oki, i have a question concerning Mr. Paul

melodious

I am watching the news in the a.m. and hear about the Republican gathering in Michigan...I notice that there is no mention of Ron Paul as a prospect. If the Repubs are keeping him out of the debates, then how is the rest of Amerika supposed to familiarize with him. Not everyone reads the internet for information purposes...Should one become a "troll" and infiltrate "mom and Pops" websites to make the voting population more familiar (whether it be about ron paul or information concerning vaccinations)...I have tried this once before--going to places to put out information where it was not welcomed...(i feel like it's disturbing other's peace, these days..)

Most people spend all their time watching mainstream media, and if info is not fed concerning Mr. Paul, then how will these people have an exposure when their options are being withheld..

I did notice flyers posted around my community promoting him...but will this be enough?...

How does this work, if a person is not recognized "officially" by their party and yet wants to run in an election. I hope I am making sense.

jlew24asu

he didnt do very well in the first 2 primaries, I'm sure that has something to do with it

ledvedderman

melodious wrote:

I did notice flyers posted around my community promoting him...but will this be enough?...

No

cornnifer

Paul isn't a prospect. The backbone of his campaign is a vehement opposition to the war in Iraq. He is trying to win the REPUBLICAN NOMINATION. i'll let you do the math. Its a fairly simple equation.

melodious

thank you.

godpt3

jlew24asu wrote:

he didnt do very well in the first 2 primaries, I'm sure that has something to do with it

I think we oughta challege the paultards: If RP pulls more than 10% in any single primary we'll donate $50 to their favorite non-RP charity and vice versa.

godpt3

cornnifer wrote:

Paul isn't a prospect. The backbone of his campaign is a vehement opposition to the war in Iraq. He is trying to win the REPUBLICAN NOMINATION. i'll let you do the math. Its a fairly simple equation.

You're right. He isn't a prospect. He's an abomination.

Uncle Leo

The Moving Train started because of too much politics on the Porch. Perhaps we need a Paul page as well.

DriftingByTheStorm

jlew24asu wrote:

he didnt do very well in the first 2 primaries, I'm sure that has something to do with it

He beat Giuliani in the first one (about THREE TO ONE!), and tied him in the second.
HE BEAT FRED THOMPSON IN BOTH by about SEVEN TO ONE! (contrary to media bullshit, Giuliani spent SUBSTANTIALY more time in Iowa than Ron Paul)

But both Giuliani and Fred get substantial coverage.

WHAT HAVE YOU TO SAY ABOUT THAT?

Still think its fair?

Bullshit.

godpt3

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

WHAT HAVE YOU TO SAY ABOUT THAT?

10%. Put up or shut up.

DriftingByTheStorm

godpt3 wrote:

10%. Put up or shut up.

SO why is Fred Thompson getting ANY coverage?

HE GOT FUCKING ONE ... ONE GODDAMN PERCENT!

Solat13

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

SO why is Fred Thompson getting ANY coverage?

HE GOT FUCKING ONE ... ONE GODDAMN PERCENT!

Not that anyone campaigned in Wyoming, but Thompson came in 2nd to Romney there and technically has more delegates pledged to him than Paul 6 vs. 2 but neither candidate is viable.

Romney, McCain, Huckabee or Giuliani will get the nod.

DriftingByTheStorm

Solat13 wrote:

Not that anyone campaigned in Wyoming, but Thompson came in 2nd to Romney there and technically has more delegates pledged to him than Paul 6 vs. 2 but neither candidate is viable.

Romney, McCain, Huckabee or Giuliani will get the nod.

From what i understand Wyoming is basicaly "rigged" in that it was decided by CLOSED VOTES ... delegates seleted by a group picked based off of prior years records of some sort.

The public didn't even have a chance to make a statement there.

Not that i think any of it matters at this point.

I just can't believe there are so many here completely ignorant to the "Ruling Class" "conspiracy" that is suppressing an entire campaign and is CLEARLY BIASED.

Fox edited Paul's shining answer to the "Frankly, Are You Electable?" mock-question ... from their rebroadcast, why?

Jee. Maybe because it made the entire GOP look like the flaming asshats they are.

:(

godpt3

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

SO why is Fred Thompson getting ANY coverage?

HE GOT FUCKING ONE ... ONE GODDAMN PERCENT!

being serious here for a moment... will you take me up on this little wager? If RP pulls more than 10% in any primary or caucus, I'll make a donation to a charity of your choice. And if he doesn't you'll donate to a charity of my choice.

Deal?

jlew24asu

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

SO why is Fred Thompson getting ANY coverage?

HE GOT FUCKING ONE ... ONE GODDAMN PERCENT!

I agree. thompson should be gone.

DriftingByTheStorm

godpt3 wrote:

being serious here for a moment... will you take me up on this little wager? If RP pulls more than 10% in any primary or caucus, I'll make a donation to a charity of your choice. And if he doesn't you'll donate to a charity of my choice.

Deal?

no i wont.
because i don't think he will.
:(

And i blame "the system", the media, and a completely ignorant electorate that is only made less informed by the bias and absolute bullshit spewed by the media.

It is not that paul is unelectable, it is that the system doesn't want him elected.

If you pull enough strings, use enough slander, rig enough polls, blackout on enough media coverage, edit enough debates, rig the debates with highly inflamatory questions, etc etc etc ... very shortly, reality will follow the little staged fantasy.

:(

jlew24asu

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

It is not that paul is unelectable, it is that the system doesn't want him elected.

I dont really think he is based on his performance at the debates. He is a horrible speaker. he comes across as yelling at you when he is asked a question. if he was more calm and spoke better he would have much more electability.

godpt3

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

And i blame "the system", the media, and a completely ignorant electorate that is only made less informed by the bias and absolute bullshit spewed by the media.

That's right. It's "the man" that's always bringing a brother down. Fight the power!

hahahahaha!!!!!!

cornnifer

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

no i wont.
because i don't think he will.
:(



It is not that paul is unelectable, it is that the system doesn't want him elected.



:(

Oh yeah. That Republican running almost solely on a strict anti iraq war platform has nothing to do with it. :rolleyes: When EVERYONE in your party disagrees with your only major stance, you are unelectable. Period.

DriftingByTheStorm

godpt3 wrote:

That's right. It's "the man" that's always bringing a brother down. Fight the power!

hahahahaha!!!!!!

If you don't see that there is WAY more than a shred of truth in this assertion, it is you who are naive.

And Jlew,
yes, Dr. Paul is not the greatest speaker, but then again, what he does speak is TRUTH. 100% un tampered truth. The other candidates are great at orating bullshit until it fills their eyes.

And if you were constantly asked insulting questions like "concerning your electibility congress man paul, well FRAKNLY, do you have any? ::Snickers all around::" ... how the hell would you start out ...

and then EVERY time you start making a great point FIVE ... not one, not two, but FIVE other candidates start talking over you , INTENTIONALY making you look like an idiot, when in fact you are the ONLY ONE telling the TRUTH, and they are all just out to make a quick buck on YOUR back, while feeding you lies, protecting the status quo, and their precious "system".

If ya'll don't see that, this fucking country deserves what it gets.

Pathetic.

Electability, Do You Have Any? TRUTH

godpt3

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

If you don't see that there is WAY more than a shred of truth in this assertion, it is you who are naive.

I believe it's far easier to play the victim and blame everyone but yourself. You know, there's really not that much different between you and Jesse Jackson.


It's the same with the effort to legalize pot. You guys would rather talk the talk than put forth the effort and walk the walk.

DriftingByTheStorm

godpt3 wrote:

I believe it's far easier to play the victim and blame everyone but yourself. You know, there's really not that much different between you and Jesse Jackson.


It's the same with the effort to legalize pot. You guys would rather talk the talk than put forth the effort and walk the walk.

You don't think that 80 PLUS % of America bases their decision to vote on who they see on TV the most looking all "presidential"?
Ron Paul has been undeniably squelched from the media.

You want to deny that he has received unfair coverage?

godpt3

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

You don't think that 80 PLUS % of America bases their decision to vote on who they see on TV the most looking all "presidential"?
Ron Paul has been undeniably squelched from the media.

You yourself admitted that RP wasn't a very good public speaker. don't blame the media for that one.

ledvedderman

Were we really just complaining about the election process in WYOMING?!?!?!

The reason Paul isn't on the media more is because he isn't as well known. That's one thing that all the tier one candidates have going for them. However, if you want to talk about candidates that haven't been given a fair shake in the media you should talk about Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo (when he was in the race).

I've seen 10X the coverage for Ron Paul then I did for either one of those. Is that fair?

DriftingByTheStorm

ledvedderman wrote:

However, if you want to talk about candidates that haven't been given a fair shake in the media you should talk about Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo (when he was in the race).

I've seen 10X the coverage for Ron Paul then I did for either one of those. Is that fair?

Lol.
I guess i agree in sentiment.

But Ron Paul had recieved millions upon millions in spontaneous grassroots funding at the point with which he received ANY substantive coverage, and that is the ONLY reason they gave it to him.

BEYOND that, the reason they covered the fundraising was because they could use the Guy Fawkes slogan to CRUCIFY him! "Fundraiser in recognition of a terrorist!" and then just use that raised awareness to skewer the guy in what remaining VERY MINIMAL coverage you give him.

And honestly,
respective of their poll numbers and lack of fundraising, Tancredo and Hunter received similar coverage, AND in most of the early debates received AS MUCH or MORE debate answer time!

True.

jlew24asu

ledvedderman wrote:

Were we really just complaining about the election process in WYOMING?!?!?!

The reason Paul isn't on the media more is because he isn't as well known. That's one thing that all the tier one candidates have going for them. However, if you want to talk about candidates that haven't been given a fair shake in the media you should talk about Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo (when he was in the race).

I've seen 10X the coverage for Ron Paul then I did for either one of those. Is that fair?

I try to follow this race as much as I can and I have never even heard of duncan. tom maybe.

paul gets his coverage and still doesnt move in the polls.

hell, he was on the news for days when he had that record fundraising day. it didnt really make a difference.

prism

melodious wrote:

I am watching the news in the a.m. and hear about the Republican gathering in Michigan...I notice that there is no mention of Ron Paul as a prospect. If the Repubs are keeping him out of the debates, then how is the rest of Amerika supposed to familiarize with him. Not everyone reads the internet for information purposes...Should one become a "troll" and infiltrate "mom and Pops" websites to make the voting population more familiar (whether it be about ron paul or information concerning vaccinations)...I have tried this once before--going to places to put out information where it was not welcomed...(i feel like it's disturbing other's peace, these days..)

Most people spend all their time watching mainstream media, and if info is not fed concerning Mr. Paul, then how will these people have an exposure when their options are being withheld..

I did notice flyers posted around my community promoting him...but will this be enough?...

How does this work, if a person is not recognized "officially" by their party and yet wants to run in an election. I hope I am making sense.

here's what you have to do to get the word out about Ron Paul in 6 easy steps:


step 1) Go to the store and buy a bunch of tin-foil

step 2) Go home and make thousands (heck why not make it millions) of hats out of that tin foil

step 3) Get a big sharpie and write "Why, oh why, won't anyone listen to the nonsense coming from Ron Paul?" and on the other side write "I have a hard-on for Ron Paul!" on every one of the hats

step 4) Go down to a busy local street corner and hand out the hats

step 5) Make sure to get video of you doing all of this and post it on youtube

step 6) Congratulate yourself for being another hero that is getting out the message on what Ron Paul really is all about!

DriftingByTheStorm

prism wrote:

here's what you have to do to get the word out about Ron Paul in 6 easy steps:


step 1) Go to the store and buy a bunch of tin-foil

step 2) Go home and make thousands (heck why not make it millions) of hats out of that tin foil

step 3) Get a big sharpie and write "Why, oh why, won't anyone listen to the nonsense coming from Ron Paul?" and on the other side write "I have a hard-on for Ron Paul!" on every one of the hats

step 4) Go down to a busy local street corner and hand out the hats

step 5) Make sure to get video of you doing all of this and post it on youtube

step 6) Congratulate yourself for being another hero that is getting out the message on what Ron Paul really is all about!

So, of all pauls profoundly wise recommendations regarding American policy, which of them, specificaly do you find to be lacking in validity?

I'm guessing its one about "dem terr'ists"?

Or you really think prudent fiscal policy is an absurdity?

godpt3

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

Or you really think prudent fiscal policy is an absurdity?

Eviscerating the Federal Reserve is NOT prudent. It's just stupid.

DriftingByTheStorm

godpt3 wrote:

Eviscerating the Federal Reserve is NOT prudent. It's just stupid.

Stupid,

or you mean that it would cause a lot of problems?

I believe it is very wise policy that would require a great deal of short term hardship for the country.

But the next 5 years of inflation will cause massive, broad spread and longterm suffering for everyone.

The dollar is about to be below 70 on the index.
That means it only has 70% of its value since the SEVENTIES. Not since the Fed started in 1918 ... in that case, the index number would be like a THREE.

That doesn't scare anyone?

godpt3

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

Stupid,
or you mean that it would cause a lot of problems?

You're basically turning the entire country's infrastructure into one giant unfunded mandate. You wipe your hands and say "not my problem. Let the states deal with it." And because state legislatures are inherently brain damaged, then your entire system collapses in a mass of collapsed bridges, leaking nuclear facilities and crumbling roads.

That's not just stupid. It's irresponsible.