Wouldn't a Hillary Clinton vs. Ron Paul race be interesting?
* The Democrat would be pro-war while the Republican would be get us out now
* The Democrat would be religion, flags and apple pie while the Republican would be just the facts jack
* The Democrat would be big government, higher taxes and big social programs, while the Republican would be limited government, abolish the IRS and cut spending
* The Democrat would be a polarizing hated figure, while the Republican would be an unknown
Here's youtube debate highlights from last night's propaganda-fest Faux News Rupert Murdoch mind control stacked audience Chris Wallace hatchet job GOP "event". Faux News and the loony-right GOP are getting scared of Paul. You can feel it.
Donate to Ron Paul here
October 22, 2007
Ron Paul vs. Hillary Clinton and youtube GOP debate highlights
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
32 comments:
What would be more interesting would be a Ron Paul / Kucinich ticket, betcha they have more in common with each other than their respective parties. But then again it's a bit too late to do anything, it looks like Ron Paul is the new Gorbachev, a smart well meaning reformer, just a tad too late to stop the Lemmings from going off the cliff though.
Every single audience member who booed should be handed a flak jacket and thrown on the next plane to Iraq. Let's see how pro-war they are when they've got to walk a mile in the boots of our military. F*cking hypocritical retards.
Ron Paul rEVOLution signs are all over interstate highway over passes up and down the East Coast
vote Ron Paul.
Ron Paul won the Faux news text message poll last night, and then Rupert altered the results after midnight.
paul had 35%, Huckabee 2nd, and Guido-ani with 12%.
at 1230am it put Mit CFR Romney at 30% and paul at 25%.
Fruad.
you also had that LOSER sean inSannity venomously making fun of paul and undercutting him while he promoted GuidoAni.
Haha. You are right - it was a stacked audience. A friend of mine was paid $100 to go by some survey group he has responded to a number of times over the years. The only thing he told them recently that he was undecided, but if he had to vote today it would be for either Rudy or Fred, but that he really needed to do more research. Maddenly, he thought about me while he was saying it, because the last two or three times I have talked to him, he promised he would "research" Ron Paul, but has not done it yet (obviously). I will let you know what he thought later today.
As usual, Ron Paul destroyed in the after-debate poll. Did you see that big baby Hannity crying about it?
"It's stacked, it's stacked! Waaaa! Boo Hoo!"
I wonder if he would have been so melodramatic if Duncan Hunter or Tom Tancredo had gotten numbers like that.
In the post-debate interview, Ron Paul said himself that these so-called "scientific" polls don't include his name in them. (I think I saw someone else on this blog post the same thing about polls not giving Kucinich's name as an option either.)
It seems like the media and polling companies pick their "top tier" darlings in advance and characterize everyone else as a "long-shot". To a large extent, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. But with the internet beginning to supplant the MSM, especially with the younger crowd, the MSM stranglehold on politics is starting to loosen. Thank God.
Also, it was nice to see Mike Huckabee do so well in the post-debate poll. He's another "second tier" candidate who is mopping the floor with the MSM candidates.
I'm surprised that Faux News or any of the left-wing lame stream media outlets still conduct these polls.
P.S. If I hear Mitt Romney compare himself to Ronald Reagan one more time, I'm going to throw my TV out the window.
After he won there own debate poll, they were dissing him..
He needs to come out and say, that the other hacks are controlled by big money and he is controlled by the people..
Keith, dude... Ron Paul is not allowed to effectively run for president. "Our" state sponsered media, as you know, will continue to tell the people he is not a viable candidate.
Untill we the people decide take back our country from AIPAC, PNAC, and their relatives at the fed reserve, we will continue to see more bought and paid for, shabbas goyim puppets A&B.
Remember the 5th of november:
http://thisnovember5th.com/?a=2
I have a Libertarian brother, so I know that RP is still Anarchist.
The many good positions RP has are seductive to the point of making
me want to vote for him.
But there are deal breakers.
Lets build a droid with part RP, part Coin Powell, part Obama, a bit of Clinton, some John McCain
and Mit, and TR if we can find
some of his genes.
BTW, this site still has problems on Firefox. IE works, and I wonder
if evil forces are at work.
His words on the dollar's collapse were right on, problem is, it went over the head of 98% of the viewers. Ron can win, he just needs to dumb down the message for the sheeple.
Did anyone see the little exchange between McCain and Hannity after the debate? Looks like Hannity being a stooge for Giuliani isn't going over too well with the rest of the Republicans.
I have a Libertarian brother, so I know that RP is still Anarchist.
You bet he is. Ron Paul only association with Ronald Reagan was through his affiliation with free market koooks like Milton Friedman who wanted to influence "Dutch" to push through de regulation and liberalization of the economy and banking institutions. In other words the poison that you are all now complaining about but have no idea what to do about it.
Paul yacks about the collapsing US Dollar but shows no insight that this is a reflection of a bankrupt financial and monetary system. Nothing more.
If he were truly a statesman and not a blow job hack he would call for a GOVERNMENT organized bankruptcy reorganization of the current system. He would use the power of Government as FDR did and create a new , just, system based on the best features of the Bretton Woods system.
If he is not willing to do this then he and his supporters and simply engaging in a massive "circle jerk". Which according to Libertarian doctrine all Americans should have this right to masturbate without interference from that nasty incompetent Government.
Paul is a trojan horse, with emphasise on the trojan. His is impotent and cannot create any new life for this nation.
"Remember the 5th of november:
http://thisnovember5th.com/?a=2"
I signed up, damn straight.
Cool idea.
Ron Paul speaks the truth in many ways, but he isn't telling swing voters what they want to hear. A little help from a debate/acting coach might be worthwhile too -- slow it down RP, the nervous habits are distracting.
He'd better figure it out soon or he's not going anywhere besides home to Texas.
The CEO of Fox, as well as its owner and founder, are both huge Hillary supporters, so your "Faux" news conspiracy crap is still crap. Ron Paul came across as a loon with no concept of global terrorism, or anything since 1950.
As for the television voting, it's has been RIGGED for sure, by the Ron Paul crowd, as CNBC discovered and reported over a month ago by tracing the votes backwards. Sure enough, Ron Paul phone banks, and Ron Paul computer geeks, were jamming the lines, and are still pulling the same stunt. Funny for people claiming oppression and bewailing dishonesty; as usual the guilty are the ones with their fingers pointing. Most Americans don't even know who Ron Paul is, so they certainly are not calling in votes for him.
If Americans want a humorlous cadaver in the White House, there are millions free for the digging.
www.FreedomtoFacism a must see to set the record straight on the money situation. by aaron russo
Ron Paul got honica jewinski's endorsement.
*-Scary stuff folks-*
'nuff said
Ron Paul is like a frightened teenager crying "Why won't you listen to me! This is dangerous!"
He will never win! He's neither cool like Clinton nor does he inspire confidence like a middle aged statesman.
He might be right on some issues, but when the population cathes on, there will be other politicians saying the same things and getting the votes!
I'm a newbie Ron Paul supporter. He's miles ahead of everyone else when it comes to understanding the failed economic policy in this country and explains it better than anyone I know. In reference to another comment here that what he was talking about with the falling dollar was way over the heads of most people, I disagree. I think there are many in this country that are well aware of the dangers of hyperinflation and a rapidly falling dollar, give people a little credit please.
The problem I see though, and you heard the boo's in the debate, is that he's weak on foreign policy. World problems don't just fix themselves and his hands off approach to creating world stability will NOT work, nor will it win the Republican vote. Allowing Turkey to develop nukes unchecked is begging for problems and to suggest that there is a quick fix for the war in Iraq, no matter how well intentioned, is short sighted. It's too bad because I'm in 100% agreement with him on everything else he stands for.
I will still vote for Ron Paul, even though I'm not in total agreement with his foreign policy. I always hear how everyone wants change in this country, yet when it comes to voting the same politicians get elected over and over again. If you realy mean it when you say you want change, VOTE FOR RON PAUL, otherwise you're a hypocrite.
anonymous said...
Remember the 5th of november:
Spend the hundo on ammo.
revolution....
"He would use the power of Government as FDR did and create a new , just, system based on the best features of the Bretton Woods system."
There was nothing just about what FDR did. He stole the gold from the people of the United States and gave them paper that did not have the same value and then FDR decreed that paper to be worth about a third less than that a few months later and he could have picked any other arbitrary number instead. The constitution says that the government can't take away property without giving back something of the same value in return, but FDR didn't care. He went before Congress and ordered them to not let concerns about the Constitution get in the way of his New Deal. FDR betrayed his oath of office.
Bretton Woods was doomed to fail. Why is it an example of something great?
Governement regulation is not the panacea you would like it to be. Banks are still doing off the books accounting, just like Enron did, and making loans based on fraud, etc. Why didn't all of the regulations stop all of that?
Ron Paul would be lucky to get the federal government back to where it was in the 70s - no department of Education in the 70s, and yet somehow the kids were better educated. Go figure. He wouldn't create the anarchy that you are concerned about.
I'm actually concerned about Ron Paul winning. Herbert Hoover presided over the real estate and stock market crashes that resulted from the credit excesses of the previous administration. Hoover got the blame even though he was just the one left holding the bag. I think the next president will be the next bag holder. He will get blamed for the bad stuff to occur. But it's already in the cake.
In Washington state, you need to be registered as a Republican to vote Ron Paul in the primaries.
Just an FYI for any WA. (former) Democrats who want Ron Paul for President.
Any other states have this rule? Perhaps list them here so people who need to know can make the switch pre-primary.
"* The Democrat would be big government, higher taxes and big social programs, while the Republican would be limited government, abolish the IRS and cut spending."
-------------------
Be careful what you wish for. I'm a long time Republican and have always believed in less government. However, I'm somewhat rethinking things after this housing fiasco. I firmly believe that if there had been more government regulation and enforcement in the writing of all those toxic mortgages, we'd not be in the mess we're now in.
A big part of the housing bubble can be attributed to the lack of ANY government oversight into what these big lenders were doing. The hands off approach definitely didn't work here, and it allowed corporate and private greed to take over unchecked. Now that it's too late to do anything about it our government decides it wants to get involved - figures (they do everything backwards). The proposals currently before congress are totally ridiculous and unfair to all responsible citizens of this country - this is where government now needs to butt out and allow market forces to correct what government policies have failed to do (or I should say the lack of government policies).
To summarize, yes to lender regulation (little or no cost to taxpayers, protection from defaults), no to any government bailouts (big cost to taxpayers, penalizes responsible citizens, only creates more problems). I guess this would be part Democrat (regulation), and part Republican (no to a bailout (spending)), which now leaves me totally confused as to what I am politically. Hmmmm....
I'm going to light a candle for Ron Paul right now.
I'm going to light a candle for Ron Paul right now.
October 23, 2007 2:05 AM
First you get it right when you state de regulation and the removal of government controls caused the mortgage/real estate fiasco.
Then you go beserk and start ranting that "post crash" government should butt out and allow the "market forces" (this must mean the little green men hiding under the floorboards)to take care of things.
You sound like the guy who goes back to the same prostitute who gave him a venereal disease expecting her to provide a cure the second time around.
The adherence to free market dogmas caused the crisis in the first place.
You cannot have a healthy economy without regulations. You have to protect certain industries and infrastructure from looting by private financier interests.
Which by the way "looting" is all Wall Street does. There is no wealth creation being done by Wall Street and their City of London "masters".
The way you stop them is by putting them out of business and you do that by protecting your economy with regulations.
Anonypussy 2:05 whined . . .
"I firmly believe that if there had been more government regulation and enforcement in the writing of all those toxic mortgages, we'd not be in the mess we're now in."
--------------------------
The government was the CAUSE of the bubble. Or more accurately, the government acting through the federal reserve.
If interest rates had not been artificially lowered during the past few years, and if lending institutions were able to outperform inflation using traditional lending instruments, the mortgage crisis would never have happened.
This kind of crap is what occurs when government tries to manipulate economic behavior.
Would the sub-prime mess participants have been more careful if they knew that they would go bankrupt for making poor financial decisions and/or to prison for lying on legal documents?
The big fish can buy a bailout from politicians and the little fish have safety in numbers.
I feel like a loser for being honest, paying my taxes, and living within my means...
First you get it right when you state de regulation and the removal of government controls caused the mortgage/real estate fiasco.
Then you go beserk and start ranting that "post crash" government should butt out and allow the "market forces" (this must mean the little green men hiding under the floorboards)to take care of things.
--------------------------
First, thank you for completely restating my argument in your own words (I know that wasn't your intention but reread what you've written).
Second, you fail to understand the inconsisntency of the governments involvement in the housing fiasco. There was little or no regulation before the crisis (which could of prevented this mess with little or no taxpayer money), but now that we have a mess on our hands the government wants to get involved (with a bailout that involves billions in taxpyer money). It's too late now.
My point is that since the government was absent from the beginning, allowing unregulated market forces to run amuck, they now should stay out and allow those same market forces to correct the imbalances that it created. Getting involved now will only create more problems.
Again, you completely made my argument except you missed the point of it. Nice job (sarcasm intended).
One other point that I'm sure you missed: I'm for any solution that doesn't involve wasted taxpayer money. The proposals before congress for a taxpayer sponsered bailout makes me livid. When 70% of these people lied on their applications to begin with, now that they're in trouble I don't want one dime of my taxpayer dollars to bail them out. Many of these people were flippers looking to make a lazy buck. Market forces would allow for them to lose their failed investments - rightfully so. That was the risk that they were assuming from the begining with these loans.
Every single audience member who booed should be handed a flak jacket and thrown on the next plane to Iraq. Let's see how pro-war they are when they've got to walk a mile in the boots of our military. F*cking hypocritical retards.
Amen. Hence, Ron Paul's popularity in our military.
And "stacked audience" is right. Fancy polling each member as they came in and admitting whoever toed the NeoCON line!
It all goes to show, yet again, that Fox is a joke, even more so than the other news channels who at least have Lou Dobbs and Keith Olbermann.
Every debate Ron Paul gets loonier and loonier. I keep waiting for his Howard Dean crack-up. Should be fun to watch when it happens.
I'd rather vote for Hillary with Satan himself as her VP than vote for Ron Paul. You people need to grow up.
Ron Paul has a better understanding of economics and monetary policy than any politician I've ever heard speak. He certainly is more articulate and understandable than any of my Ivy League professors while in grad school! I will continue to donate to his campaign and I've registered for the www.thisnovember5th.com event. Even if you don't register, consider giving to the Ron Paul campaign on that day, just in case this publicity stunt works. It's just an effort to get people to donate on that day--you have to donate through the official Ron Paul website.... Also, I agree with the person who said that he's worried Ron Paul might actually catch on and win because he would get the blame for the enormous and unavoidable mess America has made for itself. I agree, it might be better for him to lose this time while demonstrating the power of his message and elevating his place in the party (the way John McCain did in 2000). He could get the nomination in 2012 after the economy has imploded. I hope he stays in good health! But if you are a patriot today, you will continue to give to his campaign... To those who don't quite get his message, you are either being disingenous or you need to listen more closely. I for one am truly worried about the state of America and Ron Paul seems the only one aware that we are so very vulnerable. I feel we are approaching a time (perhaps in the next few years, perhaps in the next decade) where America will set itself permanently into deline, or where we will unravel as a nation and society. It's also possible that these bad times will bring forward brave people who can rebuild the country. People who may be remembered as greatly as the Founding Fathers. Ron Paul is that type of figure. If he's fidgety onstage, or quirky, that's fine with me. He doesn't claim to be anyone's messiah, but he's definitely a godsend. America's credit card is maxed out. We've allowed coniving bankers to shackle us in debt. We've become stupid enough to think it's an "investment" to pay $4000 a month in mortgage for a place that rents for $2000 a month. We are naive enough to think we are so powerful we can re-shape the world exactly as we see fit. We cannot fix our own cities--there is no way we can fix countries in so much worse shape. People in those countries need to do that and we can set an example. Finally, the President does not control the country, but I'm pretty sure having Ron Paul in the White House would give us a logical, honest,right minded person in the bullypulpit.
--DistrictDude
Again, you completely made my argument except you missed the point of it. Nice job (sarcasm intended).
You missed the point.
There was no oversight because the overseers started the fire. They lit the match, then conveniently looked the other way while the fire raged. Now,in front of the ash pile, people such as yourselves are demanding the arsonists take control and fix the problem. That is the oldest trick in the book. It is the basis for most Gov. throughout history, create a boogie man than rush in to protect the sheep.
Do you really believe that no Gov. official or regulator ever saw a Countrywide commercial on TV?
Come get your 1% loan!
No Job? No Problem!
Bad Credit, No Credit, Creditschmedit, No SSN, come on down!
Sure.
Post a Comment