Sean Hannity is on my list

Now available in paperback!

Unread postby WeaponOfMassInstruction » Sun Dec 16, 2007 10:16 pm

Your statement, first of all, is false. Ron Paul, who is the only candidate that will uphold the constitution, believes in having a strong defense,


Does he?

He advocates gutting the intelligence committee- and intel is every bit as important to military planning and strategery as a battle plan.

and will defend the country if we are attacked, or if there is the threat of an imminent attack.


Will he?

While it is true that he initially supported the effort in Afghanistan, he has since changed his mind and said that we went too far. Apparently, he had no problem with us going after al Qeida, but he thought that it was unnecessary to depose the Taliban- the government which was aiding and sheltering al Qeida. This would be exactly like going after the Wehrmacht while leaving Hitler in charge.

He differs from your candidates in that he will not go around the world militarily trying to impose democracy on other countries.


I wonder if he would have "imposed democracy" on Germany and/or Japan at the end of WW 2 or would he have left militarists in charge....

We, (the USA), have no business doing that. Nowhere in our Constitution, does it say that it is the mission of the USA to ensure that the rest of the world is a safe place.


Would that not come under the "common defense" portion? Or perhaps the "general welfare" portion? Dunno about you but if the rest of the world is more safe, I am more safe. And vice versa.

We were not attacked by Iraq, and we were not even threatened by them, either.


Even though you are wrong in this, I'll, for the sake of argument, concede the point.

Unless you believe that America attacked itself on 9/11- as your candidate seems to think- then you would agree that we were attacked by radical Muslim fanatics. It is absolute inarguable FACT that groups related to al Qeida did have a presence in Iraq and that Saddam aided and supported Islamofascist organizations. Wherever such groups were and are found poses a grave and ongoing threat to us. It is not enough to sit back and wait for us to be attacked- 9/11 taught (most of us) that.

Again going back to WW2, your position would be akin to us attacking only German Nazis and ignoring those found in other countries, even though their purpose was identical. It would have been foolish then and it is certainly foolish now.

So, you, stating that Ron Paul would not defend our country has no merit, because there was no attack against us.


And here I thought only Democrats wanted us to forget 9/11. Now the Paulbearers do as well.
"Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views."
William F. Buckley, Jr.
User avatar
WeaponOfMassInstruction
Mod Team
 
Posts: 3854
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 5:38 pm
Location: Alabama

Sponsor

Sponsor
 

Unread postby WeaponOfMassInstruction » Sun Dec 16, 2007 10:17 pm

As a "True Conservative" you should be ashamed that you do not totally endorse the values of the late Barry Goldwater. Limited Government; Individual Freedom, Balanced Budgets, Non-Imperialistic Foreign Policy. What's not to like?


Jim:

Are you familiar with the phrase, "Right message, wrong messenger"?
"Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views."
William F. Buckley, Jr.
User avatar
WeaponOfMassInstruction
Mod Team
 
Posts: 3854
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 5:38 pm
Location: Alabama

Unread postby humguitar » Wed Dec 19, 2007 7:04 am

Weapons
Quote:
Your statement, first of all, is false. Ron Paul, who is the only candidate that will uphold the constitution, believes in having a strong defense,


Does he?

He advocates gutting the intelligence committee- and intel is every bit as important to military planning and strategery as a battle plan.


The CIA didn't even exist until after WW2. Our efforts in Korea and Vietnam, well, I can't say that we trounced our enemies the way we did in WW2, can you? Do we need the CIA? They do a lot of mischief, and Dr. Paul's argument (and Ronald Reagan has said this also) is that there is a direct correlation between the size of government and our liberties. The bigger the government gets, the less liberty we have.


Quote:
He differs from your candidates in that he will not go around the world militarily trying to impose democracy on other countries.


I wonder if he would have "imposed democracy" on Germany and/or Japan at the end of WW 2 or would he have left militarists in charge....


I would say to this "extremely silly" argument, that there is a very big difference between Japan and Germany of the 1930's, and Iraq. More "Smoke and Mirrors"

Quote:
and will defend the country if we are attacked, or if there is the threat of an imminent attack.


Will he?

While it is true that he initially supported the effort in Afghanistan, he has since changed his mind and said that we went too far. Apparently, he had no problem with us going after al Qeida, but he thought that it was unnecessary to depose the Taliban- the government which was aiding and sheltering al Qeida. This would be exactly like going after the Wehrmacht while leaving Hitler in charge.


Dr. Paul supported going into Afghanistan to get Bin Laden, not to occupy the country indefinitely as "policemen". Bin Laden is not there anymore, he is in Pakistan. Do you advocate going into Pakistan to oust their current government and have our young men and women in our military enforce there laws also? If not why not? That is what you are supporting in Afghanistan.

Quote:
We, (the USA), have no business doing that. Nowhere in our Constitution, does it say that it is the mission of the USA to ensure that the rest of the world is a safe place.


Would that not come under the "common defense" portion? Or perhaps the "general welfare" portion? Dunno about you but if the rest of the world is more safe, I am more safe. And vice versa.


Spoken like a true globalist. This is an idiotic statement. Our Constitution is exactly that, it is "our Constitution". It is the "Constitution of the United States of America", not the Constitution of the "Rest of the World". I, along with Dr. Paul, want to preserve the sovereignty of the United States, unlike you, who wants a global empire.


Quote:
We were not attacked by Iraq, and we were not even threatened by them, either.


Even though you are wrong in this, I'll, for the sake of argument, concede the point.

Unless you believe that America attacked itself on 9/11- as your candidate seems to think- then you would agree that we were attacked by radical Muslim fanatics. It is absolute inarguable FACT that groups related to al Qeida did have a presence in Iraq and that Saddam aided and supported Islamofascist organizations. Wherever such groups were and are found poses a grave and ongoing threat to us. It is not enough to sit back and wait for us to be attacked- 9/11 taught (most of us) that.

Again going back to WW2, your position would be akin to us attacking only German Nazis and ignoring those found in other countries, even though their purpose was identical. It would have been foolish then and it is certainly foolish now.


Ron Paul has never said that we attacked ourselves and you know it, it's called "blowback". You (and Rudy Ghouliani) really should read the 9/11 report.

You think that Clarence Thomas is too Liberal.


Where did this come from? :?

I will say that the majority of the Supreme Court should be removed from the bench, based solely on their decision in regards to immanent domain. That is a direct violation of the Constitution.
humguitar
Media analyst
 
Posts: 260
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 8:45 pm

Unread postby MrSinatra » Wed Dec 19, 2007 2:40 pm

humguitar wrote:I will say that the majority of the Supreme Court should be removed from the bench, based solely on their decision in regards to immanent domain. That is a direct violation of the Constitution.


the kelo decision.

5-4.

5 LIBERALS for it. disgusting.
SYF Rocks!
www.LION-Radio.org

steve1633 wrote:if you havent realized yet that pp posts offer little in the way of intelligent discourse then youre dumber than i suspected, if its just easier to argue with someone like her then ya go ahead keep it up.
User avatar
MrSinatra
Mod Team
 
Posts: 4582
Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2005 5:24 am
Location: 6' under

Unread postby WeaponOfMassInstruction » Thu Dec 20, 2007 8:46 pm

The CIA didn't even exist until after WW2. Our efforts in Korea and Vietnam, well, I can't say that we trounced our enemies the way we did in WW2, can you? Do we need the CIA? They do a lot of mischief, and Dr. Paul's argument (and Ronald Reagan has said this also) is that there is a direct correlation between the size of government and our liberties. The bigger the government gets, the less liberty we have.


Brush up on the activities of the OSS- forerunner of the CIA- and get back to me.

I don't necessarily disagree with your premise that our liberties seem to increase or decrease in direct proportion to the increase or decrease in the size of government.

That said, gutting our intelligence arm is NOT the place to show fiscal responsibility. Department of Education? Yes. Department of Energy? Yes. IRS? You bet. But then candidates other than Ron Paul have advocated the same thing- but none (thankfully) want to dismantle the FBI, CIA, DHS, etc.

I would say to this "extremely silly" argument, that there is a very big difference between Japan and Germany of the 1930's, and Iraq. More "Smoke and Mirrors"


Brush up on your knowledge of Germany and Japan circa 1935 and get back to me.

I'll give you a hint: the fascist and militaristic government of Japan, coupled with their Bushido traditions, are strikingly similar to Islamofascism.

Dr. Paul supported going into Afghanistan to get Bin Laden, not to occupy the country indefinitely as "policemen". Bin Laden is not there anymore, he is in Pakistan. Do you advocate going into Pakistan to oust their current government and have our young men and women in our military enforce there laws also? If not why not? That is what you are supporting in Afghanistan.


You know for a fact where Bin Laden is? Wow.

And I'd point out that, if Paul is elected and dismantles the intelligence-gathering arm of the government, you'd have no way of knwoing where anyone who is a threat to the US is.

To address your Pakistan analogy, you overlook one major difference (actually many but one should do): Pakistan's government is NOT overtly or covertly giving al Qeida shelter and aid; Afghanistan's Taliban most certainly did.

Spoken like a true globalist. This is an idiotic statement. Our Constitution is exactly that, it is "our Constitution". It is the "Constitution of the United States of America", not the Constitution of the "Rest of the World". I, along with Dr. Paul, want to preserve the sovereignty of the United States, unlike you, who wants a global empire.


You use another term the meaning of which you do not comprehend.

Is it or is it not in the national security interest of the United States to be proactive, if prudent, in defending our interests here and abroad?

You and Dr. Paul seem content to let the enemy move first, blissfully unaware that such a move might cost far more than 3000 livers next time.
Not only that, but you and Dr. Paul seem equally blissfully content to destroy any chance that we might have to discover such a plot in the planning stages. You and Dr. Paul's first warning would be a mushroom cloud, lethal levels of radiation or a chemical attack on one of our cities.

Ron Paul has never said that we attacked ourselves and you know it, it's called "blowback". You (and Rudy Ghouliani) really should read the 9/11 report.


Ron Paul, in an interview with the Students For 9/11 Truth organization, said that he would support Rep. Dennis Kucinich's call for yet another investigation into who really perpetrated the 9/11 attacks. Kucinich has advanced the theory that President Bush at best was forewarned of the attacks and at worst either permitted or assisted the act. Ergo, if Dr. Paul supports Kucinich's call, he must not believe the timeline found in the 9/11 Commission report.

Sounds like it's you and Dr. Paul that need to read the 9/11 Report, not me.

I will say that the majority of the Supreme Court should be removed from the bench, based solely on their decision in regards to immanent domain. That is a direct violation of the Constitution.


Mr. Simatra answered you as well as I could ever hope to- not that it will make any impression on you. Far be it from us to confuse you with such trivialities as facts when it is obvious that your mind is made up.
"Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views."
William F. Buckley, Jr.
User avatar
WeaponOfMassInstruction
Mod Team
 
Posts: 3854
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 5:38 pm
Location: Alabama

Unread postby humguitar » Fri Dec 21, 2007 4:21 am

Weapons,
It is quite obvious that your mind is made up and nothing that I can say is going to change your mind. I'm OK with that. I sincerely thank you for taking the time to debate these important issues with me. It has been fun. I hope that you and yours have a blessed Christmas.:D

For anyone interested in the ideas that led Ron Paul supporters to raise $6 million dollars in one day, go to-
www.ronpaul2008.com
See for yourself.
You should also check out Dr. Paul's voting record in Congress. He is the real deal, and you won't be disappointed.

Ron Paul is scheduled to be on "Meet The Press with Tim Russert", this coming Sunday, Dec. 23, 2007.
humguitar
Media analyst
 
Posts: 260
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 8:45 pm

Unread postby WeaponOfMassInstruction » Sat Dec 22, 2007 1:09 am

hum-

Ditto.

I understand that, for many- probably most- of Dr. Paul's supporters, theirs is going to be a protest vote against Republicans who lost their moral and ideological high ground. On many levels, I sympathize with that viewpoint. The GOP lost its way and must be taught a lesson.

The parallels to 1992 are striking.

A protest vote put a Clinton in the White House.

Might history repeat itself?

God help us.
"Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views."
William F. Buckley, Jr.
User avatar
WeaponOfMassInstruction
Mod Team
 
Posts: 3854
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 5:38 pm
Location: Alabama

Unread postby humguitar » Sat Dec 22, 2007 11:13 am

Weapons,
Call it what you will, "protest vote", that doesn't bother me, but I prefer to call it a vote (in my opinion), for the person (Ron Paul), that is hands down the best candididate. That's just my opinion, and I already know that you beg to differ.

I just read this article by Ann Coulter that she wrote regarding Mike Huckabee. In it she states that Huckabee is the evangelical liberals' candidate.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24068

I wanted to ask you first what your opinion of Ann Coulter is, second, what your take is on this article. Thank you.
humguitar
Media analyst
 
Posts: 260
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 8:45 pm

Unread postby WeaponOfMassInstruction » Sat Dec 22, 2007 6:23 pm

humguitar wrote:Weapons,
Call it what you will, "protest vote", that doesn't bother me, but I prefer to call it a vote (in my opinion), for the person (Ron Paul), that is hands down the best candididate. That's just my opinion, and I already know that you beg to differ.


Just so long as the Paulistas register their protest vote in the primaries and support the GOP candidate- any of which are infinitely better than the best of the Democrats- I have no problem at all with a 'protest vote'.

However, if by their principal they inflict another Clinton on us- Paul has zero chance of winning the general election and even he realizes that- I sincerely wonder if the country can survive Hillary as President, especially given that Democrats will almost certainly increase their margins in Congress. Democrats bleat about Bush being unchecked by a GOP-led Congress.....just wait until Pelosi and Reid rubber-stamp Hillary's socialist agenda with a filibuster-proof majority.

As I said...God help us.

I just read this article by Ann Coulter that she wrote regarding Mike Huckabee. In it she states that Huckabee is the evangelical liberals' candidate.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24068

I wanted to ask you first what your opinion of Ann Coulter is, second, what your take is on this article. Thank you.


I love Ann Coulter.

Even if I disagree with her in this particular instance.

And I don't think I'm being hypocritical here. Her beefs with Huckabee seem to stem from the perception the Left and their lapdogs in the MSM are going to do their level best to create around Huckabee, namely that he is a caricature of what they think an evangelistic Christian is (I'd disagree...Alan Keyes fits that role much better than Huckabee ever could).

OK...let's take Coulter's objections one at a time:

Both she and Huckabee do not believe in evolution (neither do I...at least the Darwinistic theory of it). Coulter objects because Huckabee doesn't believe in it for, apparently, a different reason than she does. If you both reach the same conclusion, what matter the path that takes you there? Given the current political climate, it is extremely unlikely that Huckabee could purge evolution from textbooks. I'd think the best he could hope for is to ensure that it is clearly described as a 'theory' (small "t") and that other theories exist and might warrant investigation. Coulter lays out a truly excellent argument against Darwinism in her books (I've read this section numerous times...woe be to a Darwiniac that agrees to debate her). She seems almost hurt that Huckabee isn't as strident in making his case as she is in hers. I'd focus on the fact that THEY AGREE on the issue rather than the trivialities on how they got there.

As for her disagreement with Huckabee over Lawrence and it's adult right to privacy issue.....I say here what I said regarding the issue of Huckabee raising some taxes and his allegead softness on illegal immigration: he was playing the hand he was dealt. Truth be told, I don't think that it is any of the Federal >OR< state government's business what two (or more) consenting adults do behind closed doors. As I understand it, the issue with Lawrence was that the Texas statue punished only same-sex sodomy while having no such punitive measures for heterosexual sodomy. That is clearly unequal treatment under the law. Perhaps Justice Kennedy's opinion is incoherent (I've not read it)...but that would hardly be the first time an incoherent decision got it right (or, on the flipside, that a well-reasoned decision got it wrong- Dred Scott, anyone?).

I also agree with Huckabee that enforcement would prove difficult. Moreoever, anecdotal evidence is that state homosexual sodomy laws were rarely, if ever, enforced even before the Lawrence case. I'm just not sure that looking in on the bedroom activities of Bob and Carol or Bob and Ted is a prudent use of limited police resources.

Coulter and Huckabee share a disapproval of gay marriage- another bit of common ground. In the end, I suspect that gay marriage and abortion will both be issues for the states to decide for themselves- and I'm completely comfortable with that.
"Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views."
William F. Buckley, Jr.
User avatar
WeaponOfMassInstruction
Mod Team
 
Posts: 3854
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 5:38 pm
Location: Alabama

Unread postby humguitar » Sat Dec 22, 2007 11:33 pm

Weapons,

Are you serious when you say
"Her (Coulter's) beefs with Huckabee seem to stem from the perception the Left and their lapdogs in the MSM are going to do their level best to create around Huckabee."?!


Do you really think that Ann Coulter's views are influenced by the Left and the MSM?! You gotta be kiddin' me!

It is quite obvious to me that Coulter thinks that Huckabee is not the right candidate for the Republican Party, and in my opinion, she hit the nail on the head.

I'm tempted to quote some of what she said, but I won't risk being accused of taking her quotes out of context. I'll just encourage the other readers of this forum to click on the above Human Events/Ann Coulter link, and make their own judgement.

As far as the rest of what you said in your reply, I have to say, that it is some of the best damage control spin that I've heard yet!!!!
humguitar
Media analyst
 
Posts: 260
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 8:45 pm

Unread postby WeaponOfMassInstruction » Sun Dec 23, 2007 7:23 pm

humguitar wrote:Weapons,

Are you serious when you say
"Her (Coulter's) beefs with Huckabee seem to stem from the perception the Left and their lapdogs in the MSM are going to do their level best to create around Huckabee."?!


Do you really think that Ann Coulter's views are influenced by the Left and the MSM?! You gotta be kiddin' me!


Not what I said at all.

I believe that Ann Coulter thinks that the Left and the MSM are convinced that Huckabee would be perhaps the easiest GOP candidate to beat- with the exception of Ron Paul of course- and so the Left and the MSM are doing their best to promote Huckabee as the choice of the GOP. She says as much in her piece and I cannot disagree with it.

I in no way am making the claim that Coulter's views are influenced by the Left or the MSM. That's absurd on the face of it.

BTW.....her choice, when pressed, seems to be Duncan Hunter.

It is quite obvious to me that Coulter thinks that Huckabee is not the right candidate for the Republican Party, and in my opinion, she hit the nail on the head.


She doesn't support Ron Paul either.

While I am tempted to count her nonsupport of Huckabee against her, I find that her nonsupport for Paul is more of a plus than her nonsupport of Huckabee is a minus.

I'm tempted to quote some of what she said, but I won't risk being accused of taking her quotes out of context. I'll just encourage the other readers of this forum to click on the above Human Events/Ann Coulter link, and make their own judgement.


Agreed wholeheartedly.

As far as the rest of what you said in your reply, I have to say, that it is some of the best damage control spin that I've heard yet!!!!


It's only 'spin' when you disagree with it, I presume.

Coulter makes an excellent case as to why she wouldn't support Huckabee. I merely attempt, to the best of my ability, to answer her criticisms. I won't resort to attacking the messenger nor impugning his motives. It's called a 'mature dialog' rather than childish name-calling, which seems to be the raison d'etre of the Left these days.
"Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views."
William F. Buckley, Jr.
User avatar
WeaponOfMassInstruction
Mod Team
 
Posts: 3854
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 5:38 pm
Location: Alabama

Unread postby humguitar » Wed Dec 26, 2007 9:59 pm

Weapons,
Just thought that I'd let you know about another article written by Ann Coulter that is, shall I put it mildly, "critical", of Mike Huckabee. Here's the link to it.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24148

Needless to say, I enjoyed it. I don't suppose that Ann is beginning to sway your opinion away from Huckabee yet? Maybe just a little bit?
humguitar
Media analyst
 
Posts: 260
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 8:45 pm

Unread postby WeaponOfMassInstruction » Fri Dec 28, 2007 10:07 pm

hum-

You know what's interesting?

Huckabee supporters and Ron Paul supporters have something in common:

Neither of their candidates are the choice of the GOP "elite" (WSJ-types, east coast pundits and the talk show elite).

Whereas Paul isn't taken seriously by anyone outside of his devoted minions, Huckabee is being taken extremely seriously by the GOP establishment. Rush Limbaugh has come out against Huckabee, no doubt hurt/angered by the comments of a Huckabee staffer. Pundits such as Coulter, Rich Lowry and others invoke the dreaded "C-word", saying that Huckabee is merely a GOP version of another governor from Hope, Arkansas. And the WSJ editorializes almost daily against Huckabee.

Now the difference is that, as a Huckabee supporters, I don't take this as some sort of grand conspiracy against Mike Huckabee; I take it as a genuine and heart-felt disagreement by people whose opinions I respect- even as I disagree with them. I have absolutely no doubt that Rush, Coulter, Lowry and the WSJ eds are acting out of real concern over Huckabee as the potential nominee, though I still believe that their typical objections are overblown. Huckabee has tapped into something substantial, as his poll numbers and coverage on the news prove. Paul has not done so- yet.

Paul's supporters seem to think that it is a conspiracy ginned up at the highest levels of the shadow government that actually runs not only the United States but indeed the entire world to artificially depress Paul's support and poll numbers (though how one can depress 1% is beyond me....). In this they are conspicuously similar to the Islamofascists; both groups brook no disagreement, no toleration of dissent (though thankfully Paul supporters strap nothing more deadly than word-bombs to themselves and blow those up on talk shows and forums the world over). And no I do not think that to be over-the-top hyperbole. I've had ample experience trying to debate Paul supporters on the issues and their candidate's myriad shortcomings. They refuse to recognize those shortcomings and refuse to debate the issues, instead preferring to attack their opponent. I've not heard a single Huckabee supporter do the same to anyone else.
"Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views."
William F. Buckley, Jr.
User avatar
WeaponOfMassInstruction
Mod Team
 
Posts: 3854
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 5:38 pm
Location: Alabama

Unread postby humguitar » Wed Jan 02, 2008 1:55 pm

Weapons stated-
Paul's supporters seem to think that it is a conspiracy ginned up at the highest levels of the shadow government that actually runs not only the United States but indeed the entire world to artificially depress Paul's support and poll numbers (though how one can depress 1% is beyond me....).

No, not the government, but the MSM. When you look at the following, it's easy to see why Ron Paul supporters get upset about the media bias. Here is an example of what I'm talking about. Fox news has decided to exclude Ron Paul from an event that is scheduled for Jan.6th in New Hampshire. In every Republican debate that has been run by Fox, Ron Paul has won the post debate phone in poll, yet Fox has done their best to try to minimize that fact. Ron Paul supporters have raised close to $20 million in the fourth quarter, yet Fox has made a decision to start, "narrowing the field", before any votes have been counted in Iowa. This can only be a result of Fox disagreeing with Ron Paul's ideas, primarily his 'anti-intervention/bring the troops home' positions. They are also tired of Ron Paul kicking a-bomb in their debates. I strongly believe that this is coming from the top down, namely Rupert Murdoch(who also owns the Wall Street Journal, among other things), who is a major player in the neo-con arena.

Fox news "Fair and Balanced"? I think not.

Here is a link to an interesting poll being run by AOL right now, which shows Ron Paul currently winning the Republican nomination nationally, with 29% of the votes, and the second place candidates at around 17%:

http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2 ... 0000000001

One could argue that everyone should be skeptical of polls, which is exactly why I feel it is too early for Fox to be excluding Ron Paul from the political debate this early.

Here is an article about Fox's decision to exclude Ron Paul on Jan. 6th.
http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2 ... m-debates/
Notice that the State chairman of the New Hampshire Republican party has issued a statement that is critical of Fox for this decision.
humguitar
Media analyst
 
Posts: 260
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 8:45 pm

Unread postby WeaponOfMassInstruction » Fri Jan 04, 2008 7:01 pm

hum-

What you're completely overlooking is the fact that Paul wins only those polls which may be easily manipulated. The polls Paul wins are no more scientific than are those of American Idol.

As for Paul's performance in the debates, the most charitable word I can use is "embarassing". He's yet to win a single point against any of his rivals and he is a caricaturist's dream; a veritible Daffy Duck ranting and raving at injustices and slights that only he and his minions see.

Now part of that isn't Paul's fault. As I've said before, he shares a trait with another certain Texas politician in that both have a penchant for the malaprop and a gift of relative inarticulateness in formal settings. Paul's message is not one that can be communicated in a ten-second sound bite- and that's about all the time he's given in the debates. The problem is that Paul isn't all that much better when given more time to express himself. Glenn Beck is perhaps as sympathetic a media pundit to Paul's message as you'll likely find, but you could tell that even Beck was feeling emotions running from skeptical to incredulous to embarassment as he asked these questions of Paul and Paul wandered all over the place in his 'answers'.

Finally, as to the FNC- and also ABC's though you didn't mention them- decision to exclude Paul from the debates, I agree with you that he should not be excluded. He is running for President and that action deserves commensurate respect. I see the positon of ABC and FNC- I suppose that there is an element of sense to their decision- but I disagree with it.

One difference between ABC and FNC on this: ABC was, at least, honest in explaining why they chose to exclude not only Paul but Duncan Hunter and Alan Keyes as well: they all failed to poll sufficiently high in reputable national polls. FNC tried several explanations: first, that it was Paul's fault because he had accepted another engagement at roughly the same time and so had not RSVP'ed to FNC his intention to participate. Next, they tried to say that it was part of the larger NH GOP Presidential "forum" (I think that was the word they used) and FNC had no control over who was and who was not invited. After that, they admitted that Paul was being excluded but said that it really didn't matter because it wasn't a 'debate', per se, but rather a 'forum'. Now I think they've just come out and said that they are using the same criteria as ABC is. Again, Paul is running for the Presidency and, as such, is entitled to more respect than Fox is giving him.
"Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views."
William F. Buckley, Jr.
User avatar
WeaponOfMassInstruction
Mod Team
 
Posts: 3854
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 5:38 pm
Location: Alabama

PreviousNext

Return to 110 People who are Screwing up America... and Al Franken is number 37!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron