Media continues to hate on Ron Paul [Archive] - The Gemstone IV Players' Corner

Androidpk

01-01-2008, 08:08 PM

Jessaril

01-06-2008, 01:18 AM

Ron Paul thinks we should not defend ourselves against radical Muslims who want to kill us. That means he is not a real Republican. Why should Fox give him free publicity when he is not even a real Republican?

He holds the opinion most people would if they weren't bat shit crazy about killing muslims.

I'd also like to point out he's really the only actual republican on the stage. The rest of them will spend it as fast as the Dems.

Gan

01-06-2008, 10:25 AM

I'd also like to point out he's really the only actual republican on the stage. The rest of them will spend it as fast as the Dems.

I would say McCain is the only real Republican (matching all historical GOP issue criteria) with regards to fiscal responsibility, based on previously recorded efforts and sponsored bills. Paul certainly isnt.

Sean of the Thread

01-06-2008, 10:38 AM

Of course he's a real republican. Why else would he be sporting his red suit?

http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b236/Japgross/ronpaul.jpg

ClydeR

01-06-2008, 06:25 PM

I would say McCain is the only real Republican (matching all historical GOP issue criteria) with regards to fiscal responsibility, based on previously recorded efforts and sponsored bills. Paul certainly isnt.

After New Hampshire, McCain will need to explain (1) his support for amnesty for illegal Mexicans, (2) his campaign finance law that violates the 1st amendment and that he may no longer support, and (3) his opposition to the 2001 tax cuts. Those are the reasons most of us have doubts about him.

Sean of the Thread

01-06-2008, 06:52 PM

Those are the reasons most of us have doubts about him.

Ah you're clairvoyant now as well.

Parkbandit

01-06-2008, 07:39 PM

Ah you're clairvoyant now as well.

You spelled retarded wrong.

Sean of the Thread

01-06-2008, 07:51 PM

DAMN YOU TO HELL SPELLING NAZI!

Androidpk

01-06-2008, 08:16 PM

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

Ron Paul On CNN Late Edition With Wolf Blitzer 1-6-08

Mabus

01-07-2008, 12:11 AM

Dr. Paul had more then three times the votes in the Iowa Caucus then Giuliani, and was one of only three candidates (the other two were Huckabee and Romney) to win a county outright in Iowa (Paul won Jefferson County with 35.5% of the vote).

To arbitrarily exclude candidates that are strong at fundraising, high in the polls, legally registered as a candidate in a state and that placed higher then candidates (in ACTUAL votes) included in the event should be a crime.

The N.H. GOP withdrew its sponsorship of the forum, stating:
"The first-in-the-nation New Hampshire primary serves a national purpose by giving all candidates an equal opportunity on a level playing field. Only in New Hampshire do lesser known, lesser funded underdogs have a fighting chance to establish themselves as national figures. Consistent with that tradition, we believe all recognized major candidates should have an equal opportunity to participate in pre-primary debates and forums. "

Shame on Fox.

Whether you are in the USA, support Dr. Paul or not this type of behavior by a media giant should strike an alarm. Media corporations should not be arbitrarily deciding who voters can see.

Sean of the Thread

01-07-2008, 02:13 AM

They can decide for me not to see Ron Paul all they want.

Mabus

01-07-2008, 04:58 AM

They can decide for me not to see Ron Paul all they want.
The same could be said for any number of candidates. An educated populace is integral for a republic. When a state's party pulls its endorsement of a debate it should set a "red flag" over the organization sponsoring the debate.

I will skip trying to debate "why" with you on the particulars, as your mind seems made up, and for the fact that trying to debate politics here is often like trying teaching to teach frogs to sing for money.

Gan

01-07-2008, 07:33 AM

The same could be said for any number of candidates. An educated populace is integral for a republic. When a state's party pulls its endorsement of a debate it should set a "red flag" over the organization sponsoring the debate.
I would agree with you on the relegation of debate participants and that it should be discouraged for media to actively screen out who is invited. However, with the barrage of debates already seen and already scheduled, I feel that this will make little if any difference in the long run - except for the precedence that it sets.

I will skip trying to debate "why" with you on the particulars, as your mind seems made up, and for the fact that trying to debate politics here is often like trying teaching to teach frogs to sing for money.

http://www.frogsonice.com/froggy/mjfrog/mjfrog-icon.gif

Androidpk

01-07-2008, 09:10 AM

I just love how Fox claims they are completely unbiased towards all 2008 candidates. :lol2:

Hulkein

01-07-2008, 10:06 AM

Pretty weak move by Fox considering Paul is going to beat Thompson, who was invited, in that very primary. He also has a shot at beating Rudy and a long shot to get more votes than Huckabee.

Sean of the Thread

01-07-2008, 10:08 AM

At the very least it's damage control and just plain wise of them. It's no joke that Ron Paul is batshit insane.

ClydeR

01-07-2008, 11:32 AM

To arbitrarily exclude candidates that are strong at fundraising, high in the polls, legally registered as a candidate in a state and that placed higher then candidates (in ACTUAL votes) included in the event should be a crime.

It was not an arbitrary decision. It was based on national polling (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/charts/?poll_id=192). Ron Paul polls at less than 4% nationally, but Fred Thompson polls in excess of 10% nationally.

Latrinsorm

01-07-2008, 12:57 PM

Mabus

01-07-2008, 01:38 PM

It was not an arbitrary decision. It was based on national polling (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/charts/?poll_id=192). Ron Paul polls at less than 4% nationally, but Fred Thompson polls in excess of 10% nationally.

National polls != actual votes. Polls are slanted, and have "margins of error".

It is a fact that Ron Paul had more then three times the actual votes as Giuliani in Iowa. That the NH GOP pulled its endorsement of the "forum" and several campaign spokesmen of the other GOP candidates have come out today stating that Dr. Paul should have been included are facts as well.

For example when asked on C-SPAN today about Ron Paul's exclusion by Fox, Tom Rath, Romney's Senior Advisor, said "I think Ron Paul has earned his way on to the stage and into every forum. I think it was a mistake."

I agree with him on the issue.

Mabus

01-07-2008, 01:56 PM

I'm the only one who saw the irony here?
There are laws that exist dealing with coverage of elections by media. I am not stating Fox broke any of them, as I am not an election law (or media law) lawyer.

Purposeful electioneering by media should be against the law, if it currently is not.

One could say that all the candidates were treated "similarly" (since a bar was set and stuck to across all candidates), and that would likely be within the law, though still arbitrary.

But if CNN wanted to hold a "forum" for only candidates that did not believe the world was <6,000 years old and evolution a myth then 3 of the initial GOP presidential candidates, including Huckabee, would have been excluded. In this case the candidates would all have been treated "similarly", but the media bias would still have existed. One can imagine the outcry over such a decision. This is a hypothetical example of an arbitrary system of choosing participants, just as the Fox choice was.

Savageheart

01-07-2008, 02:32 PM

National polls != actual votes. Polls are slanted, and have "margins of error".

It is a fact that Ron Paul had more then three times the actual votes as Giuliani in Iowa. That the NH GOP pulled its endorsement of the "forum" and several campaign spokesmen of the other GOP candidates have come out today stating that Dr. Paul should have been included are facts as well.

For example when asked on C-SPAN today about Ron Paul's exclusion by Fox, Tom Rath, Romney's Senior Advisor, said "I think Ron Paul has earned his way on to the stage and into every forum. I think it was a mistake."

I agree with him on the issue.

Some interesting food for thought,

Not a Guiliani fan, but I know someone who works for the campaign. Guiliani did no campaigning save some direct calls in Iowa and spent almost nothing on the state. Kind of a risky gambit, but he did not campaign there to my knowledge, with some intent or purpose. Iowa being this close to the actual caucuses which have real delegates might have something to do with it but I'm not an anylist and nothing more than an arm-chair activist. Just his camp seems to think they can write it off and focus on FL and the West Coast.

Compare RP's numbers in NH and Florida and you'll have a more accurate measure. The fact that he got 3 times the votes of Guiliani in Iowa means nothing when you apply the proper context right now. He was one step above a write in candidate in Iowa.

Mind you, I am sure RP is both unelectable and laughable as a ballot candidate, but I invite Republicans across the nation to vote for him in their primaries.

Latrinsorm

01-07-2008, 05:00 PM

There are laws that exist dealing with coverage of elections by media. I am not stating Fox broke any of them, as I am not an election law (or media law) lawyer.

Purposeful electioneering by media should be against the law, if it currently is not.My point was that Ron Paul (and his supporters) are famously small-government, which makes it ironic to hear one yearning for more governmental interference.

Hulkein

01-07-2008, 05:30 PM

It's no joke that Ron Paul is batshit insane.

I know I'm a sane person so anytime someone says that I don't really see why. He is for small government and a non-interventionist policy. What is batshit insane about that?

My point was that Ron Paul (and his supporters) are famously small-government, which makes it ironic to hear one yearning for more governmental interference.

They aren't anarchists...

Latrinsorm

01-07-2008, 05:35 PM

One does not have to be an anarchist to want less government; however, one cannot want more government and at the same time want less government.

Hulkein

01-07-2008, 05:38 PM

That was the dumbest post you've had in a while.

ClydeR

01-08-2008, 07:35 PM

Well well well. It looks like (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1950390/posts) Fox was right to exclude Ron Paul after all.

Hulkein

01-08-2008, 07:48 PM

Drudge had that up but pulled it down quickly. I was wondering why he removed it.

Still doesn't make what Fox did right since that wasn't their reasoning.

Gan

01-08-2008, 08:18 PM

Here's the link from Drudge on this article.

http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/dsp/search.htm?searchFor=ron+paul

First series of links... (see below)

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca

Hulkein

01-08-2008, 08:23 PM

It's ashame because I really liked a lot of his ideas regarding fiscal responsibility, monetary system and personal responsibility.

Mabus

01-09-2008, 11:51 AM

Dr. Paul's Official Response (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/press-releases/125/ron-paul-statement-on-the-new-republic-article-regarding-old-newsletters)

The same writer, a leftist, has done this before to other people. Google him and look over some of his other stories.

Exclude him from a forum and smear him, and still he only missed 3rd by 3%.

Sean of the Thread

01-09-2008, 12:19 PM

Well there are a lot of crazy ass people in this country.

Especially in this area it seems. a lot of vocal Ron Paul supporters. It's scary.

Warriorbird

01-09-2008, 01:45 PM

Maybe they're tired of Juan Peron style nationalism under Bush and want to go back to conservatism?

ClydeR

01-09-2008, 02:25 PM

Maybe they're tired of Juan Peron style nationalism under Bush and want to go back to conservatism?

If Bush is Peron, then who is Evita? A lot of people--and I mean a whole lot of people--have compared Hillary to Evita.

Hillary is the least liberal of the leading Democrat candidates, but she's hardly what most of us would consider conservative. From what I've seen so far, I am the leading conservative voice in this forum, and, as such, I can assure you that true conservatives--both fiscal and, especially, social--will never, never, never vote for Hillary. If Hillary wins the nomination, she will unite the currently fractured Republican Party, causing us to put aside our differences and choose a viable candidate with national appeal, such as Mike Huckabee.

Warriorbird

01-09-2008, 02:31 PM

Cheney = Peron. Bush = Evita.

And the Republican party has been on a Nationalist course for a while. Examine government spending under the last Republican Congress/Bush presidency. They've outdone the fever dreams of Ted Kennedy...they've just spent in different categories.

Bill Clinton was more fiscally conservative than Dubya.

...and declaring that you're the leading conservative voice here is hilarious. You don't seem to have much of a grasp of economics...though you do play into the idea of a party entirely guided by whacked out Christianity.

Huckabee's not a fiscal conservative. His religious status as a hater will probably appeal to you and your cohorts though.

Hulkein

01-09-2008, 02:33 PM

Anyone who would prefer Huckabee as the candidate out of the current Republican field is nothing close to a true conservative. They are just fundamentalist Christians.

Maybe they're tired of Juan Peron style nationalism under Bush and want to go back to conservatism?

For real. I still haven't heard why pushing for small government, responsible spending and a non-interventionist policy is crazy.

Warriorbird

01-09-2008, 02:51 PM

All of those things are, I daresay, perfectly reasonable... but that's something that's been missing in politics for a while.

I'm pretty sure in some alternate world where Ron Paul got the nomination over Hillary that I'd vote for him. Sadly...we're not in that world.

Gan

01-09-2008, 03:28 PM

Anyone who would prefer Huckabee as the candidate out of the current Republican field is nothing close to a true conservative. They are just fundamentalist Christians.

^^^
Yea that.

Hulkein

01-20-2008, 05:53 PM

2nd place finish in Nevada, not bad. Not so much in SC but who didn't see that coming?

Along with the theme of this thread is Fox News breezing through his 2nd place finish (don't even say his name) to talk about football. - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fanp5_zfRR8

And for a funny clip from the 80s - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88REf0tjZHo - I lol'd

Parkbandit

01-20-2008, 06:12 PM

Ron Paul is the Republican answer to Dennis Kucinich. Neither one has a chance in hell of ever mounting a successful Presidential Campagn.. but they will both try again in 4 years with the same result.

Hulkein

01-20-2008, 06:27 PM

Yup, it's ashame.

He's getting air time for a lot of good ideas, though. Also I don't know if Kucinich ever raised as much money or came in 2nd in any primary/caucus.

Keller

01-20-2008, 08:57 PM

I am the leading conservative voice in this forum.

:help:

Bhuryn

01-21-2008, 12:41 AM

I can say I wouldn't be opposed to Ron Paul as our president, I think this country is ready for a different way; I just don't think enough people are ready.

I am alittle scared though since I don't believe the GOP has a singular candidate right now which could prove dangerous if one of them doesn't start to pick up steam.

There are some evil plots on the horizon from the democrates :tumble: .

Tsa`ah

01-21-2008, 08:57 AM

I can say I wouldn't be opposed to Ron Paul as our president, I think this country is ready for a different way; I just don't think enough people are ready.

I think the time for people like Ron Paul ended with David Duke.

He has a few political philosophies I could get behind, but the rhetoric he has used in the past, or at the very least put his name on, indicates he's not the person to deliver those philosophies.

I am alittle scared though since I don't believe the GOP has a singular candidate right now which could prove dangerous if one of them doesn't start to pick up steam.

That's generally the belief on either side of the fence, more so with the GOP this go around since the ideology within the party has become so splintered over the past 8-12 years.

You have those tucked away in bed with religion.

You have those that defend the war to the point of abandoning conservative philosophies on government and spending.

Then you have the real conservatives who want the GOP to return to the days of pushing for smaller government, lower taxes, and fiscal responsibility.

There are some evil plots on the horizon from the democrates :tumble: .

At this point, there's really only two viable candidates and I'd believe one of them capable of evil plots. The party as a whole .. well they're as competent as the GOP.

Gan

01-21-2008, 09:00 AM

Then you have the real conservatives who want the GOP to return to the days of pushing for smaller government, lower taxes, and fiscal responsibility.

I can identify with that, as long as the religion part isnt thrown in. In fact, I still get called a RINO because I dont buy into the religion bullshit.