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 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