Congressman Ron Paul

[Keef]

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.

Yes, he's a traditional republican; to an extent, just like George Washington, James Madison, and Thomas Jefferson were. Kinda. All the other are democrats, technically.

 

[Swift]

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?.

They are being covered because it's part of the election and it's "news" But it's not absolutely important to the nominee of any party. Bill Clinton lost 8 or 9 states before he started catching on.

That's what I mean, in the grand scheme of all that pertains to the actual election, not the hysteria that surrounds it.

 

[FoolKiller]

They are being covered because it's part of the election and it's "news" But it's not absolutely important to the nominee of any party.

So why design special graphics, have full-day coverage and act like Huckabee is suddenly the main guy in the party now? And why host special debates for each unimportant primary? Basically they are spending millions on these unimportant events and treating them like they are important, not a minor event. Then they turn around and reject a candidate that has done well in these events that they are making big deals out of.

Either Fox News is being hypocritical in their attempts to explain their actions, or their political, news, and advertising departmenst are not talking with each other.

Bill Clinton lost 8 or 9 states before he started catching on.

So, why are we keeping Ron Paul from being heard (in a possibly illegal move) with the other politicians when history shows that his popularity could change?

That's what I mean, in the grand scheme of all that pertains to the actual election, not the hysteria that surrounds it.

It all truly confuses me as to what Fox is doing. To me this grassroots candidate with ideas quoted from the founding fathers and the Constitution makes a great story, win or lose. If I were a news editor I would be folowing him with a crew for a post-election documentary. I would have done the same for Howard Dean. No matter their politics, the way their campaigns have worked has been a story in itself.

You want hysteria surrounding politics follow the guy who has an unofficial, supporter only funded blimp. But apparently they are too busy following car chases.

 

[YSSMAN]

That, and hes been matching (or beating) the "national poll leading" Rudy Giuliani nearly everywhere he goes. Actually, I'm pretty positive that he (Ron Paul) stands a decent change of grabbing third in our State as well.

Either way, hes getting his point across to millions of people, and they're considering his ideas as right or wrong. Hes starting a political discussion in this country, and God forbid, people actually go out and vote for the candidates that can do the right thing (we've got Obama to thank for that as well).

There are still 48 States left to go through, and my guess is that Ron Paul could do pretty well throughout the Mid-West and South without too much of a problem. One wishes that both Thompson and Giuliani would drop out, neither of them are relevant anymore, but that may not happen until early February.

 

[FoolKiller]

One wishes that both Thompson and Giuliani would drop out, neither of them are relevant anymore, but that may not happen until early February.

If you had told me that would be the case one year ago I would have laughed at you.

 

[Swift]

So why design special graphics, have full-day coverage and act like Huckabee is suddenly the main guy in the party now? And why host special debates for each unimportant primary? Basically they are spending millions on these unimportant events and treating them like they are important, not a minor event. Then they turn around and reject a candidate that has done well in these events that they are making big deals out of.

But he still doesn't poll well nationally. Man, is it really that hard to understand?

Forget the fact that half of what Ron Paul says is crazy. HE'S NOT POLLING WELL. with all the money he's raised, he's still not "known" by many.

Either Fox News is being hypocritical in their attempts to explain their actions, or their political, news, and advertising departments are not talking with each other.


So, why are we keeping Ron Paul from being heard (in a possibly illegal move) with the other politicians when history shows that his popularity could change?


It all truly confuses me as to what Fox is doing. To me this grassroots candidate with ideas quoted from the founding fathers and the Constitution makes a great story, win or lose. If I were a news editor I would be folowing him with a crew for a post-election documentary. I would have done the same for Howard Dean. No matter their politics, the way their campaigns have worked has been a story in itself.

You want hysteria surrounding politics follow the guy who has an unofficial, supporter only funded blimp. But apparently they are too busy following car chases.

FK, your killing me smalls!

I don't know how well Bill Clinton polled during the beginning of the primary's, because I was a lot younger and dumber then. But this ISN'T PERSONAL. Duncan Hunter wasn't invited. Neither was the black guy from Maryland. I can't remember his name. But they weren't there either. It's just a matter of time, literally. I'd much rather hear from people that are polling well and allow them to answer the questions and state positions in depth, rather then a 30 second take here and there.

Fox is doing it because it is news and it's what's "hot" they'd be stupid not to. This is one of the closest races in years. It's actually quite interesting.

 

[YSSMAN]

Yes, it is interesting, but it would be even more so if a "News Orgainization" would allow all of the candidates to participate and facilitate the discussion. Choosing which candidates we hear from is just plain wrong, and it amounts to censorship, plain and simple.

I was very happy that Jay Leno had Ron Paul on the night after. Even if their politics don't agree, Leno gave him ample time to explain what happened and why it was wrong, and let Dr. Paul make his points on various issues.

BTW: I'm happy that Kucinich is making a federal case out of the ABC debates, Ron Paul could have done the same with Fox as well. This shouldn't be tolerated...

 

[Solid Fro]

I don't know how well Bill Clinton polled during the beginning of the primary's, because I was a lot younger and dumber then. But this ISN'T PERSONAL. Duncan Hunter wasn't invited. Neither was the black guy from Maryland. I can't remember his name. But they weren't there either. It's just a matter of time, literally. I'd much rather hear from people that are polling well and allow them to answer the questions and state positions in depth, rather then a 30 second take here and there.

Alan Keyes. He sounds just as nutty as Uncle Paul.

Fox News is hosting a debate tomorrow night in South Carolina, Ron Paul is invited. Expect questions pertaining to his Freedom Report/Political Report/Survival Report.

The Ron Paul Forums is strangely quiet tonight, almost deafening.

 

[Omnis]

Yeah, The New Republic timed that one perfectly to try to hurt Paul in NH. That story is such bs.

Alan Keyes is a wacked out theocrat. Duncan Hunter has been clean the whole race, though. He even complained about Fox excluding Paul.

 

[Solid Fro]

In other words, Paul's campaign wants to depict its candidate as a naïve, absentee overseer, with minimal knowledge of what his underlings were doing on his behalf. This portrayal might be more believable if extremist views had cropped up in the newsletters only sporadically--or if the newsletters had just been published for a short time. But it is difficult to imagine how Paul could allow material consistently saturated in racism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, and conspiracy-mongering to be printed under his name for so long if he did not share these views. In that respect, whether or not Paul personally wrote the most offensive passages is almost beside the point. If he disagreed with what was being written under his name, you would think that at some point--over the course of decades--he would have done something about it.

The article is right on.

The New Republic isn't exactly part of The Right Wing Conspiracy...

 

[YSSMAN]

Oh boy! A right-wing torpedo headed straight for the USS Paul with the intent to derail his campaign as it threatens the GOP-approved status quo! Oh noses!

Its all stuff we've heard before, and at the same time, Paul has been cleared of it. Like it or not, his ideas appeal to people of all races, sexes, orientations and genders. Sorry that we can't run a campaign that only appeals to the WASPs that the "regular" GOP folks like Romney prefer... Then again, look at a history of the Republican Party, it shouldn't be like that anyway.

Nice shot once again Solid, but it is of little merit. You get the "Gold Star" for effort, but a check minus on the final exam...

 

[FoolKiller]

But he still doesn't poll well nationally. Man, is it really that hard to understand?

Yet, in areas where he has put forth an effort to advertsie and get his name out he suddenly does better. So, if given a proper national audience is it possible that he might poll well.

Forget the fact that half of what Ron Paul says is crazy. HE'S NOT POLLING WELL. with all the money he's raised, he's still not "known" by many.

So that justifies breaking laws, causing censorship, and making a professional ethically questionable move (for a news agency)?

Now if this were the Sean Hannity Interviews his Favorite Candidates special then it wouldn't be any of the above things.

But this ISN'T PERSONAL. Duncan Hunter wasn't invited. Neither was the black guy from Maryland. I can't remember his name. But they weren't there either.

As they are still official candidates any rejection is unethical and questionably illegal. I don't mention other uninvited candidates just because the topic is Ron Paul, but I would say the same for any of them. They should be there.

It's just a matter of time, literally. I'd much rather hear from people that are polling well and allow them to answer the questions and state positions in depth, rather then a 30 second take here and there.

Here let me sum up for you:
Stay the course
Stay the course
Stay the course
Stay the course

Pro-life
Pro-life
Pro-life, this election cycle at least
Pro-choice, but I am morally opposed.

Less taxes
Less taxes
Less taxes
Less taxes

Fix schools, better education
Fix schools, better education
Better education, fix schools.
Fix education, better schools.

private healthcare, but lower costs
Healthcare is great right now
Privatize Medicare
Semi socialized healthcare system

Family values
Family values
Family morals
Family values

gay marriage is wrong
gay marriage is wrong
gay marriage is wrong, but civil unions are ok
gay marriage is wrong, but civil unions are ok


And I challenge you to find any of these front runners that has a longer answer than these and manages to answer the question before everyone falls asleep, if at all.

Fox is doing it because it is news and it's what's "hot" they'd be stupid not to. This is one of the closest races in years. It's actually quite interesting.

Yes, it is interesting and is a great move for Fox to host the debates. But why not include every candidate? Why not allow them the opportunity to get their name out there? Basically Fox has said that only certain candidates are worthwhile.

And whether the goal is innocent or not the fact still remains that you disenfranchise a candidate by not including them. And when the very party the debate is being hosted for says it isn't right then you have to really look at the situation.

Why would the GOP, who needs all the attention they can get, pull out of their support over one long shot? Because it is the just thing to do.

Fox News is hosting a debate tomorrow night in South Carolina, Ron Paul is invited.

Why invite him to this one? I thought he was unimportant.

Expect questions pertaining to his Freedom Report/Political Report/Survival Report.

So long as we ask Romney about his pro-choice and social healthcare stances that were much more recent.

Dr. Paul's response:
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/press-re...ew-republic-article-regarding-old-newsletters

“When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.”

And his current stance on racism:
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/racism/

The Ron Paul Forums is strangely quiet tonight, almost deafening.

Trolling a site you have no intention of adding to?

It seems to be doing fine now. Of course, they are acting like the voter fraud issues in NH would make a difference.

 

[Solid Fro]

Some how we are supposed to believe that Ron Paul let writers publish under his name for decades and he never once read what they were writing? Ron Paul also wants us to believe that is has no knowledge of who his supporters are. Neo Nazis, terrorist supporters, fascists, and anarchists. This guy wants to be president and he has no idea what is going on around him, let alone the country.

Of course, there is one solution to all of this... Ron Paul actually supports these ideas.

Excuse me, FoolKiller, for reading a Ron Paul forum. That is probably more credit than I should give Ron Paul, but I like to be informed about the topics I'm discussing, even though you may disagree with my assessments.

 

[FoolKiller]

Some how we are supposed to believe that Ron Paul let writers publish under his name for decades and he never once read what they were writing?

I'd be skeptical but we have a local Congressman who owned, edited, and ran a free liberal paper and had to face the same scrutiny over the editorial articles in that paper.

It happens more than you know. Otherwise, why do college papares with faculty overseers always get in trouble for printing something that the faculty member in charge had no clue was there?

He also didn't say that he never once knew what they were saying, but that he did not watch them before going out.

And even if he said them himself of course people can't possibly change views, right?

Ron Paul also wants us to believe that is has no knowledge of who his supporters are. Neo Nazis, terrorist supporters, fascists, and anarchists. This guy wants to be president and he has no idea what is going on around him, let alone the country.

I don't believe he has ever said he doesn't know. Of course, Republicans often get the support of hate groups and the less interventionist the platform the more they are liked. Hell, I've been called a facist, racist, and an anarchist at some point in time for my libertarian views. And my mom has been accused of being associated with terrorists because she is pro-life. Political views can create sometimes undesirable supporters and associations. Of course, this is America and that is an often common thing here.

Of course, there is one solution to all of this... Ron Paul actually supports these ideas.

You know, we could dig up old hat stuff about every politician and lump them into all kinds of ugly groups. That doesn't mean that they are that way now.

Excuse me, FoolKiller, for reading a Ron Paul forum. That is probably more credit than I should give Ron Paul, but I like to be informed about the topics I'm discussing, even though you may disagree with my assessments.

Calm down. It was a joke. I was actually kind of surprised that you would be on a Ron Paul support forum where people do nothing but discuss the praises of Ron Paul and how to aid his campaign when you obviously wouldn't be adding positively to their conversations.


Anyway, I am sure we will see the articles brought up tonight. I too am curious as to exactly how those comments went out under his name if he did not agree with them. But as I have seen it happen many times before I don't see his explanation as unbelievable.

 

[Solid Fro]

I'm not a registered user of any Ron Paul forums, I just read the comments.

 

[Solid Fro]

The first question was asked by Carl Cameron. Of course Ron Paul cannot denounce the 9/11 Truthers, those people make up his base support.

Ron Paul should clean out his ears if he "cannot hear" the question.

 

[Swift]

Wow, I just saw RP do one of the biggest fopahs ever. Man, that's a trip. They were talking about the happing with the US navy battle ship and the speed boats. They asked most of the candidates about how it was handled and they said they "support the judgement of being passive by the leaders on the ground" They got to RP and he starts by saying something like. "I'm concerned about the lack of caution from my colleages. We shouldn't be so willing to start a war." The moderator actually called him on it and said, "You colleagues have said they support the passive action, so what are you responding to?" Man that was a trip.

That's why I can't support RP. Because he's so "anti-intervention" that he can't even say "Yeah, we should wack them if they overstep their bounds." Sheesh.

FK, Sure most of you put up there about the candidates saying the same thing is true. Except for McCain because he'd rather go ahead and tax us. But it's still not censorship. Fox is a privately owned company. Are you going to tell me that a private company can't invite who they want?

 

[YSSMAN]

That's why I can't support RP. Because he's so "anti-intervention" that he can't even say "Yeah, we should wack them if they overstep their bounds." Sheesh.

I think you're neglecting the fact that there are millions of Americans (on both sides of the political fence) that are scared to death with another war, be it with Iran or not. I'm personally in that same camp, as I know that we can neither afford it with blood nor treasure. I'm almost positive the draft would be back, and you can bet your ass that there wouldn't be any support for this war should that occur.

Sure, all of the candidates are right when they say that we need to carry a big stick, but unless the Iranians fire first, there is no way in hell we need to escalate tensions in the Middle-East. They don't have nuclear weapons, they've slowed or stopped their covert actions in Iraq, and they're sitting tight for now. We have to watch our trigger fingers just as much as they do with theirs, and simply put, it isn't in the best interest for either party to have a war.

Quite honestly, I can't fault Paul for what he said. It was a loaded question, no doubts there, and the fear-mongering that is happening with the rest of the GOP candidates is scary enough in itself as well.

 

[Solid Fro]

Ron Paul is the big loser tonight according to the focus group.

Time to spam the txt vote in 3... 2... 1...

 

[Solid Fro]

Instead of googling Gulf of Tonkin, Ron Paul should be googling USS Cole.

 

[FoolKiller]

Wow, I just saw RP do one of the biggest fopahs ever. Man, that's a trip. They were talking about the happing with the US navy battle ship and the speed boats. They asked most of the candidates about how it was handled and they said they "support the judgement of being passive by the leaders on the ground" They got to RP and he starts by saying something like. "I'm concerned about the lack of caution from my colleages. We shouldn't be so willing to start a war." The moderator actually called him on it and said, "You colleagues have said they support the passive action, so what are you responding to?" Man that was a trip.

Yeah, that was bad. I believe he has fallen into the trap the other campaigns have been laying out for him. They know his weakness with Republicans is his anti-war stance and they have worked to make that his only issue. The opposite effect has been a ton of independent and even Democratic support for that position, so he has jumped on that to try and build a base and I believe he is stumbling on his own talking points.

I know without proper monitors in a stage setting like that it is hard to hear others, but that is why he should stick to just answering the question. Instead he tried to justify his foreign policy idea by pointing out the error he saw in his competitor's responses, but he hadn't heard their responses and assumed he knew what they would say. Not hearing is not an excuse for making false accusations. I fear this is a sign that he is trying to go on the attack. His strength is his message and if he switches from making that known to attacking everyone else then his message will get lost in the scuffle and the mockery from his opponents.

FK, Sure most of you put up there about the candidates saying the same thing is true. Except for McCain because he'd rather go ahead and tax us. But it's still not censorship. Fox is a privately owned company. Are you going to tell me that a private company can't invite who they want?

Legally, no. On personal principle, yes. That does not change the fact that it is a form of censorship, while not government censorship, nor does it change the fact that they lose journalistic integrity by doing so, and any journalist worth his press badge would find that to be more important than his own or his company's agenda.

On principle I feel a private business owner has the right to have a racist hiring policy, that does not make it right or mean that I agree with him. It also means that I will not be a patron in his business.

 

[Danoff]

I think you're neglecting the fact that there are millions of Americans (on both sides of the political fence) that are scared to death with another war, be it with Iran or not. I'm personally in that same camp, as I know that we can neither afford it with blood nor treasure.

Dude, what are you talking about? We can afford it with either. I mean, are you kidding me here? You think our economy is on the brink of collapse? You think our military is out of personnel? I get that you're scared, I just can't figure out why.

 

[YSSMAN]

Several things:

- The economy is potentially in a very weak state. The problem is, I don't think there is much we can do in the short-term to fix it, or at least prevent another recession, and on that note we need to let the economy take this course. I saw the DOW was down in the 12K range again this morning, and I breathed a sigh of relief. I chose not to invest the past few months simply because the market was way too high. In its current state, I don't think the economy could support another war.

However, I'm not an economist and have not taken many economics classes, but you can start to see issues even with a Poli Sci/History degree...

- The troops aren't getting properly funded, no matter what you're hearing from the federal government. A friend of mine in class was part of a Marines unit that was headed to Iraq, he got out for whatever reason (I can't recall the specifics), but he regularly is in contact with his buddies who are there now. He constantly tells stories about how we force our troops to buy their own uniforms, their own body armor, their own weapons, etc... For what? Why isn't the millitary spending the money to give it to them for free? We spend more than the rest of the world combined and we can't buy a flak-jacket for an Marine who is risking his life on the back of a HUMVEE?

- Given our current situations not just in Iraq, but Afghanistan as well, we don't have enough troops to spread into another war with Iran (or whatever bad guy Bush is going after). Unless we bring back the draft, we won't have the manpower. Bring the draft back and you can bet your ass the Democrats will be elected and we'll be completely out of Iraq by the end of 2009.

...That being said, I'm in full-support of placing more troops from Iraq in Afghanistan. That is a war that we need to finish, as it becomes slightly more evident that our NATO allies aren't living up to their portion of the deal on some occasions...

- And then there is war fatigue... We've had thousands of troops on the ground since 2001, and thousands have come home in a way that we'd usually prefer them not to. Obviously we do not want these soldiers to die in vain, but at the same time, many Americans are very tired with the war(s). Its been nearly five years in Iraq, and we still don't see the light at the end of the tunnel... Things are better, and I did support the troop surge (and continue to do so), but we've got to have some kind of plan for bringing them back home.

===

Keep in mind that I have been very pro-war up until this past summer. I don't know why I've decided to change my mind, maybe it is war fatigue, but I just don't see things being as feasible as they used to be. We as Americans have a duty, a responsibility, for maintaining world order and keeping the world safe for democracy. That being said, it should not be our excuse to create peace and prosperity by starting a war. I'm a patriot like any other (American) poster on these boards, but at the same time, I've begun to question whether or not we're doing the right thing.

In that sense, I'm following McCain; We need to listen to General Patreus, get the job done, and bring the troops home.

That, however, does not mean that we go about starting another war. Let Iran fire first, and then we'll give 'em hell right back... I'd be happy to send a Tomahawk up Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's ass if he gives us a good reason, but as of now, it is not the case...

 

[Omnis]

We as Americans have a duty, a responsibility, for maintaining world order and keeping the world safe for democracy.

By what authority? We only have a duty to keep our own country in line. We can only hope that other countries would want to emulate us.

That being said, it should not be our excuse to create peace and prosperity by starting a war. I'm a patriot like any other (American) poster on these boards, but at the same time, I've begun to question whether or not we're doing the right thing.

In that sense, I'm following McCain; We need to listen to General Patreus, get the job done, and bring the troops home.

Following McCain? Lol. So your sons and their sons can get drafted to Fallujah Police Dept, right? McCain's position is permanent occupation, not bring home the troops.

 

[YSSMAN]

We can only hope that other countries would want to emulate us.

Very true. Leading by example is what we're supposed to be doing, but of course, no one trusts us anymore... Can't imagine why...

Following McCain? Lol. So your sons and their sons can get drafted to Fallujah Police Dept, right? McCain's position is permanent occupation, not bring home the troops.

Too true, unfortuantely. His "100 Year Plan" doesn't hit home well, but his nature of trusting the commanders on the ground is something to be respected. You can't win 'em all with McCain...

===

Oh, here is something interesting. Did you know that Fox News cut this portion out of the re-air of the Debates?



Hmm, I don't think I'd call that a completely "fair" question. Maybe "not nice" would be a better one. Then again, I'm voting for Ron Paul, so I know I'm "crazy."

Here is some rather interesting video of Fox rigging their "focus groups" as well. Hmmm, thanks for reporting and then deciding...

 

[Solid Fro]

This video has been removed due to terms of use violation. Hmmm.

I watched the debate back to back, there was no difference.

Sorry, YSSMAN, Alan Colmes already beat you to the non-scandal punch:

 

[YSSMAN]

Interesting that Fox asked YouTube to remove that video. Too much word getting out on Digg apparently?

As for the focus group organization, I suppose we can agree to disagree. Statistically speaking, it would be proper to bring people back to see how they're feeling over a given stretch of time (when that is the stated goal), but more often than not, it would be better to have fresh opinions decided under every circumstance. That, at least in my opinion, would do a better job of measuring how persuasive a given candidate's arguement had been in a debate.

Alas, we're up next. I suspect McCain will take Michigan, putting Romney in a not-so-happy place (hopefully forcing him out), Huckabee probably in third, with Ron Paul shortly behind. Although I may be underestimating the Ron Paul support here.

...Which reminds me, there is a rally going on near my place of employment today. I should stop by and give a shout or two, just for you Solid!

EDIT:



Watch it quick before Fox News yanks it again. It already has over 5000 diggs, the truth is out there...

 

[Solid Fro]

Interesting that Fox asked YouTube to remove that video. Too much word getting out on Digg apparently?

How do you know that?

I watched the debates back to back, there was no difference. I suppose my word means nothing?

As for the focus group organization, I suppose we can agree to disagree. Statistically speaking, it would be proper to bring people back to see how they're feeling over a given stretch of time (when that is the stated goal), but more often than not, it would be better to have fresh opinions decided under every circumstance. That, at least in my opinion, would do a better job of measuring how persuasive a given candidate's arguement had been in a debate.

So, can we agree that Fox News isn't 'planting' people or 'rigging' the focus groups? You may not agree how Fox does their focus groups, but there was no foul play going on.

 

[Solid Fro]

I saw something rather weird today. I was in a turning lane at a local medical center on a major intersection and saw four Ron Paul supporters with a rather large sign and REVOlution signs. Then, all of a sudden, they start to scatter with their signs and run away. I'm thinking to myself: "what's going on?" Then, I see two police cruisers coming up from the other side.

They must have been on private property. Nice one, Ron Paul supporters. I don't know what is worse, these guys or the ten anti-war protesters at the military veterans memorial.

Break the law and support Ron Paul! Break the law and support Ron Paul!

 

[Azuremen]

I don't think we even listen to you anymore. You take one case point you find and make it out to be everyone.

It would be like me assuming everyone that owns a PS3 is as big a troll as you are