Ron Paul Has A Legit Shot.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Dan Kone

Well-Known Member
I hate how partisan all these idiots are
I hated when they kept asking Paul- "so on the issue of Iran you would be rinning to the left of Obama" Like everythings left or right or like each party has to take a unified stance on an issue because that's the party line
These people sicken me- It's not a football game where your trying to make sure your team wins and the other team loses- these people are sopposed to represent us- all of us
Shouldn't it be about right and wrong- not left or right or dem vs repub
Shouldn't it be about whats best for the people who make up our country?
The republican base has taken a hard line extremist stance on virtually every issue. They are not interested in being reasonable. They are interested only in people telling them what they want to hear regardless of what the truth is. That's why Romney and Newt are on top.
 

mccumcumber

Well-Known Member
I dunno about Newt needing to make another mistake... he's proven himself to be a liar and hypocrit, as well as completely fucking clueless. Even Republican senators don't want him in office... and yet, fox news does! So the midwest agrees... fucking pathetic.
 

sync0s

Well-Known Member
The republican base has taken a hard line extremist stance on virtually every issue. They are not interested in being reasonable. They are interested only in people telling them what they want to hear regardless of what the truth is. That's why Romney and Newt are on top.
Don't get me wrong, I agree with you... but the Democrats are exactly the same.

Plus, its hard for you being a democrat to not call a conservative view "extremist." We need to stop tagging views like this and listen to them with honest open minds. If we start there than we can begin to discuss and iron out the errors in each sides philosophy. Then we can truly build a great America.

I will finish this by saying America is in desperate need of a third party. Don't mind me, I'm biased on this topic :)
 

Dan Kone

Well-Known Member
I dunno about Newt needing to make another mistake... he's proven himself to be a liar and hypocrit, as well as completely fucking clueless.
I'm very convinced that Ron Paul is within an inch of being the nominee at this point. He just needs that one political moment that knocks either Newt Or Romney back down. And I do believe republican voters are looking for any excuse to not vote for Newt Or Mitt.

A wrongly uttered phrase, something uncovered in Romney's past, anything. It's still Romney or Mitts race to lose, but if either screws up, their votes will go to Ron Paul at this point because he's the only viable candidate left who hasn't achieved front runner status.

MSNBC is already jumping on the Ron Paul bandwagon. If CNN does the same, that would be enough.

Even Republican senators don't want him in office... and yet, fox news does! So the midwest agrees... fucking pathetic.
I hate to feed the nutty conspiracy theories of Ron Paul supporters, but you may have a point. It does seem like Fox news is actively taking an "anyone but Ron Paul" stance. I understood them dismissing Ron Paul when he was polling in the middle of the pack, but now there is no excuse. Someone who looks like the favorite to win Iowa deserves some coverage. I skimmed through the polls today and noticed in a couple articles on Fox news's site they seemed to go out of their way to not mention Paul, even giving Perry and Bachmann credit, while failing to mention Paul who's doing much better. And then when they do mention him, it's only to be dismissive.

So yes. I have to agree. Fox news clearly doesn't want him to win. That network did get it's fame supporting the neo-cons and for the most part still have a neocon mentality. Ron Paul even winning the primaries would pretty much put a stop to the neocon movement all together. Also Rush Limbaugh is in that same boat.
 

mccumcumber

Well-Known Member
Yeah, I noticed that not even being a Ron Paul supporter... This seems like the perfect race for Nader to run in. I've always been a Nader fan, too bad he gave up.
 

Dan Kone

Well-Known Member
Don't get me wrong, I agree with you... but the Democrats are exactly the same.
I don't agree with that. The democratic party has a lot of problems, but insincere policy isn't one of them, at least not to the same degree it's a problem in the republican party. The democratic party's big problem is weakness. From top to bottom they are pathetically weak. We don't even know what the actual results of real democratic party policy would be because even when in power, they fail to pass their agenda and instead just try and pass watered down republican policy.

Look at what they're doing right now. Their top priority has been to pass a tax cut (republican ideal), but they threw in a twist. They wanted to raise taxes on millionaires. That's someone the American people broadly support by a wide margin. But the end result was once again, they caved. They got their tax cut (republican ideal) but instead of funding it with raising taxes on millionaires (democratic ideal), they cut funding to fannie and freddy (republican ideal) AND had to give the republicans an oil pipeline (republcian ideal).

So to sum that up. In order for the democracts to pass a bill which republicans would have supported if they came up with it first, they had to pay for it by cutting fannie and freddy (which republicans wanted) and threw in an oil pipeline (something else republicans wanted). For those keeping score that's republicans 3 democrats 0.

Now I don't oppose cutting fannie and freddy to give the middle class a tax cuts. That seems like the right thing to do right now. Nor do I oppose the oil pipeline. I know it's primarily for the benefit of multinational energy companies, but it doesn't really hurt anyone, so fine. All in all it's a good deal for the American people. But damn, that shows exactly how weak the democrats are. Controlling the senate and whitehouse while trying to pass a tax cut, they still had to give republicans the farm.

That's a good bill and I'm glad it passed, but it certainly isn't democratic policy. The white house has passed very little actual democratic policy while in office. It seems like they've totally given up on even trying.

That's what's wrong with the democratic party. It's not lack of sincerity or being too extreme, it's lack of backbone.

Plus, its hard for you being a democrat to not call a conservative view "extremist." We need to stop tagging views like this and listen to them with honest open minds.
I am listening to them. And then I'm comparing them to our recent past and they are extremist by comparison. Reagan is the most extreme right wing president we've ever had. But he couldn't win today because he's too liberal. The republican party has moved to the right.

Mitt Romney is another example. People are characterizing him as "too liberal" because of a health care policy he enacted. That health care policy was invented by the republican party and considered their health care platform from Nixon to 2008.

Republicans have unquestionably moved to the far right after Bush left office. I really don't see how anyone can look at republican policy from pre-2008 and now and not come to the conclusion that they've moved to a more extremist stance. It's simply the reality.

If we start there than we can begin to discuss and iron out the errors in each sides philosophy. Then we can truly build a great America.
All that bipartisan stuff sounds great, but it's impossible right now. Obama has rolled out republican policy several times and republicans denounce policies they invented as socialism just because Obama tried to find common ground with them. I don't like Obama's policies, but you can't say he hasn't tried to bridge the partisan divide. No president has ever made this big an effort for cooperation. He really can't be blamed because republicans know it's in their benefit to refuse to cooperate at all costs.

I will finish this by saying America is in desperate need of a third party. Don't mind me, I'm biased on this topic :)
Well if Ron Paul doesn't win the republican nomination, I'd bet you'll have your third party candidate right there.
 

sync0s

Well-Known Member
I don't agree with that. The democratic party has a lot of problems, but insincere policy isn't one of them, at least not to the same degree it's a problem in the republican party. The democratic party's big problem is weakness. From top to bottom they are pathetically weak. We don't even know what the actual results of real democratic party policy would be because even when in power, they fail to pass their agenda and instead just try and pass watered down republican policy.

Look at what they're doing right now. Their top priority has been to pass a tax cut (republican ideal), but they threw in a twist. They wanted to raise taxes on millionaires. That's someone the American people broadly support by a wide margin. But the end result was once again, they caved. They got their tax cut (republican ideal) but instead of funding it with raising taxes on millionaires (democratic ideal), they cut funding to fannie and freddy (republican ideal) AND had to give the republicans an oil pipeline (republcian ideal).

So to sum that up. In order for the democracts to pass a bill which republicans would have supported if they came up with it first, they had to pay for it by cutting fannie and freddy (which republicans wanted) and threw in an oil pipeline (something else republicans wanted). For those keeping score that's republicans 3 democrats 0.

Now I don't oppose cutting fannie and freddy to give the middle class a tax cuts. That seems like the right thing to do right now. Nor do I oppose the oil pipeline. I know it's primarily for the benefit of multinational energy companies, but it doesn't really hurt anyone, so fine. All in all it's a good deal for the American people. But damn, that shows exactly how weak the democrats are. Controlling the senate and whitehouse while trying to pass a tax cut, they still had to give republicans the farm.

That's a good bill and I'm glad it passed, but it certainly isn't democratic policy. The white house has passed very little actual democratic policy while in office. It seems like they've totally given up on even trying.

That's what's wrong with the democratic party. It's not lack of sincerity or being too extreme, it's lack of backbone.



I am listening to them. And then I'm comparing them to our recent past and they are extremist by comparison. Reagan is the most extreme right wing president we've ever had. But he couldn't win today because he's too liberal. The republican party has moved to the right.

Mitt Romney is another example. People are characterizing him as "too liberal" because of a health care policy he enacted. That health care policy was invented by the republican party and considered their health care platform from Nixon to 2008.

Republicans have unquestionably moved to the far right after Bush left office. I really don't see how anyone can look at republican policy from pre-2008 and now and not come to the conclusion that they've moved to a more extremist stance. It's simply the reality.



All that bipartisan stuff sounds great, but it's impossible right now. Obama has rolled out republican policy several times and republicans denounce policies they invented as socialism just because Obama tried to find common ground with them. I don't like Obama's policies, but you can't say he hasn't tried to bridge the partisan divide. No president has ever made this big an effort for cooperation. He really can't be blamed because republicans know it's in their benefit to refuse to cooperate at all costs.



Well if Ron Paul doesn't win the republican nomination, I'd bet you'll have your third party candidate right there.
Winded reply......

We are talking about the base... the voters. Hardcore democrat base are no different in the 'extremist' views than the republicans. I listen to progressive talk radio daily, I hear what they have to say and the same spin game the left media that is almost a mirror image of the right media.

Problem is, I think the hardcore bases of both parties, as interested in politics as they maybe (which is great), they are too driven by the media. Failing to spend the time to do research of their own, so they get stuck in the media spin game that leaves them ignorant and stubborn.

I'm honestly surprised that the GOP is not freaking out saying they need to start pushing Ron Paul. It has become widely accepted that if Ron Paul makes a third party run that Barrack Obama will probably be reelected. Ron Paul running independent will sabatoge the GOP.
 

deprave

New Member
I hate to feed the nutty conspiracy theories of Ron Paul supporters, but you may have a point. It does seem like Fox news is actively taking an "anyone but Ron Paul" stance. I understood them dismissing Ron Paul when he was polling in the middle of the pack, but now there is no excuse. Someone who looks like the favorite to win Iowa deserves some coverage. I skimmed through the polls today and noticed in a couple articles on Fox news's site they seemed to go out of their way to not mention Paul, even giving Perry and Bachmann credit, while failing to mention Paul who's doing much better. And then when they do mention him, it's only to be dismissive.

So yes. I have to agree. Fox news clearly doesn't want him to win. That network did get it's fame supporting the neo-cons and for the most part still have a neocon mentality. Ron Paul even winning the primaries would pretty much put a stop to the neocon movement all together. Also Rush Limbaugh is in that same boat.
Thats because its not a nutty conspiracy, the media continually goes out of their way to ignore Ron Paul...they always have..not just because its not worth mentioning or something....they go out of their way to do it and its been that way for a long time. The reason Ron Paul people know it is because everyday we check the news for Ron Paul, I literally check every news article and hit ctrl+f and type Ron Paul and press enter, often times his name isn't even mentioned when it obviously should be mentioned or they just kind of throw a one liner in like "Ron Paul the congressman from texas was also at the debate" and they might throw in an attack while their at it "Ron Paul was also at the debate last night. Bachman didn't agree with Ron Paul on his non-interventionalist ideas that would put America in danger"

Seriously man..If you followed this you would be like "WTF!!!!" .....Dude we are not all crazy, we check the news for Ron Paul and skim it and its so flipping obvious when you look for it (of course as is anything, but this is soooo obvious it pisses us off). In the Truth about Ron Paul Part 2 thread post #1 I actually took the time to compile a list over just a short time.

I am talking about like 1/2 hour long pundit discussions about the Federal Reserve and the GOP nominees without even mention of Ron Paul...Seriously it is shocking...Every time you come to an article about the elections hit ctrl+f and type Ron Paul and hit enter....most of the time you don't even get a hit or you find just one sentence.

On top of all this day after day its only the same 3 or 4 shows that ever even dare spoke his name, things are changing now but its still really really bad. On fox in the last week, there is about 6 or 7 mentions of him, each time only about a sentence or two on articles and television with maybe 1 or 2 exceptions..There was even an article on FOX that had videos of each candidate with a nice little paragraph or two and Ron Paul was not even in it...typical...

Ok now to add to the point that you might be thinking Ron Paul, just nobody cares that all it is....Wrong, its only the mainstream media that has these kind of articles..Local News and other programs its a whole different story...Ever trying youtube another candidate? All you get is Ron Paul videos because there is 10's of thousands of them every day...How about take a look at google analytics, yahoo, or twitter trends.....Ron Paul number one politician every day!....every online polll ....Ron Paul #1.....Every straw Poll..Ron Paul #1....Ron Paul is going to surprise a lot of people.


One simple example took me 2 seconds...go to associated press website like your average zombie click on the big headliner article about the GOP race.....hit ctrl+f type Ron Paul Hit Enter ->>>>DING --->>>>>NOT FOUND

Oh look a front page article about social issues, gee Ron Paul has a different view then every candidate I bet he will get at least a paragraph...NOT! His name is not even in it...I am not surprised...another day going to lamestream media sites and searching for Ron Paul and yielding no results...
Social Issues Bubbling Up in GOP Campaign -


Social issues bubbling up in GOP campaign

By PHILIP ELLIOTT, Associated Press – 20 hours ago

DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — Mitt Romney is forced to defend his opposition to same-sex marriage. Newt Gingrich endorses a pledge to be faithful to his wife. Rick Perry runs an ad noting he's against gays serving openly in the military, and abortion may take center stage Wednesday.

Three weeks before Iowa's leadoff caucuses, cultural issues that have been virtually dormant in this Republican presidential campaign are bursting to the forefront as social conservatives — who make up the core of GOP primary voters and haven't rallied behind any one contender — search for a candidate who shares their views.

"Everyone knows what Iowans want to hear and they will be willing to say those things," said the Rev. Brad Cranston of Burlington, who is backing Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann. "But I think it's important that we examine their records."

Almost daily now, GOP front-runners Gingrich and Romney are answering for records and backgrounds that are flawed in the eyes of these voters. And Republicans rivals looking to revive their struggling campaigns — like Perry — are turning ever more to topics that resonate strongly with this powerful segment of their party's primary electorate in hopes of becoming their preferred candidate.

"There's something wrong in this country when gays can serve openly in the military but our kids can't openly celebrate Christmas or pray in school," Perry, the Texas governor, says in a TV ad blanketing Iowa ahead of the state's Jan. 3 caucuses.

In a column published Tuesday, Bishop Gene Robinson of New Hampshire, the Episcopal Church's first openly gay bishop, assailed Perry for using gay and lesbian soldiers as "as political cannon fodder for his campaign" in "an attempt to garner conservative Christian votes."

Abortion opposition will be the issue of the day Wednesday, when Gingrich, Bachmann, Perry and Rick Santorum attend a screening of Mike Huckabee's anti-abortion documentary.

Cultural issues like those — typically a driving force in a GOP primary — largely have taken a back seat to the economy this year, among even the most vocal social conservatives. Many have spent the better part of the year that while they want a candidate who firmly shares their beliefs, it's most important that they find someone who can fix the economy — and defeat President Barack Obama.

A recent New York Times/ CBS News poll found that among evangelicals in Iowa, 55 percent said a candidate's positions on economic issues were most important to them. Only 25 percent said social issues were their top priority. It was even more lopsided among all likely caucus-goers: 71 percent said the economy was issue one and 14 percent cited social concerns.

Today, the two Republicans at the top of polls in Iowa and elsewhere have baggage that makes cultural conservatives skeptical.

Romney, a Mormon, has a record of equivocating or reversing himself on a series of social issues, including gay and abortion rights, and his faith concerns some evangelical voters. Gingrich has been married three times and has acknowledged infidelity. Both have sought over the years to make amends with these voters but their pasts raise questions about whether they are sincere when they now say they'll uphold issues social conservatives hold dear.

So both are working to allay those concerns — and draw distinctions with each other.

Romney has been trying to make himself more acceptable than Gingrich, the leading alternative, by pressing family values and highlighting his home life and, to a point, his faith. The strategy means more time on the campaign trail for his wife Ann, and five sons.

"I've been married to the same woman for 25 — excuse me, I'll get in trouble — for 42 years. I've been in the same church my entire life," he said in a recent debate, a clip that was turned into a TV ad. "If I'm president of the United States, I will be true to my family, to my faith, and to our country."

It's a pitch at least partly intended to differentiate himself from the thrice-married Gingrich who converted to Catholicism in recent years.

Gingrich, for his part, is trying to insulate himself from questions about — or attacks on — his personal life.

He's hoping Iowa voters remember that he helped bankroll an effort here to repeal judges who ruled in favor of same-sex marriage.

And on Monday, he became the latest Republican candidate to endorse the so-called marriage pledge by an Iowa evangelical group, the Family Leader, which opposes gay marriage and abortion.

Bachmann, Perry and Santorum all signed the pledge promising to block same-sex marriage and be faithful to their spouses.

Gingrich, however, wouldn't sign it, prompting some evangelicals to note that he began a relationship with his third wife while married to his second.

"Christians in Iowa — and I understand many of his old U.S. House colleagues as well — desperately want to see a changed man, yet we keep on seeing a glib, wordy cheater. On all fronts, Newt should just be faithful," said the Rev. Albert Calaway, a retired Assemblies of God pastor who heads a 200-church Iowa group called Truth, Values and Leadership.

The issue flared in a debate Saturday when the candidates were asked whether voters should consider marital fidelity.

"If you cheat on your wife, you'll cheat on your business partner. It's a characteristic people look at," Perry said.

Santorum added: "Certainly, it's a factor and it should be a factor when you're electing a leader."

Gingrich responded as he has throughout the campaign, saying: "I think it's a very important issue ... I've made mistakes at times and I've had to go to God for forgiveness."

Some of the pressure on candidates to talk about social issues is coming from special interest groups and voters themselves.

This week, the National Association for Gun Rights started calling New Hampshire gun owners to tell them that "Newt Gingrich has taken strongly anti-gun positions."

Romney also was confronted this week by a gay Vietnam veteran in New Hampshire, where state lawmakers could vote around the time of the Jan. 10 presidential primary on a measure to repeal the law that legalized gay marriage in the state.

At a Manchester diner, Bob Garon, 63, asked if Romney would support efforts to repeal the law that allowed him and husband Bob Lemire to marry.

Setting aside his vow to be better on gay rights than Sen. Edward M. Kennedy — his rival in 1994's Senate race — Romney responded that he backed the repeal and added: "I believe that marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman."

Copyright © 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.​


This is what they feed the zombies..fucking bullshit..


 

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
Fox News is not endlessly repeating the Ron Paul mantra... Must mean they hate him.

Or... It isnt big news.

By the way... if you go directly to Ron Paul's site.. .Something I think you would be on all the time...

You would find an interview of him on Fox News on December 15th (2 days ago) with Neil Cavuto about his rising popularity in Iowa.

I guess if you dont see it, it doesnt happen eh?
 

deprave

New Member
Fox News is not endlessly repeating the Ron Paul mantra... Must mean they hate him.

Or... It isnt big news.

By the way... if you go directly to Ron Paul's site.. .Something I think you would be on all the time...

You would find an interview of him on Fox News on December 15th (2 days ago) with Neil Cavuto about his rising popularity in Iowa.

I guess if you dont see it, it doesnt happen eh?
That is Fox Business news and he is on neil cavuto all the time for years...that is one of the 4 or 5 shows I mentioned that he goes on..In fact they are all on Fox Business when it comes to Fox and not Fox If you want to be technical.

Its not that I think they should be "endlessly repeating the Ron Paul mantra" - its that when they have a discussion about the GOP race or something incredibly relevant to Ron Paul thats more than 20 minutes long, I think Ron Paul deserves a sentence, but he doesn't even get one. They literally go out of their way not to mention him. You can't make this stuff up. And as for radio I don't know maybe today glenn beck will have a two hour special on the federal reserve and not mention Ron Pauls name, maybe Sean hannity will drone on about the the race for 3 hours on, Mark levin will talk for 2 hours about who can beat obama, Rush Limbaugh will talk about patroitism, all day long these bobble heads drone on about topics relevant to Ron Paul and don't even utter his name, it happens every single day without fail...just one time...just one day..Id like to hear them say "Ron Paul" just once and Id be satisfied...
 

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
That is Fox Business news and he is on neil cavuto all the time for years...that is one of the 4 or 5 shows I mentioned that he goes on..In fact they are all on Fox Business when it comes to Fox and not Fox If you want to be technical.

Its not that I think they should be "endlessly repeating the Ron Paul mantra" - its that when they have a discussion about the GOP race or something incredibly relevant to Ron Paul thats more than 20 minutes long, I think Ron Paul deserves a sentence, but he doesn't even get one. They literally go out of their way not to mention him. You can't make this stuff up.
Well, the source you sited was from the Associated Press.

I guess you could develop a conspiracy theory from the number of news stories Ron Paul is NOT in since it must be 99%....
 

deprave

New Member
Well, the source you sited was from the Associated Press.

I guess you could develop a conspiracy theory from the number of news stories Ron Paul is NOT in since it must be 99%....
99% of articles about the GOP Race coming out of Main Stream Media..sure..you bet..or I could just give you the links...

Here is to get you started, simply check it everyday, click on each article about the GOP, search for Ron Paul, get back to me in acouple weeks when you find something longer then a sentence:


www.foxnews.com
www.cbs.com
www.msnbc.com
www.cnbc.com
www.cnn.com
 

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
I just showed you one on Fox News with Neil Cavuto. It was not on Fox Business news, it was on the mainstream channel.

Also, there was a Fox News hosted debate he was just in and subsequent interviews.

All the proof I need is on Ron Paul's own site. Why dont you go look where he has been and who has been reporting on him than where he has not been? It would be a hell of alot easier. But hey, if you have got plenty of time and nothing better to do with it then feel free, it's America...
 

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
They just mentioned Ron Paul on Fox and Friends. How he has had the infrastructure established since 2008 and how most of the kids he has working for him he doesnt have to pay, etc.

More than a sentence.
 

Sure Shot

Well-Known Member
Ron Paul, "Alot more people die from it(Alcohol). And there is more danger with the alcohol then there is with the marijuana!" 7:50
[youtube]VMUZIVYuluc[/youtube]
 

OGEvilgenius

Well-Known Member
99% of articles about the GOP Race coming out of Main Stream Media..sure..you bet..or I could just give you the links...

Here is to get you started, simply check it everyday, click on each article about the GOP, search for Ron Paul, get back to me in acouple weeks when you find something longer then a sentence:


www.foxnews.com
www.cbs.com
www.msnbc.com
www.cnbc.com
www.cnn.com
I did a search on CNN last night for the NDAA. Not one hit. But the media isn't completely controlled.... Peyton Manning's retirement and Sam Hurd's arrest were the two biggest US stories.
 

Dan Kone

Well-Known Member
Winded reply......

We are talking about the base... the voters. Hardcore democrat base are no different in the 'extremist' views than the republicans.
I don't agree. The far left wing of the democratic party is still to the right of republican president Dwight Eisenhower. Basically the left wing of the democratic party supports the economic policies during the Nixon administration. I'm pretty sure Nixon wasn't a far left extremist. That's how far to the right our country has gone recently. Former republican policy is now considered left wing extremism.

I listen to progressive talk radio daily, I hear what they have to say and the same spin game the left media that is almost a mirror image of the right media.
Maybe that's why progressive talk radio is extremely unpopular even among democratic voters.

Problem is, I think the hardcore bases of both parties, as interested in politics as they maybe (which is great), they are too driven by the media. Failing to spend the time to do research of their own, so they get stuck in the media spin game that leaves them ignorant and stubborn.
The media deserves a lot of the blame for how completely ignorant American voters are no doubt. Our media is absolutely terrible.

I'm honestly surprised that the GOP is not freaking out saying they need to start pushing Ron Paul. It has become widely accepted that if Ron Paul makes a third party run that Barrack Obama will probably be reelected. Ron Paul running independent will sabatoge the GOP.
I couldn't agree more.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top