PDA

View Full Version : STOP FOX-NEWS from screwing Ron Paul


stag1500
05-03-2007, 2:57 PM
This was an email from a friend...


Fox-TV is denying Ron Paul to be in the South Carolina Presidential Debate----says he is not a recognized, major candidate !!!!!

EVERYONE !!!! call SC GOP Office 803 - 988 - 8440

ask to speak to ROB GODFREY and ALSO ask to speak with

HOGAN GIDLEY ---SC GOP Chief Executive Officer.

The Republican GOP can put a stop to this !!!!

WE NEED TO HAVE RON PAUL IN THE SC MAY 15th DEBATE !!!!

Ron Paul has paid his the $25,000 registration fee to be on SC Ballot --- He deserves to be in the May 15th debate --- He's a Republican Candidate for President !!!! --- he deserves to be heard !!!! ----

The American people deserve to have the right to hear him in the debate !!!

Are they --- The Republican Party in SC going to allow "Fox-TV" to choose who the American public will hear on May 15th debates?

<--- THEN ---> email Fox news and ask them to include Ron Paul, the only candidate that is FAIR AND BALANCED.

Flood their computers with messages... all of them.. there is power in the people and we have to let them know we want our candidate to have as much coverage as the rest of them get.

Come on gang this needs to be done.. cross post this list to all your groups and letís make one big bunch of messages....

WE WERE SUCCESSFUL BEFORE IN GETTING RON PAUL ON FOX WE CAN DO IT AGAIN!

Just copy, paste and send this message to all below:

"As a loyal Fox viewer I ask that you include Ron Paul in the South Carolina Debate. I feel Dr. Ron Paul embodies the true ideals our nation stands for, and his views and plans need to be heard. Please remain the Fair and Balanced network by including Dr. Ron Paul, otherwise I will find my news elsewhere."

Thank you,
[INSERT YOUR NAME HERE]

TO CALL FOX NEWS CHANNEL:
1-888-369-4762
TO E-MAIL COMMENTS:
Comments@foxnews.com AmericasNewsroom@foxnews.com Beltway@foxnews.com
Myword@foxnews.com
Bigstory-weekend@foxnews.com
Bigstory-weekend@foxnews.com
Bullsandbears@foxnews.com Cash@foxnews.com
Cavuto@foxnews.com
Fncimag@foxnews.com
Forbes@foxnews.com
Friends@foxnews.com
Comments@foxnews.com Feedback@foxnews.com
Jamie@foxnews.com
Feedback@foxnews.com
Fncspecials@foxnews.com
FNS@foxnews.com
Newswatch@foxnews.com
Foxreport@foxnews.com
Foxreport@foxnews.com
Atlarge@foxnews.com
Hannityandcolmes@foxnews.com
Heartland@foxnews.com
JER@foxnews.com
Lineup@foxnews.com
Martha@foxnews.com
Ontherecord@foxnews.com
Oreilly@foxnews.com
Redeye@foxnews.com
Special@foxnews.com
Studiob@foxnews.com
Comments@foxnews.com
Cavuto@foxnews.com
Hemmer@foxnews.com
colonelscorner@foxnews.com
Comments@foxnews.com
Fatherjonathan@foxnews.com
Drmanny@foxnews.com
Lisonlaw@foxnews.com
Housecall@foxnews.com
Comments@foxnews.com

http://www.knology.net/~bilrum/

rocketboy
05-03-2007, 3:09 PM
Beware the Govenment /Media complex. To bad Ike didn't warn us about that one!! As if anyone would have listened anyway.

Patriot
05-03-2007, 3:15 PM
Beware the Govenment /Media complex. To bad Ike didn't warn us about that one!! As if anyone would have listened anyway.

Is "Big Media" :p a distinct industry? (Does it produce goods? It certainly doesn't seem to offer "services", maybe disservices....) I always considered it part of the fertilizer industry - produces the same end products :eek:

whomper
05-04-2007, 2:05 PM
I added another line:
And I will spend my time writing to your advertisers explaining the reasons I will no longer purchase their products or services.

Mark_in_Pasadena
05-04-2007, 2:14 PM
**** UPDATE ****

Wednesday, May 02, 2007
Ten candidates to participate in historic First-in-the-South Presidential Candidates Debate
Contact: Rob Godfrey, Communications Director
803.988.8440
COLUMBIA, S.C. – Excitement surrounding presidential politics in South Carolina continues to grow as South Carolina Republican Party Chairman Katon Dawson today announced that invitations will be extended to ten Republican presidential candidates to participate in the 2007 First-In-The-South Republican Party Presidential Candidates Debate.

Dawson said, “We would like to extend a warm South Carolina welcome to ten White House hopefuls who are seeking the Republican nomination to be the next President of the United States.”

“The participants in our debate ensure South Carolina voters and Republicans visiting Columbia from across the country get a chance to hear candidates for President candidly discuss important issues facing our future. We are extremely proud to host the first truly national presidential candidates debate,” Dawson added.

The following candidates will be receiving formal invitations from the South Carolina Republican Party to the 2007 First-In-The-South Republican Party Presidential Candidates Debate (in alphabetical order):

U.S. Senator Sam Brownback – Kansas
Former Mayor Rudy Giuliani – New York City
Former Governor Jim Gilmore – Virginia
Former Governor Mike Huckabee – Arkansas
U.S. Congressman Duncan Hunter – California
U.S. Senator John McCain – Arizona
U.S. Congressman Ron Paul – Texas
Former Governor Mitt Romney – Massachusetts
U.S. Congressman Tom Tancredo – Colorado
Former Governor Tommy Thompson – Wisconsin

The 2007 First-In-The-South Republican Party Presidential Candidates Debate will be televised live by FOX News Channel at 9:00 PM from the University of South Carolina’s Koger Center for the Arts on Tuesday, May 15, 2007. FOX News Channel Washington Managing Editor Brit Hume will moderate the debate and FOX News Sunday Anchor Chris Wallace and White House Correspondent Wendell Goler will ask questions of the candidates.

http://www.scgop.com/News/Read.aspx?ID=4703

STAGE 2
05-04-2007, 9:37 PM
To be blunt Paul has zero chance of winning the nomination and even less chance of winning the election. If gun rights are your issue then theres no reason to vote for Paul when Thompson gets in the race. Hes a viable candidate and not a libertarian wearing a republican suit to get some traction.

Mark_in_Pasadena
05-04-2007, 10:26 PM
To be blunt Paul has zero chance of winning the nomination and even less chance of winning the election. If gun rights are your issue then theres no reason to vote for Paul when Thompson gets in the race. Hes a viable candidate and not a libertarian wearing a republican suit to get some traction.


Oh really.... You obviously have no clue to what Dr. Paul is about. Maybe if more people that actually give a damn about the future of this country took the time to find out more about him we wouldn't be in the mess we're in now. For the record this isn't just about gun rights... BTW, in last nights debate he ran away with the polls. Did you even WATCH the debates?

G-dude
05-04-2007, 10:41 PM
Here are all his coments in the GOP hopeful debate on MSNBC:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7yJgqnQ5Rc


An honest politician. I'd never thought I'd see it. It says something when honesty and principle are radical and dangerous things.

I also don't think he will be elected. If he is I'll regain alot of faith in our electoral process.

It's already starting with the media cold shoulder. On ABC today, Stefanopolous, commenting on the debate, didn't even mention him, even when pressed on which of the minor candidates stood out.

It will be funny to see the spin they will put on him if he gets even more popular and what the reaction will be when he's not chosen as the candidate at the GOP convention.

His logic is voracious, though. And while I may not agree 100% with him on all the issues, he has impressed me terribly. I think I love the man.

PressCheck
05-05-2007, 10:18 AM
Ron Paul CAN'T win - Fred Thompson CAN.

Run Fred, Run.

rocketboy
05-05-2007, 10:40 AM
Well, when I watched Msnbc's debate the other night Paul looked to be the only one who made any since. All the others are just full of it as usual. If the Media stopped playing favorites to celeb politicians the country may have a chance to getting back on the right track. Dr. Paul actually has a chance since he came in forth in that debate. Maybe he'll pick up some steam as the days go, and then maybe he wont.

Mark_in_Pasadena
05-05-2007, 11:37 AM
Well, when I watched Msnbc's debate the other night Paul looked to be the only one who made any since. All the others are just full of it as usual. If the Media stopped playing favorites to celeb politicians the country may have a chance to getting back on the right track. Dr. Paul actually has a chance since he came in forth in that debate. Maybe he'll pick up some steam as the days go, and then maybe he wont.

Well with close to 60,000 votes Ron Paul ran away with it on MSNBC's own poll, yet the MSM avoids him like the plague because he doesn't have any masters he needs to report too....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18436681/

mow
05-05-2007, 12:34 PM
Ron Paul CAN'T win - Fred Thompson CAN.

Run Fred, Run.


Negative Nancy on aisle 4B

Please dude! He CAN win. It is your opinion that he can't. Since he is on the ticket he actually could win. He will be who I vote for in the primaries. He did a great job with the bull**** questions posed.

I think Fred Thompson is MORE electable, but I don't think Fred is the best candidate.

Ron Paul BY FAR is the best candidate.

Besides has Fred even announced that he is running yet? If he decides to it should be quick.

STAGE 2
05-05-2007, 9:29 PM
Oh really.... You obviously have no clue to what Dr. Paul is about.

Sure I do. Hes essentially a career politician who didn't get anywhere as a libertarian and switched parties.


Maybe if more people that actually give a damn about the future of this country took the time to find out more about him we wouldn't be in the mess we're in now.

I do. Thats why I'm not going to cast a vote for a man who openly stated he wants to get rid of the CIA.


For the record this isn't just about gun rights...

I realize that, which is why I made the caveat in my original post, or didn't you read that.


BTW, in last nights debate he ran away with the polls. Did you even WATCH the debates?

Saw the entire 90 minutes. As for the "poll" results, they are completely unscientific and are easily skewed by people voting for the person least likely to win. Paul doesn't even rate higher than 1% with ANY of the reputable polling organizations.

If you want to vote for him thats perfectly fine. However I can guarantee that he wont win. On the other board I offered a $500 bet if Paul won the nomination. No one took it, even among the die hard Paul supporters. Why? Because they know he has no chance.

Kestryll
05-05-2007, 10:39 PM
Keep it civil and to the facts or get it shut down.
I do not care how vehement you are about your candidate, others will not agree with you and if you can't repond calmly, don't.

mikehaas
05-06-2007, 1:30 PM
Well with close to 60,000 votes Ron Paul ran away with it on MSNBC's own poll, yet the MSM avoids him like the plague because he doesn't have any masters he needs to report too....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18436681/
Without commenting on Paul, let's look for a moment why MSNBC (and their normal viewers - the anti-FOX News crowd) might want people to view Paul as the "winner".

MSNBC is being critisized for slanting the event to the detriment of the GOP frontrunner, Guliani (who surely has little support here). According to Dick Morris, the non-front-runners were given more air time and easier questions. He counted the number of words each candidate was allowed in their answers and found both McCain and Romney were given more time to answer.

In raising the stature of your enemy's enemies, the idea is to dilute the Republican vote and prevent emergence of wide popularism. If you believe MSNBC did this, it indicates that MSNBC views Paul as the candidate least likely to win and having the most appeal to the hard right - therefore most likely to provoke dissention in the GOP ranks (moderate and liberal Republicans will never support Paul).

I find that possibility much more likely than believing MSNBC, especially with Chris Matthews front and center, even gave a passing thought to being fair to Republicans. They obviously can't use the debate to let Matthews reveal his fangs, but they can do some subtle things in the structure of the debate to try to weaken it's benefit to the electorate and lessen the GOP's chances of success.

Spreading the GOP support as widely and thinly as possible has many payoffs, particularly in brewing division within the Republican party when "their" candidate is dropped later on. When Paul is left behind later in the race, MSNBC wants as many of you here as possible to be absolutely fedup and stay home and not vote for whoever the frontrunner is. (and <shudder> that is likely to remain Guiliani, especially if pro-gunners "split" between Paul and Thompson.)

If Paul had been viewed as the GOP frontrunner, MSNBC would never attribute him with a debate win and would have "favored" Guliani over him. Remember, they only care that a Democrat win in 2008.

Mike

bwiese
05-06-2007, 6:56 PM
I like Ron Paul.

That said, there's no chance he'll go further - he has zero money and zero fundraising power.

And, he won't get any religious right backing because he's a thinking man. He won't get any support from the 'law & order' types because he's against the idiocy of the drug war.

He also has something even worse going against him - history/statistics. The path to the Presidency rarely, in modern times, runs thru a Congressional or Senate seat. There's something perceived as too 'regional' about such folks and which doesn't translate on a national scale; governors (and perhaps even mayors) are seen as executives "getting things done" instead of merely arguing/voting.

mow
05-06-2007, 6:59 PM
Really?

What specifically about Ron Paul makes him the best candidate? Which specific issue or plank of his platform makes him the best? What piece of legislation has he authored and what was its benefit to the country? What does Ron Paul stand for...specifically?

If he is the 'best candidate', then why doesn't he drop the Republican facade and run as a Losertarian...sorry...Libertarian?

In my opinion he is the best candidate.

In my opinion what makes him the best candidate? His Libertarian leanings.

Kinda tough when you rarely if ever have more than 12 co-sponsers yet are re-elected by the people who desire change.

Ron Paul has sponsored the following legislation to help the United States...

His numerous resolutions to distance our great country from the UN, RAD!(H.CON.RES.4, H.CON.RES.443, H.CON.RES.255 , H.R.1146 , H.AMDT.240 to H.R.1950, H.AMDT.287 to H.R.2799 , H.AMDT.648 to H.R.4754 )

Let me ask you... What is your opinion of the UN?

Getting rid of the CIA yahoo! What exactly have they done to keep us safe?
Getting rid of the FAA yippee yahoo! These guys too!

Less Fed government! OMG are we still in the 21st century?

Strict constitutionalst! Again are we in the 21st century here?

Wants to restore the 2A rights of americans H.R. 153

Losertarian? That's a good one... Do you enjoy duopoly or just live with it?

I wonder what the argument was when it was all federalists and whigs and the republicans came on the scene. Loserpublicans maybe?

That's why i think Ron Paul is rad.

Oh wait I almost forgot he is articulate and can answer direct questions that are posed to him.

That being said he doesn;t have a great chance of going further but heck getting on the ticket is the first step.

To deny that there is a chance that he could go further albeit a slim chance is to deny reality.

STAGE 2
05-06-2007, 9:59 PM
Getting rid of the CIA yahoo! What exactly have they done to keep us safe?

Oh I don't know, how about the 20 or so attacks that have been prevented since 9/11 and those are only the ones that they have been willing to leak info on.

In theory it may be a swell idea, but right now getting rid of the CIA is suicide. Even if you could come up with a better alternative (Paul hasn't) the logistics involved in transfering power and responisbility would leave a gap in our security and intelligence that I could drive a truck through.

Bad juju.

stag1500
05-06-2007, 10:21 PM
Enjoy wasting your vote.

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

The only time a vote wasted is when you vote for a politician who doesn't share your beliefs. When you vote for someone, you are endorsing them 100% even though you may only agree with them 60% of the time. Voting for the lesser of two evils is wasting a vote.

mr.v.
05-06-2007, 11:41 PM
the logistics involved in transfering power and responisbility would leave a gap in our security and intelligence that I could drive a truck through.

Still, a hole the size of a truck is a lot smaller than the one someone flew 3 planes through...

mow
05-07-2007, 6:34 AM
Oh I don't know, how about the 20 or so attacks that have been prevented since 9/11 and those are only the ones that they have been willing to leak info on.

In theory it may be a swell idea, but right now getting rid of the CIA is suicide. Even if you could come up with a better alternative (Paul hasn't) the logistics involved in transfering power and responisbility would leave a gap in our security and intelligence that I could drive a truck through.

Bad juju.

I don't know about the alleged 20 or so attacks since 9/11 either.

Willing to leak info? Or leaking to show what a dern good job they're doing now as opposed to before 9-11.

I feel very strongly that it would not be suicide to get rid of the CIA, just as you feel very strongly that it would be suicide.

I believe that we already have a huge gap in security and intelligence (have had one well before 9/11 obviously). I do not believe that we would be any worse off without the CIA and FAA. Oh or the UN.

mow
05-07-2007, 6:36 AM
Enjoy wasting your vote.

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

I will not be wasting my vote sir.

I will for once be voting for a candidate that I share more than one or two views on. He is a constitutionalist, I like that a lot.

mikehaas
05-07-2007, 10:52 AM
>Enjoy wasting your vote. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

The only time a vote wasted is when you vote for a politician who doesn't share your beliefs...
Whether a vote is "wasted" or not depends on what you want to accomplish.

If your goal is to express your frustration and cast a protest vote, it is entirely your right. Big-L Libertarians have been doing that a long time and IMO, few of them think their vote was wasted.

But in real terms, they have failed in establishing any traction in any national election on any issue. What real political effects have resulted from these votes cast by big-L Libertarians? That's where Libertarians have a tough time with this debate. There hasn't been any. The LP has not been advanced and are still an extreme minority. They have not moved either major party in any direction and are generally considered irrelevant by the huge majority of their fellow Americans.

However, just as the GOP wants Dem voters to become so frustrated with their party they vote Peace & Freedom party or for Nader, the same holds true with the GOP and Libertarians. The Dems want as many gun-owners to be so turned off that you cast a protest vote instead of supporting someone that can actually win.

Because they know come 2008, it will be either a Republican or Democrat that will sit in the White House. That is not a guess or a prediction - not even debatable - it is fact. The Libertarian Party has never acheived 2% of the popular vote in a presidential election. So if your goal is not to just cast a protest vote but actually help determine who will win that seat, your loyalties, efforts and votes in support of the LP will have zero effect.

In personal terms, a LP vote is not a waste as it helps the voter dissipate his anger.

But in terms of actually advancing a cause to try to change the situation for the better - to prevent a re-occurance of that anger - a LP vote is an utter waste. Four years from now, eight years, twelve years, etc etc, the LP will be doing the same thing, and still under 2% while they do it. Getting to 3% would be a major milestone - forget getting anyone elected.

The American people do not want more than 2 parties. They barely check out TWO candidates and will never support the idea of 3. Ross Perot came closest, but his was not a national party - only he set the agenda - and he only pulled 16%. When the Whigs became unpopuler, they were replaced by the Republicans. America did not carry on with 3 parties - one had to die.

Mike

schizrade2
05-07-2007, 10:56 AM
To be blunt Paul has zero chance of winning the nomination and even less chance of winning the election. If gun rights are your issue then theres no reason to vote for Paul when Thompson gets in the race. Hes a viable candidate and not a libertarian wearing a republican suit to get some traction.

You actually WANT another Republican in office? Haven't they proven themselves unworthy of power?

schizrade2
05-07-2007, 10:59 AM
Whether a vote is "wasted" or not depends on what you want to accomplish.

If your goal is to express your frustration and cast a protest vote, it is entirely your right. Big-L Libertarians have been doing that a long time and IMO, few of them think their vote was wasted.

But in real terms, they have failed in establishing any traction in any national election on any issue. What real political effects have resulted from these votes cast by big-L Libertarians? That's where Libertarians have a tough time with this debate. There hasn't been any. The LP has not been advanced and are still an extreme minority. They have not moved either major party in any direction and are generally considered irrelevant by the huge majority of their fellow Americans.

However, just as the GOP wants Dem voters to become so frustrated with their party they vote Peace & Freedom party or for Nader, the same holds true with the GOP and Libertarians. The Dems want as many gun-owners to be so turned off that you cast a protest vote instead of supporting someone that can actually win.

Because they know come 2008, it will be either a Republican or Democrat that will sit in the White House. That is not a guess or a prediction - not even debatable - it is fact. The Libertarian Party has never acheived 2% of the popular vote in a presidential election. So if your goal is not to just cast a protest vote but actually help determine who will win that seat, your loyalties, efforts and votes in support of the LP will have zero effect.

In personal terms, a LP vote is not a waste as it helps the voter dissipate his anger.

But in terms of actually advancing a cause to try to change the situation for the better - to prevent a re-occurance of that anger - a LP vote is an utter waste. Four years from now, eight years, twelve years, etc etc, the LP will be doing the same thing, and still under 2% while they do it. Getting to 3% would be a major milestone - forget getting anyone elected.

The American people do not want more than 2 parties. They barely check out TWO candidates and will never support the idea of 3. Ross Perot came closest, but his was not a national party - only he set the agenda - and he only pulled 16%. When the Whigs became unpopuler, they were replaced by the Republicans. America did not carry on with 3 parties - one had to die.

Mike

So get a big-L in as a republican... They fooled you with Bush the "Compassionate Conservative". They can fool you again. You think Rudy and Tan Man are going to do what you want? Think again.

mblat
05-07-2007, 11:03 AM
Ron Paul MAY be a best candidate. He MAY be most outspoken with the best ideas and most logic.

That is said, nobody who publically doubts the rational for the Civil War will never win the presidential elections. The history the Civil War is one of the most cherished myths in modern American society and anybody who dares to question it is dumed. End of strory.

One is entitled to vote to Libretarian and don't think that his vote is wasted. He certanly can do it in California, because result of California election is predetermined - no matter who is running in 2008 California electoral votes will go to Dems. So vote for Libretarian is in a way "free". However, I find it difficult to justify such vote in state that matter, like Ohio.

bwiese
05-07-2007, 11:07 AM
You actually WANT another Republican in office? Haven't they proven themselves unworthy of power?

Nope, I'm fairly happy:


Letting Fed AW ban sunset... check.


Getting Protection of Lawful Commerce in Firearms Act passed... check.


Apparently pro-2nd Supreme Ct Justices Roberts & Alito, for support of Parker... check.


Oh.... tax cut... check!


F**k everything else. Let the Katrina idiots starve, they were too dumb not to live in a soup bowl below the waterline.

mblat
05-07-2007, 11:16 AM
Nope, I'm fairly happy:


Letting Fed AW ban sunset... check.


Getting Protection of Lawful Commerce in Firearms Act passed... check.


Apparently pro-2nd Supreme Ct Justices Roberts & Alito, for support of Parker... check.


Oh.... tax cut... check!


F**k everything else. Let the Katrina idiots starve, they were too dumb not to live in a soup bowl below the waterline.


Here we go... One issue voter at his best... :-)

bruss01
05-07-2007, 12:58 PM
He may not win the presidency.

He may not win the R nomination -

But I'll tell you one thing he WILL win...

MY vote. All the way, if I have to write it in every step of the way.

I'm tired of the mainstream media telling me who to vote for, or who I have to vote for *for fear* the other guy who's WORSE will win. No more "lesser of evils" for me.

Ron Paul embodies my views. He is no poser, he's been voting and practicing his beliefs FOR YEARS as an elected official, representing the people of his district. Like many who voted for a guy named RONALD REAGAN I remember what it's like to have a candidate in the race who actually believes we can turn the country around, give us back our nation, take back our freedom and our prosperity from a Government gone berzerk. Ron Paul votes his consciense, and I'm determined to do the same. Imagine what could happen if a lot of us did the same... instead of trying to herd together like a bunch of lemmings because of what the media and the entrenched "good ol' boys" want us to think.

Like I said, he's getting my vote whether he gets anyone else's or not.

bwiese
05-07-2007, 1:44 PM
He's also a sure shot loser.... {snip}

But, hey...I hear Libertarians make great dog catchers.

George Will once wrote (approximate quote) that they have "all the charm of a bearded high-school algebra teacher attempting to privatize the sidewalks".

Their concepts may be great but their focus and packaging leave them electorally dead.

stag1500
05-07-2007, 1:56 PM
George Will once wrote (approximate quote) that they have "all the charm of a bearded high-school algebra teacher attempting to privatize the sidewalks".

Their concepts may be great but their focus and packaging leave them electorally dead.

So what's the alternative? Should we vote for Republicans who spend more than Democrats? Should we vote for Republicans who make government bigger and more intrusive into our lives? Should we vote for Republicans who will sign into law a Fed AW Ban if passed by Congress? Should we vote for Republicans who believe we should have "sensible" gun laws?

What's the difference between the Republicans and Democrats these days? The Republicans have moved way too far to the left. If JFK were alive today, he'd be a Republican for crying out loud. Republicans are Libertarians in rhetoric only but Democrats in practice. The last 6 years has shown us just that.

bwiese
05-07-2007, 3:16 PM
Should we vote for Republicans who will sign into law a Fed AW Ban if passed by Congress?

I'll not address the other issues since this is primarily a gun forum.

Everyone knew this was a safe thing for GWB to say since it had ZERO chance of passing (Fed AWB renewal). It was a wink-wink, nudge nudge thing. If you can't understand that, you probably have no business even reading about politics.

Pro-gun effects count way more than pro-gun statements with me.

All I see is :
- two Supreme Ct justices (Roberts, Alito) that will go for RKBA in Parker;

- a signed Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, blocking devastating frivolous lawsuits that dog firearms mfgrs;

- a completely dead Fed AWB that had zero chance of going anywhere. I'm also pretty sure that if it did come up this Bush would not sign it for another newly-found reason.



Should we vote for Republicans who believe we should have "sensible" gun laws?

I never said we should. I'll stay home for Giuliani or Romney and would vote for Richardson (a Dem!) way way before either.

I vote for guns first, taxes 2nd. I don't give a sh*t about anything else.

STAGE 2
05-07-2007, 3:54 PM
I believe that we already have a huge gap in security and intelligence (have had one well before 9/11 obviously). I do not believe that we would be any worse off without the CIA and FAA. Oh or the UN.

Based on what? Paul seems to think that the CIA is this horrible animal, but the problem is that he doesn't have the necessary information to make that determination. Neither do I and neither do you.

We do know that they have stopped several attacks against america as well as abroad since 9/11. No one on this board and not even Mr. Paul himself know the extent of the operations or their successes.

Its the height of arrogance to make a determination without knowing all the facts. Everyone will agree that they screwed up on 9/11. But if they prevent 99 attacks for every one that slips through is it really a goo idea to scrap them wholesale like Paul wants to do?

Paul is so obsessed with his small government mentality that hes willing to see it through regardless of the consequences. That not ok with me. The constitution isn't a suicide pact and one's philosophy of government shouldn't be either.

STAGE 2
05-07-2007, 4:17 PM
we are so used to beleving that government has a role in our life, all aspects, we shudder to think of taking down a program or agency.

The purpose of government is to do things which citizens by themselves cannot. Unless you are out there yourself doing surveilance and tapping Zawahiri's phone national security and inteligence is going to get delegated to government.

The question thus becomes what is the best way to do it. Paul is proposing a plan of action without knowing all the answers. This isn't a rant about how the CIA is perfect. Quite the contrary they have made more than their fair share of mistakes. That said, before we go and start tearing down we probably should know how well they actually done their job.

If you were running a football team and I told you that your QB had thrown 3 interceptions in the last game you might not want to start him. But if I then told you he lead the league in passing yards, completions and TD's that might change your mind.

Paul doesn't have all the info to make the kind of decision he's making.

mow
05-07-2007, 6:20 PM
Based on what? Paul seems to think that the CIA is this horrible animal, but the problem is that he doesn't have the necessary information to make that determination. Neither do I and neither do you.

How do you know what Ron Paul knows? Are you his mouthpiece? How do you know what information he has and whether he is able to make that determination. By your own admission you and I don't have the knowledge to make such a determination yet you are adamant against shutting down the CIA?

We do know that they have stopped several attacks against america as well as abroad since 9/11. No one on this board and not even Mr. Paul himself know the extent of the operations or their successes.

I don't know what the CIA has done since 911 please enlighten a mow. Besides where were they when it really mattered, like you know pre 911? Again you have no idea what information Dr Paul is privy to so unless you are his mouthpiece you should probably stop acting like you do.

Its the height of arrogance to make a determination without knowing all the facts. Everyone will agree that they screwed up on 9/11. But if they prevent 99 attacks for every one that slips through is it really a goo idea to scrap them wholesale like Paul wants to do?

I think the height of arrogance is waltzing into Iraq without declaring war under the guise of WMD and bunk UN resolutions. Are we at least in agreeance the we should remove ourselves from the UN? I think it might be a good idea to scrap the CIA AND the FAA yes! I think there is room to start over. Where is OBL again?

Paul is so obsessed with his small government mentality that hes willing to see it through regardless of the consequences. That not ok with me. The constitution isn't a suicide pact and one's philosophy of government shouldn't be either.

What consequences like 911? You are inferring that Paul's policies would be akin to a suicide pact. But let's make it clear that is your opinion. Unless that is you can tell the future and if that's the case then I'd like to start this conversation all over again .... sir please pm me the winning lotto numbers coming up this week...

Thanks!

STAGE 2
05-07-2007, 11:27 PM
How do you know what Ron Paul knows? Are you his mouthpiece? How do you know what information he has and whether he is able to make that determination.


I have no idea what Paul knows, but as a junior congressman I know what he doesn't know, and thats quite a bit. Paul does not get daily briefings and his security clearance doesn't get him into current operations that the CIA is involved in as well as recently completed stuff.

By your own admission you and I don't have the knowledge to make such a determination yet you are adamant against shutting down the CIA?

Exactly. Which is why I don't think anyone should do anything until we actually know whether the CIA is an asset or not. When you don't have all the facts you don't go changing things. Thats just common sense.

mow
05-08-2007, 6:44 AM
I have no idea what Paul knows, but as a junior congressman I know what he doesn't know, and thats quite a bit. Paul does not get daily briefings and his security clearance doesn't get him into current operations that the CIA is involved in as well as recently completed stuff.

Exactly. Which is why I don't think anyone should do anything until we actually know whether the CIA is an asset or not. When you don't have all the facts you don't go changing things. Thats just common sense.

IMO the CIA has proved their org to be worthless. I don't need daily briefings to realize that. I see the **** that they have allowed to happen and the result of their wonderful work around the world pre 911 as a cause for 911.

Recently completed stuff. LOL that is hella funnay! Actually it's pretty disturbing.

You've made your point, you aren't voting for Ron Paul. You believe his policies would be suicide for our nation.
As long as we are clear that this is your strong opinion and not fact.

I disagree with you. It is my strong opinion that we will be better off with Dr Paul as our President. That's all nothing more nothing less.

Kestryll
05-08-2007, 9:46 AM
I hate to say this but when I see supporters of anyone this rabid and this willing to attack anyone who disagrees that tells me a lot about that canididate.

It also ensures I will never support them.
You are known by the company you keep and the character of your friends and supporters. I've yet to see an adherent of Ron Paul's who didn't open up with both barrels on those who didn't agree that he was the only chance this Country has.
If that is his 'base' and indicative of the atmosphere he engenders I'll stick with Thompson, thank you.

mow
05-08-2007, 1:15 PM
I hate to say this but when I see supporters of anyone this rabid and this willing to attack anyone who disagrees that tells me a lot about that canididate.

It also ensures I will never support them.
You are known by the company you keep and the character of your friends and supporters. I've yet to see an adherent of Ron Paul's who didn't open up with both barrels on those who didn't agree that he was the only chance this Country has.
If that is his 'base' and indicative of the atmosphere he engenders I'll stick with Thompson, thank you.

Show me a rabid attack. Please.

I never said he was the only chance this country had. I said he is the only candidate that I agree with. I will also go as far as to say he is the best choice available.

Thanks.

mikehaas
05-08-2007, 1:58 PM
Nope, I'm fairly happy...
Bill may have developed an uncanny skill of bringing the issue back to what we're supposed to be about 'round these parts. The Second Amendment.

And on that front, we haven't had any new federal gun control since PRE-Columbine (1999). None came out of even that horrible event - BEFORE Democrats had been scared by NRA defeating Gore (2000) and Kerry (2004) and many new pro-gun Dems being elected (2006).

So in this doom and gloom world, with groups like GOA always yelling the sky is falling, it's good to take a moment to see that, for now, gun-rights actually seem pretty well protected at the federal level. Of course, we could be one SCOTUS decision away from losing it all, but with all the progress that's been made in "It's an Individual right" scholarship over the last 20 years (just ask former "It's a Collective right" proponent Lawrence Tribe and thank you Clayton Cramer, Stephen Halbrook, Dave Kopel, et al) and the recent SC appointments, that seems less likely than it has for awhile.

Our job here is to have CA pick up some of NRA's federal RKBA momentum and move the ball even faster here. I can't really say that anything that is happening in the sideshow called "the 2008 national election" that has my interest like what's going on with AB 1471 or AB 334 in Sacramento, or the LEAD AMMO BAN that the CA Dept. of Fish & game is considering, etc

Mike

STAGE 2
05-08-2007, 11:33 PM
IMO the CIA has proved their org to be worthless. I don't need daily briefings to realize that. I see the **** that they have allowed to happen and the result of their wonderful work around the world pre 911 as a cause for 911.

Just so we are on the same page, you are going to stand by this assessment even though its very likely that you are privy to just under 1% of what the CIA has done or is currently doing right now.

mow
05-09-2007, 6:20 AM
Just so we are on the same page, you are going to stand by this assessment even though its very likely that you are privy to just under 1% of what the CIA has done or is currently doing right now.

Did you know that 47.4298419 % of all statistics are made up on the spot?:p

Oh yeah and mark me down as stating that the FCC and the FTC need the axe too!

stag1500
05-10-2007, 1:44 PM
I just read that ABC News has not only been censoring articles about Ron Paul, they are deleting posts from people who are criticizing ABC for their censorship.

I guess this is how Communism prevails... if you can't jail people who advocate Liberty, then ignore the hell out of them. It makes me sick! :mad:

http://www.digg.com/2008_us_elections/ABC_Deletes_Posts_Criticizing_Them_For_Deleting_po sts