it's interesting. i don't agree that just because rudy was there on 9/11 that he is an expert on the motives behind the attacks. and i think cross is right on that it's not as simple as they make it out.
Well I don't blame Rudy for trying to milk 9/11 for votes. It's won his party some elections but it seems whenever he tries it backfires on him. All those 9/11 firefighters & ground zero workers have been a problem for him.
Not only are Ron Paul supporters “a bunch of liberals pretending to be Republicans,” but they are now restricted in their use of the RedState.com website. In a stunning move against supporters of a Republican candidate for President of the United States, the powers that be at RedState.com, a magnet site on the conservative end of the political spectrum, has decided to censor those from the party RedState supports.
Effective immediately, new users may *not* shill for Ron Paul in any way shape, form or fashion. Not in comments, not in diaries, nada. If your account is less than 6 months old, you can talk about something else, you can participate in the other threads and be your zany libertarian self all you want, but you cannot pimp Ron Paul. Those with accounts more than six months old may proceed as normal.
Now, I could offer a long-winded explanation for *why* this new policy is being instituted, but I’m guessing that most of you can probably guess. Unless you lack the self-awareness to understand just how annoying, time-consuming, and bandwidth-wasting responding to the same idiotic arguments from a bunch of liberals pretending to be Republicans can be. Which, judging by your comment history, you really don’t understand, so allow me to offer an alternate explanation: we are a bunch of fascists and we’re upset that you’ve discovered where we keep the black helicopters, so we’re silencing you in an attempt to keep you from warning the rest of your brethren so we can round you all up and send you to re-education camps all at once.
Hey, we’re sure *some* of Ron Paul’s supporters really are Republicans. They can post at any one of a zillion Ron Paul online forums. Those who have *earned* our respect by contributing usefully for a substantial period of time will be listened to with appropriate respect. Those who have not will have to *earn* that respect by contributing usefully in the other threads… and not mentioning Ron Paul. Given a month of solid contributing, send one of us an email and we’ll consider lifting the restriction on your account.
You may now resume your regularly scheduled RedState activities. Everyone but the Ron Paul spammers, that is. You can resume your regularly scheduled activities somewhere else.
Man, there’s trouble in RedStateland. Imagine! They’ve got a candidate doing far better than anyone thought he could. ron Paul. They’ve got other candidates who are about as middling as middling gets. the whole collection of McCain, Thompson, Romney and Giuliani have maybe half the excitement and firepower that Ron Paul does. Certainly Ron Paul has the supporters who are willing to work for him. So what do these Republicans at RedState do? They ban the speech of the Ron Paul supporters.
Even Republicans care about free speech when it is their own. What RedState has done here is offend some highly vocal Republicans. It won’t harm RedState one bit when they hear the whining and complaining from the Ron Paul supporters. But it will hurt the eventual Republican candidate in Fall ‘08, because some of those Ron Paul supporters will not be voting for the eventual Republican candidate, and none of those Ron Paul supporters will work for the eventual Republican candidate. RedState is pissing off the Libertarian wing of the Republican Party, the only wing of the Republican Party that acts like Republicans used to act, with care for balanced budgets, real moral values and sensible foreign policy ruled by facts, not Dick Cheney’s fantasies. (Sorry to put that tiny image of Dick Cheney’s fantasies in your brains — just down a shot or two and maybe you won’t remember the horror.) Yes, RedState’s move will hurt Republicans.
RedState is trying to use the whole "private Property" it's my site so I can do what I want argument. But that sort of argument when it's a public site devoted to discussing politics rings sort of false when it singles out one set of supporters over everyone else.
I'm not a Republican, I'm not voting for Ron Paul, but man, I'm glad he's been in some of these debates. He brings a refreshing frankness and reality to what otherwise would be a bunch of tired talking points, 9/11 references, "victory victory "bringing Democracy" "they want surrender" sound bytes and contests of who loves America, the troops and thru extension, the war, more.
I don't know if that is offensive to some people to have that kind of challenge from within their own party but that comment that Paul supporters are really "liberals" goes back to what i was saying that anyone who challenges Administration mantra is immediately labeled a "liberal" by these Bush cultists that abound our society, in some weird attempt to marginalize and minimize the dissention and critical examination.
Ron Paul... Was that the guy in the one debate when the candidates were talking about actions on Iran and how quick they would do it, he was like "No! Uh, Constitution? CONGRESS needs to declare war."? (Granted I'm paraphrasing.)
Knutreturns said: Spoken like the true Greatest RDCW Champ!
I'm not a reader of RedState, but I know that some blogs and online polls have had problems with Paul supporters flooding polls and spamming the sites.
Could that be behind the banning in this case also?
That is the reason given by RedState. Which may be entirely true.
I however have to wonder why an enthusiastic bunch of people that are electrified by this guy and his ideas is a BAD thing. Especially given the torpor and general malaise that Republicans get with the rest of the GOP candidates. It seems that the last thing one would want to do is stamp out the only genuine real grass roots excitement for a gOP candidate happening in cyberspace.
I'm not a reader of RedState, but I know that some blogs and online polls have had problems with Paul supporters flooding polls and spamming the sites.
Could that be behind the banning in this case also?
That is the reason given by RedState. Which may be entirely true.
I however have to wonder why an enthusiastic bunch of people that are electrified by this guy and his ideas is a BAD thing. Especially given the torpor and general malaise that Republicans get with the rest of the GOP candidates. It seems that the last thing one would want to do is stamp out the only genuine real grass roots excitement for a gOP candidate happening in cyberspace.
Excitment's good if it translates into more debate and a more open exchange of ideas. If Paul's supporters want to help shape the debate, more power to them.
On the other hand, excitement's not so good if the result is nothing but spamming boards and corrupting poll results in a misguided attempt to generate cheap heat for their candidate. That doesn't help shape the debate. If anything, it discourages discussion.
On the other hand, excitement's not so good if the result is nothing but spamming boards and corrupting poll results in a misguided attempt to generate cheap heat for their candidate. That doesn't help shape the debate. If anything, it discourages discussion.
I disagree...I won a OT mod election years ago doing that exact same thing...
On the other hand, excitement's not so good if the result is nothing but spamming boards and corrupting poll results in a misguided attempt to generate cheap heat for their candidate. That doesn't help shape the debate. If anything, it discourages discussion.
I disagree...I won a OT mod election years ago doing that exact same thing...
Wow. You really are a slayer of conservatives! I bet he'll be feeling the sting from that for a while. And by feeling the sting I mean I bet he even knows you exist by now!
Wow. You really are a slayer of conservatives! I bet he'll be feeling the sting from that for a while. And by feeling the sting I mean I bet he even knows you exist by now!
sammitch, halo is now bonafide. PJP seconded my motion.
Wow. You really are a slayer of conservatives! I bet he'll be feeling the sting from that for a while. And by feeling the sting I mean I bet he even knows you exist by now!
Wow. You really are a slayer of conservatives! I bet he'll be feeling the sting from that for a while. And by feeling the sting I mean I bet he even knows you exist by now!
I've been dying for an excuse to say man-sammitch to you...
Well, with a rap like that, and a handle of "slayer of conservatives" I guess there's nothing left for the Republicans on this board to do. We've lost.
There's no way to win a debate with a guy who possesses the rhetorical skills to call a fellow poster "Man-Sammitch". Seriously. That's like the H-bomb of debating techniques right there. We just can't recover from that.
Rob, if you are reading this post, please. I beg of you. Shut down the politics board right now. Halo has invoked the ultimate weapon in our battle of wits. The battle is over. The conservatives are slain.
I actually like Ron Paul. He's sincere, and a Washington outsider, who speaks from the heart, and from outside the two-party system that is actually one system owned by lobbyists. Many of his positions regarding healthcare, border security, and opposing amnesty for illegals, appeal to my populist tendencies.
It wasn't until I saw him interviewed, separate from any of the debates, that I could get a feel for what he stands for.
One area I disagree with him on is his notion that American foreign policy is the cause of terrorist attacks, and that if we pull out of the middle east, they'll just leave us alone. Pulling out of the middle east won't save either us or Europe from islamic aggression. And islamic aggression began well before the U.S. ever had troops in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan or Iraq. It's just ignoring reality to buy into that rationalization. Like Buchanan, he sees foreign wars as not vital to U.S. national security, and at least in the short term, that would save money that would otherwise be spent on costly wars, and costly peacetime overseas deployments.
But I would argue that preventing hostile powers from seizing control of the world's oil supply, and tripling the cost of oil, or depriving us of it altogether, as a vital U.S. national interest.
One area I disagree with him on is his notion that American foreign policy is the cause of terrorist attacks, and that if we pull out of the middle east, they'll just leave us alone.
Bin Laden has said numerous times that our presence in Saudi Arabia and Islamic soil is the reason for his attacks. In a religious decree issued in 1998, he gave religious legitimacy to attacks on Americans in order to stop the United States from "occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places."
One area I disagree with him on is his notion that American foreign policy is the cause of terrorist attacks, and that if we pull out of the middle east, they'll just leave us alone.
Bin Laden has said numerous times that our presence in Saudi Arabia and Islamic soil is the reason for his attacks. In a religious decree issued in 1998, he gave religious legitimacy to attacks on Americans in order to stop the United States from "occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places."
You state Bin Ladin's position with the passion of a fully indoctrinated Al Qaida member, Whomod.
You, of course, take the word of an islamic terrorist, and accept every word at face value, while you simultaneously look on our own government's every action with scorn and cynicism, while repeating Bin Ladin's talking points.
Gee, why do I see you as anti-American?
You talk about Bin Ladin's 1998 Declaration of Jihad on Jews and Crusaders as if you know something I don't. When in fact I've posted it repeatedly in various topics here. The difference is I post it to expose his murderous fanaticism and lies, whereas you cite it as gospel truth to demonize our own country for simply defending ourselves.
Wow, what’s up with that? For a guy raising the type of money he is—I don’t understand how they can justify his exclusion.
Quote:
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…read on
I have to agree with him on that front. FOX Noise has a very set agenda on the Iraq war in place and Paul only mucks things up. LGF and many other warmongering right wing bloggers will be happy though since they exclude him from their polls already… He’ll probably raise another boat load of cash and stay in the race much longer even if his poll numbers are very fairly low. Way to go Roger Ailes…
And Ron Paul is ahead of Fredrick of Hollywood in NH:
The New Hampshire Republican Party has pulled out as a co-sponsor of tomorrow night’s Fox News debate, due to the controversies surrounding the exclusion of Ron Paul. Fox News is barring Paul from the debate, with many people believing it is because of his opposition to the Iraq War.