They're Afraid

They're afraid Ron Paul will wake the people up.

That's what they're afraid of. 

by Bob Gormley (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 890 comments) on Sunday, January 6, 2008 at 3:59:18 PM
 

GOP now

Didn't the Democrats refuse to debate on Fox?   The Republicans if they showed a shred of dignity would do the same.  Fox  really ought to dress their "newspeople" in scary clown costumes.

by RG (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments) on Sunday, January 6, 2008 at 6:00:51 PM
 

The Public Loses

It does make a certain perverted kind of sense that Kucinich was omitted from a debate (ABC) where he would have had the opportunity to discuss his foreign policy, and Paul will be omitted from a debate (Fox) where he would have had the opportunity to discuss the war against drugs. http://stopthedrugwar.org/taxonomy/term/152.

The public deserves to hear Kucinich’s views on international trade agreements as well. I don’t think Clinton, Obama, or Edwards oppose GATT, NAFTA, etc, and the public deserves to hear a contrary opinion concerning international trade agreements.

As a side note, the New Hampshire GOP just withdrew its sponsorship from the Fox Jan. 6 debate: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/01/new-hampshire-g.html.
I would like to think that they are really standing up for a fair process, and maybe it is unfair, but I cannot help but think it is a cynical gesture.

by Paul Rye (6 articles, 1 quicklinks, 13 diaries, 253 comments) on Sunday, January 6, 2008 at 7:00:10 PM
 

Money Talks

When you're filling your car with $3 gas and buying some $2.65 a dozen eggs, remember who is running on stopping deficit spending. The war for oil is what caused prices for anything that eats grain to skyrocket. When THOSE prices rise, the fresh fruit seller raises his prices again, now you have some nice $5 a pound grapes in the market. Laugh all you want, it's YOUR money being spent. YOU'RE the one going to pay $250 a week for groceries. Still think Ron Paul sounds like a bad idea? He's the ONLY candidate, Republican or Democrat that is running on reducing your cost of living. Maybe you have plenty money. Me, I'm not so rich.

by Louis Nardozi (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 29 comments) on Sunday, January 6, 2008 at 7:30:05 PM
 

Re: Money talks

I couldn't agree more the welfare state establishment is very afraid of Ron Paul

So why would so-called conservatives ban him? He doesn't follow the corporate welfare agenda. Corporate welfare and social welfare the Democrats and Republicans both support the big government big debt, big spending agenda no matter what they may say.

The corporate oligarchy/democracy hybrid government doesn't want to lose the 400 billion a year deficit funding cash cow. I hear many on the left complain that the half trillion we have spent on the war in 5 years could have been used for education, housing and medical care but consider the same amount spent every single year on servicing the debt as business as usual and a worthwhile part of the income redistribution system.

This makes no sense to me how is it that someone making $100,000-500,000 is a social criminal who has more than they deserve but it's ok for the government to have a direct deposit account set up by the IRS to transfer our assets to the lenders? 

Am I in that income group no and don't care to be  but I would far rather work for a local small to medium business that be forced to work for a corporate dictatorship, and nothing's wrong with corporations making a profit either as long as it's serving us and we voluntarily pay for goods and services we need.

I can't see where any issue is more important than kicking our deficit habit and reestablishing a savings based economy and property rights for common people.

Some people may think transforming the U.S. into a third world nation buried in debt make be a great idea to get the terrorists to stop hating us for our freedom and prosperity but I'll take a pass on that, and accept a good economy instead. We can always figure out what to do with our money once we have to much. 

Thanks Louis Mardozi for hitting the nail on the head. 

by Greg Collins (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Sunday, January 6, 2008 at 8:38:22 PM
 

There's never a "reason" to oppress free speech

Hello folks

I am going to be honest that this article, while well-intended, really pisses me off.

There is *never* any "good" reason to oppress free speech (especially for a news media to do that) and to control the American free electoral choice. Never should any media have the power to pick our next president for us.

The polls have nothing to do with free speech and free American choice of their next president. The issues have nothing to do with it. The "reasons" are nothing but (let's call it what it is) *excuses* and *abuses of power* and what really pisses me off is that we Americans are saying "it's okay because of x, y and z as reasons to explain it".

Baloney!

This is why fascism is taking over America.

Because we Americans a) aren't thinking and b) are rationalizing it all in our own brains.

Just wait until things get so bad that you can't even breathe the word "government" in public----or your own livingroom----without fear of jail and torture. Such is *the norm* for *the ordinary citizen, not the big fish in the pond* in dictatorships.

I am not speculating and neither am I spouting fear. I am speaking from experience. I witnessed only a few things while living next door to the Iron Curtain (which makes me no expert and far less experienced than many who lived there and others who know much more than I do). But believe me, those few experiences were enough. Friends of ours were threatened with death based on free speech.

Do we really want to "explain" the "Reasons" for things like the above? Do we realize what we are inviting into existence as we do so?

Put on your thinking caps, American fellows. Don't invite dictatorship and for heaven's sake don't rationalize or give it permission to exist, with your "reasons" for why it could be happening!

The Media is the perfect place to invite the beginnings of censored free speech. To cut out any Candidate is to censor free speech. It is to control the choice AMericans have over who becomes the next president. It is to buy more wars, to buy more theft of civil liberties, to excuse and provide reasons why free speech is curtailed.

DUH!!!

by Kathryn Smith (85 articles, 2 quicklinks, 35 diaries, 323 comments) on Monday, January 7, 2008 at 9:49:51 AM