Posted on 12/29/2007 12:26:12 PM PST by StopTheNAU
PLAISTOW, N.H. -- Ron Paul said the decision to exclude him from a debate on Fox News Sunday the weekend before the New Hampshire Primary is proof that the network "is scared" of him.
"They are scared of me and don't want my message to get out, but it will," Paul said in an interview at a diner here. "They are propagandists for this war and I challenge them on the notion that they are conservative."
Paul's staff said they are beginning to plan a rally that will take place at the same time the 90-minute debate will air on television. It will be taped at Saint Anselm College in Goffstown.
"They will not win this skirmish," he promised.
The Fox debate occurs less than 24 hours after two back to back Republican and Democratic debates on the same campus sponsored by ABC News, WMUR-TV and the social networking website Facebook.
Paul, the Republican Texas Congressman, was wrapping up his final day of campaigning in New Hampshire until the Iowa Caucuses on Thursday.
He spent much of the day campaigning at diners in Manchester and Plaistow and downtown walks in Derry and Exeter.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
Amen
It has become obvious to me in the last couple months. Since Hannity has been cheerleading for the pro-abort, gun-grabbing, open borders, cross-dressing RINO Giuliani.
And since others at Fox are also promoting the status quo candidates.
They're not conservative. Unless you consider Rockefeller-Republican NWO globalists to be true "conservatives."
Exactly. I used to be naive enough to think that Fox was the "fair" channel, and the others were bad.
Now it's obvious to me that all the big networks of the mainstream media are corrupt, sold out and controlled by elitists who don't care about the people, but answer to other interests. The sooner people wake up and realize that, the better.
Yes, and also considering that he's doing better than the phone polls are indicating. They have been phoning the Republican base who voted in the last election, and Paul has a lot of support from disgruntled Republicans who didn't vote in the last couple elections, independents, libertarians, new voters and young people who have never voted before - all who aren't being phoned.
Also, Paul's name has been left out of some of the phone polls, so those polls are for the most part purposely misleading, if you ask me.
Thank you for not getting sucked in to the group-think mentality. You're a breath of fresh air around here.
Because he was drafted.
He would have lost his medical license if he had refused to serve.
May I ask who you are supporting?
I'm undecided. Hunter and Thompson are my two favorites, if they can be called that, at the moment.
If I know thugs live somewhere yet I purposely go in their yard who should I blame if they decide to harm harm me? I knew they were thugs now did I not? If I know con men live in a certain area and yet I go do business with them who should I blame? If I see two guys fighting beating the snot out of each other who should I blame if I step in and get a bloody nose from both of them? What to do?
How about trying this. Stay away from the thugs but be well armed and ready if they move into my area. Don’t do business with con men and make myself vulnerable to their deeds. Let the two guys fight it out. If they are too busy fighting each other then they have no time to fight with me. Name me any recent POTUS besides Reagan who understood this.
While you may think you have a right to go into someone elses turf it doesn't mean they are oblidged to welcome you. You may think you are getting a great deal with con men {M.E. oil traders} but you become their slaves in the process the same with China. If two of your enemies are beating the crap out of each other why should you stop them?
Worse if one of your enemies is beating the snot out of the only friend you have left why should you give your friends enemy a helping hand? Such is American Foreign Policy in the M.E. Understanding the cause and effects in our M.E. dealings is not the same thing as condoning the reactions it brought us.
don’t claim Paul supported Reagan, he is on record against him, and I don’t just”think” he said it: “We insist that Western Europe take our Pershing missiles. We get the bill, and the hostility of the people of Western Europe, and then act surprised that the Soviets pull out of arms negotiations and send more modern nuclear submarines to our coastline.” Ron Paul, 1984
Yes, he was. Did he complain about it though or try to evade it?
He would have lost his medical license if he had refused to serve.
That's not true.
They never were conservative. They are exactly what they say they are: balanced. They put a Republican on and they put a Democrat on and they two get about equal time.
Nice try now take off the blindfold. I didn't say he supported Reagan. Go back and read again. I said in relation to the M.E.
If they are too busy fighting each other then they have no time to fight with me. Name me any recent POTUS besides Reagan who understood this.
Now did Reagan try to stop the Iran Iraq war in earnest? How about when Reagan sat wisely quiet when Israel {our only true M.E. friend} ended Saddam's nuclear program? those were my points. When Poppy took over so returned the Old School Micro Managing of the M.E. Now days if Israel for example comes under attack or uses strikes to deal with terrorist in their own backyard who fies in to help out her enemies and says No No! to Israel? Many of our M.E. issues would have worked themselves out had we not tried to manage everyone over there's business namely Israel the one nation that for decades help keep the peace? Can't you see a problem yet?
Politics is all about cobbling together a winning coalition.
If Democrats are supporting Paul, who cares?
Isn't it the objective of conservatives to get people to join us? Is Paul actively courting the leftists or Democrats? Is he compromising for them? No, they're coming to HIM.
Maybe Democrats are tired of liberalism and want to learn about freedom and liberty. Rush Limbaugh and FR have converted liberals into free-thinking conservatives. So it's a bad thing that Paul is doing the same?
That’s nice.
Faux News is more like it.
To borrow your name, you are extremely misguided about Paul’s supporters.
They aren’t coming to him because he’s converting liberals to conservatives. They’re coming to him because they view him the same way we viewed Dennis Kucinich in the 2004 primaries: a spoiler candidate who would suck exposure and votes away from the real candidates.
Ludicrous comments like that just allow those out there who are not filled with such blinding hate to see how far some have strayed. The Republican party never used to be about big government, trampling the constitution, open borders, destroying our civil liberties, globalism and all those other things you seem to like. But now it is.
So you got it backwards - politicians who are for those things, either willfully or by turning a blind eye - are the actual anti-Americans. Paul wants to restore the rule of law (constitution), and reverse the path we're on - towards statism and globalism.
You've only been here since July 2007, so you may not know this, but at one time Ron Paul was practically revered on this site. He was consistently regarded as one of the few true constitutionalists and patriots.
Now, because so many here have fallen for globalist Bush, Paul is the "enemy" because he speaks out against the establishment and how the GOP has strayed.
But it is the globalist Republicans who are subverting this country, not Paul. And someday that truth will come out much more clearly, mark my words.
QFT
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.