Ron Paul

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

The left got the republican canidate they wanted

And the media is trying to do the same thing again.

Yes
If they dont get THE canidate they want they go for the next best thing for them

That's how you know who *not* to vote for...see who the MSM is crowing over.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

The left got the republican canidate they wanted

And the media is trying to do the same thing again.

Yes
If they dont get THE canidate they want they go for the next best thing for them

That's how you know who *not* to vote for...see who the MSM is crowing over.

Yep

MSM and the Des Monies Register

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kelpdiver 2]

Oh, this is hilarious stuff. The evil liberal media is what killed Cain and Parry, not the fact that one is even dumber than Palin on foreign affairs and has more bimbo eruptions than Bill Clinton, and the other can't win a debate with a fifth grader. Sorry my friends, those were self inflicted wounds.

And part II - the evil liberal media selects the Republican candidate to ensure a loss. (So how the fuck did we get 8 years of Shrub?!)

2008 was a lost race, so few even tried. Just like Dole in 96. This time around, more are trying, but the party of No is having a hard time finding leadership. I thought it would come from fiscal conservatives like Ryan, but instead the GOP got hijacked by the mutant offspring of a Ron Paul inspired Tea Party. Hence, still no leadership...had to dig Newt out of the grave from the 90s.

This is a mess. It's not like the Democrats are in much better shape for leaders, but at least the Clintons have been put to pasture. Obama just happened to be the best of an uninspiring lot in a time when Jesus couldn't win on the Bush tarnished GOP ticket.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Its fascinating to me that Ron Paul is fighting for the lead in the polls, yet all we here in Fox News is "unelectable", "out of touch with reality", "bad speaker". I'd really like to know how he'd be doing with a little mainstream media support.

Probably a good deal better. Fox tries to sabotage him, and everyone else tries to ignore him.

Bullshit. Fox News has given Ron Paul a platform to express his views moreso than any other network. He's been on Hannity, OReilly and Chris Wallace several times and he was always given a great opportunity to reach Republican voters.

Might want to youtube those "interviews". They never gave him an opportunity to reach Republican voters. They brought him on there to try and rip into him and in turn made themselves look stupid when he did really well at defending himself, that is for the few seconds they gave him to actually talk. You really need to see O'Reilly's interview of him. Its ridiculous. O'Reilly never let him finish a point.

When he's not on their shows they ignore the fact that he exists and only talk about Newt and Romney like they're the only contenders. Check out Jon Stewarts video on this. Its pretty funny.

I watched Cavuto ask Chris Wallace what if Ron Paul wins the Iowa caucus after Wallace kept talking like Newt and Romney were the only candidates. Chris Wallace with a straight face, said it would completely discredit Iowa caucus. What a douche.

Sorry but I think it's just your perception. One thing I have noticed by Ron Paul and many of his supporters is they become very defensive whenever RP is called out on some of his views. He seems not to like it when he's given the opportunity to explain in more depth. I have also noticed that many of his supporters seem to have the same defensiveness. I have watch Romney, Gingrich, Bachman and Perry get the same scrutiny from Wallace, O'Reilly, Baier and Hannity. I think if you watch or listen to some of the interviews with Romney etc. with an open mind, you will see they get grilled also.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKIuwNnAWIU&feature=related


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6eMt4Hz0FA&feature=related


As for O'Reilly.. he interrupts everyone he interviews. I think he does it mostly when he feels the person being interviewed is spinning or trying to change the subject or just bogging down in details which his viewers find boring.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=BDdM1q6qOfU

[diverborg 0]

Quote

That chart is grasping at straws. Seriously. It does not prove anything about the amount of Paul support. Especially with the low numbers involved. $113,000? How many people contributed is more telling. Gingritch could have had more donations with less totals overall. When dealing with personnel numbering into the million mark, $113,000 tells me a very pitiful amount for any candidate. The overall amounts tells me that generally, Service Members (truth) generally don't donate. And the total amount of money vs. total amount of donaters is too small to get a legitimate statistical sample.

I understand that, and did allude to that in one of my previous posts that donation amount alone is not telling. If anybody can find a breakdown of these figures at all to see perhaps the number of donors that'd be great. Until then, without polls there's no way to know the true support he has. However, based on this we can say that the "likely" scenario is he has the more support than the other gop candidates. You definitely can't make a case that he doesn't have their support, unless you take a poll.

[aarco 0]

My name is Gia Onyx Crist I am also named ac from th Army I am the leader to who some are looking for- I am or as you read was @ Occupy Denver - I stopped Skydiving for work - several people ask me about leading a next step tech Group to aid and build capital in our capital - save the lies and secrets that are killing our Nations future - I am up for anything - I just need time, my wife and support - I do teach secretly for the Military and I do deffend our Presedent - No I don't believe I am from this Planit sooo no I hate sspelling - is there a secretary out there:)?

Having something never beats doing (>|<)
Iam building things - Iam working on my mind- I am going to change this world - its what I came here 4- - -

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

As for O'Reilly.. he interrupts everyone he interviews. I think he does it mostly when he feels the person being interviewed is spinning or trying to change the subject or just bogging down in details which his viewers find boring.

Or he's an asshole interviewer who needs to dominate the conversation. He's hardly alone in this - the talk radio in SF has similar lefties doing the same shit.

It's easier to win an argument when you interrupt the guy trying to defend his stance. As a viewer, I find it insulting and annoying, and I quickly change the station. It's also why I prefer written arguments to verbals ones - I can skip to the meat, read much faster than they can argue.

[Gravitymaster 0]

I agree he can be an asshole and I have changed the channel on him as well as Schultz and Maddow and Hannity because I find the screaming back and forth annoying and not productive.

However, that's not really the point. The point is that O'Reilly is often rude to everyone. Not just Ron Paul. R.P. supporters seem very defensive of their candidate IMO. They don't like to see him called out and challenged on the issues. They view this as some type of smite on him.

[diverborg 0]

Quote

R.P. supporters seem very defensive of their candidate IMO. They don't like to see him called out and challenged on the issues. They view this as some type of smite on him.

Who isn't defensive of thier candidate? I have no problem with him being called out and challenged on any issues. I don't view it as a smite. In fact I thoroughly enjoy it because when given the chance to talk he typically schools his naysayers. I feel like he's done a good job defending those questions. He's an outstanding debater, thats not just a perception. I don't agree with 100% of everything he says either, but if folks want jump up and say he's an "out of touch with reality idiot", then they're the ones with the blurred perspective. Disliking a guy's ideas does not make him an idiot, folks calling him one is usually the first sign that they don't have the intellect to debate him on the issue.

[nanook 1]

Quote

Quote

That chart is grasping at straws. Seriously. It does not prove anything about the amount of Paul support. Especially with the low numbers involved. $113,000? How many people contributed is more telling. Gingritch could have had more donations with less totals overall. When dealing with personnel numbering into the million mark, $113,000 tells me a very pitiful amount for any candidate. The overall amounts tells me that generally, Service Members (truth) generally don't donate. And the total amount of money vs. total amount of donaters is too small to get a legitimate statistical sample.

I understand that, and did allude to that in one of my previous posts that donation amount alone is not telling. If anybody can find a breakdown of these figures at all to see perhaps the number of donors that'd be great. Until then, without polls there's no way to know the true support he has. However, based on this we can say that the "likely" scenario is he has the more support than the other gop candidates. You definitely can't make a case that he doesn't have their support, unless you take a poll.

I'm still on active duty and I rarely see any support for Ron Paul. People here are talking Newt and others. They laugh when Paul is thrown in.

the most probable scenario is that Paul supporters tend to be "true believers" and are more willing to fork out more money than the average voter. Like those deeply religious types in their churches.

_____________________________

"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

R.P. supporters seem very defensive of their candidate IMO. They don't like to see him called out and challenged on the issues. They view this as some type of smite on him.

Who isn't defensive of thier candidate?

There's a difference between being an advocate for your candidate, and getting defensive whenever someone criticizes him. RP supports are very ardent, even when face with obvious contradiction. They also have a bit of a persecution complex, although I've already stated some of this is due to real bias.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

I'm old enough to remember that Ford was well-liked as a person (especially after Nixon), but he was kind of a bumbling public speaker; and that probably helped cost him the 1976 election.

Do you rate that as big a reason as Watergate, the pardon, or the fact that he was never elected even as VP?

"Conventional historical wisdom" is that the pardon was probably the biggest reason. He had a chance to distance himself from Watergate - he certainly did so successfully while he was VP - but the pardon made people lump that in with Watergate. Nobody really cared that he was a non-elected VP for more than about 5 minutes, so that wasn't much of a factor by November 1976.

However, his reputation for physical and rhetorical clumsiness (ironic, since he was a talented athlete and graduated in the top 25% of his class at Yale Law School) stuck with him like glue; and frankly, he was mediocre at best in his debates against Carter, and that hurt him further. Had he been as articulate an extemporaneous speaker as, say, Bill Clinton (an absolute master at the skill), he might well have used the force of his personality to salvage his campaign.

[billvon 2,467]

>Ron Paul is not running to be president..Ron Paul is running to change the course of
>history...

I remember people saying the same thing about Obama.

[kallend 1,675]

Quote

Quote

Quote

The left got the republican canidate they wanted

And the media is trying to do the same thing again.

Yes
If they dont get THE canidate they want they go for the next best thing for them

It's "canDidate", for the Nth time.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

The left got the republican canidate they wanted

And the media is trying to do the same thing again.

Yes
If they dont get THE canidate they want they go for the next best thing for them

Another spelling nazi

It's "canDidate", for the Nth time.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 1,675]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

The left got the republican canidate they wanted

And the media is trying to do the same thing again.

Yes
If they dont get THE canidate they want they go for the next best thing for them

Another spelling nazi

It's "canDidate", for the Nth time.

Once could be a typo. Repeating the same mistake over and over and over again is plain ignorance.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

The left got the republican canidate they wanted

And the media is trying to do the same thing again.

Yes
If they dont get THE canidate they want they go for the next best thing for them

Another spelling nazi

It's "canDidate", for the Nth time.

Once could be a typo. Repeating the same mistake over and over and over again is plain ignorance.

Ignorance is not recognizing muscle memory can cause problems


And there are those here who often roll the t h and e

but you dont stalk them
But nice slick little PA anyway

Welcome back

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[jdfreefly 1]

Quote

Please refer to my previous posts concerning RP's very serious error about the IAEA reports, which RP said did not exist.
Please refer to post # 58.

You continue to beat this horse as a smoking gun that makes him unelectable. I think we should present what was actually said:

Quote

BACHMANN: Can I respond? And the problem would be the greatest under-reaction in world history if we have an avowed madman who uses that nuclear weapon to wipe nations off the face of the Earth. And we have an IAEA report that just recently came out that said, literally, Iran is within just months of being able to obtain that weapon. Nothing could be more dangerous than the comments that we just heard.

[crosstalk]

MODERATOR: All right, 30 seconds, Dr. Paul.

PAUL: There is no U.N. report that said that. It’s totally wrong on what — what you just said.

BACHMANN: It’s an IAEA report.

PAUL: That — that is not — that is not true. They — they produced information that led you to believe that, but they have no evidence. There’s no — been no enrichment of these bombs.

You can read that a number of ways, and certainly I think listening to it is important and I urge people to listen to the entire debate. While you could certainly translate his first comment to mean the report does not exist, I think the final comment clearly shows an admission of the reports existence, but calls into question both the report and Bachman's understanding of the report's finding.

Methane Freefly - got stink?

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

I urge people to listen to the entire debate.

I would sooner plunge a white-hot branding iron into my eyes.

[BoogeyMan 0]

Quote

Quote

Please refer to my previous posts concerning RP's very serious error about the IAEA reports, which RP said did not exist.
Please refer to post # 58.

You continue to beat this horse as a smoking gun that makes him unelectable. I think we should present what was actually said:

Quote

BACHMANN: Can I respond? And the problem would be the greatest under-reaction in world history if we have an avowed madman who uses that nuclear weapon to wipe nations off the face of the Earth. And we have an IAEA report that just recently came out that said, literally, Iran is within just months of being able to obtain that weapon. Nothing could be more dangerous than the comments that we just heard.

[crosstalk]

MODERATOR: All right, 30 seconds, Dr. Paul.

PAUL: There is no U.N. report that said that. It’s totally wrong on what — what you just said.

BACHMANN: It’s an IAEA report.

PAUL: That — that is not — that is not true. They — they produced information that led you to believe that, but they have no evidence. There’s no — been no enrichment of these bombs.

You can read that a number of ways, and certainly I think listening to it is important and I urge people to listen to the entire debate. While you could certainly translate his first comment to mean the report does not exist, I think the final comment clearly shows an admission of the reports existence, but calls into question both the report and Bachman's understanding of the report's finding.

Let's not dissect RP's words as if he was under oath, and being deposed. The thrust of his comments were that MB was making up the story. I stand by that interpretation.
Please refer to the vid of the debate.

[diverborg 0]

Just out of curiousity... I'd like to know from the servicemen and women on here. Is it just Ron Paul's foreign policy that you dislike mostly about him, or are there other issues?
Are there other reasons you don't want him in office that are being disguised by merely as his foreign policy qualifications.
Assuming its just foreign policy since that's mainly the discussion on here from you.
What is it most you dislike about his foreign policy?
a. Find it insulting to those serving that have put their lives on the line for what he believes are unjustified wars?
b. Afraid to lose your job?
c. Think his ideas will actually be a threat to America and cost us more lives than the current wars are?
d. All the above
e. None of the above.

I'm asking this out of curiousity not necessarily to debate, because they are all legitimate fears as far as I'm concerned. I'd just like to know what exactly you think will be the "downfall" if he gets elected.

[BoogeyMan 0]

Quote

Just out of curiousity... I'd like to know from the servicemen and women on here. Is it just Ron Paul's foreign policy that you dislike mostly about him, or are there other issues?
Are there other reasons you don't want him in office that are being disguised by merely as his foreign policy qualifications.
Assuming its just foreign policy since that's mainly the discussion on here from you.
What is it most you dislike about his foreign policy?
a. Find it insulting to those serving that have put their lives on the line for what he believes are unjustified wars?
b. Afraid to lose your job?
c. Think his ideas will actually be a threat to America and cost us more lives than the current wars are?
d. All the above
e. None of the above.

I'm asking this out of curiousity not necessarily to debate, because they are all legitimate fears as far as I'm concerned. I'd just like to know what exactly you think will be the "downfall" if he gets elected.

"C".....
When RP talks foreign policy, I am reminded of the old films of Neville Chamberlain circa 1938-9 waving the "peace in our time" pact signed by Hitler.
As one who has been in the service, in a war, and wrapped up bodies of comrades in their ponchos for their last ride home, I fear RP's lack of real world awareness in his views of the world. Wars suck to a level few can imagine. RP's views can do little more than to encourage every free nations enemies. That RP is as some have called him, naive, is open to debate. As a former service member, that RP, by virtue of his policy statements, does not, to my mind, treasure the safety of our troops is very disturbing.
As far as "B"..... You've been watching too many movies. High ranking officers, while not "humping the boonies", are at risk as a high value targets. In my experience, I saw officer grades from Colonel on down, in actual combat situations. I have no experience with Generals. Except to say that most were company grade officers at one time in their careers.
My former XO retired as a four star General. I know 100% for certain that he was "in the schidt" with us. I saw it myself. You don't forget things like that.

[jdfreefly 1]

A refusal to educate yourself on the facts of the discussion should reasonably exclude you from participation in the discussion.

Methane Freefly - got stink?

[jdfreefly 1]

Quote

Let's not dissect RP's words as if he was under oath, and being deposed.

Yes, and while we are at it, let's not for one second question our original assumptions about what was being said and what was meant. Let us form our opinions in stone and resolutely ignore any evidence that may be contrary to our beliefs. Furthermore, let us present those opinions to the masses as irrefutable fact.


I have watched the video of the debate, and I have watched that exchange several times. Why? Because I thought, maybe you were right and I wanted to review my impressions to see if maybe my pro-paul bias had colored my interpretation of his words.

At this point, I am fine to agree that you and I have different interpretations of that exchange. I am not fine however with you presenting your version as fact.

Methane Freefly - got stink?

[jdfreefly 1]

Quote

As a former service member, that RP, by virtue of his policy statements, does not, to my mind, treasure the safety of our troops is very disturbing.

Please tell me what policy indicates that he does not treasure the safety of our troops? I have trouble seeing how they would be safer invading Iran preemptively rather than at home protecting the country on our soil.

It has become clear to me that if anyone other than Ron Paul is elected, including Obama, we will find ourselves at war with Iran within their term of office. It sounds to me like you believe that is what we should be doing.

Methane Freefly - got stink?