your pod will be ready for you soon, Smitty.

/points finger and screeches

The more they ignore him, the stronger he gets.

"It's all because of Abraham Lincoln and his illegal so-called 'Civil War' that confiscated slaves without due process of reparations to their owners. That ended the Republic and set us on a course of illegal Constitutional amendments, mandatory polio vaccine injections, and FLUOR-I-DATION."

Weaver95: The more they ignore him, the stronger he gets.

If this is true it's a monumental blunder by Fox. The Rondroids are gonna descend on them like a swarm of locusts. I don't think anything he'd say in the debate would be as damaging to their warmongering as the shiatstorm this is going to create.

I'd say that if his "message" hasn't gotten out by now it probably won't.
A piece of advice for him if he ever wants to try again: stop hiring loud drunken assholes that like to roam up and down Fremont Street in Las Vegas, bothering people along the way with their "message".
One of them was so drunk he could barely walk. But, he could still shout RON PAUL! at everybody who passed by.
These drunken sots make his campaign look pretty trashy. If this is the best he can manage with his campaign, then I don't think he is qualified to manage our government.

ndotseth: I'd say that if his "message" hasn't gotten out by now it probably won't.
A piece of advice for him if he ever wants to try again: stop hiring loud drunken assholes that like to roam up and down Fremont Street in Las Vegas, bothering people along the way with their "message".
One of them was so drunk he could barely walk. But, he could still shout RON PAUL! at everybody who passed by.
These drunken sots make his campaign look pretty trashy. If this is the best he can manage with his campaign, then I don't think he is qualified to manage our government.

I'm confused, you think Paul has some control over these people? Or hired them? Attacks by association are a politian's tool, but logical fallacy none the less.

I'd say a one day fundraising record, in the middle of this crazy 2008 campaign, is pretty deserving of a spot in the party that has to struggle to reach the top this election. Doesn't anyone remember what happened when they cut Paul out of the Iowa debate like 6 months ago? Paul supporters marched through the hall outside of the auditorium, dwarfing the number of people actually inside the place.

I don't think that FOX knows what they're getting themselves into here.

I think it's amusing that Fox was slamming Democrats for not showing up at their debate -- "If you can't stand up to Fox News, how are you going to stand up to terrorists?" -- but they are now afraid that Paul's message might make the other candidates answer uncomfortable questions.

Giuliani, Huckabee, Romney, Thompson, McCain -- if you can't articulate your pro-war position against a fellow Republican, how in the hell are you going to do so against a Democrat in the general election?

Snarfangel: I think it's amusing that Fox was slamming Democrats for not showing up at their debate -- "If you can't stand up to Fox News, how are you going to stand up to terrorists?" -- but they are now afraid that Paul's message might make the other candidates answer uncomfortable questions.

Giuliani, Huckabee, Romney, Thompson, McCain -- if you can't articulate your pro-war position against a fellow Republican, how in the hell are you going to do so against a Democrat in the general election?

Because they're hoping they'll only be dodging the question along with Hillary. It's one of the many strikes against her in my book - she'll never be able to muster the moral force to truly take the evangelical wing of the Republican party to task.

Everyone I've ever met who actually supported Ron Paul has been bugfark batshiat crazy... but strangely enough, most of the people I know match up with his policy in online quizzes. Someone make me a Venn diagram for this shiat.

Blacklight: Doesn't anyone remember what happened when they cut Paul out of the Iowa debate like 6 months ago? Paul supporters marched through the hall outside of the auditorium, dwarfing the number of people actually inside the place.


The best part of that was watching the (literally hundreds) of vid clips on youtube and elsewhere all covering the event, while every majore news corporation turfed the story and deployed the paris hilton stories to cover their escape.

All I know is that there are a LOT of people in D.C and in newsrooms around the country that seem to be pulling overtime to try and ignore this guy. Kinda makes me all the more interested in what he's got to say.

Snarfangel: Giuliani, Huckabee, Romney, Thompson, McCain -- if you can't articulate your pro-war position against a fellow Republican, how in the hell are you going to do so against a Democrat in the general election?

Giuliani - 9/11
Huck - "God/Jeebus is on OUR side" and/or "they practice an evil religion" (I'd agree with this, except it implies the existence of a "good" religion)
Romney - "Mormon Jeebus is on our side"
Thompson - ????
McCain - Profit

I assume that Duncan Hunter and Alan Keyes were also not invited to this debate?

If the debate only includes the contenders getting 10% or more in most national polls and first few state polls (Romney, Huckabee, Guiliani, Thompson and McCain), then, at least they set rules, and that is that.

If Hunter, Keyes, or anyone else is invited, then Paul has a legit beef, considering he is basically the "6th" contender after the "Main 5".

Major Malfunction:
Because they're hoping they'll only be dodging the question along with Hillary. It's one of the many strikes against her in my book - she'll never be able to muster the moral force to truly take the evangelical wing of the Republican party to task.

I think you're right. The rest of the Republican field probably also wants to leave as little paper trail as possible about the war and foreign policy, so they don't have to do as much backtracking and explaining when they campaign against the Democratic candidate.

1. nobody is scared of ron paul
2. he's a fringe candidate with poll figures in single digits
3. no debate for him

dletter:
If Hunter, Keyes, or anyone else is invited, then Paul has a legit beef, considering he is basically the "6th" contender after the "Main 5".

I can tell you first hand that a lot of people that support Paul would never show up on anyone's political radar, much less a pollster looking for "likely republican voters".

In my Atlanta meetup, you will meet so many people who have never voted before; they are either college age or were apathetic for years. I would also guess that this is the bulk of his support here in this city. And while they escape the pollsters phone calls, their vote will count just the same. I'm not talking a first place Iowa finish, but I'm definitely talking a double digit finish, third or forth. My guess is that Paul is the only force actually pulling independents to the GOP, which they will need to win. You can't win with the just the party base, on either side.

By the way, do some of you still have landlines? I haven't for over two years now.

Blacklight: By the way, do some of you still have landlines? I haven't for over two years now

yes, this is the latest paulite talking point--the polls aren't accurate because they don't poll our voters. professional polling companies know this and adjust for it, which has been borne out by accurate poll figures in 2004 and 2006 and other elections since then.

paulites are deluding themselves, and its reinforced by the fact that they tend to notice and/or associate with peers who are also paulites, leaving them to conclude they are a massive, unseen bloc. tain't so

The private organization that runs the debates isn't interested in opening up the debates for anyone but the androids who have agreed to go along with the script. There are no choices in this coming election except the ones They want you to have.

albo: Blacklight: By the way, do some of you still have landlines? I haven't for over two years now

yes, this is the latest paulite talking point--the polls aren't accurate because they don't poll our voters. professional polling companies know this and adjust for it, which has been borne out by accurate poll figures in 2004 and 2006 and other elections since then.

paulites are deluding themselves, and its reinforced by the fact that they tend to notice and/or associate with peers who are also paulites, leaving them to conclude they are a massive, unseen bloc. tain't so

Now who exactly is repeating talking points? Tell me which other GOP candidate is going to show up with more individual donors than Paul (which is almost 130k) for the fourth quarter. Honestly now, who? My bet is that only Clinton and Obama may be able to boast those numbers.

Do you think the people who donate money aren't going to vote or something? You are the reason why pollsters still make money, I guess someone has to believe them. Go back to hotair.

Weaver95: The more they ignore him, the stronger he gets.

Uh huh...

Look at me! I'm an attention whore!

/got nothin'.

albo: 1. nobody is scared of ron paul

They aren't scared because they think he can win, they are scared because they think they can lose -- every time they are forced to justify themselves to the shrinking minority that supports Bush, the harder it will be to sell themselves to the majority in the general election.

They want to get out of the primaries with as little explication of their ideas as possible, so they can make up a "centrist" viewpoint without being called a flip-flopper. If, say, Obama got the Democratic nod, he'd be able to hammer the point that his opponent supported a pre-emptive invasion based on incorrect information with dubious but very expensive results. Looking back at the 2006 election, I don't think that's a winning platform for the Republicans. With Paul in the debates, the rest of the field has a bigger chance of saying something profoundly stupid that will come back to bite them at every election stop.

Well, that, and I bet a few are afraid their own fourth-quarter fundraising efforts will look pathetic compared to Paul's.

GurneyHalleck: The private organization that runs the debates isn't interested in opening up the debates for anyone but the androids who have agreed to go along with the script. There are no choices in this coming election except the ones They want you to have.

FTW. Somehow the process was coopted by party insiders and that left us with pretty much only the goddamned stupid, vain TV personalities and their insipid horse race questions

I think Paul and his supporters are crazy, but given the poll numbers and money raised I don't see any reason why he shouldn't be there. He's actually polling better than Thompson in NH.

Ron Paul is an afterthought. And we'll finally be treated to the sweetness of not having to see the "OMG vote for Ron Paul he will run this country so goodz!!!11!1" crap that keeps getting shoved down the throat of anyone who hangs out on the internet.

RP: "They are propagandists for this war and I challenge them on the notion that they are conservative."

FTW

azpenguin: Ron Paul is an afterthought. And we'll finally be treated to the sweetness of not having to see the "OMG vote for Ron Paul he will run this country so goodz!!!11!1" crap that keeps getting shoved down the throat of anyone who hangs out on the internet.

If you abhor hearing about Ron Paul, why are you here, in this thread?

I think they should let Cap'm Crazypants debate. Every time he talks he digs his hole deeper and deeper. The man is a joke and his ideas are almost purely ideological and entirely impractical.

Besides, Ron Paul is only popular on the internet and at libertarian conventions. Normal work-a-day people barely know who he is or what he stands for. He's the new Ross Perot, or the conservative Dennis Kucinich.

This is just a rumor at this point... All the original articles claiming he was being excluded cite a non-existent AP report on it. My guess is some asshat at Lew Rockwell decided to stir things up a bit and everyone just took it at face value, including the RP campaign.

It would be completely asinine to exclude the top fundraising GOP candidate from a debate in a state where he is polling at the same level or better than several other candidates.

Fox is really really shooting themselves in the foot with this one. Ron raised more cash than any of the invited guests, and polls higher than some. He is likely to come out in the top 3 in Iowa, ahead of some of the invited candidates.

Support him or not, any American should look at this obvious example of how Fox thinks it knows what is best for this country.

No one can argue with RP's comments on America's drift to 'soft-fascism' with such a obvious example in front of them.

SemperLieSuckah:

Besides, Ron Paul is only popular on the internet and at libertarian conventions. .

Guess these wins don't represent popularity outside of the internet... (new window)

Blacklight: azpenguin: Ron Paul is an afterthought. And we'll finally be treated to the sweetness of not having to see the "OMG vote for Ron Paul he will run this country so goodz!!!11!1" crap that keeps getting shoved down the throat of anyone who hangs out on the internet.

If you abhor hearing about Ron Paul, why are you here, in this thread?

For the same reason I like watching car accidents.

what message?
like anyone cares.
If he had anything worthwhile to say, the mainstream media would have picked up on it.
He just is a bunch of hot air and no one cares.

rustik: It would be completely asinine to exclude the top fundraising GOP candidate from a debate in a state where he is polling at the same level or better than several other candidates.

Emphasis mine. Methinks you may be forgetting which news outlet to which this article refers.

SemperLieSuckah: Besides, Ron Paul is only popular on the internet and at libertarian conventions. Normal work-a-day people barely know who he is or what he stands for. He's the new Ross Perot, or the conservative Dennis Kucinich.

Sorry bud, but you need to get out more. The vast majority of his fundraising comes from small donations (~$100), yet somehow "normal work-a-day people" don't know him? Look up the average donation for any of the frontrunners and tell me who the "normal work-a-day" people are supporting. Libertarian conventions? If you call a bunch of Republicans sick of their party being psuedo-conservative getting together a "Libertarian convention," then I guess you'd be right...

azpenguin: Ron Paul is an afterthought. And we'll finally be treated to the sweetness of not having to see the "OMG vote for Ron Paul he will run this country so goodz!!!11!1" crap that keeps getting shoved down the throat of anyone who hangs out on the internet.


You really think you're going to stop hearing the name Ron Paul if he doesn't get elected? If there is one thing the Paulites should have taught you by now, its that they are in this for the long haul. These guys are now running for office themselves, in hopes of transforming the GOP back to a respectful party.

Will they succeed? Who knows. But you're fooling yourself if you think that the Ron Paul effect will end at close of this election.

Blacklight: Ron Paul supporters are also very cult-like. They're pretty much the only group of psychotic supporters who will go out in the rain to campaign for their candidate. They are known to swarm whenever Ron Paul appears ANYWHERE, especially at events like Straw Polls. Go out amongst real people and ask them about Ron Paul, they'll probably say "That crazy guy that wants to legalize drugs and get rid of the CIA?"

Outside of straw polls, in polls of the actual population done by independent pollsters, he polls lower than any other candidate.

hillary4real: If he had anything worthwhile to say, the mainstream media would have picked up on it.

You must be one of those "deep thinkers" I keep hearing about.

albo: yes, this is the latest paulite talking point--the polls aren't accurate because they don't poll our voters. professional polling companies know this and adjust for it, which has been borne out by accurate poll figures in 2004 and 2006 and other elections since then.

I'm not an apaulogist, but failing to take into account the growing numbers of people who don't use landlines, or don't use them as their primary phone, makes said polls seem less than accurate.

Given many of these polls margins of error, any candidates true support or front runner status could be very much in doubt.

/apaulogist. that's a good one.
//slashies are good in pairs.

rustik: SemperLieSuckah: Besides, Ron Paul is only popular on the internet and at libertarian conventions. Normal work-a-day people barely know who he is or what he stands for. He's the new Ross Perot, or the conservative Dennis Kucinich.

Sorry bud, but you need to get out more. The vast majority of his fundraising comes from small donations (~$100), yet somehow "normal work-a-day people" don't know him? Look up the average donation for any of the frontrunners and tell me who the "normal work-a-day" people are supporting. Libertarian conventions? If you call a bunch of Republicans sick of their party being psuedo-conservative getting together a "Libertarian convention," then I guess you'd be right...

Look at poll numbers.

I'm starting to think that the GOP should roll out 'ol Bob Dole and give him another shot...because god knows he's about a legit a candidate as anybody they've got right now.

Why, why... what's this?



Where's Ron Paul?

SemperLieSuckah: He's the new Ross Perot

Except Ross Perot actually got votes. Give it up, Paul supporters. Anyone who's ever studied politics (actually studied, not just acted like a jerk-off on Fark) knows he has less than no chance. Perot was a BILLIONAIRE and he still came in third. If Ron Paul wins even the Republican nomination, I'll buy a month of TF for everyone in this thread who's posted above me (and who doesn't already have it).

SemperLieSuckah: Look at poll numbers.

Your original post had nothing to do with poll numbers, so why should I look at them? If you are drawing all those conclusions from a poll that says "x% support Ron Paul" you are either absolutely brilliant, or absolutely stupid.

If you vote for anyone other than Ron Paul, you just support the status quo, and do not want any real political change. You like being farked in the ass by the federal government.

If Paul doesn't get the Republican nomination, no biggie. I'll vote for Hillary Clinton, in that case. Even if she doesn't get the Democratic nomination, I'll write her goddamn name in out of spite. This country deserves that biatch as president.

Sean Hannity hates that Ron Paul has been voted a number of times as winning the TV debate and he has to explain how the poll is skewed by Ron supporters. I wouldn't be surprised if Sean didn't have his hand in this.

SemperLieSuckah: Why, why... what's this?
Where's Ron Paul?

He wasn't included in the poll. What is your point?

If Fox set up criterions for elegibility to the debates and Paul did not meet any of them then he should not be at the debate. This may change if Paul gets a 4th or higher in IA (I feel this is unlikely but lets see), that would definately fluf up his numbers to the point where he can be in the debate.

Does anyone else think the author get picked on a lot in highschool? At least go to glamourshots to get you publicity pic taken and not let you mother shoot it for you.

I think the best part of all this is that legions of internet users are supporting a man who is against net neutrality.

SemperLieSuckah: Look at poll numbers.

Polls several weeks prior to NH primary in '96
and
Results