Ron Paul is the only voice of reason on the stage. I do understand how typical fox news watchers would not understand a word he says.

Unbelievable. I can't believe what a complete JOKE this column is. Ron Paul clearly won the last three dabates and that's not just my opinion, it's what the polls told us. Cillizza, your an idiot and don't deserve a job with this paper

To Chris Cillizza:
"Get your head out of your ass."

To everyone else:
"Wake up!!!

RON PAUL clearly won the debate.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18963731/

DON'T TAKE MY WORD FOR IT!

Michael Cain,

Re: South Africa synthetic petroleum production.

Good info - Ill take a better look at the production level. I was going off what a South African Citizen told me for the production level.

Now that I know you guys really check facts this is going to be a good blog to check into regularly.

I wonder if Paul wins a primary if the press will acknowledge his win. I wonder if he win the nomination if the press will acknowledge his win. I wonder if he wins the presidency if the press will acknowledge his win.

"The election results are in and now onto the weather."

I see comments like this and I shudder:

Ron Paul appeared to be high on crack or something in last night's debate. He was completely incoherent, delusional, and downright angry during parts of it. I don't know whether the man is mentally ill or what, but I'm sure most of his followers are. (Courtesy of Sal.)

Just realize that Ron Paul, whether you like him or not, or whether you like his arguments or not, is facing a den of lions. He's got to grapple with the FOX "moderators" who throw out very loaded questions (fair enough, I'm not mocking that, but they are not equally apportioned), deal with an idiotic Giggler on the side (Juveniliani), take on Huckabee, and respond in record time before Hume or some restaurant scene has to cut him off. He can't loaf around like Juveniliani who gets 10 minutes to repeat, 20 times, what he did in New York. He can't stand up like a statuesque McCain and recount POW stories and nonsensical tales of a surge gone well.

No, Paul is fighting upstream against a a mainstream row of stagnant zombies who can't face change. Juveniliani profits mega-big on 9/11 and NAFTA. McCain scoops it up from the cable companies. Romney makes a mint on "technical consulting." Huckabee wants to put more government into every aspect of our lives. Thompson is a great lobbier. These mainstream zombies want to continue with more government, more intrusion, more war, and more of everything that yields little for the American public.

It is hilarious: We Americans can't face CHANGE. Even Kucinich (to his credit) wants to change something. Kucinich and Paul at least believe in something and have principles. But they face a den of lions, a corporatized nanny-state that claims to do everything but achieves little, led by fools who pad their wallets with the labors of the taxpayers.

Maybe too many of us coddled citizens are too high on crack to realize that change is in order. We need to wake up.

So, because the other candidates can't develope the support to back their money, Ron Paul's supporters don't count. I'm not trying to say he is a household name or anything, but, if he has a larger base than the other candidates you can't discount him. He won that debate and may win the primaries because he represents one side. The others are just trying to split their side seven ways, this is why he may very well win. I'm from Arkansas and I support Ron Paul and will be voting for him in the primaries. Judging from this message board he has more support than any other candidate here. Sure, some of yall may not agree with him, but are you guys like Huckabee. He would rather have the nomination and let Hillary be president, than to let the people in his own party who have been right from the beginning like Dr. Paul to take over and beat her.

"South Africa did this too during their embargo and they now make almost all their fuel using this process today."

According to the EIA's figures, South Africa's synthetic fuel program accounts for a bit less than a third of their total petroleum consumption. More than 50% of their petroleum is imported.

That's ok MArk. I'l enlighten you. That's why I'm here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prescott_Bush

" Prescott Bush was admitted to the ΖΨ fraternity while at Yale, though two of his sons and grandson would opt for ΔΚΕ. All four Bushes, however, would be members of the Skull and Bones secret society (along with several Walkers), and Bush has long been implicated in the society's alleged theft of the skull of Native American leader Geronimo, when three Bonesmen were stationed at Fort Sill.[1] Some historians, and Cecil Adams, regard this claim as false.

War seizures controversy
Harriman Bank was the main Wall Street connection for several German companies and the varied U.S. financial interests of Fritz Thyssen. Thyssen had been an early financial backer of the Nazi party until 1938, but by 1939 had fled Germany and was bitterly denouncing Hitler. He was later jailed by the Nazis for his opposition to the regime. Business transactions with Germany were not illegal when Hitler declared war on the United States (December 11, 1941), but, six days after the attack on Pearl Harbor, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed the Trading With the Enemy Act after it had been made public that U.S. companies were doing business with the declared enemy of the United States. On October 20, 1942, the U.S. government ordered the seizure of German banking operations in New York City. President Franklin Roosevelt's Alien Property Custodian, Leo T. Crowley, signed Vesting Order Number 248 seizing the property of Prescott Bush under the Trading with the Enemy Act. The order cited only the Union Banking Corporation (UBC), of which Prescott Bush was a director and held one share, which had connections with a Dutch bank owned by Thyssen. Fox News has reported that recently declassified material "The 4,000 Union Banking shares owned by the Dutch bank were registered in the names of the seven U.S. directors, according a document signed by Homer Jones, chief of the division of investigation and research of the Office of Alien Property Custodian, a World War II-era agency that no longer exists"[2]. By 1941 Thyssen no longer had control over his banking empire which was in the hands of the Nazi government.

E. Roland Harriman--3991 shares (managed and under voting control of Prescott Bush)
Cornelis Lievense--4 shares (He was the New York banker of the German Nazi Party)
Harold D. Pennington--1 share (Employed by Prescott Bush at Brown Brothers Harriman)
Ray Morris--1 share (a business partner of the Bush and Harriman families)
Prescott S. Bush--1 share (director of UBC, which was co-founded and sponsored by his father-in-law George Walker; senior managing partner for E. Roland Harriman and Averell Harriman)
H.J. Kouwenhoven--1 share (organized UBC for Von Thyssen, managed UBC in Nazi occupied Netherlands)
Johann G. Groeninger--1 share (German Industrial Executive, a not unimportant member of the Nazi party)
The Harriman business interests seized under the act in October and November 1942 included:

Union Banking Corporation (UBC) (for Thyssen and Brown Brothers Harriman). The President of UBC at that time was George Herbert Walker, Prescott Bush's father-in-law. He is the grandfather and great-grandfather of the former and current Presidents Bush.
Holland-American Trading Corporation (with Harriman)
the Seamless Steel Equipment Corporation (with Harriman)
Silesian-American Corporation (this company was partially owned by a German entity; during the war the Germans tried to take full control of Silesian-American. In response to that, the American government seized German owned minority shares in the company, leaving the U.S. partners to carry on the business.)
The assets were held by the government for the duration of the war, then returned afterward. UBC was dissolved in 1951. Prescott Bush was on the board of directors of UBC and held one share in the company. For it, he was reimbursed $1,500,000. These assets were later used to launch Bush family investments in the Texas energy industry.

Toby Rogers has claimed that Bush's connections to Silesian businesses (with Thyssen and Flick) make him complicit with the mining operations in Poland which used slave labor out of Auschwitz, where the Auschwitz concentration camp was later constructed.

The New York Herald-Tribune referred to the German industrialist, Fritz Thyssen, as "Hitler's Angel" and mentioned Bush as an employee of the investment banking firm Thyssen used in the USA. The underlying importance is Hitler's known ideology; intelligent business partners clearly knew who they were doing business with. There is no evidence that Thyssen, Harriman or Bush were willing to do so with Hitler. Some records in the National Archives, including the Harriman papers, document the continued relationship of Brown Brothers Harriman with Thyssen and some of his German investments up until his 1951 death.[4] Investigator John Loftus has said, "As a former federal prosecutor, I would make a case for Prescott Bush, his father-in-law (George Walker) and Averell Harriman [to be prosecuted] for giving aid and comfort to the enemy. They remained on the boards of these companies knowing that they were of financial benefit to the nation of Germany." Two former slave laborers from Poland have filed suit in London against the government of the United States and the heirs of Prescott Bush in the amount of $40 billion. A class-action lawsuit filed in the U.S. in 2001 was dismissed based on the principle of state sovereignty.[5]

(For more information on the Bush family and the arms industry, see Samuel P. Bush.)

On July 23, 2007, the BBC Radio 4 series Document reported on the alleged Business Plot and the archives from the McCormack-Dickstein Committee hearings. The program also mentioned Prescott Bush's directorship of the Hamburg-America Line, a company that the committee investigated for Nazi propaganda activities. [3]"

I said previous the gop is going to be Mitt or Thompson. Now it's thompson. Mitt has had to many issues as of lat, a la mccain and rudy. First craig now this

"Mitt Romney Finance Big Wig Charged with Child Abuse

Former Romney financier] Lichfield is named in a federal lawsuit charging that students of the "behavior modification" schools with ties to WWASPS [Worldwide Association of Specialty Schools, founded by Lichfield] were subjected to "physical abuse, emotional abuse and sexual abuse." ...not much has been heard about this in all the yelling and screaming over Hsu even though [Litchfield]'s been bringing in far more money for Flip Flop than Hsu has brought in for Democrats."

One of the greatest things Ron Paul was said he stated during the atGoogletalk dialogue on youtube. He is in the election to win, but winning the next election isn't the ultimate goal. What's really important is what the youth in America thin because our democracy will be shaped by them in the future. I would like to add that generally speaking Ron Paul supporters are young and educated. The rest of you old farts that don't like him-or understand him won't be around in 20 years when all of us are in our 40s. So, take the next election, elect Obama and start a war in Darfur, elect Guiliani and create a stupid money-wasting nation building corps-maybe John Edwards can run it for him, none of that matters. The next president will fail-none of them are all that different. The revolution will come, we will not go away.

Rufus,

All I mentioned was that the germans (Nazis) in WWII used a novel process on a large scale to produce petroleum fuel when they had almost no access to crude oil.

South Africa did this too during their embargo and they now make almost all their fuel using this process today.

I have no belief that Bush is tied to Nazi's nor Nazi money.

I wonder if a challenge, as great as landing a man on the face of the moon by the end of the next decade like in the 1960s, but instead, a challenge to go zero emissions and 95% solar or other "true" renewable, non-polluting energy, is what this nation need--a serious challenge to our "greatness"? If all of us are so patriotic, why not channel our energies into this instead of cooking up stories so we can go to war on weak oil rich countries who happen to have no doubt we are encroaching on their freedom of self-determination? Can you imagine associating tyranny with America, ever...the land of the free?

i'M GALD YOU MENTIONED THAT MARK. sHALL WE DIG A LITTLE DEEPER?

Read on on the baath parties ties to Nazi germany. If the axis would have won ww2. Iraq and perhaps the entire middle east would be selling their oil to that world power.

Not that I'm not glad WE won. But read up on bush's family ties to the nazi's and business ties

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prescott_Bush

"Harriman Bank was the main Wall Street connection for several German companies and the varied U.S. financial interests of Fritz Thyssen. Thyssen had been an early financial backer of the Nazi party until 1938, but by 1939 had fled Germany and was bitterly denouncing Hitler. He was later jailed by the Nazis for his opposition to the regime. Business transactions with Germany were not illegal when Hitler declared war on the United States (December 11, 1941), but, six days after the attack on Pearl Harbor, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed the Trading With the Enemy Act after it had been made public that U.S. companies were doing business with the declared enemy of the United States. On October 20, 1942, the U.S. government ordered the seizure of German banking operations in New York City. President Franklin Roosevelt's Alien Property Custodian, Leo T. Crowley, signed Vesting Order Number 248 seizing the property of Prescott Bush under the Trading with the Enemy Act. The order cited only the Union Banking Corporation (UBC), of which Prescott Bush was a director and held one share, which had connections with a Dutch bank owned by Thyssen. Fox News has reported that recently declassified material "The 4,000 Union Banking shares owned by the Dutch bank were registered in the names of the seven U.S. directors, according a document signed by Homer Jones, chief of the division of investigation and research of the Office of Alien Property Custodian, a World War II-era agency that no longer exists"[2]. By 1941 Thyssen no longer had control over his banking empire which was in the hands of the Nazi government"

So yes. We are in iraq for oil. Fascist controled oil. And the men who want it.

TO bsimon

"For instance, pull troops out of the middle east & other parts of the globe? Sounds great - lower costs, quit meddling in other countries' affairs, lower our risk, etc. But what's the impact? Iran takes over control of the Straits of Hormuz. Oil prices & thus overall energy prices, skyrocket. 70's like gas lines become an every day occurance. US economy crashes"

So its OK for us to invade and occupy countries, causing the lives of innocent people to be lost, kill our troops all in the name of oil prices?

Think about what you just said and how wrong it is.

Now lets talk about the scenario you are afraid of. Lets say that does happen if we pull out of the middle east and we lose some oil supply.

First, approx. 50% of the oil we use is produced domestically (texas, alaska, etc), another large percentage is from canada and then the gulf (mexico). We get very little oil from the middle east.

Second, this scenario has happened previously in history. Look at Germany WWII. They lost access to oil and were able to run their thirsty tanks on fuel produced from coal (Fisher-Tropsch process - look it up). It took them very little time to get that method of production up and running - why - they were motivated. We can do the same here - we have huge reserves of coal (and oil actually - in oil shale - but its hard to get out)

The scenario your afraid of would actually make us energy independent in short order, yes with some struggle, but not impossible as we wouldnt be losing anywhere near 100% of our oil supply. Our troops would be out of the middle east and we would be safer at home.

So are you still for a war for oil at the expense of lives and liberty?

Blarg,

I am happy to get back to you on your question of why I support Ron Paul from a Democrats perspective, but as it requires a lot of typing I will have to do it this weekend.

To all - if your going to respond how about trying to be mature and thoughtful? This goes for both sides of the issues and candidates. Leave off the CAPS.

I for one dont really buy into the whole consipiracy gov't theory, but there are some RP supporters who do (some are on this blog obviously). Obviously going around saying the end of the world is coming because the "top tier" candidates on both sides are in a secret club to remove all personal liberties to make themselves wealthy and in control isnt going to garner support of rational people.

I look forward however to debating with the rational people here some more.

How many times does Ron Paul have to make a fool of the establishment candidates before one of them completely explodes. It's easy pickings for RP. Ghouliani blew off steam by laughing, but McCain is just a Volcano waiting to erupt. Watch for him in the next few debates.

ALL THE TOP CANDIDATES OF BOTH PARTY'S ARE BOUGH AND PAYED FOR BY THE CFR AND THE GLOBAL ELITE. AND THESE ARE THE PEOPLE WHO FORMING THE NORTH AMERICAN UNION. WE NEED RON PAUL AS PRESIDENT TO STOP THEM, AND ROLL BACK THE CLOCK ON THIS NEW WORLD ORDER.

THER EIS NOTHIGN MORE IMPORTANT TO OUR POLITICAL PROCESS THAN GETTING fOX AND ruSH OFF THE AIR. tHAT SHOULD BE AMERICANS NUMBER ONE PRIORITY MOVING FORWARD alexis.

If we are a self-government how can we vote and make decisions if the media is taking the lead from fox. Selling out the country for personal monetary gain? Corporations are trying to propogate so they make more money. That is not news. That is not how the political process is supposed to work.

We are supposed to be one nation voting on the issues. Fox and the right-wing attack machine trivializes the issues and goes after that with is unimportant. How can we comabt that? Get them off the air

We need to discuss more important things in the world

You hit teh nail on the head mark. And who are the one's discreditting paul? The one's that continue to pillage and rape this country, all the while claiming to be patriots. While they choose party over county, self over country every time.

That used to be treason. The gop has turned treason into a party platform. We'll see how many americans buy it. I have faith my country has rejected fascsim. 08 we will do this once and for all.

This article is is truly a sad piece of reporting. To not even acknowledge Paul's place in this debate is appalling and unjust.

Mark, if you're a Democrat, why do you support Paul? His stance on the war is shared by many Democratic candidates. If you care about the issues that Democrats normally care about (social justice, health care, etc.), how do you deal with Paul's positions on these issues? Is there anything you like about him except for his stance on the war?

'Would Ervin like to come to dinner at the home of journalist Christopher Hitchens and meet Chalabi?'

Hitchens may be even more of a weasel than I ever imagined.

Chris,

I think you knew not mentioning Ron Paul in this new post would get you a lot more comments and attention, more so than mentioning him.

However from a political standpoint Ron Paul deservces serious mention and discussion.

Its dissapointing that you are afraid to seriously discuss Ron Paul, especially since you have to admit, when he spoke it was the highlight and exciting part of the debate.

Why cant we have open, honest debate on why are in Iraq? We can still support the troops while having this debate. Here's an RP quote for you to work off of "Some seemed to identify the government and the people as if they were one entity. But you and I know that once the government moves beyond its very limited constitutional mandate, it is an opponent of the people, a rip-off operation that takes our money and our freedom and our social peace, and gives us a mess of statist pottage in return."

But hey on the bright side your not purposefully slandering and disrespecting Ron Paul, like many other news "journalists" have been.

I hope you will take a serious look into Ron Pauls campaign. It requires more than a 10 minute effort though to really understand and appreciate his views.

Sincerely,
A democrat for Ron Paul (who had donated to the campaign)

SInce this site seems to have died for the day. I can post this.:

"This is not only "Illogical, Captain," as Mr. Spock would say, it's quite
dangerous, because it shows that if authoritarian followers like the conclusion, the
logic involved is pretty irrelevant. The reasoning should justify the conclusion, but for
a lot of high RWAs, the conclusion validates the reasoning. Such is the basis of many
a prejudice, and many a Big Lie that comes to be accepted. Now one can easily
overstate this finding. A lot of people have trouble with syllogistic reasoning, and high
RWAs are only slightly more likely to make such mistakes than low RWAs are. But
in general high RWAs seem to have more trouble than most people do realizing that
a conclusion is false.
Deductive logic aside, authoritarians also have trouble deciding whether
empirical evidence proves, or does not prove, something. They will often think some
thoroughly ambiguous fact verifies something they already believe in. So if you tell
them that archaeologists have discovered a fallen wall at ancient Jericho, they are
more likely than most people to infer that this proves the Biblical story of Joshua and
the horns is true--when the wall could have been knocked over by lots of other groups,
or an earthquake, and be from an entirely different era (which it is)."

Blarg writes
" you're not going to get good answers from the Ronbots. They're so far to the right that they can't see any distinction between Democrats; they think anyone left of Bush is a socialist."


I'm not so sure they're that far to the right; I think they just don't think things through. A lot of what Rep Paul talks about can sound great, on the surface. But once you start thinking through the ramifications - his 'solutions' would create new problems.

For instance, pull troops out of the middle east & other parts of the globe? Sounds great - lower costs, quit meddling in other countries' affairs, lower our risk, etc. But what's the impact? Iran takes over control of the Straits of Hormuz. Oil prices & thus overall energy prices, skyrocket. 70's like gas lines become an every day occurance. US economy crashes.

Certainly not the end of the world, but also not the smartest direction we could move.

Rufus, you're not going to get good answers from the Ronbots. They're so far to the right that they can't see any distinction between Democrats; they think anyone left of Bush is a socialist.

Ron Paul wants to basically eliminate the federal government. He specifically opposes universal health care and all forms of welfare. There's practically no common ground between him and any Democrat, with the possible exception of the war. His ideas of the responsibilities of government are based in 1790.

I know this thread is about r's only. I'm talking as a whole. ALL I hear here, as far as d's is clinton lovers and clinton haters.

To all the "paulites" (new word) out there. I agree Ron Paul is onpoint, for a republican.

But I don't hear much support for edwards or obama on this site. So to all the paulites out there, what do you like about paul that edwards or obama doesn't give youas president? Is it stricly taxes or what? Please enlighten me. Paul is a republican. How can we hold republcians accountable for the last 15 years if we keep electing them?

Lookie what turned up in the Draper tome on the Bush Administration, on page 223:

"The CIA had long thought Chalabi was a liar. His outlandish claims that a liberated Iraq would surely recognize Israel and would welcome permanent US military bases on its land soured Powell and Armitage on him as well. Armitage became to wonder how the INC was spending the millions of dollars that State was funneling to it. When Chalabi was unable to produce receipts, Powell's deputy ordered an audit. While the State Department's Inspector General, Clark Kent Ervin, was proceeding with the investigation, he received a call from a Chalabi friend. 'Would Ervin like to come to dinner at the home of journalist Christopher Hitchens and meet Chalabi?' the caller wanted to know."

Well, isn't THAT interesting. Ervin was investigating the INC's failure to produce any receipts for millions of dollars in taxpayer money, and he gets a mysterious dinner invite to Hitchens' home with the head of the very organization he's investigating. Cozy.

Bsimon, it looks like those NC results are from this poll:
http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2007/09/north_carolina_poll.html

I alslo found some interesting SC results:
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2007/09/thompson_clinto.html

In this poll, Thompson and Giuliani are virtually tied in SC, 19-18. Undecided still wins with 20%.

anon-
got a link for those figures?

They imply that Thompson might indeed take over from 'none of the above'....

.

In NC, Thompson, R- Demagogue, kicks Rudy, R-Prima Donna, out of first place.

Republicans:
Thompson 34%
Giuliani 16%
Romney 13%
McCain 7%

If candidates could win on the strength of their fanatical supporters, Ron Paul would do very well. However, it isn't, and its quite clear from the polls (real ones, not online manipulated ones) that he has no hope of winning the nomination.

I thought Mitt did well with what he got thrown. Obviously he's the guy with the target on his back, and that means he's perceived as the frontrunner. Chris, he shouldn't have apologised AGAIN. As George Allen learned, you don't keep apologising, it kills you.

Huckabee had a great time with Paul exchange. He is becoming a real factor in this race. Surely he will push Brownback out soon? There's not room for both of them.

Giuliani did fine, but his answers to the questions about his personal life will continue to dog him. In truth, he has no answer. Not to the GOP "family values voters".

Jackson wrote - "Ron Paul is to the Republican Party what Dennis Kucinich is to the Democrats."
This is somewhat true. Although I back 100% of DK's ideas and only agree with Paul on the war, I have to give him mad props for standing alone on what he believes in. Kucinich is just a little further left than the pack, while Paul is totally off the charts as far as the Bushaholics are concerned. Not only that, the Libertarians don't really support him either. Well, the Libertarian voters do, but not the party.
I'm hoping he'll run on some third party ticket and do for Hillary what Ross Perot did for Bill.
As for as Freddy being a winner, the Fix's author has his head so far up his butt he must be able to see Peking. Thompson landed with a huge thwump on his lazy, condescending and very ugly derriere.

Given that none of the Republicans is going to be elected President, the big winner of the entire dance is Ron Paul, who is going to see the greatest growth in his lecture fees. The lecture fees candidacy is a tradition dating back to John Anderson's run for President in 1980. Ralph Nader, Alan Keyes, now Ron Paul--all have made money by increasing their visibility. The only thing that can hurt Ron Paul's chances of making some real money over the next few years are supporters like Oscar Goldman, who hates and scorns.

For all the rabidly anti-Paul supporters, I do not have the time to waste on you. I thoroughly hate you and scorn you, and I hope you all lose badly in the coming elections, and walk into the pages of history feeling thoroughly shamed, insulted, and less than human.

Ron Paul appeared to be high on crack or something in last night's debate. He was completely incoherent, delusional, and downright angry during parts of it. I don't know whether the man is mentally ill or what, but I'm sure most of his followers are.

Romney.

Arrogant. Pro-abortion. Wrong for America.

Oscar, I'm curious about your proposed new society. I have a few questions, if you don't mind.

1. Would it be easy to tell the humans and cyborgs apart?
2. Would they broadcast ALL the Star Trek shows? Even 'Deep Space Nine'?
3. In reruns? Or would they have to keep making new ones?
4. How many episodes per season?
5. Can we get rid of Janeway and bring back Kirk?
6. Can we have one where Kirk and Picard battle to the death, but not REALLY 'cause they're only pretending to fool the Klingon commander into disabling his Death Ray, and then when he disables it Kirk goes "NOW, Mr. Picard!" and then Picard like pushes this switch, and this big net falls down from the ceiling all over the Klingon commander and the commander goes "Destroy them, Lieutenant Uthra!" but then Lieutenant Uthra takes off his mask and it's Ron Paul, and he saves everyone from the Income Tax Monster, and they're all like "Hooray Ron Paul!" but then they get like this broadcast from the Earth, and it says, like, "Help! This war we started is destroying the Earth!" and everyone bums out, but then Ron Paul saves the day by bringing them all to the planet Libertaria, and they all live happily ever after playing Doom and eating pizza, and watching Mystery Science Theater 3000, except sometimes they play with computers?

If so, you've convinced me and I will vote for Ron Paul.

(snort)

You mean someone actually saw me in this movie? Dude, find a girlfriend. Or at least a hobby.

Ha-ha. Effective use of humor. I get it. Very funny.

But seriously, the tables are soon going to turn, and I suggest that if you have a serious stake in a non-Paul Presidency, you start making alternate plans.

You are like Grand Moff Tarkin, the Teutonic-looking sidekick of VAder in Star Wars, standing there all smug in his new Death Star. "Evacuate, in our moment of triumph?"

Yes. That's exactly what I'm talking about. You would not like living in a free, peaceful, and prosperous society where people rise up according to their own merits.

okay... _his_ revolution.

Thank heavens he can bring it about through peaceful means via the remnants of our electoral system.

Hey everyone!

I just heard from another disci- uh, supporter that Ron Paul can fly!

And go invisible!

And zap Al Qaedas with his Death Ray!

I'm ABSOLUTELY voting for him.

I think it is about time to talk about a suit for Zouk with coattails - and sleeves - that can be fastened securely in the back.

And a bite-guard. Can't forget the bite-guard.

http://www.ppao.gov.on.ca/inf-rst.html

One question, Oscar: with his what?

Don't leave us hanging - or "dangling," as it were...

Ron Paul will win the nomination because there is no single candidate who arouses so much wild support among non-Republican registered voters who will turn out to a primary for which they normally will have stayed home.

I'm sorry to break it to all of you unconstitutional warmongering supporters of global empire and American bankruptcy, but your dogs are going to be caught licking their nether regions when all is said and done. All ye bootlickers of AEI, Lockheed, the Weekly Standard, Fox News, etc...prepare to go looking for real work. Prepare to face your wife and kids, heads held down in the shame of defeat.

In the American Revolution, only 1/3 of the colonial population was firmly in the patriot camp. This is all that is needed for Ron Paul to win back America with _his_.

"I think it is time to start talking about Rudy coattails for getting the House back."

Yes. And last November you predicted the House would stay in the hands of the GOP, right? I won't be surprised if the nominees are RG & HC, but it is too early to call it inevitable.

Tancredo was given only four opportunities to answer questions during those 180 minutes, in fact Tancredo had only one question in the first hour of the debate. FoxNews intentionally made sure he would not receive air time. Tancredo was marginalized to the point of out right discrimination by FoxNews.

rufus--You are continuing to violate copyright laws by overexcerpting and leaving out attribution.

What candidate did the Fox News debate bring you closer to ---------> http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=446

Truth Hunter and Mark: Palmetto Poll in SC has Hillary way ahead and this is a little supriseing since Edwards was the Senator from NC. I'm going to get you guys in the General to go for Hillary.

Sorry truth. I thoguht they were done. Back to subject.

Here's my list.

But Al Gore may shake it up a bit

1.Obama
2. Edwards
3. Kusinich
4.Richardson
5. Paul (as a indy) No republcian gets my vote. Not after the last 15 years.
6. Clinton.

Now, any one who wins, regarless of party I will give them the benefit for the doubt and hope for the best. But if clinton or a R wins, more than likely the country will continue down the same path. Prompting thousands of americans to FLEE SLAVERY for freedom. Sad but true. Our ancestors fled to this country. We may have to flee FROM this great country.

w'ERE DONE FOR THE DAY. sOME READING MATERIAL.

1. Illogical Thinking

All fish live in the sea.
Sharks live in the sea..
Therefore, sharks are fish.
The conclusion does not follow, but high RWAs would be more likely to say the
reasoning is correct than most people would. If you ask them why it seems right, they
would likely tell you, "Because sharks are fish." In other words, they thought the
reasoning was sound because they agreed with the last statement. If the conclusion is
right, they figure, then the reasoning must have been right. Or to put it another way,
they don't "get it" that the reasoning matters--especially on a reasoning test.
77
This is not only "Illogical, Captain," as Mr. Spock would say, it's quite
dangerous, because it shows that if authoritarian followers like the conclusion, the
logic involved is pretty irrelevant. The reasoning should justify the conclusion, but for
a lot of high RWAs, the conclusion validates the reasoning. Such is the basis of many
a prejudice, and many a Big Lie that comes to be accepted.

Deductive logic aside, authoritarians also have trouble deciding whether
empirical evidence proves, or does not prove, something. They will often think some
thoroughly ambiguous fact verifies something they already believe in. So if you tell
them that archaeologists have discovered a fallen wall at ancient Jericho, they are
more likely than most people to infer that this proves the Biblical story of Joshua and
the horns is true--when the wall could have been knocked over by lots of other groups,
or an earthquake, and be from an entirely different era (which it is)."

Global warming. The truth 9/11 movement. Bush is not in with the terrorists.

Mark in Austin, Unless the MSM gets on board, you can't expect Biden and McCain at the top of the tickets. A shame.

Spent time with a group of Dems yesterday... their first choice was Biden, second Richardson. But... I don't think they are caucus goers, so..... what impressed me was the attention they are paying to the campaigns when they are not political junkies like we posters.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

"first and foremost,
followers have mainly copied the beliefs of the authorities in their lives. They have
not developed and thought through their ideas as much as most people have. Thus
almost anything can be found in their heads if their authorities put it there, even stuff
that contradicts other stuff. A filing cabinet or a computer can store quite inconsistent
notions and never lose a minute of sleep over their contradiction. Similarly a high
RWA can have all sorts of illogical, self-contradictory, and widely refuted ideas
rattling around in various boxes in his brain, and never notice it.
So can everybody, of course, and my wife loves to catch inconsistencies in my
reasoning when we're having a friendly discussion about one of my personal failures.
But research reveals that authoritarian followers drive through life under the influence
of impaired thinking a lot more than most people do, exhibiting sloppy reasoning,
highly compartmentalized beliefs, double standards, hypocrisy, self-blindness, a
profound ethnocentrism, and--to top it all off--a ferocious dogmatism that makes it
unlikely anyone could ever change their minds with evidence or logic. These seven
deadly shortfalls of authoritarian thinking eminently qualify them to follow a wouldbe
dictator. As Hitler is reported to have said,"What good fortune for those in power
that people do not think.""

http://members.shaw.ca/jeanaltemeyer/drbob/TheAuthoritarians.pdf

Zouk, coattails are in the proper location anatomically when you speak about Rudy. But, clothing is the wrong sunject.

What is with this "I do not engage in hypotheticals" nonsense? Not engaging in hypotheticals was what got us into this mess in Iraq. "What if the citizens really don't welcome us with flowers?" "Sorry, I don't engage in hypotheticals, so I'm not going to plan for that."

I know these are hand picked by fascsits. But in that you can get what fox is thinking and what they are trying to do.

From the elephant's mouth. Winners and losers. Read between the lines.

"Fred Thompson wins hands down. He was smart enough to stay out of this silliness. He also realized who has the most viewers and it certainly is not a debate. He is the only Republican who has half a chance of winning in November '08." -- John

"Ron Paul won last night's debate. He has the courage to stand alone against seven others who think alike on foreign policy. Ron Paul is the successor to Reagan and "pre 9-11" Bush. From where I sat in the seventh row the crowd seemed to love him. Thanks for hosting a super event." -- Lincoln

"The winner of this debate and of the last three Republican debates is Ron Paul. Any time a candidate defends true constitutionalism, he is the winner. I know his position on Iraq is not popular, but he is right. It is an unconstitutional war and one we cannot win." -- Scott (Lake City, FL)

"I believe Rudy G. won the debate. Watching the debate made me proud to be an American and
a Rebublican." -- Robert

"I am not sure who the winner was, I definitely like Huckabee, the fair tax has my vote! Give me MY money! There is not a whole lot the governor has ever done right, except waste money. Give it to the people that work for it, they know better how to spend it." -- Mike (Ethan, SD)

"I think Rudy Giuliani won the debate, hands down. He is comfortable in his own skin and has a record of leadership and accomplishment that will serve America well. How do you spell leader? R-U-D-Y!" -- Proud American

"Mitt Romney spoke well on all subjects and is more than capable of being the president." -- Jim

"The clear winners were Giuliani, Romney, and Huckabee, in that order. Ron Paul is a very poor excuse for a Republican and should run with the other idiots on the Democrat side." -- Mr. & Mrs. Payton (Florence, OR)

"I think, surprisingly, I was most impressed by John McCain and I would say he "won" the debate. I was also impressed by Romney, Giuliani and Huckabee. Paul is a certified lunatic." -- Rod (Garden Grove, CA)

"Love Huckabee...but Ron Paul represents the 1776 Gentleman Farmer - a man of common sense who loves this country. I'm changing my support to Ron Paul." -- Fred (Dacula, GA)

"MITT ROMNEY. He is the only candidate who answered the questions from a position of strength and honesty." -- Jason (Atlanta, GA)

"I sincerely believe that Congressman Ron Paul won the debate tonight. Since World War II the United States has not declared a war and since that time we have also not won a war. The idea that we can even "win" the war in Iraq is ridiculous because we never declared who it was against or what it was for." -- Luke (Florida)

"Hands down, Mike Huckabee won the debate. He's brilliant, witty, a proven leader, sincere, and right on the only issues that should matter -- life, marriage, and national security." -- Rena

"Rudy Giuliani was the clear winner. His experience transfers perfectly to the challenges of decision making necessary for The Presidency. He accomplished a great deal in New York with reduced crime, tremendously reduced welfare recipients, and lowered tax rates and cleaned up the citiy. I liked his answer to gun control. He said it wasn't the guns he needed to control, it was the criminals. He got them off the streets and the crime goes down. I'd like Duncan Hunter for VP." -- Cordelia (Fletcher, NC)

"It was John McCain hands down. He had a command of the issues and actually answered his question intelligently. Others sidestepped, repeated the same thing or were vague. I am looking forward to the October redebate." -- Gail (Wauwatosa, WI)

"I feel that Ron Paul won this debate. He continues to stick to his principles and, in my opinion, gives the most honest responces. I felt that the the "frontrunners" -- Romney, McCain, and especially Giuliani - avoided answering several questions truthfully and completely. The decision of who I will vote for is between Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee, with me leaning towards Ron Paul." -- Brian (Crossville, TN)

"Rudy Giuliani - Hands down. Track Record & Experience. Let's make America change just like New York did." -- Gary (Pace, FL)

"McCain showed an understanding of all of the questions he was asked tonight. Giuliani and Huckabee were the next in line. I go for McCain as the winner tonight. Thank you for a good debate with good questions." -- V.V.

"Up until tonight's debate, I wasn't sure who the Republican front runner and my choice for President would be. Tonight, John McCain answered my questions and is clearly the man for the job." -- Alfred (Houston, TX)

"Mike Huckabee and John McCain were my favorites in tonight's debate. I am really looking forward to learning more about Fred Thompson. From what I know at this point, he looks like my overall favorite.. It would have been nice to see him in tonight's debate. It is great to be an American! It is a place where our voice can be heard by going to the polls and casting our vote." -- Jess (Michigan)

"While McCain performed better than expected, I thought overall Romney won it. Giulani was just plain disappointing." -- Laurel (California)

"I liked Huckabee and McCain. Most well-spoken. Hopefully McCain knows illegal immigration now." -- Stephen

"I believe that it was a toss-up between Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney. John McCain came across better than he has in a long time, and Huckabee, Hunter and Brownback held their own. Tom Tancredo didn't so well. Poor old Ron Paul has just lost what sanity he ever had. I think the people in white coats should take care of him." -- Mary

"Thanks for airing this debate. Ron Paul sure blew the doors off that place!" -- Christian

"Ron Paul won. The others just stated the same, boring, PC rhetoric. Paul spoke from his heart and it was apparent with all the cheers that Im not the only one who thinks so." -- M.D.

"Ron Paul was the clear winner tonight!" -- John

"Ron Paul spoke most of the truth, but could not win in a Race! Rudy was great, but this was I believe the return of John McCain. Romery was blah to me, Huckabee was perhaps closer to winning the debate, but McCain iIthink is now coming on strong again. If Thompson was in the debate, I might had a different Opinion, but he choose to go on Leno. He did good on Leno, but no debate. McCain won this one!" -- Pat (Sikeston, Mo)

"I think that Ron Paul was the best in the debate! He is someone that speaks truth and isn't a phony, but he doesn't fit the powerful peoples' agendas!" -- Matt Holder

"The poll after the debate shows the clear leader of the pack. Ron Paul is the only hope for America." -- Dan

"Huckabee is the who should win out of everyone, but the sad thing is that he is too nice, too honest, and just too good of a person. I feel as if the good people don't come out on top. Look who is running our congressional field Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi, are you kidding me? Like I said, I think Huckabee would be ideal, but I think Rudy is the one that can beat Hilary! Happy voting. Vote GOP!" -- Caroline

"I feel that Giuliani and Romney were very strong tonight, as expected. Personally, I think John McCain did great! I don't know how this will affect his poll numbers, but I liked what he had to say." -- Sandra

"JOHN MCCAIN. McCain won hands down. He was the only candidate who answered honestly, and stuck to his guns!" -- Philip (Colorado)

"Clearly, Ron Paul won the debate. He was the only candidate that was honest and straight forward with his answers. He stands for the Constitution and the people of the United States. Giuliani is far from impressing. He has forfeited the second amendment and he answers every question the same way. He talks about how he lowered the crime rate in NYC and how it is the safest large city in the nation, NYC, NYC, NYC....NYC. I want to hear about the nation as a whole, not just one city." -- Christy

"Ron Paul won this debate. He is the only one who set himself apart from the pack. The others were bland and similar in every answer. Ron Paul had the right answers for the debate and the future of our country!" -- James (Milford, New Jersey)

"I like Tom Tancredo's stance on illegal immigration and most every other subject debated. I like Huckabee 2nd and Rudy 3rd. I was pleasantly surprised however with McCain's stance on what to do with Iran." -- David (Indiana)

"Mike Huckabee won the debate in my opinion." -- Charles

"Clearly Ron Paul won the debate, he was the only candidate that seems to be speaking reason up there." -- Daniel

"Mitt Romney won the debate." -- Ed

"Giuliani and McCain were my favorite. It really is too bad that Mr. Thompson chose not to introduce himself to us tonight. Feels like we're being manipulated somehow." -- David (Phoenix, AZ)

"The people for me that really said things that stood away from the crowd for me were McCain and Paul. They spoke from their hearts and I agreed with most that they said while the others just sounded like talking points. The spin stops here!" -- Tom (Houston, TX)

"Ron Paul wins all the time because he is the only one who upholds the United States Constitution 100 percent." -- Gerrit (Ephrata, PA)

"I think the debate did not make me more likely to vote for any of the candidates ... the questions are one sided and the liberal candidates are not asked equally challenging (or many ridiculous) questions. Fred Thompson had a much better strategy!" -- Anna (Whippany, NJ)
"

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,295846,00.html

No way was that post at 05:12 PM
by the real rufus.

proudtobeGOP: You are trying to spin again!! What I said in my 04:25 PM post is 100% accurate. For you to try and change my words into something you may think/believe is not at all like you. Bad hair day, I guess.

Shoot. The d's could even win running Biden or RIchardson if they so choosed. The d's are in the driver seat. It is going to be near impossible to lose. I take that back. IT will be impossible for the d's to lose after the last 15 years of destruction by the gop. The only thing standing in the way of the d's is a independant. If the d's continue to be cowards and sell-outs to the gop's money that is where I'm putting my eggs. Independant, for the first time in over 100 years. The country is ready, I think.

The r's are relegated to peanut gallery antics. Lie spin and discredit. They got nothing. Nothing.

Right voter. Let's take roll call if the gop wants to talk candidates.

Rudy- Impossible to make it through the pri.

Mccain-immagration did him in.

Paul- to much truth to be IN the gop much less get the nom.

Thompson-nixon mole. going through leads of campaign like I change my socks. Finally decared. HAsn't done much in 10 years. No chance in the general but may get the nom.

That leaves mitt (the flip-flopping mormon) and Huckabee.

President huckabee? I doubt it. Seriously I doubt it.

So it look slike the gop is running either Mitt or thompson. I'm pretty confident any of the top 6 dem candidates can take either down with little resistance.

The question becomes. Can rudy make it through the pri and get the nom. After his "America's mayor" creditials have been ripped to shredds by the firefighers police and, it seems, everybody that lived in NY during Rudy' time there.

Don't get me started on their lack of "christian" values. And murder hate racism and intolerance is not a "chrsitian" virtue zouk

bsimon - check the current poll results in SC. I don't know any other place considered hard-core like there. rudy is cleaning up, even with the evangs. they are smart enbough to know the courts are now going to decide their issues. the only issues left to vote on is who appoints the judges and who runs the war. guess who can't be trusted to do that from their point of view?

Since this site is so poll happy, I will leave you to discover what we cons already know:

Rudy is winning now and is unlikely to slip
Hillary is winning now and is unlikely to slip
Rudy beats hillary in the general by at least five points. In modern times, that is a lot. He will probably get 3 or 4 of Kerry's states to come over and will require Dem spending in many others that were always safe before.

I think it is time to start talking about Rudy coattails for getting the House back.

bsimon: and fred thompson is just one more tired old man -- and his young wife just makes that even more apparent.

People in the South will never go for Rudy. He's too rude, abrasive and offensive. Not to mention married to a grasping lunatic.

"If a bullet went through the back of the head, it's sectarian," the official said. "If it went through the front, it's criminal."

"Given a lack of capability to accurately track Shiite-on-Shiite and Sunni-on-Sunni violence, except in certain instances," the spokesman said, "we do not track this data to any significant degree."

Attacks by U.S.-allied Sunni tribesmen -- recruited to battle Iraqis allied with al-Qaeda -- are also excluded from the U.S. military's calculation of violence levels.

bsimon: that's what these people like zouk and john can't or won't face: Rudy won't be the nominee, and whoever is will have little appeal to moderate voters.

The report by CRS, Congress' research and analysis arm, was completed Aug. 15 for the House and Senate.

"My assessment is that because of the number and breadth of parties boycotting the cabinet, the Iraqi government is in essential collapse," Kenneth Katzman, the author of the report, said. "That argues against any real prospects for political reconciliation."

Without a political infrastructure in Iraq, any military progress would be short-lived, he added.

Katzman, who grew up in Long Island, also challenged the success of the Baghdad Security Plan, known as the troop "surge," which President Bush claims is working.

"I would even question the military progress," he said.

Many senior State Department officials in Iraq believe a political solution to the war is now "hopeless," according to a top diplomat.

"I would agree with that," Katzman said.

proud says
"Two-for-one remember?"

but I asked
"Why do you GOP people spend ... so little [time] talking about your party's meager offering of candidates??"


Nothing to say on that subject? It is a rather sad assortment of tired old men. I'm surprised they couldn't come up with a better set of candidates.

.

'So bad it makes Gonzo look good.'

not possible.

"Why do you GOP people spend so much time talking about Clinton "

ummm - because she is running for President. why do you Libs spend so much time avoiding talking about clinton? she has taken the mantle of "experience". OK , let's talk about her "experience" All of it.

I would talk about her legislative accomplishments but as you know - there isn't one. If I did nothing for my employer for eight years I don't think my review would suggest a promotion.

I would talk about her business acumen but she sealed those records about her time in Arkansas, working as the lobbyist of her husband, the governor.

so that leaves us her time as first lady/co president. Let's talk about it. start with the list of "accomplishments" listed by Proud. Quite impressive - all those records and first-evers.

highest price ever paid for a pardon
highest rent ever collected for the lincoln bedroom
most chinese yuan ever collected

zouk says
"If you think the NRA or the evangs are going to vote for any of those Dems you got another thing comin. and the fear of madame president will be extremely motivating as it should be."

I didn't say they would vote Dem. I said they wouldn't support him in the primaries. I said his hurdle is in achieving the nomination.

Regarding their fears, I think in the general, there is accuracy to the argument that a Hillary candidacy would drive the repubs to the polls.

But if the Dems nominate someone else & the GOP is selling Giuliani, I think there will be low GOP turnout.

But the topic is the GOP nominees, not HIllary. Thus my initial point: I don't see Giuliani winning the NOMINATION. He's winning the name-recognition race right now, but when it comes to the hard-core Repubs that will vote in the primaries, he's going to have a harder time of it.

"Why do you GOP people spend so much time talking about Clinton""

they must. What else are the going to talk about if they can't attack democrats? How great the gop has been the last 15 years? How they have procedded to destroy the country since their coup of 1992. ARe they going to talk about how "great" their candidates are? HAHAHAHA

So what are the alternatives if the gop has done nothing right in 15 years and has no future in the now? ATtack attack attack. Lie spin discredit. Dicide and conquer. A joke to some, sad to others.

It's only getting sadder for you gop. The next is getting worse and worse. But look at the bright side. What's bad for the gop is good for the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Country over party you sell-out fascsits.

Christian - that's immaterial, because Romney jumped as far away from what the guy was getting at, as quickly as he could.

Turns out that O'l Mitt is even better than Hillary at tap dancing around questions he doesn't want to answer.

proud - 1) actually a female Federal Judge had given Clinton an out by defining sex the way lyle described. Unfortunately for Bubba most people didn't accept it.

2) wasn't Bubba just quoting Bill Gates from his U.S. v. Microsoft testimony when Gates under oath asked what the definition of "is" is?

Chris, that guy in the diner misquoted Romney about Romney's kids' service. It is not responsible (on your part) to repeat the misquotation without offering a correction. Unprofessional.

"Why do you GOP people spend so much time talking about Clinton"

Because they are runnig for POTUS again!!!!! Two-for-one remember?

bsimon, - those issues are already well-known among the voters and the evangs still are going for rudy by a wide margin. Look at SC if you doubt me. It is the Dems who are chanting this exception. the Rs know that national security trumps all else and therefore the most likely winner is the one for them. abortion and gun control is for the courts, not the executive. rudy has effectively ended this speculation by declaring his judge requirements - in essence handing it back to the states. this is a policy even us nuts can get behind. and I think most voters are of the mind that gays should be treated just like everyone else - no worse and no better.

If you think the NRA or the evangs are going to vote for any of those Dems you got another thing comin. and the fear of madame president will be extremely motivating as it should be.

your claim is not supported by the polling data. It is wishful thinking because you know he will clean her clock.

proud writes
"Actually lyle, I believe Clinton's statement in self-defense of that denial was "It depends on what the meaning of is is"."

No, the 'relations' excuse was oral <> sex. The depends on 'is' excuse was regarding the question 'is there a relationship with monica?' to which he said 'No, there 'is' no relationship (there 'was', but there 'is' not)'.

Slick willy, indeed.

Both statements technically accurate, but rehashing the offensiveness of their bald-faced lies AGAIN is pretty counter-productive. Why do you GOP people spend so much time talking about Clinton & so little talking about your party's meager offering of candidates??

koodos to whoever made the initial point today about the "unfairness and bias of fox". I have been screaming it from the top of loud buildings now for 5 years. Now at least the rest of the country,and more importantly the GOP, see how bias they are. Propogandists paid by big oil big drug and defense contractors to mislead the public for profits.

"moderaters" going after candidates. Putting words in their mouth. Was that a debate of a propoganda outlet session? You gop'ers are further gone than I thought if you think NON-Dittoheads are still buying your people's garbage.

HAte me, blame me. I'm the bad guy. It couldn't be the right-wing attack machine or the gop candidates that are the problem. Never that. It has to be everything else in the world. You gop'ers are a lost cause. Hopefully after the 08 spanking it brings you people closer to the rest of us. I don't know why you need that but hey. To each his/her own.

Before there was Hillary on the national stage doing Tammy Wynette and "standing by her man!" there was Effi.

Except Effi stopped standin' and was out the door as soon as the conviction came in.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/06/AR2007090601220.html

"this is what Dems have to say to live with their values."

Mark Foley
David Vitter
Larry Craig
Rudy '3-timing' Giuliani
Newt '3rd times a charm!' Gingrich
John 'only 2 for me' mcCain

party of family values & multiple wives

Hey lylepink! I wondered how long it would take you to chime in about Hillary's vote to authorize the use of military force in Iraq. At least you are consistent, if not particularly rational. Nobody parses her vote like you do, I'll give you that.

Here's one for the record books folks:
"Bubba saying "I did not have Sexual