Congressman Ron Paul

[Slicks]

Found this a minute ago, thought I'd post it.

http://blip.tv/file/582985

 

[Omnis]

And then how do employers or universities assess a student’s competence if there is no standard curriculum?

I am not sure how the current system in the U.S. works. Is an employer expected to know the curriculum of every school in the U.S. to know what someone from a particular school is capable of? For example, if a student completed Chemistry at X school, would an employer/university have to know that X School’s Chemistry curriculum does not cover something as well as Y school’s curriculum?

SAT testing, ACT testing, CLAST testing, MCAT, BAR exam, etc.

None are run by the Fed. Government.

You were making reasonably good sense till you got to this part. I think we need MORE money into our national defense. Why? Because the Iraq thing proves that we don't have enough to be in more then one front at a time. Whether or not the Iraq war was "legal" is irrelevant. It's really pitiful that we had to quite literally rebuild a lot of the armed forces just so we could do Afghanistan and Iraq. That's so radically sad. It should have, from a logistical standpoint, been cake. Obviously the Iraq strategy was jacked at some points. But the fact that the soldiers didn't have the proper equipment for the job is unforgivable.

Maybe if we declared war, we wouldn't have had to send such a tiny fraction of our military to deal with it. Still, deposing Saddam was cake. The mistake is occupying their country. You cannot manage occupation. It always fails.

That's where I think RP is missing the boat ant Gulliani is very correct. To be a world power, you have to have the ability to wield said power. If you want to get out of some of the none threatening places in the world, Ok, I can deal with that. But to cripple our military power by cutting spending is suicide for the country

Maybe they would talk. But MOST won't. But to be honest, what would we even say? Acquiesce or we'll bomb you? Seriously, think about it.

Giuliani correct? Michael Scheuer would disagree.



Bringing home the troops from around the world makes our national defense stronger. Cutting unecessary military spending is not suicide for the country. What IS suicide is letting it continue until the dollar is destroyed. Our Navy can be afloat anywhere in the world; nobody would dare launch an attack on us. They'd have a Trident II up their butts in 5 minutes. If these unnecessary bases and the welfare state continue to bleed the dollar dry, however, we won't be able to do anything.

Oh, and our policy is already "Acquiesce or we'll bomb you." Remember Pakistan? The problem is that we either bomb people if they disagree or subsidize them if they do as we say. It undermines their sovereignty, and, overall, precipitates a climate of hatred of the government and hatred of America by proxy.

 

[Blake]

SAT testing, ACT testing, CLAST testing, MCAT, BAR exam, etc.

None are run by the Fed. Government.

Thank you, I didn’t know that. It all makes sense now. 👍

 

[Solid Fro]

Maybe if we declared war, we wouldn't have had to send such a tiny fraction of our military to deal with it. Still, deposing Saddam was cake. The mistake is occupying their country. You cannot manage occupation. It always fails.

Some how putting our war intentions on blast would have made everything better? I do remember Congress passing the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. Declaring war and not declaring war makes no difference.

Funny how our military goes from 'stretched' to 'tiny fraction' in a whim.

Our Navy can be afloat anywhere in the world; nobody would dare launch an attack on us. They'd have a Trident II up their butts in 5 minutes. If these unnecessary bases and the welfare state continue to bleed the dollar dry, however, we won't be able to do anything.

You forget easily.

Swift is absolutely correct.

 

[Omnis]

Some how putting our war intentions on blast would have made everything better? I do remember Congress passing the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. Declaring war and not declaring war makes no difference.

Funny how our military goes from 'stretched' to 'tiny fraction' in a whim.

You forget easily.

Swift is absolutely correct.

No, going in is wrong. However, going in in that way was even more wrong. Declaring war makes all the difference, because there's no authority for the President to pursue such police actions. Shinseki was right about the troops, and that magnitude of an occupying force, plus the fact that invasion is an act of war in the first place certainly calls for a declaration so that there can be a course of action that the whole nation can get behind.

Furthermore, it's because our military is so stretched that we went in without the proper amount of troops. Funny how you can't put two and two together.

And, yeah, I remember the USS Cole. Guess what? It was bombed by Al Qaeda, not a nation. So, right off the bat, your point is defeated regarding our bases in Japan, Korea, Germany, etc. Oh, but do you remember what precipitated the attack? It was the "occupation" of Muslim holy land with our bases on the Arabian peninsula. We ignored the USS Cole bombing... look what happened a year later. Do I have to go on?

If you're so concerned about terrorism, does it not bother you as it bothers me that we're dealing with the problem ass-backwards?

 

[Solid Fro]

No, going in is wrong. However, going in in that way was even more wrong. Declaring war makes all the difference, because there's no authority for the President to pursue such police actions. Shinseki was right about the troops, and that magnitude of an occupying force, plus the fact that invasion is an act of war in the first place certainly calls for a declaration so that there can be a course of action that the whole nation can get behind.

Why did Congress vote on it then?

Furthermore, it's because our military is so stretched that we went in without the proper amount of troops. Funny how you can't put two and two together.

I thought we only sent a "tiny fraction of our military to deal with it"? Now, our military is "so stretched"?

And, yeah, I remember the USS Cole. Guess what? It was bombed by Al Qaeda, not a nation. So, right off the bat, your point is defeated regarding our bases in Japan, Korea, Germany, etc.

I wasn't refering to military bases abroad. You stated that: "nobody would dare launch an attack on us." We have been attacked and those who attack us will be destroyed. Jihad goes far beyond military bases in the Middle East.

 

[Omnis]

Why did Congress vote on it then?

I thought we only sent a "tiny fraction of our military to deal with it"? Now, our military is "so stretched"?

I wasn't refering to military bases abroad. You stated that: "nobody would dare launch an attack on us." We have been attacked and those who attack us will be destroyed. Jihad goes far beyond military bases in the Middle East.

Paragraph for paragraph:

They ceded authority to the executive branch to do what they wanted and they fund it insidiously. God knows why they did it. That's why most of them are not in office anymore.

Did you not read what I wrote? Yes, we're stretched thin, and it's because the military is hung up elsewhere around the globe that we couldn't easily have a more substantial concentration of forces or shorter tours of duty for each soldier.

When I said, "nobody" I meant no nation. That was referring to the "threat" we'd face from pulling our troops out of Germany, Korea, and Japan. Please don't tell me you believe that we have military bases in these countries to protect against terrorists. That's laughable. I agree that those who attack us should be destroyed. Iraq didn't help that, and Osama is still at large. Occupying countries breeds terrorists, it doesn't destroy them. We can at least remove the incentive for people to contemplate suicide terrorism. It's just like illegal immigration-- you can't ever solve a problem if you don't first get rid of the incentives that cause that problem to exist.

 

[YSSMAN]

Why did Congress vote on it then?

Until all of the powers of the military is given to the President (as this one seems to be doing), constitutionally speaking Congress has to approve of military action. Actually, they don't right away. The President can put the military wherever he damn-well pleases, but Congress has to give him the money to properly fund the troops...

...Something that certainly isn't happening now...

Are you aware that our soldiers have to buy their uniforms? Their body armor? Flashlights to attach to their M4 riffles? All of this is stuff that should be given to our soldiers at the expense of the taxpayer.

Why is it like that?

Poor choices across the board, its as simple as that. We've let military spending get completely out of control, mostly in Iraq, which has bankrupted the Pentagon. That, or Cheney and his cohorts have finally figured out a better way to make money off the war...

===

Certainly, militant groups like Al-Qeda are happy to make attacks on US Military Personnel, but State-to-State, they know better. If Iran was as big of a threat as Bush makes them out to be, they would have attacked us by now (God knows with what... Their F5s? Ooohhhh). Same with North Korea, and whoever else you want to place on the list of bad guys.

We have more to gain by talking and being reasonable than bombing and asking questions later. Certainly, if a threat is truthfully imminent, I'm in full support of blowing up whatever needs to be destroyed... But that isn't without the need for concrete proof and support of our closest allies.

I would hope that we've learned our lesson in Iraq, but it often appears as though it isn't the case...

 

[Solid Fro]

...Something that certainly isn't happening now...

Certainly not from a Democratic led Congress.

Are you aware that our soldiers have to buy their uniforms? Their body armor? Flashlights to attach to their M4 riffles? All of this is stuff that should be given to our soldiers at the expense of the taxpayer.

Why is it like that?

Is that something The Only Man Who Can Save America willing to fix? I doubt it.

 

[Omnis]

Is that something The Only Man Who Can Save America willing to fix? I doubt it.

He's the only one who introduces legislation to give them (and police) tax credits for all self-purchased equipment. And he'd bring them home, remember?

 

[Solid Fro]

Tax credit for equipment they won't need if Ron Paul has his way.

 

[Omnis]

Tax credit for equipment they won't need if Ron Paul has his way.

That's the idea.

 

[FoolKiller]

I would love to get rid of the income tax. It will NEVER happen. There are too many vested interested in the IRS, accounting and a host of other services that are tied to income tax. But that isn't RP's fault.

Tax attorneys, accountants, and IRS employees......I doubt there will be much sympathy.

Besides tax law is so complex that doing away with income tax by itself will not knock a whole lot of people out. Most accountants really only do a lot of tax work four months out of the year if they have a CPA license on the side. The rest of the year there is plenty of non-income tax related things to keep them busy. My mom used to work as a part-time secretary on Saturdays for an accountant and he only needed her on Saturdays January through April.

H&R Block does a year-round business and just hires part-time help January through April.


In other words, income tax business is a part-time seasonal business that shouldn't be necessary, but the government has managed to find a way to not only waste money they take from us but our own out-of-pocket money as well.

 

[Swift]

They ceded authority to the executive branch to do what they wanted and they fund it insidiously. God knows why they did it. That's why most of them are not in office anymore.

1. First off, this illegal war stuff is absolutely ridiculous. The congress authorized the use of force. Are you going to tell me the congress can't do that? the congress can declare war. They did declare war. They simply didn't say "war" Man...
   
2. Second, what does that have to do with the stupidy that the military is underfunded for combat, as you stated?

Tax attorneys, accountants, and IRS employees......I doubt there will be much sympathy.

In other words, income tax business is a part-time seasonal business that shouldn't be necessary, but the government has managed to find a way to not only waste money they take from us but our own out-of-pocket money as well.

No argument here.

 

[Solid Fro]

Are these people the real Ron Paul supporters? Mobbing a person because you disagree with his opinion? Disagree with Fox News not inviting a candidate who is polling only 4% nationally? Shouting profanities and racial slurs to get their point across?

Content warning.

• "Fox News sucks"
• "**** you, Hannity"
• "You're a piece of ****, Sean"
• "You're Himmler's best friend"
• "We're great Americans and you're not, Sean"
• "You should burn in hell"

I question if they are even Republicans, let alone registered to vote under any party.

Disgusting. 👎

 

[YSSMAN]

I'm glad that we've got other GOP knuckle-draggers who don't read the news to understand why Ron Paul followers are upset with Fox News.

- They wouldn't let RP participate despite the fact that he is polling higher than Thompson and Giuliani in New Hampshire
- They won't let RP participate because he shakes up the GOP base
- They won't let RP participate because he may have some truth in his words

Both Hannity and Limbaugh are guilty of shutting Ron Paul out of the political discussion, plain and simple. They're afraid of a bunch of kids understanding what the government is all about, how it is supposed to work, how it is supposed to treat everyone fairly. They're afraid that we're going to have to turn the government on its ear and do its job, not play into the schemes laid out by the various industrial complexes.

Until we figure out a way to shut idiots like Hannity and Limbaugh up (mind you, they are entitled to their opinions, but not when they clearly limit those of others), there is little hope for our party. The party that was once a shining beacon for freedom, prosperity, opportunity, and kindness... Not just for the WASPs, but everyone.

To that extent, I do hope we see the GOP fracture. We deserve to lose. We deserve to split. If we can't even treat our own candidates fairly, how the hell are we supposed to function as a proper political party? Clearly then, the GOP has become a tool of the same BS that put us in Iraq, continues to fund morally bankrupt dictators and regimes, devalues the dollar in favor of a Euro-style "Amero," and at the very end will drive not just this party, but our country, into the ground.

At the risk of sounding like that crazy Liberal Keith Olberman;

Goodnight, and good luck...

 

[Solid Fro]

A bunch a kids telling you to burn in hell.

Nice.

👎

 

[YSSMAN]

What, no pithy reply? I would have expected more.

Take any one of the "good candidates" who aren't polling well (Giuliani, Thompson) and the same would have happened. The point of a debate, or for that matter, a general discussion of politics, is to allow the inclusion of everyone's ideas.

...When a news network that is "Fair and Balanced" and runs "We Report, You Decide" ads, they better back it up. Clearly then, it is they who are both "Reporting, Deciding, and Balanced to a Better Candidate." Not cool at all, and quite honestly, its sad that you even defend them for what is clearly a violation of everything this country was built upon...

 

[Swift]

It's all about the national poll. If he was at say, 12%, then I'm sure he would be. But he's not and never has. RP may be a little higher in New Hampshire, but it's new hamshire. It's about as relevant as Iowa in the long run.

You can be as mad as you want, but it's not personal. If he was polling better he'd be in the debated. He's not, so he isn't. Why is that so hard to get?

 

[Solid Fro]

I suppose it wasn't pithy enough for you.

This is not happening in anyone's campaign, Democrat or Republican. No sane American goes out and does what these Ron Paul supporters did. You want to see the GOP fracture? I'm not surprised by that nor your blindness to these Ron Paul supporters acting like Hamas terrorists after their leader gets blown into the last millennium by a JDAM.

Fox News and every other broadcaster has a right to invite anyone they wish. It is not news, it is a debate. With a candidate who is only polling 4% nationally, 7% in New Hampshire, and has zero chance of winning the GOP nomination, I'm not surprised Ron Paul didn't get invited. Is Chris Dodd or Duncan Hunter bitching about Fox News not inviting them? I suppose they are more mature than that.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/republican_primaries.html

 

[Slicks]

4% Nationally is still twelve million people! Surely, that's significant in some way.

I'm going to have to side with Brad, here.

RP presents different ideas from the 'mainstream' politicians running, but it's been established that he does have supporters - Twelve million of them. I'm dead sure that he'd have more support if he was included in these debates. Many people have still probably never heard the name 'Ron Paul'.

...

The point I'm aiming for is that it's damn hard to get proper publicity if the major news corporations are denying it. Especially when it's publicity that's been as hard-earned as RP's.

 

[Solid Fro]

As of January 8th:

Republicans:
Huckabee 20.7%
McCain 20.0%
Giuliani 19.0%
Romney 12.0%
Thompson 10.7%

Democrats:
Clinton 37.3%
Obama 29.3%
Edwards 18%
Richardson 1%

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/

All major candidates (except Richardson) are well into double digits. 7% may equal "12 million", however everyone else is triple that amount.

Ron Paul sure does represent views outside of the mainstream... mainstream America. Ron Paul does indeed have established supporters. Supporters who shout down those who they disagree with, run a muck, and compare Americans to the commander of Hitler's Schutzstaffel.

Good luck on Super Tuesday, Ron Paul. 👎

 

[Omnis]

Swift, they authorized a police action not a war. Rules change in war.

As of January 8th:

Republicans:
Huckabee 20.7%
McCain 20.0%
Giuliani 19.0%
Romney 12.0%
Thompson 10.7%

Good job using a poll that didn't include Paul. There's still a 17.6% share missing.

Ron Paul sure does represent views outside of the mainstream... mainstream America. Ron Paul does indeed have established supporters. Supporters who shout down those who they disagree with, run a muck, and compare Americans to the commander of Hitler's Schutzstaffel.

Good luck on Super Tuesday, Ron Paul. 👎

We are mainstream America. Mainstream and educated. I'm not worried about Fox or those people. You're awfully anxious to jump to conclusions based on these few and smear peoples' character just because they support Ron Paul.

Fox News bankrupted their credibility as far as I'm concerned. They certainly aren't fair and balanced.

 

[Diego440]

I've been watching a bit on the candidate's race regarding democrats and republicans. My question is, where is Ron Paul? Is he a democrat, republican or independent? I haven't heard him in any of the news.

 

[Omnis]

I've been watching a bit on the candidate's race regarding democrats and republicans. My question is, where is Ron Paul? Is he a democrat, republican or independent? I haven't heard him in any of the news.

He's the only Republican running on the republican side.

 

[FoolKiller]

Are these people the real Ron Paul supporters?

Are American soldiers that rape and kill young Iraqi girls the real American soldiers?

No. They are a small number of people that do not represent the larger group. You are purposely being inflammatory.

Why don't you ask if al Qaeda represents all Muslims or the KKK represents all Christians.

The answer is no and pretending not to know it is just trying to start a fight.

Mobbing a person because you disagree with his opinion? Disagree with Fox News not inviting a candidate who is polling only 4% nationally? Shouting profanities and racial slurs to get their point across?

<snipped video out>

• "Fox News sucks"
• "**** you, Hannity"
• "You're a piece of ****, Sean"
• "You're Himmler's best friend"
• "We're great Americans and you're not, Sean"
• "You should burn in hell"

Wait, why didn't you quote the people telling them to stop throwing stuff (edited) or the camera guy and his friends wondering if they were going to risk jail for being with them. Obviously not even everyone in that group was acting this way, just a part of that group.

I would say the only comment you quoted that was widespread was "Fox News Sucks" and as that was the point of their protest, they were saying their thoughts.

I question if they are even Republicans, let alone registered to vote under any party.

Because registered Republicans never do anything stupid or uncalled for.

It's all about the national poll. If he was at say, 12%, then I'm sure he would be. But he's not and never has. RP may be a little higher in New Hampshire, but it's new hamshire. It's about as relevant as Iowa in the long run.

You can be as mad as you want, but it's not personal. If he was polling better he'd be in the debated. He's not, so he isn't. Why is that so hard to get?

If Iowa and New Hampshire are so unimportant then why does Fox News even cover them, especially as they seem to ignore things that are "unimportant?" Better yet, since Fox News did cover Iowa to no end why not mention that Ron Paul beat Giuliani in Iowa? Or at a minimum acknowledge that in at least some places that Fox News finds important Ron Paul is doing better than Giuliani and invite him?.

I suppose it wasn't pithy enough for you.

This is not happening in anyone's campaign, Democrat or Republican. No sane American goes out and does what these Ron Paul supporters did.

Are you new to America? Protests that get out of hand happen all the time, many times they are protesting for very valid and good reasons. Go to Washington, DC and just hang out around the Capital for a few days while Congress is in session. You'll probably see a different protest every other day, some for things you disagree with and others that you do agree with. And in everyone of those will be people acting inappropriately. Welcome to America.

You want to see the GOP fracture?

Let me think, that would mean more than a two-party system.....In fact, I would love to see both parties fracture. Lets get some Libertarians, Constitutionalists, Greens, and whatever else running for office.

I'm not surprised by that nor your blindness to these Ron Paul supporters acting like Hamas terrorists after their leader gets blown into the last millennium by a JDAM.

Again, you are being purely inflammatory. I didn't see a single AK, nor did a single person blow themselves up while near Hannity.

Fox News and every other broadcaster has a right to invite anyone they wish. It is not news, it is a debate. With a candidate who is only polling 4% nationally, 7% in New Hampshire, and has zero chance of winning the GOP nomination, I'm not surprised Ron Paul didn't get invited.

Actually, I am surprised considering the Equal Time Rules.

The equal-time rule specifies that U.S. radio and television broadcast stations must provide an equivalent opportunity to any opposing political candidates who might request it. This means, for example that if a station gives one free minute to a candidate on the prime time, it must do the same to another.

However, there are four exceptions: if the air-time was in a documentary, bona fide news interview, scheduled newscast or an on-the-spot news event the equal-time rule is not valid. Since 1983, political debates not hosted by the media station are considered news events, thus may include only major-party candidates without having to offer air time to minor-party or independent candidates.

Didn't Fox News host this debate?

If Ron Paul wanted to push the issue he could sue Fox News and Fox would have to pay a fine.

Is Chris Dodd or Duncan Hunter bitching about Fox News not inviting them? I suppose they are more mature than that.

Considering Chris Dodd is a Democrat, I am sure he understands.

Wait, do you have Ron Paul somewhere bitching about it, or just some angry supporters? As I just pointed out, if Ron Paul was wanting to make a federal case of it he could.

As of January 8th:

Republicans:
Huckabee 20.7%
McCain 20.0%
Giuliani 19.0%
Romney 12.0%
Thompson 10.7%

Democrats:
Clinton 37.3%
Obama 29.3%
Edwards 18%
Richardson 1%

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/

All major candidates (except Richardson) are well into double digits. 7% may equal "12 million", however everyone else is triple that amount.

Iowa Caucus Republican Results:

Candidate Vote %
Mike Huckabee 40,841 34.4%
Mitt Romney 29,949 25.2%
Fred D. Thompson 15,904 13.4%
John McCain 15,559 13.1%
Ron Paul 11,817 10.0%
Rudolph W. Giuliani 4,097 3.5%
Duncan Hunter 524 0.4%
Tom Tancredo 5 0.0%

Double digits, ahead of a front runner, and the Iowa Caucus was important enough for Fox News to cover, but the result of a long shot beating a front runner is not.

Ron Paul sure does represent views outside of the mainstream... mainstream America.

Considering mainstream America tends to want socialized health care, more taxpayer funded social programs, even more money being tossed at a failing education system, and backwards plans for dealing with illegal immigration I can understand why he would have views outside of those ideas, especially considering even the Constitution is outside those ideas.

Supporters who shout down those who they disagree with,

Do you ever listen to Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh's radio show? Better yet, Anne Coulter or Michael Savage? Most of the time I agree with their opinions, but I can't listen to their shows because of their attitudes.

run a muck, and compare Americans to the commander of Hitler's Schutzstaffel.

You know, I'll say this one more time, even though I am getting repetitive in this post. They are not all of his supporters, nor do they represent Ron Paul's mainstream. If they did we would be saying the same things in here and calling you these names for being inflammatory. Instead we are actually trying to debate the issues, something which Fox News doesn't want to let Ron Paul do.

I've been watching a bit on the candidate's race regarding democrats and republicans. My question is, where is Ron Paul? Is he a democrat, republican or independent?

He's a Republican but he has very libertarian views.

I haven't heard him in any of the news.

Yes, I know. That is why Ron Paul supporters are mad at Fox News over this whole debate issue. You would think that the Republican candidate to raise the most money, without accepting corporate donations or matching government funds, be the first ever to have a blimp, and has written dozens of essays actually explaining how change should be done, as opposed to just talking about change, would get more news coverage.

And then when he beats the man that every one thought would be the lead candidate this time last year no one mentions it.

In fact, the issue of what happened at Fox News was actually so bad that not only were Ron Paul supporters upset, but the GOP themselves withdrew their support for the debate. That's right, the party that the debate was for said they disagreed with Fox News.

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2008/01/05/nh_gop_withdraws_from_fox_news_debate/9487/

State GOP Chairman Fergus Cullen said in a statement the state party was pulling out of the event because of the exclusion of Texas Rep. Ron Paul and California Rep. Duncan Hunter, the (Manchester, N.H.) Union Leader reported Saturday.

"We believe all recognized major candidates should have an equal opportunity to participate in pre-primary debates and forums. This principle applies to tonight's debates on ABC as well as Sunday's planned forum on Fox," Cullen said. "The New Hampshire Republican Party believes Congressmen Ron Paul and Duncan Hunter should be included in the Fox forum on Sunday evening. Our mutual efforts to resolve this difference have failed."

Of course this is being done on the Democrats side too, and a candidate on that side might actually be making a federal case of it with ABC.

Democratic presidential hopeful Dennis Kucinich has accused ABC News of violating equal-time provisions by excluding him from Saturday's debate in New Hampshire.

You know, now that I think about it it seems like that yes, the GOP and Ron Paul are in agreement on things.




You know, the two front runners, Huckabee and Romney, are a scary thing to see leading after the first votes are set.

Romney is really just a liberal in disguise, that or he realized many of his views when he was governor were wrong and he has managed to flip-flop them to be right now.

Huckabee won't make it, but it is worrisome when a liberal group like the National Education Association endorses him.


Now, Thompson and McCain I could probably live with, although I wonder about how they fair in debates and interviews.

I don't even agree with everything Ron Paul says, but I agree with more of what he says than anyone else and on the issues that I find most important to me.

 

[YSSMAN]

Thank you guys, +1s to all if I could!

The fact of the matter is that Fox News is censoring the candidates, and consequently, making decisions for their viewers before they even get to the polls. What Ron Paul talks about is essential to being an American, God-given rights as defined in our Constitution... Something both the Democrats and the Republicans threw away a long, long time ago. Kicking and screaming on both sides certainly doesn't get anything done, but when one can't even facilitate a discussion of the issues, well, thats a problem.

Ron Paul was on Jay Leno last night, and he was as calm and humble as ever. Maybe thats what we need to see more often, Ron Paul showing up on various shows here and there, making a point, and letting it sink in with other people. I'm looking forward to his visit to Grand Rapids, I do plan on going out to see him, but I also plan to see other candidates like John McCain and Mike Huckabee if at all possible as well.

I hate to use it, but the word "change" is what is at stake here. Both the current President and Congress has managed to screw our country out of trillions of dollars that my grandchildren will have to pay for a century down the road. I honestly can't believe that people don't understand what is going on and actually drift towards some of these people.

For all that it matters, I'll be happy to vote Democrat if things don't go right in our party. At the very least, Obama has managed to make sense and mean something by it. Otherwise, I'm very fearful for whats left of the GOP after 2008...

 

[Solid Fro]

Good job using a poll that didn't include Paul. There's still a 17.6% share missing.

I took out Paul, he is still included in the poll. I didn't think I needed to post Ron Paul's 4% a third time.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/republican_primaries.html

 

[FoolKiller]

I took out Paul, he is still included in the poll. I didn't think I needed to post Ron Paul's 4% a third time.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/republican_primaries.html

You know, considering the debate was designed for the New Hampshire primary and was scheduled as such, just as Thursday will be a South Carolina primary debate, maybe they should have considered the New Hampshire primary poll results, which show Fred Thompson at 2%. Or better yet, used their own poll for New Hampshire, which also puts Fred Thompson way down.

So, why include Fred Thompson? Maybe because he and Hannity seem to get along so well and Hannity doesn't like Ron Paul?


Better question: Why prevent any legal candidate from being heard by the American public? The long shot excuses don't work this early, especially when being heard can turn a long shot into a front runner. And wasn't it Fox News that was quick to trash the extremely inaccurate polls during the last presidential election that showed Kerry winning by a large margin? But now these polls mean so much to them? That doesn't make sense.

 

[Solid Fro]

You know, considering the debate was designed for the New Hampshire primary and was scheduled as such, just as Thursday will be a South Carolina primary debate, maybe they should have considered the New Hampshire primary poll results, which show Fred Thompson at 2%. Or better yet, used their own poll for New Hampshire, which also puts Fred Thompson way down.

So, why include Fred Thompson? Maybe because he and Hannity seem to get along so well and Hannity doesn't like Ron Paul?

Fox News decided to only invite candidates who had double digits in the national polls, not individual states. Ron Paul is the odd man out. Sean Hannity had nothing to do with the Fox News debate. It was hosted by Chris Wallace.

And wasn't it Fox News that was quick to trash the extremely inaccurate polls during the last presidential election that showed Kerry winning by a large margin? But now these polls mean so much to them? That doesn't make sense.

I don't believe they were inaccurate, the numbers were spun to make Kerry appear as he was winning and the MSM ran with it. Pie + face = MSM.