Ron Paul being ousted by Fox - Needs your help NOW

[dorethawsp]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They showed it again:

Paul: 30%
Romney: 28%
Giuliani: 17%

[/ QUOTE ]

That's because every Dem watching prefers Paul over every Republican. I'm surprised the Fox analysts didn't figure that out.

[/ QUOTE ]

True dat.

[frommagio]

[ QUOTE ]
i cant decide if i really, really like ron paul or dont support him at all

this is tough for me

[/ QUOTE ]

I voted for Paul for president back in 1988. After tonight, I'm embarrassed by that fact.

His answers were so incredibly superficial, and this debate had adequate time for thoughtful response. There's really no excuse for not addressing serious questions seriously.

I'm so very disappointed in my libertarian. Ron Paul, you're no Harry Browne.

[r0eKY]

fox only let people vote via text messaging on a cell phone between certain times 7 to 12.

they ask ron paul a question about "9/11" then after his response Giuliani chimes in with some rant about how ron paul is blaming America for the attacks which i didn’t hear him say then the crowd erupts in cheers. Post review Giuliani was the first person talked to and the ron paul so called call out was the first thing brought up.

we are in big trouble no one is listening

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't know. Do you really think the sheeple are still fooled by that? sigh... yes, they probably are. We are [censored].


[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, they are. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

You may want to turn off TiVo for a moment....Paul is being interviewed now.

[/ QUOTE ]

Rep. Paul articulated his position much better to Hannity than he did during the debate. During the debate, it almost sounded like he was saying we were attacked because of our actions in the Middle East. When speaking to Hannity, he said that we were attacked because our actions in the region pissed off some people in the Middle East.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure I see the difference?

It seems clear to me that Paul believes that 9/11 would not have occurred if the U.S. had the sort of isolationist foreign policy that he advocates. Even when pressed by Giuliani, he didn't really back down and talked about "blowback" and the whole long series of events that resulted from the U.S. effort to depose the Prime Minister of Iran in 1953. Whether this is tantamount to "blaming" the U.S. is a matter of semantics.

I'm not sure whether I agree or disagree with his position. Actually, I both agree and disagree with it; I'm not a sociopolitical relativist and do believe that the terrorists are inherently evil, but I also think that 9/11 had some proximate causes.

What I *definitely* agree with is that it's fair game to discuss this sort of thing on the public stage. It's extraordinarily relevant to determining our future actions in the Middle East and should deserve better than to be drowned into a Rudy Giuliani applause line. And I suspect that a lot of people who voted for Paul in the Fox poll feel the same way, and are sort of tipping their hat to him. But voting for Paul in a poll is very different than voting for him in the ballot box, and he probably hurt his slim chances of winning the nomination tonight, even though he will get more attention as a gadfly/contrarian.

[BIG NIGE]

As far as getting rid of "second tier" candidates, get rid of boring people like Tancredo, Gilmore, Thompson, and Hunter, who don't have any interesting views and speak in monotones.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
He said that may have HELPED motivate the attack. He is not listing that as the sole reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

To me (again, my persnal opinion), it sounded like he was suggesting we were attacked BECAUSE of our actions in the Middle East. He clarified it well to Sean Hannity, which was good.

I happen to agree with what he MEANT to say 100%, and I've used the same analogy (would Americans like to be occupied?) that he used to explain to folks why Middle Eastern folks may not welcome Western interference. In fact, their anger goes further back, to the Crusades and to colonization. So, if I believe that, yet was still taken aback by the way Paul misspoke his opinion, I can only imagine how the sheeple took it.

As a fringe candidate, any attention is good attention. I think he can explain his position very well, so it may be good overall. I guess we'll see.

[nineinchal]

At the debate he said that us attacking Iraq caused the September 11 attacks.

I'll just let him fall by the wayside thank you.

Sometimes poker just isn't important.

[mshalen]

I was just waiting for Ron to say something that would knock himself out. So he decides to do it during a televised debate.

[Chimera]

I think a lot of the people on this forum tend to miss the forest for the trees. The prohibition of online poker is just one (very minor) symptom of a much larger disease. It saddens me to see people suggesting that we should have to justify the right to engage in a purely voluntary recreational activity. As long as people accept the idea that freedom is nothing more than a privilege granted by the state, they will continue to be duped by greedy demagogues who tell them what they want to hear.

Does anyone really believe that guys like Giuliani or Romney would hesitate for a second to flip-flop their position on internet poker (or virtually any other issue, for that matter) for the sake of political expediency? The most impressive thing about Ron Paul is that he stands for what he believes in, whether it helps him in the polls or not. That's a hell of a lot more than I can say for any of the "Tier 1" candidates.

[wax42]

Paul's position on 9/11 is not something totally new, Harry Browne said the same thing in this article he wrote on 9/12/2001.