Did Fox News remove and hide their debate polls because Ron Paul was leading them?

reply to post by Snorkelbacon

What is your Point? Let me get this right Liberals only like his anti war stance, and the right is trying to make it look like the left supports him? OK soooooo what?

No...they are blaming liberals/liberal media for his success....and in doing so trying to make him an enemy of the GOP...they simply don't want him in the race and certainly don't want him to win the nomination.

That's all i'm trying to state.

reply to post by David9176


In the long-term, Reagan is a failure. He was a huge proponent of Neoliberal doctrine (not to be confused with the "liberal" Democratic Party), which is directly responsible for the insanity we are now being forced to deal with on the economic front. "Trickle down" economics were and are a sham and I believe that is more what Dr. Paul is pointing to. The Republicans are generally Caucasian, upper-middle class; not to generalize the entirety of its constituents. The party decided to focus on the ideal of free market economy and profit-centric legislation over TRULY conservative doctrine. Dr. Ron Paul knew the score before most of us ever tuned into the game.

reply to post by undo


DUH! The whole system, both sides, is divide and conquere. However, If Ron Paul Doesn't stand for the Left and clearly the Right doesn't like him, then what does he stand for??????????? Liberals say he's Right, Conservitives say He's Left. Well Franklin LLoyd Wright there is your God Darn Compromise. Seriously please open your eys right left is the same. Divide and conquere is a game made up for you to believe there is a flippen choice. but guess what both parties are the same LOOK AND SEE BELIEVE THEY ARE THE SAME. THEY SPEAK DIFFERENTLY BUT THEIR ACTIONS ARE THE SAME. Hated Bush b/c he started unconstitutional wars was with wallstreet, took away civil liberties. OK, Obama had every wallstreet good old boy on cabinet, went into libya without congresstional approval extended patriot act, gave large corporations waivers from healthcare law. DUDE there is no divide and conquere only magic tricks. Look at the left hand as the right moves. Paul doesn't fit. Thats why both sides attack, in attempt to keep the base. B/C it only takes 10% of dedicated people to create overwhelming change. If they loose 5% from both sides, they are both skrewed.

I think most of the people who parrot the mainstream establishment garbage about RP, haven't been (and probably aren't interested in) looking at his true positions. Normally, when you look past the "Ron Paul wants to legalize heroin" BS, and really look into it, you'll see how much sense he makes. Do some research people, if he's for real, he is what we need.

reply to post by David9176


OK cool. Ya He is an enemy of both sides for sure. Sorry just posted a long rant

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

did you post at ats when bush won his second term?

i'm always curious about the motivations of some posters here who always post in defense of their party. always. no matter what. as if to say: it can do no wrong. they aren't gods (at the moment, anyway), so this idea they are beyond reproach is not realistic.

Not getting your point regarding Bush's second win, neither do I understand your point about defense for a political party. I don't support the democrats, well not any longer atleast. I got put off by their support for the patriot act, and then their crackdown on marijuana. Not all democrats are the same just as republicans, but the parties as a whole have been corrupted. So no, that line of argument doesn't work on me.

As for our politicians being worshipped as God's, it's a problem for both sides of the political spectrum, it's also a problem with Paulers. Ron Paul can do no wrong and if he doesn't win an election, we'll blame it on a bunch of globalist dictators plotting a world take over. We won't actually assess why he loses or whether he is actually favourable to the general public.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
I got put off by their support for the patriot act, and then their crackdown on marijuana. Not all democrats are the same just as republicans, but the parties as a whole have been corrupted. So no, that line of argument doesn't work on me.

How could you hold those positions, and not see Ron Paul as a good option? You realize that Paul would work to do away with the patriot act, and the criminalization of marijuana. An actual hemp industry would be permitted to grow, surely you being educated as you seem to be know how many different uses the plant has. Fuel, high quality nutritious food, building materials, etc. Things that could actually turn this country around.

This is nothing new for Ron Paul, the grassroots are VERY used to being shut out and having polls erased, etc...

Most people are already doing screen captures to catch wrongdoing, especially in the major polls.

RP is destroying the nationwide fox poll on the debate last night, too many people have seen it, what 22k people voting for RP out of a total of 37k?

Tomorrow will be a good day for the revolution @ Iowa straw poll.

Grassroots are working very hard to get people to show up and vote!

Originally posted by 27jd
I think most of the people who parrot the mainstream establishment garbage about RP, haven't been (and probably aren't interested in) looking at his true positions.

I don't need the mainstream media to come up with reasons why I don't support him.

I don't his idea of eliminating minimum wage.

I don't like his idea of ending medicare and leaving elders out in the cold, and believe you me, the privatization talk doesn't fly, we already know that private insurers don't see elders as profitable investments,
I don't

I don't agree with ending social security. I get it though, he wants to privatize it, huh?

I don't like his idea of ending roe vs wade and allowing states to dictate laws over a woman's body.... infact, touching on that very point, I don't like his idea of giving absolute power to the states. In the GOP debate with Ron Paul something he said raised my eyebrows..... he said that no state in their right mind would legalize slavery. Well no, Ron, no state would in their right mind do that, but do they have the right to legalize slavery? It's about the principal, ya know? Did Texas have the right to legalize slavery during the 19th century? Was racial segregation a state's right in 60's? Can the state of South Carolina ban interracial marrige? Where are the limits to what a state can do? It's not about whether these things will happen, ofcourse they won't times have changed, but it's a matter of whether they are rights of the state government to decide. The federal government isn't the only problem in this country, and yet apparently Ron Paul wants to give the other absolute power.

But hey, Paulers perceive to take things in differently I guess. I see things for what they are. Now just because I oppose Ron Paul in many ways doesn't mean I disgaree with his points regarding the war, with his point regarding marriage and how it should be a privte matter, he's bang on with many issues, and I just loved the way he schooled santorum on Iran (santorum is the biggest tool there at that debate), but that being said, his stances on many issues are totally against what I believe in and what I see as fundamental constitutional rights.

reply to post by Southern Guardian


Guess what? You are not going to find someone to vote that you agree with 100%. The simple fact is these wars are destroying our economy. Without an economy the rest of what you care about wont matter. Paul is the ONLY person that will get us out of these wars. There is no other choice when it comes to this.

reply to post by Southern Guardian


Ya you are for allowing the Government to act like it can do all these things so it can back door you later leaving you naked, in a cold rainy ally wondering what the hell just happened. THE WRITING IS ON THE WALL THIS WILL NOT LAST TO MUCH LONGER ANYWAY BRO. Ya you might get your min wage your medicaid or soc sec. but believe me its not going to buy jack didly squat, but at least you got yours derrrrrrr," da gov should give and take cares of me cuz i does deserve it and day is suppose to look out for me and change my diaper when i pee pee, no they should buy my diapers cuz everyone pees and its my right to pee my pants derrrr." .

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
I don't his idea of eliminating minimum wage.

Have you ever read his reasoning behind these things, they may just make sense when he's not being mocked...

Q: In 2006, the unemployment rate of Black high school graduates was 33% higher than the unemployment rate for white high school drop outs. What do you think accounts for that inequity?

A: Walter Williams, a very astute free-market economist, has studied this extensively, and he has found that prior to minimum wage laws there was no discrepancy like this. So he put a lot of blame on the minimum wage law. Once government gets interfering, this takes away opportunities. And I believe there is a lot of truth to this because it eliminates an opportunity and a chance for a marginal worker. I have a bill in that might help a lot of people, Black or white or whomever. I have a bill in that would immediately help these people who are trying to get a start, that they would never have to pay any taxes or payroll taxes, if they just happen to be a waiter or a waitress, to give them a chance to get ahead and get a good job.
www.ontheissues.org...

I don't like his idea of ending medicare and leaving elders out in the cold, and believe you me, the privatization talk doesn't fly, we already know that private insurers don't see elders as profitable investments,
I don't

But then, he also said "Ron Paul says, "we don't have to cut medicare or social security to get our house in order"
georgewashington2.blogspot.com...

I don't agree with ending social security. I get it though, he wants to privatize it, huh?

Not quite. I posted a link a few posts up addressing his thoughts on social security...

The greatest threat to your Social Security retirement funds is Congress itself. Congress has never required that Social Security tax dollars be kept separate from general revenues. In fact, the Social Security “trust fund” is not a trust fund at all. The dollars taken out of your paycheck are not deposited into an account to be paid to you later. On the contrary, they are spent immediately to pay current benefits, and to fund completely unrelated federal programs. Your Social Security administration “account” is nothing more than an IOU, a hopeful promise that enough younger taxpayers will be around to pay your benefits later. Decades of spendthrift congresses have turned the Social Security system into a giant Ponzi scheme, always dependent on new generations. The size and longevity of the Baby Boom generation, however, will finally collapse the house of cards.

*snip*

The Social Security crisis is a spending crisis. The program could be saved tomorrow if Congress simply would stop spending so much money, apply even 10% of the bloated federal budget to a real trust fund, and begin saving your contributions to earn simple interest. That this simple approach seems impossible speaks volumes about the inability of Congress to cut spending no matter what the circumstances.
www.lewrockwell.com...

Where are the limits to what a state can do? It's not about whether these things will happen, ofcourse they won't times have changed, but it's a matter of whether they are rights of the state government to decide. The federal government isn't the only problem in this country, and yet apparently Ron Paul wants to give the other absolute power.

Again, there would be checks and balances, as intended by the constitution. He would not have the ability to do everything he says he supports, as with any president. Roe V Wade, and civil rights laws would be the last thing on his plate, by far. The way things are going right now, we need to try something different. You said yourself the establishment politicians on both sides are corrupt.

Originally posted by e11888
reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

Guess what? You are not going to find someone to vote that you agree with 100%.

No, but I hardly see the issues I mentioned above as minor things. I value the fact that corporations cannot treat people the way they do at their foreign headquarters in china, or Vietnam, I value the fact and there is a minimum a hardworking american must earn to live and survive in this country. I value tha by the least our elders, vets, are being looking after by my tax payer money. These things are not minor values I hold. If I had to rank as to where I agree with Ron Paul, the percentage? I'd say 28%. I need atleast 60% before I will consider voting or supporting or backing a candidate. There will never be something I'll agree with 100% yes, you're damn straight on that point.

The simple fact is these wars are destroying our economy.

Cutting minimum wage, medicare is going to destroy the middle and lower classes of this country further. Both are fundamental issues I care for.

Most likely they ignored him and why not? You think someone outside the box has a chance?

All the people up there licking boots to be President are all bought and paid for except Ron Paul.

We will see later down the road if he does get in and really makes any changes.

Remember Obama - Yes We Can?

No they can't and will not, no matter who gets elected. Grow some nodes people and wake up to the fact that all these criminals are bought and paid for.

reply to post by Southern Guardian


So this is basically "I want this I want that because I deserve things to be handed to me even though it goes against the constitution and what our founding fathers believed in and I want all this handed to me and I dont care how much war needs to be waged or blood needs to be spilled to keep it that way!" ...did I get that about right? Making sure things are given to people is more important than ending these wars and bringing our troops home?

See its this kind of mentality that is ruining this country. The "I wants". The people that think they deserve things simply because they were born. You know what I think? I think you should be paid based on the service you provide and the skill you demonstrate while doing any given job. PAY ME THIS MUCH BECAUSE THE STATE GOVERNMENT SAYS SO! How about no?

Im sorry but it just blows my mind that people actually think that there are things more important than getting out of these wars. These people actually advocate the bloodshed in the name of keeping the government handouts. Unreal!

Originally posted by Southern Guardian


Cutting minimum wage, medicare is going to destroy the middle and lower classes of this country further. Both are fundamental issues I care for.

Wouldnt have to cut any of those,if we would only cut one......................

Today, the United States has become the police of the world. The U.S. military has a total of over 700 military bases in 130 countries around the world. Total military spending by the U.S. government is nearly equal to the combined military spending of the rest of the globe. Meanwhile, the federal government is literally drowning in debt. So if we make some significant cuts to military spending will we fix the national debt problem? Of course not. In fact, it would only put a small dent in it. But at least it would help. The truth is that we cannot afford to be the police of the world and the Pentagon wastes so much money that it is almost incomprehensible. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld once publicly admitted that the Pentagon lost track of 2.3 trillion dollars and cannot tell us how it was spent. Just imagine how your boss would react if you lost track of just 2.3 thousand dollars. So why wasn't there more of an uproar about losing track of 2.3 trillion dollars? Have we become so accustomed to military waste that we don't even care anymore?

#1 Today the U.S. military has over 700 bases (some say it is actually over 1000 bases) in 130 different countries around the globe. It is estimated that it costs about $100 billion a year to maintain these bases.

#2 The U.S. military budget for 2010 was $693 billion.

#3 However, when you throw in all "off budget" items and other categories of "defense" spending not covered in the Pentagon budget you get a grand total of somewhere between $1.01 and $1.35 trillion spent on national defense in 2010.

#4 The truth is that U.S. military spending is greater than the military spending of China, Russia, Japan, India, and the rest of NATO combined.

#5 Total U.S. military spending makes up approximately 44 percent of all the military spending on the entire globe.

#6 The Pentagon currently gobbles up 56 percent of all discretionary spending by the federal government.

#7 Together, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan cost more than $150 billion a year.

#8 Up to this point, it is estimated that the U.S. government has spent over 373 billion dollars on the war in Afghanistan.

#9 Up to this point, it is estimated the the U.S. government has spent over 745 billion dollars on the war in Iraq.

#10 Since 2001, the total cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan breaks down to $3,644 for every man, woman and child in the United States.

#11 The total price tag for each F-22 fighter jet is approximately $350 million.

#12 The Sustainable Defense Task Force has produced a report which shows that the U.S. could easily slash a trillion dollars from the defense budget over the next ten years.

LINK

I think EVERYONE on that panel is willing to stay the course.They have for there WHOLE political career's.Dems and Republicans, Except Paul. Know the FACTS!!

reply to post by 27jd


SG is obviously cranky and is not ready to wake from his slumber without great resistance.

Much of his complaints seem to stem from much of the same rhetoric we hear from the media.

Sadly, people do not even realize that the MSM finds a way into their subconsciousness only to come out later as perceived original thought.

reply to post by Southern Guardian


I am coming late but your main argument against liking democrats is they voted for the Patriot Act? I am really just confused.

Thanks,

CJ

I apologise for being English (not!) and not being part of this political drama per se.....

Firstly, from what I've read and seen, Ron Paul is the kind of candidate that I would be.
However, I believe that he is the sort of candidate/president that would be assassinated.

I love the fact that RP can say what he believes but.......and it's a big but........without(or with) the public support and, especially, the public belief, this man will either be:

1. Erased from the MSM (thereby, from the non-thinking people of USA)
   
2. Killed, if a presidential nominee
   
3. killed, if president
   
4. killed
   

RP is not wanted by the people who run the world because he talks way too much truth and cannot be owned.

Everyone must accept that it really doesn't matter how many people 'talk' on ATS or Facebook or Twitter......really who cares? What real difference does it actually make?

Let's be grown up about this: we cannot change the world!! It's bull# to believe that social networking will do anything!!!

The greedy, power-hungry people run this planet and the only thing we can do is talk about it online!!!!! lol

Originally posted by 27jd
have you ever read his reasoning behind these things, they may just make sense when he's not being mocked...

I'm not going to be convinced that ending minimum wage is a good thing because a free market economist says his theory dictates so. For a hard working man, with a family, working a on minimum wage, to consider allowing his company to lower his wage to compete with vietnamese workers because, in theory, things will eventually "work out for the best" is absolutely lunacy.

I've heard many economic theories before.... I understand that libertarianism lives upon this idea that if we just give free reign to corporations, everything will work out. Corporations will eventually give a damn, according to libertarianism, it's a theory, and that's it really. Reagan had his own "theories" about the economy, and he was the one in my opinion that started this entire crises.

I say that if somebody like Ron Paul wins, and he goes forward with his policies, I say that's a good opportunity, we'll be able to see for ourselves. No theory, real practice.

But then, he also said "Ron Paul says, "we don't have to cut medicare or social security to get our house in order"
georgewashington2.blogspot.com...

Oh ok, so now he doesn't want to cut medicare huh? He wants to keep a hold of it? Did he get a libertarian hall pass for supporting socialized healthcare for elections sakes? Did you give him that hall pass? Yes medicare is socialized healthcare, and Ron Paul has been a very consistent libertarian on the issue:

Here he says medicare is slavery and unconstitutional:


You can see more of his position here:
www.ontheissues.org...

So is Ron Paul flip flopping? Why would Ron Paul all of a sudden insist we don't need to cut medicare? Is he not confident of the free market? Change of attitude? Or just election convenience. I sat through 4 minutes of that video you linked me to, at between 4.30 and 5 minutes he's talking about opting out now. He's going to give seniors the option of opting out of medicare. Wow. I gotta tell my dad that he has this option, he'll be overjoyed alright

Truth is, Ron Paul is fundamentally against medicare. It's a bad position to be in however, it's suicide, especially before the elections, so naturally, like other politicians, he'll keep quiet.

As for social security, I'm sure there's some wonderful wonderful theories out there as to what we can do to end it. I'm not interested in theories.

Again, there would be checks and balances, as intended by the constitution.

What "checks and balances"? You mean that there will actually be limitations to states rights? Oh good golly, it's not something we have in place now do we? Is Ron Paul going to stop a state like Kansas from criminalizing a raped child for getting an abortion? Somehow I doubt it. But you talk about "checks and balances", I've got your reassurance apparently.

He would not have the ability to do everything he says he supports, as with any president. Roe V Wade, and civil rights laws would be the last thing on his plate, by far.

Roe vs wade wouldn't be on his plate at all once he's president. He believes this is a state matter and that's that. With the financial issues we are having in the nation, what do you think Kansas is doing with their state money? Apparently such social issues are first up on that state governments agenda, so nevermind about Ron Paul, he has complete faith in state governments.

Ron Paul kind of reminds of Goldwater. Racial segregation is a states right apparently.

I think Ron Paul needs to be given a chance to win the president, this country needs to learn about how far political lunacy can go in this country and the consequences.