Ron Paul on CNN at 7EST tonite (5/16)

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
Let me just add that if the media were biased against Ron Paul, I would say that is a good thing. When I read an MSM source, I want to hear about the most important stories. Since Ron Paul has no shot, he is not an important story.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your views are frightening and this post is the most telling thing I've ever read about you on this website.

[Jeffiner99]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I hope that this interview ends the speculation that the MSM is conspiring to suppress candidates that oppose "the establishment". The media doesn't cover Paul for the same reason they don't cover any of the other 2nd or 3rd tier candidates: no money, no organization and no support.

[/ QUOTE ]

So on one hand, you admit that the media covers those candidates with big money and support (which both come primarily from the "establishment"), and on the other hand, you think this is proof that the media isn't biased against those who oppose the establishment.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes I do. The media isn't biased against candidates, they report on the bias. Saying the media is biased implies that it is the media's fault that Ron Paul has no shot. The media merely report on that fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you see the exchange between Hannity and Ron Paul? If that is not bias I don't know what is. Here is a station that just broadcasted a debate and then one of the leaders of the discussion goes on to blast Ron Paul for his opinion. Then the Spin doctors are interviewed and they say that the polls mean nothing (because Ron Paul was ahead) and Ron Paul is OUT of the race totally. When Ron was interviewed Hannity shouted over him the whole time, asked leading question after leading question and never once allowed the man to answer.

That is a lot of bias. Nothing neutral there. In fact, I don't see much of anything neutral anymore in the news anymore. Just a lot of spots about where to get the best makeover in town and what coffee to drink.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I hope that this interview ends the speculation that the MSM is conspiring to suppress candidates that oppose "the establishment". The media doesn't cover Paul for the same reason they don't cover any of the other 2nd or 3rd tier candidates: no money, no organization and no support.

[/ QUOTE ]

So on one hand, you admit that the media covers those candidates with big money and support (which both come primarily from the "establishment"), and on the other hand, you think this is proof that the media isn't biased against those who oppose the establishment.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes I do. The media isn't biased against candidates, they report on the bias. Saying the media is biased implies that it is the media's fault that Ron Paul has no shot. The media merely report on that fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you see the exchange between Hannity and Ron Paul? If that is not bias I don't know what is. Here is a station that just broadcasted a debate and then one of the leaders of the discussion goes on to blast Ron Paul for his opinion. Then the Spin doctors are interviewed and they say that the polls mean nothing (because Ron Paul was ahead) and Ron Paul is OUT of the race totally. When Ron was interviewed Hannity shouted over him the whole time, asked leading question after leading question and never once allowed the man to answer.

That is a lot of bias. Nothing neutral there. In fact, I don't see much of anything neutral anymore in the news anymore. Just a lot of spots about where to get the best makeover in town and what coffee to drink.

[/ QUOTE ]

You want bias? Watch the YouTube of Neal Cavuto trying to equate Ron Paul's advocacy of a non-interventionist foreign policy with the "911 Truth"/Loose Change-America-planned-911 conspiracy wackoos. What a despicable douchebag.

[Jeffiner99]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Source please?

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.chron.com/content/chronic...5/23/paul.html

http://www.latestpolitics.com/blog/2...ron-pauls.html

[/ QUOTE ]

Except Ron Paul didn't write that. Here is part of what he said about it in a Texas Monthly article:
He said only that his remarks about Barbara Jordan related to her stands on affirmative action and that his written comments about blacks were in the context of "current events and statistical reports of the time." He denied any racist intent. What made the statements in the publication even more puzzling was that, in four terms as a U. S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this.

When I ask him why, he pauses for a moment, then says, "I could never say this in the campaign, but those words weren't really written by me. It wasn't my language at all. Other people help me with my newsletter as I travel around. I think the one on Barbara Jordan was the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady." Paul says that item ended up there because "we wanted to do something on affirmative action, and it ended up in the newsletter and became personalized. I never personalize anything."

His reasons for keeping this a secret are harder to understand: "They were never my words, but I had some moral responsibility for them . . . I actually really wanted to try to explain that it doesn't come from me directly, but they campaign aides said that's too confusing. 'It appeared in your letter and your name was on that letter and therefore you have to live with it.'" It is a measure of his stubbornness, determination, and ultimately his contrarian nature that, until this surprising volte-face in our interview, he had never shared this secret. It seems, in retrospect, that it would have been far, far easier to have told the truth at the time.

[Jeffiner99]

[ QUOTE ]

Also IF I vote for Paul, it will not be for a practical reason (I rationally understand it is a waste of my time) but a quite irrational one.

[/ QUOTE ]

How on earth could voting for a man you believe in be a waste of time? Voting for evil is a waste of time. Of course Ron Paul wouldn't have a chance if all the people who support him don't vote for him, but if they do, well, then he has a very good chance. He is leading most polls on the Internet. A search of him on Google news shows a lot of people like his message.

Under many ways of viewing this he is leading in the polls.

Here is another poll to vote for him.

http://azgop.typepad.com/

Vote away.
(P.S. He is leading that poll too.)

Besides, if you do vote for him you will feel good. I felt great the first time I voted Libertarian and will never go back to picking between the two bad guys again.

If we support this guy he really does have a chance. If we get him into office, then we poker players have a chance of being able to play online free and untaxed.

Here is what Ron said about online poker:

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.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
How on earth could voting for a man you believe in be a waste of time?

[/ QUOTE ]

How on earth could digging in your back yard for a diamond the size of a refrigerator be a waste of time?

After all, wouldn't finding a diamond the size of a refrigerator in your back yard be wonderful?

[Jeffiner99]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How on earth could voting for a man you believe in be a waste of time?

[/ QUOTE ]

How on earth could digging in your back your for a diamond the size of a refrigerator be a waste of time?

After all, wouldn't finding a diamond the size of a refrigerator in your back yard be wonderful?

[/ QUOTE ]

One has a chance only if you do the action, the other has no chance no matter how much action you take because it is not possible, not because it is improbable.

Do you really think that is a reasonable analogy?

I am saying that if all the people who think like you and think it is a waste of time to vote for someone they like because they don't "think" he has much of a chance are completing a self-fulfilling prophecy. It is sad defeatist talk and I am sick of it as a reason not to vote for someone.

I also don't believe you should ever vote for someone you don't like because you dislike the other guy more. All that does is send the message that you DO like the guy you voted for and all his policies, so those policies will be perpetuated because they have "support". I think it better not to vote at all.

But staying at home and sitting on your rump because you think it is a waste of time to vote for a guy you DO like and support is foolish. That is one sure way NOT to get what you want.

So all you Ron Paul supporters out there, cut and paste the link to the poll and click a button.

If Ron consistently wins polls like these then perhaps he will be taken more seriously.

I have a hunch that if the 51% of people in the country who DON'T vote could hear Ron's message they would vote for him. I think they don't vote because they don't have a guy to believe in. But from what I am reading in blogs all across the spectrum, many people who have never heard of Libertarianism before are hearing the message and liking it. They think this guy and his policies have "common sense." After all, isn't that what we Libertarians think about our "party." That it is the party of common sense.

So go vote. It will only let you vote once but it will be up for a while. Then register as a "cough" republican so you can vote in the primary.

What the heck? We just may get what we want after all.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How on earth could voting for a man you believe in be a waste of time?

[/ QUOTE ]

How on earth could digging in your back your for a diamond the size of a refrigerator be a waste of time?

After all, wouldn't finding a diamond the size of a refrigerator in your back yard be wonderful?

[/ QUOTE ]

One has a chance only if you do the action, the other has no chance no matter how much action you take because it is not possible, not because it is improbable.

Do you really think that is a reasonable analogy?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. I think I have as much chance of finding a giant diamond by digging for it in a random place as I do in affecting any specific policy that I would like to see change by voting. We've had this discussion many times around here.

[ QUOTE ]
I am saying that if all the people who think like you and think it is a waste of time to vote for someone they like because they don't "think" he has much of a chance are completing a self-fulfilling prophecy. It is sad defeatist talk and I am sick of it as a reason not to vote for someone.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying it is litterally a waste of time voting, because no matter who you vote for, even if he is the far and away favorite, there is an extremely tiny chance that your vote will actually make any difference. Like, getting struck by lightning and winning the lottery.

[ QUOTE ]
I also don't believe you should ever vote for someone you don't like because you dislike the other guy more. All that does is send the message that you DO like the guy you voted for and all his policies, so those policies will be perpetuated because they have "support". I think it better not to vote at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is better to not vote at all, because it's a total waste of time. I also think voting is immoral, but I don't quibble with people who vote defensively. I just think they are wasting their time in that case.

[ QUOTE ]
But staying at home and sitting on your rump because you think it is a waste of time to vote for a guy you DO like and support is foolish. That is one sure way NOT to get what you want.

[/ QUOTE ]

What I want is for people to stop voting to enforce their wills on other people. I can't get that by participating in the system; all that does is sanction the system.


[ QUOTE ]
So all you Ron Paul supporters out there, cut and paste the link to the poll and click a button.

If Ron consistently wins polls like these then perhaps he will be taken more seriously.

I have a hunch that if the 51% of people in the country who DON'T vote could hear Ron's message they would vote for him. I think they don't vote because they don't have a guy to believe in. But from what I am reading in blogs all across the spectrum, many people who have never heard of Libertarianism before are hearing the message and liking it. They think this guy and his policies have "common sense." After all, isn't that what we Libertarians think about our "party." That it is the party of common sense.

So go vote. It will only let you vote once but it will be up for a while. Then register as a "cough" republican so you can vote in the primary.

What the heck? We just may get what we want after all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps paradoxically, I have no problem at all with activism like this, i.e. trying to sway large numbers of voters (i.e. suckers). That actually has a reasonable chance of having an effect (at least a far larger chance than personally voting does). This is one of the reasons why I want Ron Paul in these debates; saying things that no other person on TV, much less presidential candidate, has said since Barry Goldwater.

[gonebroke2]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Why hit Canada? Why hit Mexico? Why hit anywhere when you can attack the beacon of Freedom in the world, the country that represents democracy and equality, the United States of America. It's a much more powerful message to attack the symbol of freedom in the world.

(That's just a POSSIBLE reason, could also have to do with foreign policy)

[/ QUOTE ]

No wonder America is hated by the world. The citizens of America are all a bunch of idiots. You think they attacked America because it is a symbol of freedom? The arabs got tired of being pushed around by a bully and they retaliated. How hard is that to understand? Quit [censored] with the arabs, quit stealing their natural resources, quit putting military bases on their land, quit putting in puppet dictators, and stay the hell out of the middle east and 9/11 would have never happened.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unbelievable. What natural resources are we stealing from the Arabs?

[/ QUOTE ]

Oil you dummy. If there wasn't oil in the middle east, the USA and the UK wouldnt be there. You think Bush and Blair want to liberate a bunch of ragheads in the middle east? Are you really that dumb? I think you are.

[gonebroke2]

[ QUOTE ]

You want bias? Watch the YouTube of Neal Cavuto trying to equate Ron Paul's advocacy of a non-interventionist foreign policy with the "911 Truth"/Loose Change-America-planned-911 conspiracy wackoos. What a despicable douchebag.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fox News is launching a massive anti-Ron Paul campaign. I can't believe these dirtbags. I guess they must consider him being a huge threat if they are dedicating this much air time to trash him. Fox News wants a neocon-friendly person to win the presidency to please the zionist owner of Fox, Ruport Murdoch. I hope very soon that Ruport has the same fate as Jerry Falwell, they can share a room in hell.