Will Congressman Ron Paul be our next President?

[GOS_Queen]

Actually just picking on google mr. paul is a politician (this is a slur, and equally applied across party lines) and does what he must to drum up votes.

Actually, one of the biggest "selling" points for me for Ron Paul is that he is not willing to "do whatever" and "say whatever" to gain votes.

He has a consistent voting record - his votes are based on what the constitution says.

Also, he has a nickname of "Dr NO" (he's a physician, btw). He turns the PAC lobbyists away - won't give them the time of day and thus, they don't give him the time of day!

I guess I am a fed up American who is TIRED of politics "as usual" ... I was totally disenfranchised ... didn't give a rats *** .... because "all politicians are the same and none are out to do what's best for America" :(

And then, I found Ron Paul.

People say "he can't win" ... I know the odds are stacked against him. Based on the last 2 elections, I realize that there are questionable tactics when it comes to ballots ... but I, for one, am so sick and tired of politics "as usual".

I just wish Americans would WAKE UP to the fact that our country is in a REAL MESS!!! Politics "as usual" is not going to solve anything - for the most part, there really is no difference between the 2 sides anymore :(

My dream would be that everyone turn off their radios and tv ... research the candidates, ask themselves "where do the candidates STAND on the issues" (and not just where they "say" they stand ... actually look at how they voted ;) - it's easy to say one thing to get elected and then do another )

Also, look at the FEC filings and "opensecrets" websites to see where their money is coming from and how they are spending it -
(www.fec.gov and www.opensecrets.org )

Vote your conscience NOT because "this pundit on 'FAKE NEWS' likes this guy and he must know what he's doing!" ...

(stepping down from soap box NOW - exit stage left)

[k12311997]

Actually, one of the biggest "selling" points for me for Ron Paul is that he is not willing to "do whatever" and "say whatever" to gain votes.

He has a consistent voting record - his votes are based on what the constitution says.

Also, he has a nickname of "Dr NO" (he's a physician, btw). He turns the PAC lobbyists away - won't give them the time of day and thus, they don't give him the time of day!

I guess I am a fed up American who is TIRED of politics "as usual" ... I was totally disenfranchised ... didn't give a rats *** .... because "all politicians are the same and none are out to do what's best for America" :(

And then, I found Ron Paul.

People say "he can't win" ... I know the odds are stacked against him. Based on the last 2 elections, I realize that there are questionable tactics when it comes to ballots ... but I, for one, am so sick and tired of politics "as usual".

I just wish Americans would WAKE UP to the fact that our country is in a REAL MESS!!! Politics "as usual" is not going to solve anything - for the most part, there really is no difference between the 2 sides anymore :(

My dream would be that everyone turn off their radios and tv ... research the candidates, ask themselves "where do the candidates STAND on the issues" (and not just where they "say" they stand ... actually look at how they voted ;) - it's easy to say one thing to get elected and then do another )

Also, look at the FEC filings and "opensecrets" websites to see where their money is coming from and how they are spending it -
(www.fec.gov and www.opensecrets.org )

Vote your conscience NOT because "this pundit on 'FAKE NEWS' likes this guy and he must know what he's doing!" ...

(stepping down from soap box NOW - exit stage left)

I don't disagree with anything you said except the first line. You did not adress my concern about google actively participating in the supression of the free exchange of ideas so is dr. paul a. unaware of that? b. unconcerned about that? c. doing what he must to schlep votes?

[k12311997]

Well, they all do that if they want access to the Chinese market, but at least Google fought giving over info to the government longer than the others.

so the most reluctant sympathizer is better than the most adamant supporter?

[1968]

Actually just picking on google mr. paul is a politician (this is a slur, and equally applied across party lines) and does what he must to drum up votes. So what is the cost of doing business with china? What values are you willing to give up, rather than stand up for?

You could argue that by purchasing or selling goods made in china I support the regime. Goods ,while suppling money, do not of themselves prevent the free exchange of ideas. I would argue that unfortunately the US labor pool has overpriced themselves and it would be darn near impossible to purchase American or European not because I wouldn't spend more for the same product, I would, because the products are simply not made anymore. I buy gas that comes from terrorist supporting regimes (save the caribou) not because I support terrorism but because I need to get to work.

So practicality comes before principle? Isn’t that the charge you are leveling at Google and Paul?

I don't disagree with anything you said except the first line. You did not adress my concern about google actively participating in the supression of the free exchange of ideas so is dr. paul a. unaware of that? b. unconcerned about that? c. doing what he must to schlep votes?

Your premise is that Google’s compliance with Chinese law necessarily indicates that they are actively working against the cause of free speech. Your premise is false, therefore your alternative is false. I believe Google’s involvement in China actually furthers the cause of free speech by opening a door to providing information where there would be none. I also think that building economic ties with China is more likely to bring change to their political system. It seems possible that plenty of other individuals, companies, and politicians (including Google and Paul) believe this, too.

[k12311997]

So practicality comes before principle? Isn’t that the charge you are leveling at Google and Paul?

we have all long ago slid down that slope, it is impossible (not virtually, not practically, but actually) to only live with American manufactured goods the best we can hope to do is minimize our support of foreign product.

Actually the only charge I leveled against dr. paul is that he is a politician.

Your premise is that Google’s compliance with Chinese law necessarily indicates that they are actively working against the cause of free speech. Your premise is false, therefore your alternative is false. I believe Google’s involvement in China actually furthers the cause of free speech by opening a door to providing information where there would be none. I also think that building economic ties with China is more likely to bring change to their political system. It seems possible that plenty of other individuals, companies, and politicians (including Google and Paul) believe this, too.

I'm not sure where to start with this. Economic ties and hopefully an economic parity with western civilization will bring about the fall of communism. I agree with you on this. Levi's and Pepsi have as much to do with the fall of the Berlin Wall as Pres. Regan did. How ever I fail to see how agreeing to censor and disseminate false information furthers the cause of free speech.

[1968]

How ever I fail to see how agreeing to censor and disseminate false information furthers the cause of free speech.

First of all, you've change the context of your previous comments by injecting a new charge (i.e. "disseminating false information") into this. There is a lot of misinformation to be found on the Internet, but I don't blame search engines for that. Secondly, I already answered that I believe Google’s involvement in China actually furthers the cause of free speech by opening a door to providing information where there would be none. How much less information would the Chinese have access to if Google was blocked entirely?

[shanbaum]

Listen to 1968, k12311997. The Force is with him.

[k12311997]

First of all, you've change the context of your previous comments by injecting a new charge (i.e. "disseminating false information") into this. There is a lot of misinformation to be found on the Internet, but I don't blame search engines for that. Secondly, I already answered that I believe Google’s involvement in China actually furthers the cause of free speech by opening a door to providing information where there would be none. How much less information would the Chinese have access to if Google was blocked entirely?

I believe the information that the Chinese people have access to on the internet is the same information allowed by their government from any other source just more readily available. which is by definition of a communist regiem censored and false in regards to western freedom and prosperity.

[1968]

I believe the information that the Chinese people have access to on the internet is the same information allowed by their government from any other source just more readily available. which is by definition of a communist regiem censored and false in regards to western freedom and prosperity.

The Chinese government is unable to censor every nugget of information that they find objectionable. Last time I was in China, I was able to access Optiboard from my hotel room! That'll probably change after this thread.

[1968]

Actually just picking on google mr. paul is a politician (this is a slur, and equally applied across party lines) and does what he must to drum up votes.

I know this is late in coming. According to the San Jose Mercury News, Paul certainly did not pander to the Google audience: http://www.mercurynews.com/politics/ci_6374886.

[1968]

Did anyone watch the Republican debate today? Time only gave Paul a C+, but commented: "If the Republicans nominated a candidate based on who most moved the applause meter, Paul would be giving his acceptance speech next summer."

http://www.time.com/time/specials/20...649963,00.html


As of 5:00 AM EST, an ABC News poll has Paul winning the debate with over 60% of the vote. Does anyone think the major media, including ABC, will report this "shocker" on the evening news Monday?

Ron Paul 27,187
Mitt Romney 3,702
Rudy Giuliani 2,825
Nobody won. I'm voting Democratic. 2,636
Nobody. I'm waiting for Fred Thompson or Newt Gingrich to enter the race. 2,554
Mike Huckabee 2,342
Sam Brownback 991
Tom Tancredo 659
John McCain 626
Tommy Thompson 385
Total Vote: 44,278

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Decis...pup?id=3436820

[1968]

Did anyone watch the debate in New Hampshire on FoxNews last night? Ron Paul vs. Mike Huckabee was the highlight of the evening....

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news...ke_huckab.html

Yet Fox focuses on the frontrunners...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,295899,00.html

[Grubendol]

Did anyone watch the debate in New Hampshire on FoxNews last night? Ron Paul vs. Mike Huckabee was the highlight of the evening....

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news...ke_huckab.html

Yet Fox focuses on the frontrunners...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,295899,00.html

Like I’ve been saying all along, it’s the nature of the corporate driven media to focus on those most in line with their own political advantage. The candidates most in line with the true nature of both parties are the ones ignored and/or pushed aside as “also-rans” over a year before the actual vote.

[1968]

It appears that the viewers appreciated a bit of honest debate from Paul and Huckabee. As to be expected with Paul doing well, FoxNews isn't making it a point to give much coverage to the results of the viewer vote. They've buried those results off to a sidebar:

Ron Paul 33%
Mike Huckabee 18%
Rudy Giuliani 15%
John McCain 14%
Mitt Romney 12%
Duncan Hunter 2%
Tom Tancredo 2%
Sam Brownback 1%

Also to be expected, Sean Hannity did not congratulate Paul on his good showing. The best he could muster was this: "And in first tonight, Ron Paul. He is having all those 3 percent of people call in, I'm sure." It was quite the precious moment!

Source: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,295969,00.html

[Grubendol]

Classic Hannity....if ever there was a blowhard know nothing.

[1968]

Did anyone watch the debate in New Hampshire on FoxNews last night? Ron Paul vs. Mike Huckabee was the highlight of the evening....

Here is part of that exchange:

MR. HUME: Go ahead. You wanted to respond? He just addressed you; you go ahead and respond. (Continued applause.)

REP. PAUL: The American people didn’t go in. A few people advising this administration, a small number of people called the neoconservative hijacked our foreign policy. They’re responsible, not the American people. They’re not responsible. We shouldn’t punish them. (Cheers, applause.)

MR. HUCKABEE: Congressman, we are one nation. We can’t be divided. We have to be one nation under God. That means if we make a mistake, we make it as a single country, the United States of America, not the divided states of America. (Cheers.)

REP. PAUL: No. When we make a mistake -- (interrupted by applause) -- when we make a mistake, it is the obligation of the people through their representatives to correct the mistake, not to continue the mistake! (Cheers, applause.)

MR. HUCKABEE: And that’s what we do on the floor of the --

REP. PAUL: No! We’ve dug a hole for ourselves and we dug a hole for our party! We’re losing elections and we’re going down next year if we don’t change it, and it has all to do with foreign policy, and we have to wake up to this fact.

MR. HUCKABEE: Even if we lose elections, we should not lose our honor, and that is more important to the Republican Party.

REP. PAUL: We’re losing -- we’ve lost over -- (cheers, applause) -- we have lost -- we have lost 5,000 Americans killed in -- we’ve lost over 5,000 Americans over there in Afghanistan and Iraq and plus the civilians killed. How many more do you want to lose? How long are we going to be there? How long -- what do we have to pay to save face? That’s all we’re doing is saving face. It’s time we came home!

Huckabee must have realized that he should have brought more than patriotic slogans to a confrontation he started because it appears he wants a rematch: http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/huc...007-09-06.html

[Steve Machol]

You mean Hannity is biased?!? Say it ain't so Joe!

Personally I like Paul and Huckabee more than any of the other Republican candidates, although I don't necessarily agree with all their positions.

[chip anderson]

Is anyone fool or foil enough to agree with all the postions of anyone completely?

Chip

[1968]

Is anyone fool or foil enough to agree with all the postions of anyone completely?

Alternatively, is anyone fool or foil enough to disagree with all the positions of anyone completely? I dare say that one would believe that to be true of Sean Hannity listening to the few words he has had for Paul. Hannity has never spoken a positive word about Ron Paul nor has he given him any credit regarding views which they share. Paul is pro-life, pro-Second Amendment, pro-securing the borders, and anti-amnesty for illegal immigrants. He is also a fiscal conservative... probably more so and more consistently so than any of the other Republican candidates. Still, Hannity has never recognized him for his amazing track record as a fiscal conservative.The reason Hannity won't mention any of this or congratulate him for winning the debate: he disagrees with Paul on foreign policy.

Given FoxNews' childish treatment of Paul last night by Wallace, Hume, and Hannity, is there any wonder why the Democrats are refusing to debate on their network?

[1968]

Huckabee must have realized that he should have brought more than patriotic slogans to a confrontation he started because it appears he wants a rematch: http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/huc...007-09-06.html

It looks at though CNN might host Round 2 between Paul and Huckabee. I would like to see more debates where the candidates get to question and respond to each other!

http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldN...nid=48507&fb=1

[Grubendol]

Alternatively, is anyone fool or foil enough to disagree with all the positions of anyone completely? I dare say that one would believe that to be true of Sean Hannity listening to the few words he has had for Paul. Hannity has never spoken a positive word about Ron Paul nor has he given him any credit regarding views which they share. Paul is pro-life, pro-Second Amendment, pro-securing the borders, and anti-amnesty for illegal immigrants. He is also a fiscal conservative... probably more so and more consistently so than any of the other Republican candidates. Still, Hannity has never recognized him for his amazing track record as a fiscal conservative.The reason Hannity won't mention any of this or congratulate him for winning the debate: he disagrees with Paul on foreign policy.

Given FoxNews' childish treatment of Paul last night by Wallace, Hume, and Hannity, is there any wonder why the Democrats are refusing to debate on their network?

Again, this is because Hannity is a mouthpiece for his corporate bosses. Even more so than any of the other Fox News personalities, he doesn't have any real opinions of his own that he shares in the public sphere. He just says whatever helps Fox.

[1968]

Again, this is because Hannity is a mouthpiece for his corporate bosses. Even more so than any of the other Fox News personalities, he doesn't have any real opinions of his own that he shares in the public sphere. He just says whatever helps Fox.

I don't think there is any conspiracy. I'm sure he delivers opinions that are his own.

[1968]

Ron Paul's campaign is reporting that they raised more than $5 million for the third quarter, with cash on hand of $5.3 million. Given that everyone else's figures are down, I wonder if anyone will report on it.

Ron Paul's 114 percent increase is in stark contrast to the decrease suffered by Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, and John McCain. Romney's fundraising was down 29 percent. Giuliani was down 40 percent. McCain was down 55 percent.

Source: http://blog.ronpaul2008.com/ron_paul...release-t.html

[1968]

In case you blinked, Norma McCorvey, aka "Jane Roe", endorsed Ron Paul today. Although McCorvey is viewed as a flip-flopper by many, I can't help but think her endorsement would have received more airplay if she had endorsed Huckabee, McCain, or one of the other Republican front runners. Am I wrong?

Source: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archi...22/599487.aspx

[GOS_Queen]

In case you blinked, Norma McCorvey, aka "Jane Roe", endorsed Ron Paul today. Although McCorvey is viewed as a flip-flopper by many, I can't help but think her endorsement would have received more airplay if she had endorsed Huckabee, McCain, or one of the other Republican front runners. Am I wrong?

Source: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archi...22/599487.aspx

no