First Primary Debates

71
George Noory gave a good review to Paul.
noory, coast to coast 5-16-07 wrote:"I don't know if you caught a glimpse of the GOP debate tonight, but I've gotta tell you, this is not an endorsement, I am just amazed at how Ron Paul continues to really, and effectively, out-maneuver the other candidates in these debates and he gets minimal national exposure :roll: and publicity. It is incredible. I mean you look at Fox News, Ron Paul on top, you look at MSNBC, Ron Paul on top. This is gonna be a very interesting election where it looks like Americans who are voting on the Republican end are picking Ron Paul, but I'm not so sure he'll get the nomination, unless he starts getting the exposure that he needs.:roll: But anyway, we've got the invite into Ron Paul to get him on a future program to talk about the issue of not getting the exposure, when it appears that America likes the guy! I mean, that's the story to me, America likes the guy!"

And why not? When's the last time you heard any other US Rep say something like this: ( Maybe Cynthia McKinney? )
ron paul wrote:Since the creation of the Federal Reserve, middle and working-class Americans have been victimized by a boom-and-bust monetary policy. In addition, most Americans have suffered a steadily eroding purchasing power because of the Federal Reserve's inflationary policies. This represents a real, if hidden, tax imposed on the American people.

From the Great Depression, to the stagflation of the seventies, to the burst of the dotcom bubble last year, every economic downturn suffered by the country over the last 80 years can be traced to Federal Reserve policy. The Fed has followed a consistent policy of flooding the economy with easy money, leading to a misallocation of resources and an artificial "boom" followed by a recession or depression when the Fed-created bubble bursts.


It's fucking insane that the US media is terrified to even raise an eyebrow at the Federal Reserve. Wonder why? :roll:

:roll: = controlled media

First Primary Debates

72
I dunno if y'all have seen this article yet, but i find it pretty enlightening. A Libertarian friend of mine who's all about Ron Paul found this.

Accuracy in Media wrote:Rudy Giuliani's much-publicized but misleading put-down of Ron Paul during Tuesday night's Republican presidential debate should have been tempered by a report that Saudi Arabia, the country that spawned most of the 9/11 hijackers, has been one of Giuliani's lucrative foreign clients. However, Fox News questioners Chris Wallace and Wendell Goler did not bring it up.

Perhaps this can be explained by the fact that the same Associated Press story that named Saudi Arabia as a Giuliani client listed News Corporation, the parent company of Fox News, as another Giuliani client. This AP story, which was not disputed by Giuliani or News Corporation, was carried on the Fox News website.

This writer had raised questions about Fox News' co-sponsorship of the debate, based on the fact that the company had a relationship with Giuliani when he was mayor of New York City. But now we know that the relationship has continued into the period of time that Giuliani has been planning a presidential run. It is an obvious conflict of interest.

It was during a discussion of foreign policy that Paul, a Texas congressman, identified U.S. involvement in the Middle East, especially in Iraq, as a factor in the 9/11 attacks. Giuliani pounced on that, saying the claim was worse than absurd. "Rudy's Wrath" was the headline as Fox News proclaimed Giuliani the winner of the exchange. However, the Fox News text-message poll, with 40,000 votes, gave Paul 25 percent over Giuliani's 19 percent. Mitt Romney came in first with 29 percent.

Giuliani was the first Republican candidate to come on Fox News after the debate and talk about his performance. Co-host Sean Hannity wanted to focus on Giuliani's comments on 9/11 and his attack on Paul. Later, Michael Steele, Maryland's former Lieutenant Governor, was on Fox News, declaring that Giuliani had destroyed Ron Paul. "It's done," Steele said of Paul's campaign. It wasn't mentioned that Giuliani had campaigned for Steele when he ran for a Maryland Senate seat.


Sure seems like Giuliani is FOX News' anointed one, if not the entire Republican Big Business Machine. Thankfully in Wisconsin, we don't have to be registered to a specific political party to vote in the primaries; we just have to vote for only one party's primary. So, if i want to when the time comes, i can vote for Ron Paul, or a Democrat if any of them are really kicking my ass by then.
http://www.ifihadahifi.net
http://www.superstarcastic.com

Marsupialized wrote:Thank you so much for the pounding, it came in handy.

First Primary Debates

73
THANK YOU for sharing that article, DrAwkward.

Both my wife and I saw the softballs they lobbed at Giuliani and Romney, and in spite of that most stations seem to report this debate as being both more balanced and more probing than the first.

Yeah. The same debate where I heard statements such as:

(on combating terrorism)
"I would double the size of Guantanamo Bay." (Romney)

(on whether or not torture should be used in interrogation)
"I'm looking for Jack Bauer!" (Tancredo)
"The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."
-Winston Churchill

First Primary Debates

74
FOX continues to swarm on Ron Paul:
Fox "News" anchor John Gibson was joined by diehard Neo-Con Michele "put every Muslim in a concentration camp" Malkin last night to attack Ron Paul and Alex Jones and to suggest that people in the Middle East enjoy being bombed, and to state otherwise is a tin-foil hat conspiracy theory.

First of all, Gibson lies outright by claiming Ron Paul said the U.S. had a hand in the 9/11 attacks, something the Texas Congressman has never stated. He then brings on Malkin, who remains the poster child for a dwindling gaggle of Internet Neo-Con blowhards.

Malkin defines 9/11 truth as a "virus" and repeats the term over and over to ensure Fox's geriatric 80-plus viewers don't forget it. Malkin resorts to the usual fodder of smearing 9/11 truth as a leftist fringe movement, despite the fact that we are routinely shunned and attacked by the liberal media, both mainstream and alternative.

"I try not to spend too much time in these cesspools," whines Malkin before attacking Ron Paul for appearing on radio with "9/11 conspiracy nut Alex Jones," and suggesting that the Texas Congressman should be kicked out of the debates for doing so.

Freedom of speech is being rationed really tightly these days.

First Primary Debates

75
clocker bob wrote:FOX continues to swarm on Ron Paul:
Fox "News" anchor John Gibson was joined by diehard Neo-Con Michele "put every Muslim in a concentration camp" Malkin last night to attack Ron Paul and Alex Jones and to suggest that people in the Middle East enjoy being bombed, and to state otherwise is a tin-foil hat conspiracy theory.

First of all, Gibson lies outright by claiming Ron Paul said the U.S. had a hand in the 9/11 attacks, something the Texas Congressman has never stated. He then brings on Malkin, who remains the poster child for a dwindling gaggle of Internet Neo-Con blowhards.

Malkin defines 9/11 truth as a "virus" and repeats the term over and over to ensure Fox's geriatric 80-plus viewers don't forget it. Malkin resorts to the usual fodder of smearing 9/11 truth as a leftist fringe movement, despite the fact that we are routinely shunned and attacked by the liberal media, both mainstream and alternative.

"I try not to spend too much time in these cesspools," whines Malkin before attacking Ron Paul for appearing on radio with "9/11 conspiracy nut Alex Jones," and suggesting that the Texas Congressman should be kicked out of the debates for doing so.

Freedom of speech is being rationed really tightly these days.


I don't see how his free speech has been rationed here. He had his place on stage. Then again, Bob, your definition of free speech differs from mine.

Ron Paul is correct on a lot of issues. However, he's an adamantly pro-life libertarian who belives that capital gains taxes should be cut, that the border with Mexico should be secured by any means necessary, that birth-right citizenship should not be allowed for children of illegal immigrants, and that the US should not be a "welfare" state.

Furthermore, when he talks about property rights, it sounds like sweetness and light, but libertarian views on property rights are much more heinous than they want the public to believe. Do you want to dump mercury into your back yard? Many Libertarians would let you.

Libertarians support low taxes and small government, but their version of small government would be an utter and complete disaster. It would leave the neediest and poorest completely without help. Did you like Bush's plan to privatize social security? Imagine that to the tenth power.

I'm glad he's in the race, and I'm glad that he has been allowed to participate in the debates. However, he is just as nuts--if not moreso--than his GOP peers.
My grunge/northwest rock blog

First Primary Debates

76
They should just ask all the candidates from all sides, "Do you want to be another 9/11 president?"

The correct answer is "No." And, of course, when they answer "No", they are thereby denied any talking about 9/11.

Can we stop letting an event from almost 6 years ago dictate policy? Whether it was a true terrorist disaster, or a planned conspiracy, I'm fucking sick and tired of this entire country being run on the fear that something as awful as 9/11 "could happen again", and any discussion of it as a platform for your presidency should have you automatically kicked out of the adult table.
Last edited by Germ War_Archive on Thu May 17, 2007 11:05 am, edited 1 time in total.

First Primary Debates

77
Wood Goblin wrote: Ron Paul is correct on a lot of issues. However, he's an adamantly pro-life libertarian who belives that capital gains taxes should be cut, that the border with Mexico should be secured by any means necessary, that birth-right citizenship should not be allowed for children of illegal immigrants, and that the US should not be a "welfare" state.

Furthermore, when he talks about property rights, it sounds like sweetness and light, but libertarian views on property rights are much more heinous than they want the public to believe. Do you want to dump mercury into your back yard? Many Libertarians would let you.


What blows me away is that he should be a Republican's wet dream with these stances. And yet, because most on the right can't wrap their heads around the idea of "blowback" or how America's policies could have influenced the decision to attack the WTC (since anything more than "the terrorists hate our freedom" apparently is tantamount to blaming America), he's getting slimed. It just amazes me.

When did "conservative" start to = "so far up Bush's ass that the smell covers up how much the war stinks?"

(No need to answer that.)
http://www.ifihadahifi.net
http://www.superstarcastic.com

Marsupialized wrote:Thank you so much for the pounding, it came in handy.

First Primary Debates

78
Wood Goblin wrote: I don't see how his free speech has been rationed here. He had his place on stage. Then again, Bob, your definition of free speech differs from mine.

Ron Paul is correct on a lot of issues. However, he's an adamantly pro-life libertarian who belives that capital gains taxes should be cut, that the border with Mexico should be secured by any means necessary, that birth-right citizenship should not be allowed for children of illegal immigrants, and that the US should not be a "welfare" state.

Furthermore, when he talks about property rights, it sounds like sweetness and light, but libertarian views on property rights are much more heinous than they want the public to believe. Do you want to dump mercury into your back yard? Many Libertarians would let you.

Libertarians support low taxes and small government, but their version of small government would be an utter and complete disaster. It would leave the neediest and poorest completely without help. Did you like Bush's plan to privatize social security? Imagine that to the tenth power.

I'm glad he's in the race, and I'm glad that he has been allowed to participate in the debates. However, he is just as nuts--if not moreso--than his GOP peers.


Aside from Ron Paul's views on this like the Welfare State, Abortion issues, and Border Security, he's the only one with a level stance. Closing the Federal Reserve, and closing "Homeland" Security are really good ideas. He's he only one running that supports a limited, small government.

We could even talk about the poor being poor and helpless because of the way our society functions. Welfare might not be the smartest of ideas, because it causes people to rely on Government for much of their lives. But that's a different thread.

First Primary Debates

79
Skronk wrote:Aside from Ron Paul's views on this like the Welfare State, Abortion issues, and Border Security, he's the only one with a level stance. Closing the Federal Reserve, and closing "Homeland" Security are really good ideas. He's he only one running that supports a limited, small government.


I agree re: the homeland security department, but the proposal to close the Federal Reserve has such little chance in becoming law that it's pointless and silly to even propose it. The entire world of global finance would change, and the rich and powerful would never, even for a moment, let this happen. Paul would find it easier to knock down the Sears Tower with a tennis ball than convince anyone to destory the Fed. Furthermore, it's not like the global economy was some great, flawlessly functioning apparatus when we were still on the gold standard.

Here are some excerpts from one of Ron Paul's newsletters from the early 90s:

Texas congressional candidate Ron Paul's 1992 political newsletter highlighted portrayals of blacks as inclined toward crime and lacking sense about top political issues.

Under the headline of "Terrorist Update," for instance, Paul reported on gang crime in Los Angeles and commented, "If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."

Paul, a Republican obstetrician from Surfside, said Wednesday he opposes racism and that his written commentaries about blacks came in the context of "current events and statistical reports of the time."

Selected writings by Paul were distributed Wednesday by the campaign of his Democratic opponent, Austin lawyer Charles "Lefty" Morris.

Morris said many of Paul's views are "out there on the fringe" and that his commentaries will be judged by voters in the November general elections.

Paul said allegations about his writings amounted to name-calling by the Democrats and that his opponents should focus instead on how to shrink government spending and reform welfare.

Morris and Paul are seeking the 14th Congressional District seat held by Greg Laughlin of West Columbia. Laughlin lost the Republican primary to Paul, a former congressman and the Libertarian Party's 1988 presidential candidate.

Paul, writing in his independent political newsletter in 1992, reported about unspecified surveys of blacks.

"Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action,"Paul wrote.

Paul continued that politically sensible blacks are outnumbered "as decent people." Citing reports that 85 percent of all black men in the District of Columbia are arrested, Paul wrote:

"Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal," Paul said.

Paul also wrote that although "we are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers."


A campaign spokesman for Paul said statements about the fear of black males mirror pronouncements by black leaders such as the Rev. Jesse Jackson, who has decried the spread of urban crime.

Paul continues to write the newsletter for an undisclosed number of subscribers, the spokesman said.

Writing in the same 1992 edition, Paul expressed the popular idea that government should lower the age at which accused juvenile criminals can be prosecuted as adults.

He added, "We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such."
My grunge/northwest rock blog

First Primary Debates

80
I'm not making excuses for Ron Paul at all, but I'm going on how he presents himself. I don't agree with what he wrote above, but in the field of sensible platforms, he's got Romney and the rest beat.
Marsupialized wrote:I want a piano made out of jello.
It's the only way I'll be able to achieve the sound I hear in my head.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests