Guess Who Won the CNN Debate on June 5th?

[stag1500]

DR. RON PAUL!

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/debates/scorecard/gop.debate/results.html

Too bad the media is so against him. This country could really use a President like him.

[SemiAutoSam]

That's no surprise to me what so ever.

Ron Paul kicks ***.

That man would make a perfect President.

A constitutional President that will understand and implement that founding document like no other president in history has since the 1700's.

[bones138]

I was flipping through the channels and saw him on John Stewart today and the crowd actually applauded the things he had to say. John Stewart audience applauding Republicans? Never thought Id see the day.:eek:

[Dont Tread on Me]

Ron Paul is the man.

[FreedomIsNotFree]

I would love to see RP in the Whitehouse, but I know that he alone could effect little change unless there were like minded individuals in Congress to support his ideas of change. The reps and dems would simply join forces and gather the 2/3 needed to move past any veto.

[tman]

I was flipping through the channels and saw him on John Stewart today and the crowd actually applauded the things he had to say. John Stewart audience applauding Republicans? Never thought Id see the day.:eek:
Same thing happened on Bill Maher's show.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUYDt7kC3Z0

As Ron Paul says, the message of freedom is a powerful one that brings people together.

[Racefiend]

I was watching Mahr a few months back and he had RP on for a few mins and was basically making fun of him for ideas about getting rid of the IRS etc. Its funny how now he is his hero LOL. He was too quick to jump to conclusions before thoroughly researching what he stands for.

[jjperl]

I would really like to see Ron Paul as our president. He knows his stuff well.:patriot:

[rocketboy]

That guy is awesome!! I can't figure out why anybody doesn't like that guy.

What Ron Paul needs is an ARMY!! That way we could take the country back!!

[shark92651]

DR. RON PAUL!

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/debates/scorecard/gop.debate/results.html

Too bad the media is so against him. This country could really use a President like him.

Notice how the public (CNN's public, mind you, not Fox News) voted Ron Paul the winner in 5 of 7 categoryies, yet not one of the political analyst gave him the nod in any category. Flippin network spokesholes are afraid to acknowlege the respect he is getting from the people, playing it safe and sticking to the script...

[rocketboy]

Notice how the public (CNN's public, mind you, not Fox News) voted Ron Paul the winner in 5 of 7 categoryies, yet not one of the political analyst gave him the nod in any category. Flippin network spokesholes are afraid to acknowlege the respect he is getting from the people, playing it safe and sticking to the script...


Sad isn't it. When the people speak, nobody listens!!! They should have a box to check on our ballots with Civil War as an option.

[MIKEUSMC2005]

Sorry,

I have to disagree. I see him as being a Democrat under that Republican skin.

To me he sounds very anti-military. I'm not a war-monger, but I think if he were President and we were attacked, he would do nothing.

I read people pretty well and he's not the man for the job.

This is my opinion.

Fred Thompson is the way to go.



Semper Fi
USMC/RET.

[MrTuffPaws]

Ron Paul is a republican in name only (no, not those RINOs). He does not buy the **** that the republicans pander. He actually says that he runs republican because he can't get elected as an libertarian.

[MrTuffPaws]

Sorry,

I have to disagree. I see him as being a Democrat under that Republican skin.

To me he sounds very anti-military. I'm not a war-monger, but I think if he were President and we were attacked, he would do nothing.

I read people pretty well and he's not the man for the job.

This is my opinion.

Fred Thompson is the way to go.



Semper Fi
USMC/RET.

Ron is pro defense. He does not agree with preemptive policy that got us into Iraq.

[lazuris]

I don't care too much for Ron Paul. Besides, he's not going to surive the primary any way. I want Fred Thompson, if he runs, else it has to be Romney.

[lazuris]

Strike that i fully take back what i said about Ron Paul. I just re-read his bio and he's a Gettysburg College grad. I have to vote for a fellow alum.

[ghettoshecky]

I don't care too much for Ron Paul. Besides, he's not going to surive the primary any way. I want Fred Thompson, if he runs, else it has to be Romney.

for me Fred Thompson is the man to go, but d*mn it he's too lazy. Of the 70 bills he's proposed in senate only 3 actually passed. If there was a chance Mike Huckabee or if it had to be Democrat Bill Richardson.

[tman]

Sorry,

I have to disagree. I see him as being a Democrat under that Republican skin.

To me he sounds very anti-military. I'm not a war-monger, but I think if he were President and we were attacked, he would do nothing.

I read people pretty well and he's not the man for the job.

This is my opinion.

Fred Thompson is the way to go.



Semper Fi
USMC/RET.
I suggest you listen to what Ron Paul has been saying, and then do a little history reading. Ron Paul is more conservative than any other candidate. His voting record proves that. He makes Bush look like a big-government liberal (which he is).

Speaking of getting attacked, if Amerca WAS attacked by someone other than a third world country, we would be severely handicapped thanks to this "war" in Iraq. Our military has been weakened due to budget cuts, while at the same time much of the rest of the world have been building power.




I watched the little recap they had on TV after the debates before catching the rerun. It was pretty disgusting. They really only showed clips of responses from McCain, Giuliani, and Romney. Fair and balanced?

[MIKEUSMC2005]

I'll be honest, I really don't know anything about the guy, so I won't judge him just yet.

Don't be fooled, our military is capable of fighting multiple AOR's.

We have the means and capabilities to do quite a bit.

Having spent the 20 years in the Marine Corps; I know we can do more with little.

[Fate]

Strike that i fully take back what i said about Ron Paul. I just re-read his bio and he's a Gettysburg College grad. I have to vote for a fellow alum.

I call FLIP-FLOP! :patriot: ;)

[mikehaas]

Without commenting on Mr. Paul, I have to ask my calguns friends to step back and possibly see a bigger picture.

Paul supporters have expressed amazement ("I never thought I'd see the day!") to see Paul receive applause on Bill Maher's show, John Stewart's show and favored by CNN. It's really not that amazing is it?

Paul expresses ideas that are contrary to the GOP leadership, i.e., Congressional GOP leaders and Bush. When CNN and Maher's/Stewarts audiences applaud Paul, it is an expression of anti-GOP sentiment, not real support for Paul. They are almost sure to have never heard of him before, they are seeing him spout "anti-GOP" attitudes and reacting as they would for, well, leftists mouths like Michael Moore and Rosie. (NOT that Paul is a leftist mouth obviously. Again, I am not commenting on any of Paul's actual positions.)

In fact, leftist support for Paul may not bode well for Paul's actual viability as a candidate - one can expect that as part of a general "defeat the GOP" agenda, liberals will seek out and try to raise in stature the candidates they perceive as most likely to weaken the GOP. Remember, they don't care that Guliani is pro-abortion and anti-gun - THEY REALLY DON'T WANT *ANY* REPUBLICAN (or Libertarian, but it's preferable to a Republican) ELECTED, not even Paul, in the long run.

(Personally, I'm not near as interested in the 2008 presidential election as I am in what is going on in the CA legislature RIGHT NOW - http://calnra.com/legs.shtml - where I feel WE can actually make a difference. I don't believe ANY politician and will support whatever candidate NRA endorses - probably not a lot of surprise news there. :-)

Mike

[GJJ]

Ron Paul is America's only hope. The Neocon propagandists at Fox News are scared to death of him. He is the only person running for President that actually believes in the constitution.

[AJAX22]

I'm sick of voting for the lesser of two evils... I'm not going to vote for some *sshat just because the other guy is worse ever again. Thats how we wound up where we are now, and it has to end sometime.

If there is a canidate who I prefer I will vote for them. its that simple.

[paradox]

Why is CNN so scared of Ron Paul that they had to remove this?

http://www.drawball.com/cnn-removed-this.html

[MrTuffPaws]

[size=3]

Paul expresses ideas that are contrary to the GOP leadership, i.e., Congressional GOP leaders and Bush. When CNN and Maher's/Stewarts audiences applaud Paul, it is an expression of anti-GOP sentiment, not real support for Paul.


Good. Because the GOP has been pushing utter **** that is contrary to the US constitution. The GOP is nothing more than big government with a ****ed up domestic agenda and an even worse foreign one. How long have they been in power and have not done a damn thing that is even remotely what one could call "Republican".

Honestly, I hate to say it, but if you want more of the same ineffectual government, vote for one of the other guys, because that is exactly what you will get.

In the mean time, why don't do some research on Ron Paul's history and voting record. He actually votes what his says and says what he votes. Something that anyone else in the primaries can't even hold a candle to. Maybe all of those liberals are applauding him because he has integrity, and a view point contrary to the current government (both rep and dem) that makes sense and not because his disdain for the current President.

[MrTuffPaws]

Why is CNN so scared of Ron Paul that they had to remove this?

http://www.drawball.com/cnn-removed-this.html

Because the government feeds the media. They know they will lose they pie if Ron gets in.

[tman]

Without commenting on Mr. Paul, I have to ask my calguns friends to step back and possibly see a bigger picture.

Paul supporters have expressed amazement ("I never thought I'd see the day!") to see Paul receive applause on Bill Maher's show, John Stewart's show and favored by CNN. It's really not that amazing is it?

Paul expresses ideas that are contrary to the GOP leadership, i.e., Congressional GOP leaders and Bush. When CNN and Maher's/Stewarts audiences applaud Paul, it is an expression of anti-GOP sentiment, not real support for Paul. They are almost sure to have never heard of him before, they are seeing him spout "anti-GOP" attitudes and reacting as they would for, well, leftists mouths like Michael Moore and Rosie. (NOT that Paul is a leftist mouth obviously. Again, I am not commenting on any of Paul's actual positions.)
I see your point but disagree.

Sure, the fact that he is calling the current administration out on their faults is helping him gain support. However, I think people are refreshed to see someone who has integrity, speaks the truth, and believes in supporting the constitution. When was the last time someone like that had a chance at the Whitehouse? Most politicians are corrupted WAY before they decide to run for president.

One big reason he is so popular right now in the mainstream is because of a statement he made during the second debate which provoked an attack from Giuliani. Why did it make him so popular? Because it was the truth, and he's the only one with the guts to say it.

What makes his success all the more respectable is the fact that he has gained this support from expressing true conservative views. He's not "flip flopping" or trying to ride the wave of dissent towards the current administration in an attempt to usher support. His voting record proves that. He is the real deal, plain and simple.

If there is hope for America's near future, Ron Paul is the only person running on either side that will bring it to life. If the MSM truly was half as fair and balanced as they claim to be, corrupt establishment shills like Giuliani McCain, and Romney wouldn't stand a chance against Ron Paul.

[shark92651]

I really like his positions on the 2nd amendment!

[SDlocal]

guys...guys...yes he has SOME good ideas but the simple fact is the foreign policy of the late 1700's is not viable today...end of story. It didn't keep us out of WWII and it won't keep the world at bay today.

To me this demonstrates a serious short coming in understanding the world we live in...and we can't afford that.

[rocketboy]

guys...guys...yes he has SOME good ideas but the simple fact is the foreign policy of the late 1700's is not viable today...end of story. It didn't keep us out of WWII and it won't keep the world at bay today.

To me this demonstrates a serious short coming in understanding the world we live in...and we can't afford that.



Yea! Like our current foreign policy is working!! America is at the gates of hell for all the crap we stirred up over the last 50 years. We have run our course and that's it!! The best we can do now is prepare for our coming economic collapse that will happen within the next decade, and Ron Paul is probably our only hope from keeping a Civil War from happening in this country.

[AfricanHunter]

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org

[jjperl]

That's no surprise to me what so ever.

Ron Paul kicks ***.

That man would make a perfect President.

A constitutional President that will understand and implement that founding document like no other president in history has since the 1700's.

:iagree:

[Carl]

I'll be honest, I really don't know anything about the guy, so I won't judge him just yet.

Don't be fooled, our military is capable of fighting multiple AOR's.

We have the means and capabilities to do quite a bit.

Having spent the 20 years in the Marine Corps; I know we can do more with little.

Here's a link with Paul's writings about the 2nd Amendment. He's been a Texas congressman (Republican) for over 10 years. He is the strongest 2A politician in congress.
http://ronpaullibrary.org/topic.php?id=17

[radioactivelego]

THE LIEBERALSYou do realize Ron Paul is a Republican only because it's impossible to run third party in this country, and that both major parties haven't followed their ideals since... well... the early 1900's?

Seriously, I could give two ****s how much this could "weaken X party." Why the hell is everyone so glued to their seats when it comes to parties? I want no more taxes, no more bull**** spending, and my constitution back. Neither party has pushed this since Prohibition.

[MrTuffPaws]

guys...guys...yes he has SOME good ideas but the simple fact is the foreign policy of the late 1700's is not viable today...end of story. It didn't keep us out of WWII and it won't keep the world at bay today.

To me this demonstrates a serious short coming in understanding the world we live in...and we can't afford that.

Uh, we were directly attacked and had war declared on us in WWII. In 2001, a bunch of Saudi nationals flew plans into buildings, so we invaded Afghanistan, then later Iraq.........No tell me what is wrong with that picture.

[fatirishman]

guys...guys...yes he has SOME good ideas but the simple fact is the foreign policy of the late 1700's is not viable today...end of story. It didn't keep us out of WWII and it won't keep the world at bay today.

To me this demonstrates a serious short coming in understanding the world we live in...and we can't afford that.

I just want to address one point - I will leave aside the fact that I disagree with your implicit causality analysis, etc. - even if the "terrorists" hate us for our "freedom", etc. we still remain at much more daily peril from our own government than we do from the terrorists. If you don't think this is the case, stand on your front lawn and burn a copy of the Koran. Then, stand in the same place with an "assault rifle". See who shows up first - the jihadis, or the cops. (This experiment may take several days.) And I leave aside the extent to which a lot of private crime is a result of government policies, esp. the war on (some) drugs, as well as the opportunity costs associated with, eg, the state medical complex, or the suboptimal government roads. Simply put, I will take my chances with the "terrorists" well before I will take my chances with the government.

[tman]

Simply put, I will take my chances with the "terrorists" well before I will take my chances with the government.
That's what I have been saying for a long time now. Where can I sign the waiver?

I think they should have two seperate airlines. One where you can go be treated like cattle being processed into a concentration camp, have your genitals fondled, your wife can be forced to drink her own breast milk in front of security personnel before they fondle her breasts (this has all happened). "Sheeple Airways", they can call it.

Then another airline that is completely PRIVATE - like they should be. They can call it "Liberty Airlines". They could have some drug sniffing dogs walking around and maybe some metal detectors and that's it. CCWs would also be allowed, of course.

I'd save dignity and take the latter airline ANY day.

[SDlocal]

Guys again...I love my guns as much as you do. But Ron Paul has no chance because his main support base is the survialist, infowars, prisonplanet, tinfoilhat crowd....and that dog just doesn't hunt. I am sorry but it's true...

Furthermore my point about WWII wasn't that were attacked by another nation it's that isolationism works as well as communism...it's painfully obvious...we need to have a hand in the game if you want to win.

[Dont Tread on Me]

We need to support Ron Paul so one of the leading dogs realizes what Paul stands for has support and starts to copy and past some of Paul's ideas.

[fatirishman]

I am not sure which game SDLocal wants to have a hand in, however, if the game is international politics, etc.; I have no desire to play that game. If, on the other hand, the game is DC politics - actually, I don't want to play that game either - but, as long as our plan is to play within the paradigm that the government chooses, we will lose. Think about it: if "reasonable" plans are of such a type that the "firearm owners protection act" bans the production of new machineguns for civilians, then "reasonable" is nothing more than a slow boil. I reject that line of thought as unbefitting free people (and losing in the long run, btw.).

[tman]

Guys again...I love my guns as much as you do. But Ron Paul has no chance because his main support base is the survialist, infowars, prisonplanet, tinfoilhat crowd....and that dog just doesn't hunt. I am sorry but it's true...
I disagree.

First, I am sure you love guns, but for many of us it's more than that. I think guns are great as well. I like reading about, handling, shooting, and talking about them. However, to me the gun debate is about something much larger. It's about principles and ideas. The principles of being free versus being slaves. The principles of liberty and human rights.

Therefore, your comment about Ron Paul only appealing to the "tinfoil hat crowd" is not accurate. Sure, those people might support him, too. But, Ron Paul's message resonates with anyone who values liberty and the ideas that our country was founded on. We've gotten so far away from those principles that they seem "crazy" to a lot of people.

[stag1500]

People don't realize that this country did not have an income tax until the early 1900's. And for the first 150 years of our country's existance, we were the most prospersous nation in the world and we had virtually no national debt. Now-a-days it's almost impossible for a family to survive on just one income because of the overwhelming tax burden that we all shoulder. Taxation, after all, is legalized theft!

And for those of you who are going to come down on me by saying, "there needs to be some taxation," I'm going to say that's not true. Anything government does, short of defense, can be done more efficiently and at a fraction of the cost by a private business. That is because businesses are held accountable for their actions and they have to persuade people to buy into their products or services. Government on the other hand coerces people and politicians could care less how much money they waste (after all, they didn't have to work hard for it). All they're good at is creating all sorts of intellectually bankrupt programs to solve social problems and we the tax payers have to front the bill.

[SemiAutoSam]

Ive made the same statement in the past and people just don't get it.

Not to correct but it was the first 160 years of out country's existence that there was no federal or state income tax the Government ran great on the tariffs that were charged on incoming goods.

Government is just too large in the last 130 or so years.


People don't realize that this country did not have an income tax until the early 1900's. And for the first 150 years of our country's existence, we were the most prosperous nation in the world and we had virtually no national debt. Now-a-days it's almost impossible for a family to survive on just one income because of the overwhelming tax burden that we all shoulder. Taxation, after all, is legalized theft!

And for those of you who are going to come down on me by saying, "there needs to be some taxation," I'm going to say that's not true. Anything government does, short of defense, can be done more efficiently and at a fraction of the cost by a private business. That is because businesses are held accountable for their actions and they have to persuade people to buy into their products or services. Government on the other hand coerces people and politicians could care less how much money they waste (after all, they didn't have to work hard for it). All they're good at is creating all sorts of intellectually bankrupt programs to solve social problems and we the tax payers have to front the bill.