Posted on 09/07/2007 8:29:47 AM PDT by rface
The Legal Newswire - It is obvious that, after seeing the Fox News Debates on Sept. 5th, 2007, the mainstream media and GOP see Ron Paul as enough of a threat to stop ignoring him, and to start ridiculing him. From using a split screen to show Giuliani smirking as Ron Paul answers his questions, to the background chuckles as he is asked questions, Ron Paul has apparently become the butt of an inside joke.
However, with a 33% win in the post-debate poll, it is Ron Paul who should be laughing. Of course, Sean Hannity could not resist making the ridiculous statement that the “Paulites” had spammed the poll. The argument, both false and illogical, is used to attempt to plant the seed in the minds of the American people that Ron can’t win, and conclude he is a “wasted” vote.
If it were possible to vote multiple times from one cell phone, then what would be the advantage for Ron Paul anyway? The mainstream media would have us believe that the “front-runner” candidates are so popular, wouldn’t their supporters also text multiple times? In any case, it is impossible to vote twice. I tried it to make sure. So, unless Ron Paul supporters have suddenly become an independently wealthy group of lunatics, with dozens of cell phones each, the results must be representative of REAL PEOPLE.
The bottom line? The FOX News talking heads would have us believe that when the polls show unacceptable results, they must be wrong. This argument is wearing very thin. The American viewers who were paying attention were sure to see the obvious bias of the debate coverage. A full thirty minutes passed before Dr. Paul was given a chance to answer a question. This, after the “big three” had answered two or three each. Tancredo was also given very little time compared to McCain, Romney, and Giuliani.
The bias was not only in the in total time, but also the placement of the time. McCain, Giuliani, and Romney got both the first and the last word in the minds of the American people, opening and closing the debates. Then, they were the first to be interviewed by Neocon lapdog Hannity.
Ron Paul will not win over the entire Republican base. But he does not have to. The Ron Paul Revolution embodies the United, not Divided, States, as Huckabee would insinuate. He is pulling support from both sides of the aisle, drawing in the independents and the disenfranchised as well. The Republican and Democratic voters who put party loyalty above the issues will never vote for Ron Paul. Fortunately, they represent the minority.
So here we are, in the second phase of Gandhi’s aformentioned four phases. This is good news, because it means we are starting to make a difference. However, I predict that it won’t take long for them to move into full attack mode, looking for any and every opportunity to discredit and expose the skeletons in the closet Ron Paul must be hiding from the American people. Fortunately for us, we have a man with the integrity, character, and voting record to back up what he says.
Compared to the high standards elsewhere?. Spin it however you want. The calls came from separate phones. And apparently more than a few people that do believe in Dr. Paul's message
Question - wouldn’t the poll have been a wonderful opportunity for democrats to vote for Paul? As freepers do, stuff the poll box so it goes our way with polls meaning nothing when it’s open to everyone.
Now that’s the truth (Remeber folks: Democrats are Rabid anti-warites- it’s their OBSESSION, they want defeat in the face of VICTORY so much..!).
It was Tancredo that was laughing while RuPaul was speaking. Tancredo knows he’s toast, so why not laugh at RuPaul. As was pointed out in another post Ron Paul is like Lyndon LaRouche.
I don’t consider Ron Paul a serious candidate. I consider him to be a joke. A libertarian tin foil hat member in good standing. I agree with many things advocated by more sensible libertarians, and others I adamantly oppose. However, Ron Paul needs to get back on his meds.
An
Any word on how many votes were cast in the Fox News poll? "More than a few people" is a meaningless term in a country with 300+ million people. It's like with any other fringe group - you can always find a few thousand people out of the 300 million who believe anything, and if you can assemble them together, you can pass it off to the great unwashed as being a viable position because "more than a few people" hold to it. The estimates I've heard for viewership of the GOP debate generally settle at around 1 million people. Even in the unlikely event that RoPaul supporters DIDN'T spam the poll (they wouldn't even have to buy throw-away phones, just drive around in the neighbourhood and connive people to let you use their phone for just a sec), we know that RoPaul supporters are a highly motivated bunch, and much more likely to populate a voluntary-participation phone poll than are people who support the "traditional" candidates, and who probably turned off the tube immediately after the debate concluded (if not before). At any rate, Paulestinians trying to use an unscientific, voluntary-participation phone poll as evidence that their candidate won anything other than the "Most Motivated Supporters of the Year Award" is laughable.
You can’t refute Paul’s arguments so you resort to ridicule.
Is that how it’s done?
Unproven.
You pose that question like it's some kind of wild hypothetical. Congress did declare war on the "insurgents" in Iraq.
No, with statements like that, you would probably even be rejected on DUmmies.com or MoveOn.org.
Please, don't let the door hit you on the way out.
Yeah, a texting poll - very scientific. ::Snicker::
I took that statement to mean the hijackers/terrorists; not the innocent civilians. So, I let it lay. But the balance of his comment, which supports Ron Paul's beliefs that America brought on 9/11, does contradict that idea.
Whatever, this whole topic has its absurdities.
Ron Paul mouths all that. The only thing we can really count on, however, is him making us more vulnerable to terrorists.
Oh please. He didn’t win the debate. You Paulistinians get more and more like Kim Jong Il cultists every day. All hail your lord and master, Dear Leader Ron! He’s so ronery!
” It is just the Dimowits calling to throw the polls off.”
Thats my take also. Felt that way while watching the post debate discussion, and seeing the early numbers come in.
lol
a. A flaming lunatic.
b. This year's Ross Perot.
c. On Hillary's payroll.
d. a and b, but probably not c.
e. a, b, and c.
f. Yes.
What’s wrong, you Paulestinians can’t take the heat?
Funny, I don't remember Taylor's battle cry being, "Run away! Run away! Oh my god! Oh my god! Oh my god!!!!" And the 1967 Planet of the Apes is one of my favorite movies.
Maybe it's a deleted scene?
I am aware of P.L. 107-243, but do not regard it as the Constitutional equivalent of a Declaration of War. IMHO, the whole idea of the Constitution was to keep us out of foreign entanglements unless and until we were willing to WAGE WAR. The mealy-mouthed “use of forces as deemed appropriate” language (see exact text reproduced below) goes hand in hand with an army that appears to be run by lawyers who are forcing our troops to die with one hand tied behind their backs through idiotic “rules of engagement”. In a real war, you go in, wage war, and win. Under the Constitution, the President is not supposed to use the army as the World Police.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION.—The President is authorized to use the
Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary
and appropriate in order to—
(1) defend the national security of the United States against
the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq.
Congratulations.
...but do not regard it as the Constitutional equivalent of a Declaration of War.
Then you are wrong.
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.