LAist: Ron Paul Wins Michigan Debate

guest

Sun, 14 Oct 2007 00:18:09 -0800

Tony, I agree with about all you wrote except about the the printing of money, The federal reserve is where the currency comes from and they are a private corporation. Created in 1913 by mostly foreign bankers and they issue the currency, loan it to our government and charge full price plus interest for us to use it! Mark M.

guest

Thu, 11 Oct 2007 20:11:50 -0800

I am so tired of hearing that all 190 million Ron Paul supporters are "Spammers". These are the same big media clowns who claim that W's approval rating is still 30 percent. I wonder where they get 30 percent from? Maybe they're using the votes of dead people on this one, like they did when he got elected. Probably using "DIE"-bold machines too. Well, sorry...I gotta run. A new poll just opened and I have to make 30,000 phone calls and send in another 5 million dollars. You believe me? Hope you said ...NOT.

guest

Thu, 11 Oct 2007 20:05:13 -0800

I read on wikipedia, Sean Hannity dropped (flunked?) out of college, he worked in construction as a laborer and he had a job for awhile as a bartender. Who is this guy to critique someone like Ron Paul?

guest

Thu, 11 Oct 2007 20:03:31 -0800

Tony Pierce

Thu, 11 Oct 2007 13:51:39 -0800

yeah that was the strangest line - why would you be ashamed to say that you support someone?

guest

Thu, 11 Oct 2007 13:46:10 -0800

Chris Matthews closing line: "I dare not say I am one of them"..?? referring to people who agree with Dr. Paul. So he does agree but is afraid to say so?? No gonads?

guest

Thu, 11 Oct 2007 09:55:03 -0800

For all you democrats, pop quiz: Who is committed to getting us out of Iraq, fast: a. Hilary b. Obama c. Ron Paul If you answered anything but c, you're wrong. If you support Hilary or Obama, you are PRO_WAR and don't forget it.

Tony Pierce

Thu, 11 Oct 2007 09:54:19 -0800

when youre pro-Freedom and anti-big government sticking their paws into Everything, i can see how it can make you look like youre anti-Everything - especially these days when BushCo is the opposite of all of those things. Paul is a republican conservative in the old school sense - which is the polar opposite of where the neo-cons are coming from. Paul believes deeply in the Constitution so much so that he thinks the Founders wanted the Executive branch to have very limited powers, to be friends with everyone, and to only use the military only in the case of emergencies when the US was being threatened in the US. BushCo believes in as much power for the Executive Branch as possible, they want to be the world police, they have no interest in being friends with anyone, and they dont even care for the annoying Constitution. because all the other candidates would love all the power that Bush/Cheney has carved out for the Executive Branch, including the freedom to print money, wage wars whenever, and be able to get money thru the military at the snap fo a finger - it can look like Paul has no business being a republican. however Paul's form of conservatism is actually the traditional definition of the term.

guest

Thu, 11 Oct 2007 04:53:56 -0800

I watched the debate with interest from the UK. It was my first viewing of a (Party) US Presidential Candidate debate. So, an outside view for what its worth (nothing if US foreign policy is anything to go by): It did strike me that with so many candidates on stage it would be difficult to really get a feel for them and their intellectual substance - and we didn't. We did get their essence however which in some cases was worrying. I was aware of the 'buzz' about Ron Paul and him being marginalised. He was marginalised but then so were many of the candidates. The set up placed Romney, Giuliani, McCain and Thompson in the middle and that's where the focus seemed to be although early on it was like Romney and Giuliani had been given a spot to themselves to poke each other with sticks. My own view with very limited knowledge of all the candidates from this debate alone: Ron Paul: Came across as being so different to everyone else you wonder why he's a Republican! Ok he's anti-war, criticised overspending blah blah blah. Got a good sense of what he was against but not much of what he was for but he was given very little time to say anything so did he win the debate? Absolutely not. Did he come across as passionate and ethically principled? Yes. Huckabee: Improved as he went on I thought but came across as a guy you'd want on your team but not necessarily leading it. Brownback, Hunter, Tancredo: Left me open mouthed that these people could get their finger on the button. On some points they scored well but they clearly have some fundamental biases (e.g. immigration, pro life) between them that mean you just could not put them in charge. Giuliani: Scored well, getting ahead of himself though as he has started his Clinton bashing. Might be proven as a figurehead for NY but doubt he'd pass the 'would you buy a used car from this man' test over here. A strong candidate but i didn't find him likeable. Romney: Thought he was doing ok until he went on about attorneys deciding on Presidential decisions. He played on his business strengths in what was a debate on the economy but those strengths made him look weak on 'Presidential' decision making. McCain: I'm aware he's seen as a fading option but I thought he did ok for the most part. Came across as likeable and principled. Needs to look less like his tie is strangling him! Thompson: Don't watch Law & Order, think listening to Thompson on anything would help me get to sleep though. He should be called Fred 'the platitude' Thompson. The words 'national security' were used a lot though and it kind of strikes me that all the candidates (bar Ron Paul) are happy to perpetuate a climate of fear in their politics. My own view is that there is a difference between the 'national interest' and national security which these guys don't have an appreciation of. Take farmer's subsidies, oil and the purchase of US ports or NASQDAQ by foreign interests. All of these were viewed in terms of national security issues but that's too one dimensional a scope to use. Farmer's subsidies are rubbish but is it in your national strategic interest not to have an agricultural capability at all? Discuss... If i missed anyone then they weren't interesting enough to comment on :-) Overall, imho, with TV friendly looks, a good grasp of the issues, articulate beyond all the candidates, if I could vote i'd vote for Maria Bartiromo :-)

guest

Thu, 11 Oct 2007 04:51:20 -0800

Instead of wasting their energy on pointing the finger at supposed RP "spammers" based on "zero" evidence - CNBC, FOX and other MSM outlets should spend more energy investigating the GOP, Diebold et al of vote fraud! (of which there is a ton of real, hard evidence)

Zodiaccaidoz

Wed, 10 Oct 2007 19:01:21 -0800

@9 Paul's polling has improved with respect to Huckabee, Tancredo, Hunter and Brownback as well as a number of democratic candidates, especially in terms of fund raising. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16711064/ He's number five in terms of that website's own rankings. Surely a candidate who has proven himself to be far more popular than the very bottom 'tier' deserves better treatment? Upper-middle tier or lower-top tier, or whatever label's preferable.

guest

Wed, 10 Oct 2007 17:43:23 -0800

Ron Paul continues to be non-existent in state polls: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21036143/site/newsweek/ Ron Paul has 5% in Iowa. And national polls: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/02/AR2007100202328.html Ron Paul has 3% nationally.

guest

Wed, 10 Oct 2007 17:02:03 -0800

The Main Stream Media does not represent us common folk, it either supports Hillary or any G.O.P. candidate that can not possibly beat her in 2008, which is all of them, with the exception of Ron Paul. If these times weren't so dangerous for us, this would be funny. Never in the history of (so called news) have so many gotten caught with their pants down. Ron Paul would have won that debate without making a comment and just letting his buffoon opponents make fools of each other. The ruling class has already decided Hillary is best suited to herd us deeper into socialism and their chosen, puppet, Neocons are even now posturing to throw the match. They weren't counting on Ron Paul.

guest

Wed, 10 Oct 2007 17:01:20 -0800

From your lips to God ear. You are so right. CNBC has lost all creditability. Don't laugh, just listen to Ron Paul unless you can't handle the truth. We deserve the truth. For all those "I don't vote because it doesn't matter" types out there, now is your time to vote! It is that important. This is the man you been waiting for.

anthonyt

Wed, 10 Oct 2007 16:47:35 -0800

great, his overwhelming support by internet users will surely make him the front runner to replace president howard dean.

guest

Wed, 10 Oct 2007 15:36:16 -0800

This was the most disgusting display of bias in a debate that I've ever seen. Ron Paul got *7 minutes* of air time in the 2 hours which were blatantly annointed to Giuliani, Romney, and Thompson. This network should be ashamed for allowing this hypocracy. Fox is no longer the bottom feeder when it comes to being unfair and unbalanced.

guest

Wed, 10 Oct 2007 14:53:45 -0800

Excellent article. Five stars!

Tony Pierce

Wed, 10 Oct 2007 14:31:07 -0800

he's regarded by everyone, guest #1, as the most conservative candidate because he has voted for fewer taxes than any other congressman, and all the things you mention equal a smaller federal government, one of the foundations of a true conservative.

Zodiaccaidoz

Wed, 10 Oct 2007 14:17:43 -0800

"Fred Thompson has had months to prepare out of the spotlight and he can only get 505 votes on the MSNBC poll for Leadership Quality? Or is the next allegation going to be that Ron Paul supporters have figured out how to take votes away from other candidates." ^This truly made me laugh out loud. As for the part on it being the responsibility of the media to secure their own polls, I couldn't agree more on this excellent point. And as a Paul supporter myself I of course enjoy reading about his progress.

guest

Wed, 10 Oct 2007 14:12:35 -0800

How does Ron Paul count as "the most conservative candidate" when he favors legalizing pot, abolishing the Income Tax, and requiring Congress to support a Pres's declaration of war? But this does show media bias, usually liberal bias against Conservatives -- except on Fox and some radio talk shows, like KKKFI/ Jon and Ken, Kevin James, and Lush Rumbaugh. Too bad viewers have to beware the source of their news for bias. Sounds like the MSM is becoming more like the blogs, not even pretending not to have a bias anymore.