Ron Paul Action Thread

[Jeffiner99]

Once again we need to spring into action. Did anyone see the appalling coverage, or shall I say, non-existent coverage of Ron Paul in the NH GOP debate last night?

The man is leading their own polls by a large margin, is the only candidate (I believe on either side) that would bring the troops home immediately, and all CNN can say is that nearly every Republican supports the war, while the Dems are against it.

Ron Paul wasn't mentioned at all by the pundits, yet he is on the front page of hundreds of Internet news sites. He won the CNN poll and Msnbc poll by a large margin. Even vote.com has him in the lead. Now, those numbers may be skewed a bit, but you certainly can't say that the 1% numbers they are reporting are true either.

Call CNN, write to them, tell them you are aghast by their obvious bias. They are burying this man, the man the people want. Tell them never before has CNN shown itself to be less trustworthy. Let them know that you are disgusted by their obvious attempt to get anyone who is against the war to vote for a Democrat (even though most of them wouldn't bring the troops home either: i.e. the last dem vote in congress to fund the war) Tell them that you are angry that all Internet media outlets are covering the story, why aren't they? What are they trying to hide from us? What else are they trying to hide? Their own polls have him leading. Don't they trust their own polls? Or do they only report on their polls if the numbers come out the way they want them too?

The more I think about it, the angrier I get. One of the most important news outlets is trying to fix an election. If not toward one candidate, at least against one. They talked about Sam Brownback for goodness sake. No one cares about him. Yet, the Ron Paul internet movement is growing every day.

If you call them, a taped voice says it will be a long time before you can talk to an operator so post your comment online. But I held on and they answered within a minute or two. I think it is better to talk to someone.

Here is the contact info:
CNN
One CNN Center, Box 105366, Atlanta, GA 30303-5366
Phone: 404-827-1500
Fax: 404-827-1906
or go here for CNN email contact forms:
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=111

I don't mean to single CNN out. They were the only channel I was watching last night. By all means, if you found bias in other channels lambaste them as well. This link gives you a contact list for all of the media: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=111

By the way, I saw Ron Paul at a conference on Restoring the Republic this past weekend. He is even better in person.

[AlanF1]

give it up, paul has no chance

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

What I find interesting is that his own site (http://www.ronpaul2008.com) fails to mention that he was the Libertarian Party Candidate for President in 1988, and the ultimate reason for his return to the GOP (the LP's non-position on abortion).

[Grasshopp3r]

I looked at his website. Where is his stance on internet gaming? I may have missed a specific reference on his site, though he sure sounds libertarian in principle. I disagree that Paul has no chance. Reagan "had no chance", but he went on to win. This is the chance for the libertarian wing of the party to take back the party.

[Coy_Roy]

[ QUOTE ]
give it up, paul has no chance

[/ QUOTE ]

100% False.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

[ QUOTE ]
I looked at his website. Where is his stance on internet gaming? I may have missed a specific reference on his site,

[/ QUOTE ]

He has voted against every House bill designed to curtail internet gaming. With Paul, its easy to know how he'll vote. If there's nothing in the constitution that says its the business of the feds, he won't support it.

[farmslicer7]

Ron Paul is on Tucker Carlson's show today at 4 ET, sometime soon. (MSNBC)

[Jeffiner99]

[ QUOTE ]
give it up, paul has no chance

[/ QUOTE ]

That is what they want you to think so you stay apathetic.

He has the best message: a return to liberty, hard money to eliminate taxation and strengthen the dollar, a return to the Constitution and individual privacy, and a national policy of non-interventionism.

What's not to like?

The rich get richer, the poor get richer, we all get more freedom, our soldiers get safe, and the country will once again prosper and flourish.

Tough sell.

[Jeffiner99]

[ QUOTE ]
I looked at his website. Where is his stance on internet gaming? I may have missed a specific reference on his site, though he sure sounds libertarian in principle. I disagree that Paul has no chance. Reagan "had no chance", but he went on to win. This is the chance for the libertarian wing of the party to take back the party.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. It is time the libertarian wing took back the party. The neocons all started out as Democrats but no one knows this. They are as far left as you can get.

Paul doesn't have a lot of things posted on his website. Frankly, I think it needs some work. But more than what the man pretends he will do, here is what he actually did when the house vote came up. Considering he was greatly outnumbered, it took a lot of courage to say this:

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.

* [End Insert]

[Jeffiner99]

Wow, I just read this. Apparently, the news is very very scared of him. Here is an article about how CNN took down all of its comments about the debate because they were about Ron Paul:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/missingcomments.php

[Jeffiner99]

Here is Ron Paul on Tucker Carlson:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVTlnlIMlkk

[cbloom]

Gotta respect Ron Paul. The whole libertarian policy is pretty nutty, IMHO, but at least he has a philosophy and sticks to it and isn't just manipulating a message and all that garbage. He would certainly be an improvement.

[Jeffiner99]

Great news all! Ron Paul had a chance. A good chance. He is raising money hand over fist:
http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=43192&fb=1

Let's all spam them at the polls too!

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Let's all keep spamming them at the polls too!

[/ QUOTE ]

[EGO]

It would be pretty historic if Rep. Paul got the nomination based mostly on a "grassroots" internet campaign.

Can you imagine what kind of monster he'd be if he had the backing of the GOP? The dems would be drawing dead.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
It would be pretty historic if Rep. Paul got the nomination based mostly on a "grassroots" internet campaign.

Can you imagine what kind of monster he'd be if he had the backing of the GOP? The dems would be drawing dead.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm glad we were with him before it was trendy. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

I hope a lot of independents cross over to vote in the primaries. Also, his message may resonate with limited government Goldwater/Reagan Republicans who feel betrayed by this bunch of usurpers.

[Coy_Roy]

I've known about this grassroots foundation for some time,

I was pretty much ridiculed when I said Ron Paul had a good chance. I was serious when I called him "frontrunner". Things have been snowballing in his favor since.

I recognized that this was the first election in history where the independent websites could outweigh the CIA-run good old boy mainstream media.

If his message makes it to the main, he can't lose.

[whitcolumn]

I lived in Congressman Paul district for 3 years. He is like a God down in Texas. The problem is, the GOP will pull the rug out from under him if he gets too popular. In 2000 they did it to McCain, because the GOP elite favored GWB... and in '08 the same thing will happen. Ron Paul is exactly what this country needs, but will never get.

[farmslicer7]

Ron Paul has my vote.

[Coy_Roy]

It's official, Dr. Ron Paul is "the little guy's" candidate for 2008:

http://www.thelittleguy.com/index.html

[Scary_Tiger]

[ QUOTE ]
It's official, Dr. Ron Paul is "the little guy's" candidate for 2008:

http://www.thelittleguy.com/index.html

[/ QUOTE ]

Who is that? (Site seems down.)

[primetime32]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
give it up, paul has no chance

[/ QUOTE ]

100% correct

[/ QUOTE ]

fyp

[oldbookguy]

Ron Paul is also condidered a candidate for the group

www.unity08.com (http://www.unity08.com)

A group seeking to meld a modereate from each party onto one ticket as a thirdt party.

Check them out and condider joining if you REALLY want Paul to get a chance.

obg

[Coy_Roy]

Ron Paul is Bill Maher's New Hero:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUYDt7kC3Z0

[Coy_Roy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
give it up, paul has no chance

[/ QUOTE ]

100% correct

[/ QUOTE ]

fyp

[/ QUOTE ]


http://infowars.com/images2/cartoons/paul_no_puppet.jpg

[maxtower]

As far as action goes, we really need to start talking to anti-war Dems and promote the idea that they should change party affiliations for the republican primary to vote for RP and his anti-war stance. They would likely want to see any Dem vs. RP instead of a Dem they chose and a warmonger.

[Jeffiner99]

[ QUOTE ]
As far as action goes, we really need to start talking to anti-war Dems and promote the idea that they should change party affiliations for the republican primary to vote for RP and his anti-war stance. They would likely want to see any Dem vs. RP instead of a Dem they chose and a warmonger.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point. I also just heard that June 30 is a magic date. That is the date that all the quarterly contributions are counted and announced. If you were thinking about contributing to Ron Paul do so before June 30, so his stats this quarter will be high enough for them to take him seriously. It is hard to call a guy second tier if he has the most money. (Ok, so he won't have more money than Rudy, but he could have more money than McCain). Besides, he needs the dough. Even if all you can spare is ten bucks, well, send it. It all counts. He is not the kind of guy that is going to get millions from one source. He would refuse to be beholden to anyone. Do you know that he gives a part of his money back to Congress each year if he doesn't spend it? My god, the man has principles.
So send him what you can. Besides, I am sure somewhere someone counts how many separate donations he gets and that has to look good.
We'll show the MSM that they can't ignore our guy anymore.

P.S. Is anyone else but me getting really ticked at how the MSM is REALLY manipulating this story and HIDING him from the American people? It is one thing to be biased, it is another to outright try to fix an election (you can fix something to make sure that someone doesn't win).
I call CNN every day and let them have it. They are going to lose all credibility when it turns out all these bots actually vote.
I suppose then they will say the ballot boxes were stuffed and discount all Paul votes. No way a candidate could win by 92%, so it must be rigged. (I have high hopes /images/graemlins/wink.gif)

[Ron Burgundy]

Wrong. CNN has no credibility to lose. They're freerolling.

[Artsemis]

[ QUOTE ]
give it up, paul has no chance

[/ QUOTE ]

Funny, he was leading the text poll after the debate last week.

[Jeffiner99]

Hey, I just started doing something really fun. Today I was at the vets office waiting and I told the receptionist about Ron Paul. She had never heard of him, but was excited and promised to look him up. Then I was online with some guy from Circuit City about my TV and told him about Ron Paul. We talked for ten minutes. He was excited.
Don't waste that time in line, talk to the person behind you. Talk to your cashier. Talk to the bank teller. If we all tell three people each day, think of it.

boy did it feel good!

[Artsemis]

[ QUOTE ]
Hey, I just started doing something really fun. Today I was at the vets office waiting and I told the receptionist about Ron Paul. She had never heard of him, but was excited and promised to look him up. Then I was online with some guy from Circuit City about my TV and told him about Ron Paul. We talked for ten minutes. He was excited.
Don't waste that time in line, talk to the person behind you. Talk to your cashier. Talk to the bank teller. If we all tell three people each day, think of it.

boy did it feel good!

[/ QUOTE ]

This is awesome.

I myself have told two RL friends about Ron Paul, both of which are strong supporters now (one plays poker online, other is against gambling but supports his other views). One of them told their parents, who said they would look into him but liked the sound of it.

[Artsemis]

By the way, this just goes to show that the non-internet exposure of Ron Paul is lacking -- every single person I've talked to that likes him, didn't know he existed.

[BruinEric]

Wow, I ignore the legislation forum for a couple weeks only to return and still see CoyRoy pushing his favorite candidate for President. Dude -- there are plenty of forums and websites designed for this. Give it a rest.

If you want a straight 1-to-1 wager on whether Ron Paul will be elected President, there will be many on 2+2 who will take you up on that. Or you can put your money where you keyboard is and go make a billion dollars on tradesports, etc.

Anyway, as per my last reply to you -- we'll see who's right when we do the delegate count near the Republican Convention. Or we might know as soon as Feb/March 2008 on how Rep. Paul is doing.

Let me help you see the future: Rep Paul won't be the Republican nominee.

[Artsemis]

[ QUOTE ]
If you want a straight 1-to-1 wager on whether Ron Paul will be elected President

[/ QUOTE ]

I love biased replies.

I'm sure many people would offer you those odds on ANY person you pick this early in the process.


Oh and...
[ QUOTE ]
Wow, I ignore the legislation forum for a couple weeks only to return and still see CoyRoy pushing everyone on the internets' favorite candidate for President.

[/ QUOTE ]

I fixed that for you there. You must have missed the Fox news polls where Ron Paul was leading with 30% of the votes.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Wow, I ignore the legislation forum for a couple weeks only to return and still see CoyRoy pushing his favorite candidate for President. Dude -- there are plenty of forums and websites designed for this. Give it a rest.

If you want a straight 1-to-1 wager on whether Ron Paul will be elected President, there will be many on 2+2 who will take you up on that. Or you can put your money where you keyboard is and go make a billion dollars on tradesports, etc.

Anyway, as per my last reply to you -- we'll see who's right when we do the delegate count near the Republican Convention. Or we might know as soon as Feb/March 2008 on how Rep. Paul is doing.

Let me help you see the future: Rep Paul won't be the Republican nominee.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's your point? You only support front-runners? I don't think Dr. Paul will win the nomination, but I'm behind him 100%. Who else should we support? Most are hostile to us and have BRAGGED ABOUT THIS FACT, WITH BEAMING PRIDE! Paul is with us 100%. Paul stood up for us on the House floor against UIGEA when even many of us weren't standing up for ourselves. I sent emails to a few candidates asking for their views on the issue. Although I do not reside in his House district, Dr. Paul was kind enough to send the following:

[ QUOTE ]
----- Original Message -----
From: Singleton, Norman
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 1:18 PM
Subject: Internet gambling

Hello, I am Congressman Ron Paul's legislative director. You are receiving this message because you contacted our office regarding Internet gambling. Dr. Paul intends to work with House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank to repeal the ban.

Norman Kirk Singleton
Legislative Director
Congressman Ron Paul
203 Cannon
Washington, DC 20515
202-225-2831

"...libertarianism will win eventually because it and only it is compatible with the nature of man and of the world. Only liberty can achieve man's prosperity, fulfillment, and happiness....libertarians now propose to fulfill the American dream and the world dream of liberty and prosperity for all mankind."

"Murray Rothbard


[/ QUOTE ]

So, of the eleven candidates running for the Republican nomination (Fred Thompson plus the ten declared candidates), eight are actively hostile (Brownback is the worst; McCain is against us, and he and Kyl are best buddies), two have unknown positions [Giuliani and F. Thompson (though Thompson's other opinions lead me to think he's likely against us)], and one is fighting for us. Hmmm...who should I support?

[BruinEric]

[ QUOTE ]

I fixed that for you there. You must have missed the Fox news polls where Ron Paul was leading with 30% of the votes.

[/ QUOTE ]

What? The latest FoxNews/OpinionDynamics poll shows Rep. Paul with 2%. I will grant you that is an increase from his 1% result in May.

Link for you: http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/060707_release_web.pdf

As for "internet's favorite candidate," if you'll remember, Dennis Kucinich was doing very well in Internet Polls in 2003/2004. Maybe times have changed and such online enthusiasm and/or cookie deletion will more directly correlate to election results. I certainly don't believe it, but you're entitled to your view.

[Legislurker]

Ron Paul won't be the next president. Sure, but is that what is important here? If he gets even 1 in 10 delegates to the Republican convention, it is huge. I hate to compare him to someone I loathe, but his candidacy in impact could be equated to Pat Buchanan's. He was(is) an ass, an idiot, a racist, a xenophobe, and a Christanazi. But, he touched a nerve in the Republican base upset with Bush raising taxes, not cracking down on immigration, and being anti-NAFTA. What was the DIRECT result? Ross Perot entered the race as an independent, and changed the outcome of the election. If we show that Ron Paul has support, can raise money, and his message resonates, maybe someone with stature, more appeal, charisma, and without some unelectable public statements runs. And does well. Lets face it, if we are serious about lobbying for poker, we have to show an electoral punch. Supporting Ron Paul and Bill Richardson is one small part of that.

[jackaaron]

[ QUOTE ]
Hey, I just started doing something really fun. Today I was at the vets office waiting and I told the receptionist about Ron Paul. She had never heard of him, but was excited and promised to look him up. Then I was online with some guy from Circuit City about my TV and told him about Ron Paul. We talked for ten minutes. He was excited.
Don't waste that time in line, talk to the person behind you. Talk to your cashier. Talk to the bank teller. If we all tell three people each day, think of it.

boy did it feel good!

[/ QUOTE ]

Just a little add on to this...friend calls me on my cell in the elevator. 9 people are with me. His first question, "You on to Ron Paul?" (side note: a lot of my friends will call me like this. for example, one might call, and say, "Oh f***, I would do Scarlett Johannsen so hard...moving on). I say, "Oh heck yeah! I've been learning more and more about Ron Paul. He would be such a great president. We briefly talk about him wanting to pull everyone out, and why, and the poker implications as well, and the elevator opens (40 floors later). A few people, as we get off, ask me about him, and all the sudden I'm a campaign manager. It was weird, but fun. He gain a few new curious people that day. Nothing like word of mouth either.

[Artsemis]

[ QUOTE ]
What? The latest FoxNews/OpinionDynamics poll shows Rep. Paul with 2%. I will grant you that is an increase from his 1% result in May.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're being pretty selective with your biased view. Following image taken immediately after the debate.
http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/5271/lolxd1.jpg

[ShaneP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What? The latest FoxNews/OpinionDynamics poll shows Rep. Paul with 2%. I will grant you that is an increase from his 1% result in May.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're being pretty selective with your biased view. Following image taken immediately after the debate.
http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/5271/lolxd1.jpg

[/ QUOTE ]

Look, I like Paul better than the other republicans, but I find it hilarious you're talking about bias, and put forth *this* poll. It's about the most biased poll I could think of.

Unfortunately, these polls mean about as much as the poles on this site. You're not getting a representative sample at all.

Though those polls are like the poles here in another way--they seem to have the 'BASTARD' option. Though I can't figure out why they keep repeating it /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Artsemis]

I didn't say these pole's mean anything, I'm just saying you're underestimating his support. It's out there and he's no where near the bottom end... he's actually "rumored" to be up to tier 2 now.

[sevencard2003]

who gives a damn about the war? i happen to support the war. if all u fanantical leftwingers calling for an end to the war put all that energy and effort into marches and demonstrations to keep online poker legal, and to support wexlers bill, the world would be a better place.

[BruinEric]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What? The latest FoxNews/OpinionDynamics poll shows Rep. Paul with 2%. I will grant you that is an increase from his 1% result in May.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're being pretty selective with your biased view. Following image taken immediately after the debate.
http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/5271/lolxd1.jpg

[/ QUOTE ]

You are correctly surmising that I put much more value in a scientifically sampled poll than internet and mobile texting polls like the ones you're touting. I suppose time will tell who is right.

Legislurker above puts forth a perfectly appropriate view of supporting Rep. Paul, IMO. But those posters who are "sunshine pumping" here and implying that Rep. Paul's strength in internet and mobile phone polls is indicative of his true support amongst voters who vote in primaries are very wrong in my opinion, formed by years of poll watching and enthusiastic following of politics.

It is not that I dislike Rep. Paul -- I have often been a fan of his speeches and votes in the House. But seeing him portrayed on this forum as a surging and relevant candidate in his party's primary is completely out of touch with the rest of the political press AND the data from scientific polling.

[Legislurker]

Ron Paul also lacks what it takes POST-NH to win. Witness McCain 00. You win the fickle NH vote, or come in around 20%.
Then where do you go? [censored] backasswards SC where a rumour of coffee in the family tree can lose you 2/3 of the primary voters. Nevada. Califoria has moved up its primary. You need a network of volunteers and paid workers. You need $. He could win big in NH, and then drop huge. You get 18 months to campaign in Iowa and NH. Those guys are almost professional voters. You get days to transition to a lightning national campaign. That is the single biggest hurdle to an unknown in the two parties. I really want to meet these people putting down bets on him to win at 15-1. Then sell my kidney to play poker with them.