Rep chairman petitioning Ron Paul from debate 3 HELP

[r0eKY]

http://www.PetitionOnline.com/RPRNC08/ sign up please

Dr.Paul finished first in the 1st debate look at the polls, never mention. He was in 1st in the 2nd debate until the last 8 minutes then he dropped to second where he finished. Now they don’t even want him in the 3rd debate.

Michigan party chairman Saul Anuzis has announced a petition of Republican National Committee members asking the Republican National Committee to bar Congressman Ron Paul from future debates due to Congressman Paul’s comments in the second Republican presidential debate that Mr. Anuzis characterizes as "off the wall and out of whack";

WHEREAS, the terrorist motivation comments made by Congressman Paul are, at minimum, supported by the following:

The 911 Commission Report: During the 9/11 Commission hearings, Vice Chair Lee Hamilton asked, "What motivated them to do it?" FBI Special Agent James Fitzgerald answered, "I believe they feel a sense of outrage against the United States. They identify with the Palestinian problem, they identify with people who oppose repressive regimes, and I believe they tend to focus their anger on the United States." 9/11 Commission testimony June 16, 2004

[BIG NIGE]

wow what a joke. How can people be so stupid?

[Coy_Roy]

People need to call the RNC and tell them that they'll never contribute another penny if these "Anti-American", "Anti-Free Speech" goons are allowed to hijack the Republican party.

Ron Paul is a conservative in the truest sense and deserves the republican nomination.

[Karak567]

I can't believe you guys really think these polls are accurate. You realize it's just a bunch of Democrats pumping up his votes? This guy DOES NOT STAND A CHANCE. Our efforts are much better spent elsewhere.

[TheEngineer]

Dr. Paul isn't very strong in the polls (0% this week....he's been as high as 2%), but he's getting good Internet buzz. Given that and the media attention, hopefully he'll be in for one more debate.

I signed the petition. Let's all sign it. It's good for us to have Paul in the debates to articulate a vision of a much smaller, less expansive federal government.

---------------------------------

Latest Gallup Poll: May 10-13, 2007 (http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=27598)

First Choice for 2008 Democratic Nomination
Based on Democrats/Democratic leaners
May 10-13, 2007


Hillary Clinton, 35%
Barack Obama, 26%
Al Gore, 16%
John Edwards, 12%
Bill Richardson, 2%
Joe Biden, 2%
Al Sharpton, 1%
Christopher Dodd, 1%
Wesley Clark, 1%
Dennis Kucinich, *
Mike Gravel, 0%
Other, 1%
No opinion, 4%

* Less than 0.5%

--------------------------------------------------

First Choice for 2008 Republican Nomination
Based on Republicans/Republican leaners
May 10-13, 2007

Rudy Giuliani, 29%
John McCain, 23%
Fred Thompson, 12%
Mitt Romney, 8%
Newt Gingrich, 6%
Sam Brownback, 2%
Tommy Thompson, 1%
Mike Huckabee, 1%
Tom Tancredo, 1%
George Pataki, 1%
Duncan Hunter, *
Jim Gilmore, *
Chuck Hagel, *
Ron Paul, 0%
Other, 2%
None, 5%
No opinion, 8%

* Less than 0.5%

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Our efforts are much better spent elsewhere.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think our efforts extend beyond trying to keep Paul in the debates. If he stays in, our interests benefit, as Paul's articulation of a smaller, limited federal government stands in clear contrast to the big government solutions proposed by the other Republican candidates.

[frommagio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Our efforts are much better spent elsewhere.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think our efforts extend beyond trying to keep Paul in the debates. If he stays in, our interests benefit, as Paul's articulation of a smaller, limited federal government stands in clear contrast to the big government solutions proposed by the other Republican candidates.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, the other GOP candidates are also paying lip service to the benefits of a smaller, limited federal govt (whether they mean it or not), so the contrast isn't all that sharp.

I have mixed feelings on Ron Paul. His heart's in the right place, but he's not capable of expressing the serious libertarian ideas that he believes in a serious manner. To be blunt, he comes off as a whack job (good word!), and he embarrasses me as a libertarian.

I find myself cringing, hoping that people that I know will think he's just a GOP crazy. I don't want to see folks dismissing libertarian ideas just because the current spokesman sounds like a nut-case.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, the other GOP candidates are also paying lip service to the benefits of a smaller, limited federal govt

[/ QUOTE ]

True (to a degree...haven't heard much about truly limited government), but their follow-on sentences are typically something about a great new government program.

[Scary_Tiger]

Just FYI the guy who brought up barring him from the debate dropped it heading into the weekend. He didn't exactly find a lot of support.

[Coy_Roy]

[ QUOTE ]
Just FYI the guy who brought up barring him from the debate dropped it heading into the weekend. He didn't exactly find a lot of support.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this true and do you have a link?

Good news.

[Jeffiner99]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just FYI the guy who brought up barring him from the debate dropped it heading into the weekend. He didn't exactly find a lot of support.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this true and do you have a link?

Good news.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://migop.blogs.com/blog/2007/05/rnc_debate_peti.html

Yeah, but now he is trying another back door angle saying that ok, well, I won't sensor anyone, but we need to cut the debates down to the top three or four. (And in his polls Ron Paul is doing about 2%). So keep hounding them. Tell the Michigan GOP that we all see through this crap and we want Ron Paul heard.

They had to shut down their switchboard the first day because of so many calls. But we can't let them think this new tactic will work either. So Monday, make a call and tell the Michigan GOP that according to the Fox poll McCain was only running at 2% and Paul at 29% so perhaps we should just ban McCain.

I guess the GOP is experiencing its own blowback.

The publicity is great. Really helping.

I spoke to a guy in Paul's camp and he said they are guaranteed for the next debate, but the ones after that could be in jeopardy. Right now they just need money.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
So Monday, make a call and tell the Michigan GOP that according to the Fox poll McCain was only running at 2% and Paul at 29% so perhaps we should just ban McCain.


[/ QUOTE ]

Should we really quote the post-debate text-phone results as if they represent the electorate? Perhaps we should reference the results in terms of the preference of the viewers, then discuss the need for a true limited-government conservative's participation.

[TheEngineer]

Townhall.com article (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/column.aspx?UrlTitle=but_who_was_right_--_rudy_or_ron&ns=PatrickJBuchanan&dt=05/18/2007&page=full&comments=true)

But Who Was Right -- Rudy or Ron?
By Patrick J. Buchanan
Friday, May 18, 2007

It was the decisive moment of the South Carolina debate.

Hearing Rep. Ron Paul recite the reasons for Arab and Islamic resentment of the United States, including 10 years of bombing and sanctions that brought death to thousands of Iraqis after the Gulf War, Rudy Giuliani broke format and exploded:

"That's really an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of 9-11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don't think I have ever heard that before, and I have heard some pretty absurd explanations for Sept. 11.

"I would ask the congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us what he really meant by it."

The applause for Rudy's rebuke was thunderous -- the soundbite of the night and best moment of Rudy's campaign.

After the debate, on Fox News' "Hannity and Colmes," came one of those delicious moments on live television. As Michael Steele, GOP spokesman, was saying that Paul should probably be cut out of future debates, the running tally of votes by Fox News viewers was showing Ron Paul, with 30 percent, the winner of the debate.

Brother Hannity seemed startled and perplexed by the votes being text-messaged in the thousands to Fox News saying Paul won, Romney was second, Rudy third and McCain far down the track at 4 percent.

"I would ask the congressman to ... tell us what he meant," said Rudy.

A fair question and a crucial question.

When Ron Paul said the 9-11 killers were "over here because we are over there," he was not excusing the mass murderers of 3,000 Americans. He was explaining the roots of hatred out of which the suicide-killers came.

Lest we forget, Osama bin Laden was among the mujahideen whom we, in the Reagan decade, were aiding when they were fighting to expel the Red Army from Afghanistan. We sent them Stinger missiles, Spanish mortars, sniper rifles. And they helped drive the Russians out.

What Ron Paul was addressing was the question of what turned the allies we aided into haters of the United States. Was it the fact that they discovered we have freedom of speech or separation of church and state? Do they hate us because of who we are? Or do they hate us because of what we do?

Osama bin Laden in his declaration of war in the 1990s said it was U.S. troops on the sacred soil of Saudi Arabia, U.S. bombing and sanctions of a crushed Iraqi people, and U.S. support of Israel's persecution of the Palestinians that were the reasons he and his mujahideen were declaring war on us.

Elsewhere, he has mentioned Sykes-Picot, the secret British-French deal that double-crossed the Arabs who had fought for their freedom alongside Lawrence of Arabia and were rewarded with a quarter century of British-French imperial domination and humiliation.

Almost all agree that, horrible as 9-11 was, it was not anarchic terror. It was political terror, done with a political motive and a political objective.

What does Rudy Giuliani think the political motive was for 9-11?

Was it because we are good and they are evil? Is it because they hate our freedom? Is it that simple?

Ron Paul says Osama bin Laden is delighted we invaded Iraq.

Does the man not have a point? The United States is now tied down in a bloody guerrilla war in the Middle East and increasingly hated in Arab and Islamic countries where we were once hugely admired as the first and greatest of the anti-colonial nations. Does anyone think that Osama is unhappy with what is happening to us in Iraq?

Of the 10 candidates on stage in South Carolina, Dr. Paul alone opposed the war. He alone voted against the war. Have not the last five years vindicated him, when two-thirds of the nation now agrees with him that the war was a mistake, and journalists and politicians left and right are babbling in confession, "If I had only known then what I know now ..."

Rudy implied that Ron Paul was unpatriotic to suggest the violence against us out of the Middle East may be in reaction to U.S. policy in the Middle East. Was President Hoover unpatriotic when, the day after Pearl Harbor, he wrote to friends, "You and I know that this continuous putting pins in rattlesnakes finally got this country bitten."

Pearl Harbor came out of the blue, but it also came out of the troubled history of U.S.-Japanese relations going back 40 years. Hitler's attack on Poland was naked aggression. But to understand it, we must understand what was done at Versailles -- after the Germans laid down their arms based on Wilson's 14 Points. We do not excuse -- but we must understand.

Ron Paul is no TV debater. But up on that stage in Columbia, he was speaking intolerable truths. Understandably, Republicans do not want him back, telling the country how the party blundered into this misbegotten war.

By all means, throw out of the debate the only man who was right from the beginning on Iraq.

[BIG NIGE]

I'm gonna write an email to Paul's campaign with some suggestions for what points to make and language to use in the next debate. I know I'm just another political junkie with an opinion, but hopefully since it's a grass roots campaign that's not controlled by big corporation, they'll read and consider it.

[iron81]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm gonna write an email to Paul's campaign with some suggestions for what points to make and language to use in the next debate. I know I'm just another political junkie with an opinion, but hopefully since it's a grass roots campaign that's not controlled by big corporation, they'll read and consider it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ron Paulonly spent $100k on his campaign in the 1st quarter. Ron Paul might personally read the e-mail because he can't afford any staff. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif Paul would kill to get that big campaign aparatus that you despise.

[Jeffiner99]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So Monday, make a call and tell the Michigan GOP that according to the Fox poll McCain was only running at 2% and Paul at 29% so perhaps we should just ban McCain.


[/ QUOTE ]

Should we really quote the post-debate text-phone results as if they represent the electorate? Perhaps we should reference the results in terms of the preference of the viewers, then discuss the need for a true limited-government conservative's participation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds good to me.

[Jeffiner99]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So Monday, make a call and tell the Michigan GOP that according to the Fox poll McCain was only running at 2% and Paul at 29% so perhaps we should just ban McCain.


[/ QUOTE ]

Should we really quote the post-debate text-phone results as if they represent the electorate? Perhaps we should reference the results in terms of the preference of the viewers, then discuss the need for a true limited-government conservative's participation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds good to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was being flippant.

[vinyard]

[ QUOTE ]
Townhall.com article (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/column.aspx?UrlTitle=but_who_was_right_--_rudy_or_ron&ns=PatrickJBuchanan&dt=05/18/2007&page=full&comments=true)

But Who Was Right -- Rudy or Ron?
By Patrick J. Buchanan
Friday, May 18, 2007


[/ QUOTE ]
*snip*

It must be noted that correct or incorrect on his take on the Paul-Rudy argument (and I agree with Buchanan that Paul is more right than wrong) Buchanan has effectively endorsed Paul in this primary.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So Monday, make a call and tell the Michigan GOP that according to the Fox poll McCain was only running at 2% and Paul at 29% so perhaps we should just ban McCain.


[/ QUOTE ]

Should we really quote the post-debate text-phone results as if they represent the electorate? Perhaps we should reference the results in terms of the preference of the viewers, then discuss the need for a true limited-government conservative's participation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds good to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was being flippant.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's wrong with it?

[BIG NIGE]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm gonna write an email to Paul's campaign with some suggestions for what points to make and language to use in the next debate. I know I'm just another political junkie with an opinion, but hopefully since it's a grass roots campaign that's not controlled by big corporation, they'll read and consider it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ron Paulonly spent $100k on his campaign in the 1st quarter. Ron Paul might personally read the e-mail because he can't afford any staff. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif Paul would kill to get that big campaign aparatus that you despise.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't mind if he was backed by companies or interests which were consistent with his own beliefs; that way, he could have campaign money to spend, but it wouldn't affect his policy decisions if he actually got elected.

[ProsperousOne]

sorry if this has already been covered, but has anyone contacted Ron Pauls campaign to address online gambling/poker? I'm wondering if he publicly addresses this, he'll get lots of media attention, as well as find more supporters.

I think a lot of Republicans are getting really sick of the Far right impeding too far on personal freedoms....

[Jeffiner99]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So Monday, make a call and tell the Michigan GOP that according to the Fox poll McCain was only running at 2% and Paul at 29% so perhaps we should just ban McCain.


[/ QUOTE ]

Should we really quote the post-debate text-phone results as if they represent the electorate? Perhaps we should reference the results in terms of the preference of the viewers, then discuss the need for a true limited-government conservative's participation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds good to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was being flippant.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's wrong with it?

[/ QUOTE ]

I meant I was being flippant in my first draft. Yours is better.

[Jeffiner99]

[ QUOTE ]
sorry if this has already been covered, but has anyone contacted Ron Pauls campaign to address online gambling/poker? I'm wondering if he publicly addresses this, he'll get lots of media attention, as well as find more supporters.

I think a lot of Republicans are getting really sick of the Far right impeding too far on personal freedoms....

[/ QUOTE ]

Been there, done that. Still waiting. I think right now he is busy with other things. Plus, they already think he is a nut, this issue may just lose him supporters. We in the gambling world all know he rocks. He did say in the first debate that he would be against any regulations of the Internet. So that kinda included online poker. But if you want to know what he said in response to the bill being discussed:

Congressional Record, House of Representatives, July 11, 2006



Ms. HOOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul).

(Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation. It is not easy to oppose this legislation because it is assumed
that proponents of the bill are on the side of the moral high ground. But there is a higher moral high ground in the sense that
protecting liberty is more important than passing a bill that regulates something on the Internet.

The Interstate Commerce Clause originally was intended to make sure there were no barriers between interstate trade. In this
case, we are putting barriers up.

I want to make the point that prohibition, as a general principle, is a bad principle because it doesn't work. It doesn't solve
the problem because it can't decrease the demand. As a matter of fact, the only thing it does is increase the price. And there are
some people who see prohibitions as an enticement, and that it actually increases the demand.

But once you make something illegal, whether it is alcohol or whether it is cigarettes or whether it is gambling on the Internet,
it doesn't disappear because of this increased demand. All that happens is, it is turned over to the criminal element. So you won't
get rid of it.

Sometimes people say that this prohibition that is proposed is designed to protect other interests because we certainly aren't
going to get rid of gambling, so we might get rid of one type of gambling, but actually enhance the other.

But one of the basic principles, a basic reason why I strongly oppose this is, I see this as a regulation of the Internet, which
is a very, very dangerous precedent to set.

To start with, I can see some things that are much more dangerous than gambling. I happen to personally strongly oppose gambling.
I think it is pretty stupid, to tell you the truth.

But what about political ideas? What about religious fanaticism? Are we going to get rid of those? I can think of 1,000 things
worse coming from those bad ideas. But who will come down here and say, Just think of the evil of these bad ideas and distorted
religions, and therefore we have to regulate the Internet?

* [Begin Insert]

H.R. 4411 , the Internet Gambling Prohibition and Enforcement Act, should be rejected by Congress since the Federal Government
has no constitutional authority to ban or even discourage any form of gambling.

In addition to being unconstitutional, H.R. 4411 is likely to prove ineffective at ending Internet gambling. Instead, this bill
will ensure that gambling is controlled by organized crime. History, from the failed experiment of prohibition to today's futile
``war on drugs,'' shows that the government cannot eliminate demand for something like Internet gambling simply by passing a law.
Instead, H.R. 4411 will force those who wish to gamble over the Internet to patronize suppliers willing to flaunt the ban. In many
cases, providers of services banned by the government will be members of criminal organizations. Even if organized crime does not
operate Internet gambling enterprises their competitors are likely to be controlled by organized crime. After all, since the owners
and patrons of Internet gambling cannot rely on the police and courts to enforce contracts and resolve other disputes, they will be
forced to rely on members of organized crime to perform those functions. Thus, the profits of Internet gambling will flow into
organized crime. Furthermore, outlawing an activity will raise the price vendors are able to charge consumers, thus increasing the
profits flowing to organized crime from Internet gambling. It is bitterly ironic that a bill masquerading as an attack on crime will
actually increase organized crime's ability to control and profit from Internet gambling.

In conclusion, H.R. 4411 violates the constitutional limits on Federal power. Furthermore, laws such as H.R. 4411 are ineffective
in eliminating the demand for vices such as Internet gambling; instead, they ensure that these enterprises will be controlled by
organized crime. Therefore I urge my colleagues to reject H.R. 4411 , the Internet Gambling Prohibition and Enforcement Act.

[ProsperousOne]

thanks for the update and post Jeff! Awesome quote. I esp. like the part about him personally disliking gambling, but opposing requlation for the principle.

[Jeffiner99]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So Monday, make a call and tell the Michigan GOP that according to the Fox poll McCain was only running at 2% and Paul at 29% so perhaps we should just ban McCain.


[/ QUOTE ]

Should we really quote the post-debate text-phone results as if they represent the electorate? Perhaps we should reference the results in terms of the preference of the viewers, then discuss the need for a true limited-government conservative's participation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds good to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was being flippant.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's wrong with it?

[/ QUOTE ]

I meant I was being flippant in my first draft. Yours is better.

[/ QUOTE ]

It may be hard to contact the Michigan GOP since they seem to have taken down their contact info. But I found it here:

http://www.roguegovernment.com/news.php?id=2132
Here is the article if you don't want to click through:
The Michigan GOP has removed their contact information from their web site, no doubt due to an angry response stemming from the head of the Michigan GOP Saul Anuzis saying that he would try and bar Ron Paul from participating in future GOP debates. This just shows how cowardly these people are.

It is disgraceful that the Michigan GOP is run by Saul Anuzis an establishment hack who doesn't care about the will of the people or free speech.

Michigan GOP Leader Wants Ron Paul Banned From Debates

Visit the web site here and click on their contact link and you'll see the page is missing.

We were able to get the Michigan GOP contact information off of Google. Call the Michigan GOP at 517-487-5413 or fax them at 517-487-0090 and let them know how pissed off you are at these anti-American trash that have infiltrated the GOP.

Also call the RNC at 202-863-8500 or fax the RNC at 202-863-8820. This is serious business and it is time to take action.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So Monday, make a call and tell the Michigan GOP that according to the Fox poll McCain was only running at 2% and Paul at 29% so perhaps we should just ban McCain.


[/ QUOTE ]

Should we really quote the post-debate text-phone results as if they represent the electorate? Perhaps we should reference the results in terms of the preference of the viewers, then discuss the need for a true limited-government conservative's participation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds good to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was being flippant.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's wrong with it?

[/ QUOTE ]

I meant I was being flippant in my first draft. Yours is better.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, thanks. I appreciate the clarification. I was scratching my head on that one. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[TomVeil]

Just a new news story that I read on LJ:

May 22, 2007

ARLINGTON, VA – The United Republicans of California (UROC) have unanimously endorsed Congressman Ron Paul for president of the United States. UROC, formed in 1963 to support Barry Goldwater, represents the traditional conservative wing of the California Republican Party.

"The unanimous endorsement from the United Republicans of California proves what the campaign has been saying all along," said campaign chairman Kent Snyder. "Ron Paul is the only true conservative and real Republican in the race."

In their official statement endorsing Dr. Paul, UROC called him "the leading advocate for freedom in our nation’s capital" and recognized that:

Ron Paul's voting record demonstrates that he has voted against:

· raising taxes;
· unbalanced budgets;
· a federal restriction on gun ownership;
· raising congressional pay; or
· increasing the power of the executive branch.

His voting record demonstrates further that he voted against:

· the USA Patriot Act;
· regulating the Internet; and
· the war in Iraq.

Dr. Paul is the only candidate with a record that matches the UROC’s platform.

"Whether the issue is life, the Second Amendment, foreign policy, spending or taxes, Ron Paul is the only traditional conservative candidate," continued Snyder. "Traditional conservatives across the country should support Ron Paul for president."

http://www.ronpaul2008.com
---------------------------------

I still stand by my view that anybody who is counting Paul out of the race already is making a mistake.

[ProsperousOne]

FWIW, I just donated and forwarded his site to all my libertarian friends.

In my contribution comments, I stated that I support his position on not regulating the internet, and expect him to continue to support efforts to over turn the ULIGEA.

[Jeffiner99]

[ QUOTE ]
FWIW, I just donated and forwarded his site to all my libertarian friends.

In my contribution comments, I stated that I support his position on not regulating the internet, and expect him to continue to support efforts to over turn the ULIGEA.

[/ QUOTE ]

Way to go! Now that is doing something! I too have donated. Money talks. It is starting to look like he may have a small chance. The Internet sure loves him. I have never tried to raise money for a candidate before. Anyone know some good specifics? I wish we could put on a tournament for him or something. Throw a Vegas charity night for him? Hell, I don't even know how to do that.

[Jeffiner99]

Great Ron Paul video here:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5792391565012624048

[iponnet]

[ QUOTE ]
Great Ron Paul video here:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5792391565012624048

[/ QUOTE ]

thanks for the link, being a semi liberal I didnt know I had so much in common with a conservative, lol

[The Truth]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm gonna write an email to Paul's campaign with some suggestions for what points to make and language to use in the next debate. I know I'm just another political junkie with an opinion, but hopefully since it's a grass roots campaign that's not controlled by big corporation, they'll read and consider it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ron Paulonly spent $100k on his campaign in the 1st quarter. Ron Paul might personally read the e-mail because he can't afford any staff. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif Paul would kill to get that big campaign aparatus that you despise.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not sure, but I dont think Dr. Paul will accept contributions from corporations. He seems pretty against the grain.

[frommagio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Great Ron Paul video here:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5792391565012624048

[/ QUOTE ]

thanks for the link, being a semi liberal I didnt know I had so much in common with a conservative, lol

[/ QUOTE ]

He's not a conservative, and he's not a liberal; he's a libertarian. That means he respects your civil liberties and your economic liberties. He believes that as an adult, you should enjoy freedom of choice - and accept the responsibility to live with whatever consequences may arise. It's a great philosophy.

Unfortunately, he's not gifted with the ability to articulate his arguments with proper respect for the gravity of the issues - in stark contrast to, for example, the wonderfully eloquent Libertarian presidential candidate, the late Harry Browne (RIP).

So agree or not, this particular libertarian (me) will be happy when he's shown the door; we need candidates who don't embarrass us. One of the reasons people think libertarians are wackos is because --- so many of us are! Lots of the folks who really care about liberty are out on the fringe. But that doesn't mean we need to put the more egregious examples out in front...

[Jeffiner99]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Great Ron Paul video here:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5792391565012624048

[/ QUOTE ]

thanks for the link, being a semi liberal I didnt know I had so much in common with a conservative, lol

[/ QUOTE ]

He's not a conservative, and he's not a liberal; he's a libertarian. That means he respects your civil liberties and your economic liberties. He believes that as an adult, you should enjoy freedom of choice - and accept the responsibility to live with whatever consequences may arise. It's a great philosophy.

Unfortunately, he's not gifted with the ability to articulate his arguments with proper respect for the gravity of the issues - in stark contrast to, for example, the wonderfully eloquent Libertarian presidential candidate, the late Harry Browne (RIP).

So agree or not, this particular libertarian (me) will be happy when he's shown the door; we need candidates who don't embarrass us. One of the reasons people think libertarians are wackos is because --- so many of us are! Lots of the folks who really care about liberty are out on the fringe. But that doesn't mean we need to put the more egregious examples out in front...

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, it is a far cry to say that someone may not be the best at articulating an argument to calling them a wacko. Perhaps you would be happier with his written message. You should read his speeches in congress for the last several terms before calling him a wacko.

For the people who are interested in Ron's political actions, I suggest his reading his many articles here: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul-arch.html ( I apologize if this link has already been posted here). But some of the articles include speeches he has made on the House floor. And those are really worth taking a look at. It shows not just what he is saying to get elected but what he has said in Congress for the past decade or two or three.

The man has done more for this country to promote liberty than anyone in the past few decades and just because you don't like his manner of speech you can't wait to see him get kicked out of this race? He is getting people talking about liberty and concepts that have been buried. He is awakening the country. To many he is being seen as a hero, as a man who is the only one speaking the truth. Do a Google News search of his name and you may get a different perspective. Only the real wackos out there are calling him a wacko. In fact, the more he is called a wacko, the more people are attacking the attackers instead of falling for it this time.

The spin doctors have had to put so much spin on his comments (like saying that he said that America invited the attacks when he didn't even come close to saying that) that people are beginning to see through the spin. It is pretty hard to defend the Mayor of New York for claiming that he has never heard the term blowback or the official reason the terrorists claim they attacked us. Either he is supremely ignorant or a liar. Either way, he is the one that ended up looking bad. Especially when ten minutes later the country voted Ron number one in a poll. I know polls don't mean much, but it is clear his message is coming across.

He is speaking truth and that resonates with people. He is actually doing a pretty good job of showing how much of a wacko Rudy is and the rest of the Republican party. He has the whole country buzzing about concepts of liberty and the Constitution and non-interventionist foreign policy. How can that be bad?

Not all of the people talking about Dr. Paul are like Sean Hannity. The Libertarian message is all over the Internet and is speeches in Congress. (See my last link). He may not win a toastmasters contest, but his message is clear and very consistent.

He is the number one searched term on Google these days. His website is getting more hits than any other candidate dem or rep. That is great! Then people who have never heard of the Libertarian message can hear it. And maybe they will do more searching and find Libertarians such as Harry Browne, whom I agree was a most eloquent speaker. The world will miss Harry, but if Ron can get out the message or just get people to hear about Harry, then it is all good.

For those of you who are wondering who this Harry Browne guy is, he ran for President on a Libertarian ticket twice and you can read more about him here: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul-arch.html and here
http://www.harrybrowne.org/

Harry was a master speaker and explains Libertarianism as well as anyone I have ever heard. He is worth reading, and hearing.

I think you may want to give Ron another try. Go to his website: http://www.ronpaul2008.com/ Listen to a lot of his speeches. He does much better when he has a few minutes to explain himself. It is very hard to get Libertarian concepts across to a nation who has never heard them before in a 30 second spot.