Posted on 09/05/2007 11:36:53 AM PDT by rface
New Hampshire: (Top Story)
USAElectionPolls.com has recently posted an article on their web site entitled "Republican Debate - Five Things to Expect" and they claim that Ron Paul will be the winner of the online text poll / internet poll but be ignored. This is not shocking news when you consider that Ron Paul has fared extremely well in every post-debate poll and there is little reason to believe that this debate will be any different.
Ron Paul received an incredible boost to his campaign in the last Fox News debate held in New Hampshire with his claim that "blowback" is the cause of hatred towards the United States.
USAElectionPolls.com ran an analysis on the very last ABC News debate and found that Ron Paul was limited to only 6% of the total speaking time of a total of nine candidates. A fair debate would have had each candidate speak roughly 11% of the time; suggesting that Ron Paul was unfairly treated by a factor of two. (Source).
USAElectionPolls.com receives approximately 80,000 unique monthly visitors according to Quantcast.com and in their informal online straw poll; Ron Paul has received over 8,000 votes in two weeks -- almost 25 times more than his next closest Republican competitor Mitt Romney.
If a website as popular as USAElectionPolls.com shows an impressive margin of victory for a candidate, it should not be taken lightly.
Visit http://www.usaelectionpolls.com.
We miss the part that amounts to bigotry.
We treat people as individuals. 2% of “muzzies” being fundementalists doesn’t make all “muzzies” my enemy.
Just the hyperbole that Paul used himself.
Chicago public schooling is a big problem in my home state.
What? Empty one liners seems to be how you roll.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Empty one liners seems to be how Ron Paul rolls - I heard him last week on Medved’s show; very disappointing.
It's not bigotry towards people that I espouse, it's bigotry and extreme prejudice against an 11th century political philosophy that is tantamount at restricting personal freedom. You, as a Libertarian, should understand this better than most.
The "moderate ones" that are merely pushing for sharia law in the US are the OK ones I suppose. The ones that cheer for the terrorists are OK as well? How about the ones that just plain ole keep quite when the "fundamentalists" blow up innocents throughout the world - are they OK too? You need to understand that the goal of their "religion/political system" is to conquer the world with their philosophy and to either make you dead or a dhimmi.
ANYONE who threatens my freedom is my enemy. You can take that to the bank. This 11th century philosophy needs to be eradicated to the annals of history and never heard from again. I'd also like to know where you get that 2% number.
That’s one component of the coalition.
Sounds a lot like the Lyndon Larouche people, eh?
I’ll tell you why we strongly object to Ron Paul and his supporters:
Ron Paul says 9-11 happened because we were bombing them (the no-fly zone north of Iraq), or because we were in Saudi Arabia, or because we helped the Shah of Iran in the ‘50’s.
His followers refused to applaud hopes for victory for our troops on Saturday at the Texas Straw Poll. They shouted at Hugh Hewitt to sit down, when he spoke of the importance of not backing down to Saddam, Kim Chong Il, or Iran. They booed a video of the Vice President.
Supporters carried coffins and promoted a Paul/Kucinek ticket in 08. They joined Cindy Sheehan’s antiwar protests outside.
They over did the campaign propaganda, leaving 5 to 10 pieces of material in each chair (someone had put theirs in my chair, so I ended up with quite a stack), effectively killing enough trees to buy a tank for the troops. They were overly aggressive and disrespectful of personal space. They’d stop us, then several would swoop in, with one leader who tried to intimidate me with body language - 3 separate male leaders - it reminded me of the stories I’ve read about cults recruiting or trying to prevent their victims from being reprogrammed.
I’m doubting the “retired military guy,” now, because I’ve never known a military man who tried to hurt me when we shook hands.
It’s a cross between Lyndon Larouche’s outlook and Raëlianism.
They’re not even good libertarians. Libertarians recognize a contract, anti-aggression. Ron Paul’s followers are just anti-establishment.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.