. I'll get back to you tomorrow.
"First off, I have to say that I am extremely excited ... about the project. I have been a supporter of Ron Paul for over 6 months now, but the one area that I felt he lacked in clarity was environmental issues and his stances. Due to my own personal convictions on environmental issues and trying to be as "green" as possible in my own daily lifestyle, I feel like this project speaks to me on many levels. With Depeche Mode, PBS and Jim Gucciardo on board ... you all are moving in a great direction, and I would love to be a part of it. Jim's work is amazing, and ... the chance to be involved in a project with someone of that caliber would be great." -Adam Franklin
http://sleepingnatives.org/page3.html
DO NOT FORGET THAT FOX NEWS is part of the CORP;., MAIN STREAM MEDIA, and that the Republican Party is a big part of the CORP:., Main Stream Media.
I'm an expat who has lived outside the US for 15 years. I don't watch US television and only return to the US once or twice a year. I believe I've seen what others fail to see from this distance and from my more diverse news sources. For the first time, I find myself thinking that I have no desire to move back when I retire. The character of the self-proclaimed masters of the nation (media, politicians and large corporations) are like spoiled fruit now - rotten and smelly. But, you have lived with the slowly growing stench for so long, you barely notice the smell, like a homeless person oblivious to their own smell.
Americans have a lot of nerve trumpeting "freedom" and "democracy," when the US masters control your choices and anoint its leaders. I have more personal freedom outside the US than I do when I return to US soil. America is now a quagmire of self-righteous arrogance, blinded to its decline into a nation devoid of character. America was an idea, an ideal. Today it has no soul, no purpose, no ideal.
I overheard an older man in a coffee shop ask a young American about American history and culture. He knew little of it. The 20-something man answered by listing America's wars in chronological order. History was measured by wars. The older man sat in silence. He asked the young American about American culture. What is American culture? The young man was dumbfounded and stumbled for an answer. He said television and sports, but the old man said every country had that. The only answer he could come up with was that only foreign countries had culture. He said it with embarrassment.
How sad is that?
It's surreal. A nation of children are indoctrinated about the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. They are conditioned to have goose bumps about the ideals they represent. Those documents and the people who fought for them and wrote them are deities, revered as gods. And the only adult running for president on the basis of those documents and ideals is denigrated, ignored, laughed at and chided by other adults who learned the same things as children.
The nation is doomed when the Constitution, and those who support it, are blackballed by the new masters of the nation.
oneporter @ 92:
Yikes. Then I'm at an advantage here in the west. I'll try to remember to check back Monday... but threads lock pretty quickly here... not that I'm trying to convince you.
But there is a fundamental flaw in the thinking that Ron Paul would be the preferred candidate for so many Democrats that I see the "supporters" pitching RP to. It really makes very little sense, given their core beliefs in that party's planks.
Talcott @ 91:
Oh I completely agree with you that people should know the candidate's views thoroughly before forming a "conviction". That's the only reason I reply to these things.
There are things to talk about besides contraception/abortion and racism, but some people do find these to be great concerns. Personally I find abortion over used. We all want it obsoleted, but people differ in the approach. Still, it seems to drive many Democrats. They have a right to know the truth about candidates.
The point is Ron would not be a "significant force" to PREVENT criminalizing such behavior either. If some states want to put a woman on death row because she took a day after pill, would RP use Federal powers to stop it? No. Why would he? For one, he basically agrees (as above), and for another every statement he makes he shows how he would dismantle ALL Federal oversight. This also has people who actually remember "Jim Crow" worried. States' rights are great... as long as the States aren't in a lynching mood. You may recall a slight scuffle in the South about that issue...
And for a candidate that proclaims to want to eliminate almost EVERY federal agency from the IRS to NASA to the military, you have a remarkable ability to believe that he would be passive only on the issue in which you and he disagree. His speeches say otherwise. It is this kind of abstract belief -- contrary to abundant evidence -- that I find so puzzling.
I hate what Bush has done to abuse the Federal powers of government. The sight of the disasters due to his bumbling, criminality, and corruption make me sick. But my response is not to poke my eyes out to remove the very tool we need to correct these disasters (as would RP), but to force it to behave accountably and responsibly. To eliminate government entirely as a response to a bungled disaster would make about as much sense as plucking your eyes out so you wouldn't have to see it! Why not just do it right?
Let me ask you another question. What would Katrina have looked like under Ron Paul's government? Levies contracted out to the even LESS capable private corporations that are failing to build anything of quality in Iraq (or just stealing our taxmoney). No FEMA. No trailers. No transport. (All Federal). National Guard decimated (as per RP). A financially poor state would have even LESS resources because Ron Paul is not interested in helping poor black communities maintain a healthy infrastructure, lets not even mention that the manipulation by the oil industry in the area would be FAR worse (especially since Ron would refund all their corporate taxes!).
Sadly, Ron Paul's Katrina would look little better, or worse, than the revolting failure of government that it was under Bush. "No government" is not the answer. Responsible government, large enough to perform the task (no larger, no smaller) is the answer.
For a free-wheeling privatized, no government "privatization paradise" you have to look no further than Iraq. Seriously. Think about it. You want that here? It isn't bad enough already? Of course, if you manage to live the day out in Iraq, you have complete personal liberty. Well, unless the other guy is stronger than you. Welcome to libertarianism. But at least there ain't no Federal government, to make us get along.
Even if nothing else convinces you, consider that for the last 30 years the Democrats have been the party of fiscal restraint. Of small government. Not Ronnie with his Star Wars. Not Bush 1 with his tax hikes (we read your lying lips George). Sure as hell not Bush 2 with... EVERYTHING he's done. But Clinton did the job. Spurred on by the savvy voice of Ross Perot, who moved deficit reduction into the spotlight for both elections. And Clinton agreed. So we got it done. I say this as a Perot voter in 1992, and a life-long Independent -- never registered either way.
I don't think people should vote FOR just a party, but there is certainly reason to be VERY suspicious of ANY Republican that claims they will reduce the government. From "double Gitmo" Romney, to "bomb, bomb iran" McCain, to "9/11 I want 200 new warships, 9/11" Guilliani, etc. Yet to this day, Ron Paul is a faithful Republican. Why?
I can only assume the exclusion of Ron Paul is plain and simply because they don't want NH voters seeing his message and deciding to vote for him, many is NH are independents and his message might appeal to them, in some polls he's coming in 3rd and beating fox news darlings like Giuliani.
Tim @ 66:
I believe you're right there Timmy. Both parties suck. But the difference is, in between the Dems greediness and corruption, some policies to restore our middle class and the less fortunate among us might trickle through and get at least some good done. The Repubs, on the other hand, are simply all about stoking the worst in society, namely fear, greed, xenophobia, and racism. Oh, and widening the income gap to the breaking point. Makes those rich old white guys feel gooood.
Fundamental difference #1:
You assume that for everyone to be fed, the government must be involved. Of course Paul doesn't want to "implement a governmental policy as president where he would ensure every man, woman, and child is fed" because government is the wrong approach. Government = waste. The problem with government programs is that the administrators are insulated from the negative repercussions of their actions. So, they have no incentive to be efficient or effective. If they screw up and waste all their money with little success, what do we do? Give them a bigger budget for next year. If you don't think that gov't habitually wastes your money, you aren't considering No Child Left Behind, the Dept of Homeland Security, the Iraq War, the past century of American government.
25-35% income tax means that you work for 3-4 months of the year to pay for the bloated government. You work for 3-4 months of the year to pay for orphaning 5 million children in Iraq, for the secretaries of Halliburton execs to drive Hummers around the desert, for attempts on the life of Chavez, for dictators like Musharef or whatever his name is.. On the other hand, if I had that extra 3-4 months of pay, I would be a lot more generous with my time and money for those in need. I would be able to.
You have to reject the idea that government is the answer or at least entertain the idea that government is not the answer before trying to understand the "paulbots".
oneporter @ 99:
So maybe I'm wrong but isn't Ron Paul running as repug? I don't think he is running as a thrid party candidate. As for the exambles you sight they are all bush and repugs who have pushed this shit. I agree that the federal goverment is not the whole answer to all the problems we face. But we are not just abunch of confederation of states. For better or worse we live in a nation of states that are united under a national constitution for the better of all people. The repugs have shown us that they are only interrested in the elite's interest's, not the average person's. As long as Ron Paul is part of his party (which he votes 80% of the time with), Why would any progressive give his vote to another repug who say's the right things, but votes just like anyother repug?
oneporter @ 99:
Good for you. (And I mean that sincerely.) I hope that I would do the same. But what if you and I were in the minority? What if we were in a very small minority? What would you do then? Would you let the needy suffer or would you consider mandating that those who benefit from living in a society help those who aren't?
If your answer is that you would let them suffer, then you are being consistent on this point. But if you wouldn't sit by ... if you would demand that the mechanisms that supposedly work for society as a whole step in, then you should skip the painful experiment and work for reform (instead of elimination) of the federal government.
Yes, god speaks to me as well, but he generally just tells me to take my medication. Sometimes I watch Pat for a real laugh, I love the way he squints his eyes like he's praying so hard. What a douchebag.
curtilingus @ 38:
I think bush's 2 terms are maybe the lowest points in America in the past century, but to look at the past couple years and come to the conclusion that the "repugs" are the problem is to miss the point entirely. Most of the crap that's gone through in the past 2 terms has faced votes of 400 something in favor.
The corporate party (repug / democ) has shown us that they are only interested in the elite's interest.
Ron Paul on 8 Oct 2002
Because our preemptive war is ravaging the middle east, war causes social deterioration at home, war is the least progressive thing possible, and any candidate that wasn't against war in 2002 is not progressive.
oneporter @ 103:
Do you really think that if Ron Paul is elected he is going to bring all the troops home and end the war immediately? Reality will hit him just like anyone else who wins that office. The differance being that Ron is part of the party that he is going to have to come to some kind of agreement with to get anything done. The party he is and has voted with is the party of war. The dems might not be much better, but the dems will have the pressure of their party to end this war sooner then later. Ron will have no support from his party. and so will stand alone.
JTM @ 101:
It's all about personal responsibility. If people think that the gov't will feed the hungry and give shelter to the poor, then they will be less likely to do it themselves (I've heard before "hey, that's why I pay taxes"). If there is no safety net, but a prosperous community, the prosperous community becomes the safety net. I am not religious, but I believe that Paul is right when he says a nation where churches eclipse the government in significance. He's not talking about what's taught in schools or whether or not gays are lepers. He's talking about church run hospitals that take in the indigent and the sick. He's talking about church run soup kitchens that feed the poor. When the government takes on these responsibilities, the churches no longer do them, but the government doesn't do as good as a job, and there's no room for the natural evolution that happens in independent ventures when you have to wait on policy makers to approve procedures.
Aside from all this though, you have to consider the idea of theft. Is theft by the majority any different than stealing from a store? We have been led to believe that it is, that if 50% thinks that we should pay for the poor, then everyone should pay for the poor. We have been led to believe that if the majority thinks we should fund abortions (and I think this is a very misleading issue as it is used in politics today), but that everyone should have to pay for abortions. If there were no laws concerning abortions, a group would arise to fund abortions in cases of rape or incest or whatever, and people like me would donate to the group because I think, and lots of people think that it is wrong to make a young girl go through an unwanted pregnancy that is the result of violence or something like that. But right now, people who think that abortion is the worst, nastiest, most vile thing have to help people pay for their abortions. That is theft. Those people are misguided in my opinion, but we shouldn't force them to give their resources to thinks they so adamantly disagree with..
We have been sold a lie -- that people need governments to allocate their money in "good" places because they wouldn't do it themselves. We must reject this.. Ask your family members, your neighbors, the people you work with -- ask them would they really leave people out in the rain to starve if they were the "only hope" for that person.. I don't know you, but I don't think you would, and I don't think they would..
diamondmc @ 104:
I whole heartedly believe that Ron Paul is running to reverse the tide of the war-mongering police state and to try to fix our monetary policy.. He needs no support from party or anyone else when it comes to ending the war and scaling down the dept of defense to where it needs to be. More importantly though, he is our only hope in ending the "war on terror," which is more about politicians and news papers terrorizing the American people than anything else. If the terror rhetoric doesn't go away, we will continue in the Orwellian doublethink universe where they hate us for our freedom.
The way I see it, O'bama's got the nomination on lock. In my opinion he's more of the same, but at least he'll be a softer version.. On the other side of the isle, there are five "they hate us for our freedom," "let's just stay in iraq for 100 years" delusional hawkish, awful people, and if you're progressive at all you better be praying that a mccain / huckabee ticket or that any of the Bush parrots are the party's nominee because in the remote chance that the repug does win and its not Ron Paul, the American people are as good as toast.. If you're progressive / Democrat, you should be telling all your conservative friends how scared you are that Ron Paul might get the nominee because he might be able to beat the democrat (even if you don't believe that at all), you should be supporting all the "paulbots" because they're trying to transform the crazy / scary "they hate us for our freedom" party into the sane, rational "if they do hate us, it's because we've been in their countries and subsidising their dictators" party. And while the Paul branch wants smaller federal government, and lots view that as not being progressive, it's a hell of a lot better than the neo-con branch that wants to siphon off your tax money into the pockets of exxon and halliburton and the rest of the bunch..
I find it hilarious that on a clearly "liberal" site which moderates comments so not everything posted gets displayed, especially if it isn't politically correct for this specific CrooksandLiars environment, the focus of 40% of the posts are about Ron Paul. Not any of the other Republican candidates, not the Huckster, not Romnitron or McInsane, but Dr. Paul. That has to tell you something about both the level of his support and the technological abilities of his supporters.
People who actually use the internet to learn instead of to just check e-mail and watch videos -- and I am not just talking about Dr. Paul's supporters, to be clear -- also leverage the internet's ability to communicate the message in a variety of forums and communicate with others involved in ways that weren't possible 10 years ago. That shifts the whole power equation from a top-down structure to a bottom up structure. This site is case and point, think of all the stories covered here that received coverage that the mainstream media wouldn't have given them. That alone should have been seen as a red flag for people here, that his message was seemingly being ignored. And no matter how you feel about Dr. Paul, you have to admit that he is engaging people in the political process which needs to happen in order for Americans to begin to deal with the numerous issues facing them.
The whole game is shifting, for the good, and the legions of Dr. Paul supporters are going to have an impact on American society for years to come. Dr. Paul is just the face of a movement no longer satisfied with the status quo, and this technological shift toward massive interconnectedness, like the printing press and the telephone after it, will profoundly impact society, leveraging technology that will empower more and more people the freedom to know truth for themselves. Maybe that's why the Pentagon wants to be all over the telecommunications industry?
The times they are a changing ... that's for sure.
diamondmc @ 104:
The commander in cheif doesn't need congresses permission to bring the troops home. He needs (or is supposed to need) their permission to go to war. He will need to work with congress on the domestic issues for sure, but not on the issue of ending the occupation of Iraq. If you thing Paul is going to leave the troops in Iraq so he can get an agreement to get rid of the department of education, you clearly do not understand his positions. Getting out of Iraq is priority number one... we cannot afford to be there.
Blue Buddha @ 28:
What evangelical Christians who care about "the little people" are you talking about?
JTM @ 101:
Well, here you have the prevailing liberal ideology of the neoconservatives, or as they like to call themselves when talking to Christians, the "compassionate conservatives." Do you believe in the goodness oh human beings? Do you believe in a personal and benevolent God? You may not with regards to the last question, but the first is important. Our government was founded by men who believed in the virtue of mankind, and that people should be free to pursue their own happiness, not impose it on others. Look at the spirit and imagination of Ron Paul's supporters; they came together and showed the country what grassroots support means. Many have quit their jobs and traveled great distances, because they feel their candidate will help heal America. That is unity. It is a community effort. People don't need the government to get things done.
David @ 107:
Whether Ron Paul wins or not... he has already lived up to his original campaign slogan "Change the Debate." He brought more issues to people's attention so that they could be discussed. Agree or disagree, people are talking. It's wonderful to see people more active in the political process.
oneporter @ 100:
See now this is why I engage the "paulbots". I believe in personal responsibility too!
But. There is a HUGE, and obvious flaw in your (common) line of thinking here.
What is stopping private industry now? I don't buy your assumption that government always equals more waste. Not anymore. We've seen private initiatives equal waste for the past 10 years at least in almost every sector. Especially in poverty reduction and nutrition programs.
But if private industry is the answer to all social problems, AND they are more efficient, why haven't they made these supposedly wasteful government programs obsolete? I mean it is basic logic. We'd certainly all know that these "wonderful" private programs have worked by now. So where are they? I can point to medicare and say that it ensures old people aren't thrown out on the street to rot because they get sick. Where is your "superior" private program? Point to it. Show us. There is no law against corporations acting more responsibly. They can start ANY time they choose. Where are all these government replacement programs that rock so much?
The don't exist. Private industry is NOT interested in picking up social slack, nor should they be. Companies exist to make money; that is right and good. Not to maintain society. Companies can't even maintain their own interests in society. Does the private sector make sure to give good loans and scholarships to be sure the next generation has enough engineers and scientists? NO! No, they don't and we're seeing that right now. "Big Government" does that. They make the student loans. They make the huge contributions to many universities and colleges. Business just bitches about it, continues cutting costs, and eventually just hire from overseas instead of training Americans. That is a FAILURE of the private sector EVEN TO MAINTAIN THE CAPITALIST SYSTEM THEY DEPEND ON here in America. Failure to maintain supply sufficient to stay in business. So now off-shoring becomes an issue... and Bush -- who is against government social programs like Ron Paul -- just stands there and watches it happen. In short, capitalism isn't a government. And the government is not a capital system. Each has roles to play, some roles generate profit, some generate a safe, healthy society in which you may enjoy that profit.
What you are saying boils down to you want more money. Screw the old people. That's fine if you fess up to it.
The school loan thing really pisses me off because the VAST MAJORITY of Paulbots that I've met have directly benefited from massive Federal Student Loans that are the ONLY way in which they obtained that sweet $90,000/year network admin job. Opportunities that in most cases their parents could never dream of.
Yet, they "want to believe". So they turn off their brains and pretend the "gubment never done me nothin'!"
That's faith taking the place of reason.
Lisa Bonet Ate No Basil @ 111:
Depends on what you want done. How about elections? How that privatization of elections going with "e-voting"? Like the results do you? Worked out just great in Ohio with Diebold, right? Or in California? Gee, it's almost like there are some functions that really SHOULD be governmental responsibilities after all! Who'd have thunk it?
Lisa @ 112:
The ideas of Ron Paul are worth discussing.
I mean that (though, not as important as those of Perot at the time, IMHO -- similar). I honestly won't wast my breath with whatever the hell "Double Gitmo" or McCain (who just hired "swift boat" staff) or Huckabee says. All their ideas are bankrupt and illogical on the service. Not even a shred of even theoretical utility, purely emotional -- FEAR.
But Paul actually does want people to act better to one another. He's completely wrong that such just happens automatically, but at least it is a base idea worth addressing. Unfortunately, his policies would actually create LESS freedom in the end for almost every American. If you think pollution and frankenstien genetic crops are bad now, what makes you think DEREGULATING them and destroying Federal oversight of those problems would make things BETTER? It won't.
Here's the problem (and why I draw a line between Paul and his supporters). With Perot, even his supporters didn't really like the man, they worked through and liked his policies. Paul is in danger of becoming a "cult of personality" where his supporters just "join his team" without internalizing and really working his suggestions through to the results. Paul may say, "I believe that we should be nice to each other." That's nifty. But exactly HOW we achieve that is where the rubber meets the road, and in my view many of his supporters actually do him a disservice by focussing on the man, not the policy.
And some of them, in my view, are simply too arrogant to vote for the least offensive Democrat to punish the Republican party and somehow thing that voting Ron Paul will change the party. I've been wondering this too for the last week. Now I think they, and I, am wrong. The Republicans aren't budging. In fact Paul has been useful to united the warmongers and drive them FURTHER to the right. That's a bad thing.
swarmofkillermonkeys @ 115:
This site is pathetic. Is this the anti-fox site?
Login or Register to post comments.