FoxNews Hit Piece Ron Paul, says Paul should be kicked out of debates

[Neomega]

I predicted that it would be Giuliani vs Clinton a long, long time ago. People laughed at me.

I hate to say "I told you so".......nah...not really...I told you so.

As for who to allow in the debates and who not too. If you cant muster 3% in any available poll, then you probably dont deserve to be up there to begin with. Let the folks that actually have a chance at winning debate it up....others need not apply.

1. Who cares what you predicted a long time ago, its hardly time to be waving the mission accomplished banner.... the primaries are still a year away.

2. Ron Paul has mustered 3% in the latest Zogby poll.... which is better than any of the other "second tier candidates" beside Thompson, who has not announced yet... he has 6%.

 

[amadeus]

Why is Paul entitled to speak his mind and not Gibson?

 

[MobBoss]

1. Who cares what you predicted a long time ago, its hardly time to be waving the mission accomplished banner.... the primaries are still a year away.

You know what Neomega? I will actually agree with you on this point. Rudy G. isnt my favorite candidate, he is just the one I think will win. I would be more than happy to be proven wrong by a Fred Thompson, Duncan Hunter or Mike Huckabee or even the stormin mormon.

2. Ron Paul has mustered 3% in the latest Zogby poll.... which is better than any of the other "second tier candidates" beside Thompson, who has not announced yet... he has 6%.

Fair enough again. Let him speak his peace and if the republican party wants to lean his way then c'est la vie.

 

[Neomega]

Why is Paul entitled to speak his mind and not Gibson?

Because Gibson is trying to mischaracterize well beyond reason what Ron Paul said, and make it sound as if Ron Paul is a conspiracy theorist.
Does Gibson come out and say it? No, but he mixes up Paul with conpsiracy theorists quite well in the segment.

You know what Neomega? I will actually agree with you on this point. Rudy G. isnt my favorite candidate, he is just the one I think will win. I would be more than happy to be proven wrong by a Fred Thompson, Duncan Hunter or Mike Huckabee or even the stormin mormon.

Rudy may win the primary... but if he does, he WILL lose the general, guaranteed... no matter who he is running against. I know pro-lifers will not vote for him. He thinks he can take advantage of them, he can't. Most of them are republicans, because they are pro-life. They still feel the strongest about abortion... adn that is what they have felt strongest about for decades.

Rudy has no more a right to be up there than Paul, allthough FOX news never questioned Rudy's GOP creds.

Ron Paul is against gay marriage, pro-life, and hard on immigration... rudy isn't.

 

[Neomega]

and then I run across this from Dr. James Dobson... to back up my point that Rudy is toast.

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55743

The jig is up. Rudy Giuliani finally admitted in a speech at Houston Baptist University last week that he is an unapologetic supporter of abortion on demand...

.....Speaking as a private citizen and not on behalf of any organization or party, I cannot, and will not, vote for Rudy Giuliani in 2008. It is an irrevocable decision. If given a Hobson's – Dobson's? – choice between him and Sens. Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, I will either cast my ballot for an also-ran – or if worse comes to worst – not vote in a presidential election for the first time in my adult life. My conscience and my moral convictions will allow me to do nothing else.

Say goodbye, Rudy.

 

[JohnRM]

Anyone who blames America for 9/11 or believes in a government conspiracy to cause 9/11 should be ignored and treated with nothing, but scorn.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Anyone who blames America for 9/11 or believes in a government conspiracy to cause 9/11 should be ignored and treated with nothing, but scorn.

But he did none of those things. He blames Al Queda for the attacks, but points to policies that create groups like Al Queada.

 

[ParkCungHee]

As for who to allow in the debates and who not too. If you cant muster 3% in any available poll, then you probably dont deserve to be up there to begin with. Let the folks that actually have a chance at winning debate it up....others need not apply.

Right, primary debates should be for discussing whats really important to the party. Who has better hair and teeth, then to have a discussion of Ideology.

 

[Neomega]

Why is Paul entitled to speak his mind and not Gibson?

Because Gibsons cheap propaganda trick has now confused people like John HSOG, into believing Paul said something he never did.

 

[Cuivienen]

Anyone who blames America for 9/11 or believes in a government conspiracy to cause 9/11 should be ignored and treated with nothing, but scorn.

Maybe you should have watched the debate instead of listening to the propagandists. What Paul said was that American foreign policy mistakes had made radical Muslims angry who then carried out 9/11. He said that certainly it was al Qaeda that perpetrated the attacks, but that they did it because Americans provoked them by meddling in the Middle East. Essentially, "Kick the dog enough, and he will bite". We could have avoided the whole catastrophe by ignoring the Middle East instead of sticking our boots in.

 

[JollyRoger]

Why is Paul entitled to speak his mind and not Gibson?

Gibson is free to enter the race if he wants a voice in the debate. He is also free to be criticized when he makes a fool of himself.

 

[JollyRoger]

As for who to allow in the debates and who not too. If you cant muster 3% in any available poll, then you probably dont deserve to be up there to begin with. Let the folks that actually have a chance at winning debate it up....others need not apply.

So you would basically settle forwatching a Giuliani-Romney-McCain 3-way instead of a 10-person GOP orgy featuring the kinky libertarian? There is plenty of time to narrow the field - the primaries are still over half a year away.

 

[Azale]

@sonorakitch, he said the no fly zone bombings were a factor, and mentioned American presence in Saudi Arabia and the invasion of Lebanon I think as other factors on the Situation Room show on CNN.

 

[pboily]

Ditto. I'm actually considering it in the primary! I just like him.

How does that work, by the way? Do you get to vote for the candidates in the last state in which you resided, or is there some broad at-large category?

 

[Cuivienen]

How does that work, by the way? Do you get to vote for the candidates in the last state in which you resided, or is there some broad at-large category?

There's a primary for "Democrats Abroad" which is counted as a separate state in the Democratic primary, but the Republicans don't have a primary for citizens abroad.

Of course, he may be able to vote in whichever state he's registered to vote in (probably last place of residence).

 

[MobBoss]

Rudy may win the primary... but if he does, he WILL lose the general, guaranteed... no matter who he is running against. I know pro-lifers will not vote for him.

I am a pro-lifer and I will readily vote for him over Clinton or Obama.

He thinks he can take advantage of them, he can't.

I dont see it that way at all.

Most of them are republicans, because they are pro-life.

Ah...no. Most republicans are not single issue voters, regardless of what you might think.

They still feel the strongest about abortion... adn that is what they have felt strongest about for decades.

Ah...nope. Anyway, if they feel strongest about abortion....how is electing a democrat going to help that in any way, shape or form? Answer: it wont.

You see, pro-lifers realize this: The next president will nominate at least 1, maybe 2 supreme justices. 1 will assuredly be the ultra-liberal Ruth Bader Ginsberg. If the pro-lifers want their hopes realized they need to have a republican in office....not a democrat.

Rudy has no more a right to be up there than Paul, allthough FOX news never questioned Rudy's GOP creds.

Thats where you are directly wrong. Rudy is the front runner. If anyone has a right to be up there, its him.

Ron Paul is against gay marriage, pro-life, and hard on immigration... rudy isn't.

Lets be real. Ron Paul doesnt have a prayer of winning. Rudy does. Might be hard for you to accept, but it is the truth.

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

I am a pro-lifer and I will readily vote for him over Clinton or Obama.

That would be what we call partisan hackery. Voting for whoever your party nominates simply because you don't want the other party in power is not a legitimate democratic tactic. Why don't you instead vote for someone who actually lives up to your principles? ie. Constitutional Party or whatever it's called.

 

[MobBoss]

That would be what we call partisan hackery. Voting for whoever your party nominates simply because you don't want the other party in power is not a legitimate democratic tactic. Why don't you instead vote for someone who actually lives up to your principles? ie. Constitutional Party or whatever it's called.

Its not partisan hackery, its called being smart. Even at his worst Rudy G. will represent my prinicples far, far better than either of those two democrats.

Now then, if the democrats put someone like Bill Richardson up for election, I might seriously consider him.....but thats just not going to happen. Given a choice between Rudy G. and either Clinton or Obama, I will pull the handle for Rudy G. Face it, the next president WILL be a republican or a democrat, thus it makes the most sense to vote for the candidate that most closely represents my principles and that they actually will be sitting in the white house.

And I am not going to toss my vote away on some turd party goofball that has no chance in hell of affecting anything in the USA. Sorry, not going to do it. My vote means a little bit more to me than to toss it away like some child throwing a fit.

 

[sonorakitch]

That would be what we call partisan hackery. Voting for whoever your party nominates simply because you don't want the other party in power is not a legitimate democratic tactic. Why don't you instead vote for someone who actually lives up to your principles? ie. Constitutional Party or whatever it's called.

Can you fly here and plug through the networks to convince the anti-war Democrats to follow suit?

Ralph Nader, 2008! (...2012,2016)

~Chris

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

Can you fly here and plug through the networks to convince the anti-war Democrats to follow suit?

Ralph Nader, 2008! (...2012,2016)

~Chris

A democracy cannot function with only two political parties. Actually, a democracy cannot function with any political parties...