Fox News and CBS didnt invite Ron Paul

[Spuyten_duyvil]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/31/debate.limits.ap/index.html


NEW YORK (AP) -- ABC and Fox News Channel are narrowing the field of presidential candidates invited to debates this weekend just before the New Hampshire primary, in Fox's case infuriating supporters of Republican Rep. Ron Paul.
http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/2007/POLITICS/12/31/debate.limits.ap/art.paul.gi.jpgFox News says it has limited space in its studio, which leaves Rep. Ron Paul out of a weekend debate.


http://www.cnn.com/.element/img/2.0/mosaic/base_skins/baseplate/corner_wire_BL.gif


The roster of participants for ABC's back-to-back, prime-time Republican and Democratic debates Saturday in New Hampshire will be determined after results of Thursday's Iowa caucus become clear.
Fox, meanwhile, has invited five GOP candidates to a forum with Chris Wallace scheduled for its mobile studio in New Hampshire on Sunday. Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former Sen. Fred Thompson of Tennessee received invites, leaving Paul of Texas and Rep. Duncan Hunter of California on the sidelines.
The network said it had limited space in its studio -- a souped-up bus -- and that it invited candidates who had received double-digit support in recent polls.
In a nationwide poll conducted December 14-20 by The Associated Press and Yahoo, Thompson had the support of 11 percent of GOP voters and Paul was at 3 percent. Paul's support is at 6 percent in a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll conducted in early December.
Paul (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/Ron_Paul) was tied with Thompson for fifth in New Hampshire in the most recent Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll, each with the support of 4 percent of likely voters. Among all New Hampshire voters, Paul led Thompson 6 percent to 4 percent, but that was within the poll's margin of error.
Don't Miss


Paul rakes in millions (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/18/paul.fundraising/index.html)
Jesse Benton, Paul's spokesman, said it was a "big mistake" not to include Paul, especially given Paul's recent success in fundraising. He said the campaign has been trying to reach Fox News to get an explanation for the decision, but its calls had not been returned.
"There very well might be some bias," Benton said. "Ron brings up some topics that aren't very popular with Fox News (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/FOX_News_Network_LLC), as in fiscal responsibility and withdrawing from the war in Iraq ... that does leave us scratching our heads a little bit about whether it was deliberate. Based on metrics, I don't see how you can possibly exclude Dr. Paul."
Some livid Paul supporters are distributing e-mails calling for a boycott of Fox advertisers.
A Fox representative did not immediately return calls for comment about the complaints.
Paul has been invited to a GOP forum that Fox News is sponsoring in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, on January 10, Benton said.
To participate in ABC's (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/ABC_Inc) Saturday night debate, Republican and Democratic candidates must meet at least one of three benchmarks: place first through fourth in Iowa, poll 5 percent or higher in one of the last four major New Hampshire surveys, or poll 5 percent or higher in one of the last four major national surveys.
ABC News anchor Charles Gibson said the criteria were actually quite inclusive. He defended the network taking the initiative in effectively narrowing the field at a point when no actual voters had cast a ballot, except for Iowa caucus-goers.
"You will have had a year's politicking," he said. "You will have had, I think by count, about 641 debates. You will have had national polls and state polls and one state's vote. I think that's pretty indicative."
Gibson said ABC explained the rules for participation in a conference call with all the campaigns and "nobody said, "How dare you!'

Is there a way to embed Timberlake's "Cry me a river"?
woot

[jetsetter]

All the relevant commentators do not expect Paul to come even close to winning the election. There is no reason for the networks to be wasting their time.

[nagant_m44]

who do you support mr. spuyten?

[Spuyten_duyvil]

Giuliani seems like the one who will do the least amount of damage to this country....
I am a republican, but other republican candidates would make me stay at home and not vote period. Too my **** talking about social policy (abortion, gay rights, et al)

Furthermore, in contrast to 80 percent of the people here, I find most of ron paul's talking point to be a form of talking down to people who dont know much about modern economy or politics. He oversimplifies problems, and presents absurdly simpleton solutions. "Genuine candidate" "breath of fresh air" etc, all sound rather oversimplified.

[shocker1]

Typical, I have lost all faith in our election process. Candidates still in the race before the primaries should be given equal time. Hell I lost faith when I lost my paper ballot.

We all know Ron has a snow balls chance in hell of winning. Why such indignation, ignorant accusations and such? If he is not winning then it must be the issues he brings up that ruffle feathers. If what he says is junk politics then let the man speak, the voters will decide, not some corporate ass wipe in some high tower.

[I can't think of a name]

Everyone knows what Ron Paul will say anyway.

1. Terrorism is America's fault
2. The Constitution, its not in the constitution so the government should not do it
3. Gold standard

-----He is pretty un bending on the issues.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

"Based on metrics, I don't see how you can possibly exclude Dr. Paul"


I'd disagree with that - based on all his numbers (i.e. supporters & cash on hand) - Paul is pretty far off the radar.

I think at this point, when looking at the big picture, they probably did the right thing by leaving him out. My reasoning is this - so far into the election season, nobody is going to change their stance on any issues - that would be regarded as flip-flopping. Viewed in a Republican vs. Democrat sense, there's really nothing to gain by including somebody who will reduce the debate to accusations, finger pointing and bickering. All it would do is reduce the chances that the other candidates have vs. their potential Democrat opponents, while doing virtually nothing for Mr. Paul's chances either.

[shocker1]

What? We do not know what any others are gonna say? I mean they are just a product on a shelf really.

Ridiculous bias in this thread from some. In 2010 I will eat my words if all is well and the **** you guys put in office has not taken a mantel of protector from the evil shadows that lurk.

[nagant_m44]

Everyone knows what Ron Paul will say anyway.

1. Terrorism is America's fault
2. The Constitution, its not in the constitution so the government should not do it
3. Gold standard

-----He is pretty un bending on the issues.

ignorance really is bliss.

[shocker1]

Bottom line is the man is in primaries and not including him is bias. If he is on a ballot he has a place in debates, period.

[Spuyten_duyvil]

ignorance really is bliss.
Which applies to linking ANY widely-circulated modern currency to gold.
Clearly quite a few people are outside their areas of expertise.

As for shocker's assertion about equal airtime....Ron Paul wouldnt mind being alibertarian spposedly its entirely up to Fox executives :-)

[shocker1]

Which applies to linking ANY widely-circulated modern currency to gold.
Clearly quite a few people are outside their areas of expertise.

As for shocker's assertion about equal airtime....Ron Paul wouldnt mind being alibertarian spposedly its entirely up to Fox executives :-)
Not really because those debates effect politics and the execs must adhere to unbiased ways. This clearly is biased right here before the primaries in which Ron is a candidate. No room in the studio at Fox?:cantbeli: How he does in those should be the effective indicator of his bid for the Whitehouse. If he is such a kook what is the deal?. This is just another bash Ron discussion.

Let me quote this

Giuliani seems like the one who will do the least amount of damage to this country....
I am a republican, but other republican candidates would make me stay at home and not vote period. Too my **** talking about social policy (abortion, gay rights, et al)You might as well be a damn Democrat.

[Gurdil]

All the relevant commentators do next expect Paul to come even close to winning the election. There is no reason for the networks to be wasting their time.

Your "relevant commentators" don't know that Thomson is polling lower than Paul in New Hampshire.


Giuliani seems like the one who will do the least amount of damage to this country....
I am a republican, but other republican candidates would make me stay at home and not vote period. Too my **** talking about social policy (abortion, gay rights, et al)

Furthermore, in contrast to 80 percent of the people here, I find most of ron paul's talking point to be a form of talking down to people who dont know much about modern economy or politics. He oversimplifies problems, and presents absurdly simpleton solutions. "Genuine candidate" "breath of fresh air" etc, all sound rather oversimplified.

I really would like to see what you call modern economics. Modern economics is going right into collectivism. An economic policy that failed over and over again since ancient times.
If you don't understand what Ron Paul is saying about economics, it just means you that you understand him. There is no shame of saying that.
Ron Paul is advocating a pretty new ideas of Economics. It is the Austrian school economic (Rothbart, Hayek, Von Mise), one of the most recent school.
What I personally see in modern economics is a big lack of ideology.It is :No rules ; We just let politicians spend as much as they want. And we certainly don't give a damm about future generations.

I just beg you to look at this video and do a little research
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjZBOCAgR64




Everyone knows what Ron Paul will say anyway.

1. Terrorism is America's fault
2. The Constitution, its not in the constitution so the government should not do it
3. Gold standard

-----He is pretty un bending on the issues.
1. He never said that. If you don't have anything smart to say against Ron Paul, don't make things up, just do more research.
2. What policing the world? welfare state? People ran away from Europe to America to avoid that. It is ironic to see Americans who wants to adopt Europeans positions like that. Moreover he is for restricting the federal government only. If you belief that you have to push your views on others
by taxing and regulating, you need to understand that everyone isn't like you.
3. Gold standard? Well nobody else is advocating this anyway. And it is outrageous to see that other politicians are not willing to talk about it. If they are against the gold standard, then they should defend paper money.
Beside the gold standard is part of the Constitution.

Ron Paul is the only one bringing "new ideas" inside the republican party. I can tell you what the other candidates are going to say "Oh yeah vote for me, I'm the best, I'm better than everyone else and I hate Hillary Clinton by the way."
If they were answering to Paul's position on economics or monetary policy then there would be a real debate.


To answer back about the polls:
1) I don't think they are very relevant. 5% of Republicans are libertarians. Ron Paul has often been polling under 5%.
2)Ron Paul is appealing to a lot of people because he talks about issues nobody else does. A lot of democrats, independent and people who never got involved in politics will vote for him. They are not represented in the polls.
3)Polls only call republicans who voted for Bush in last Primary. This means, not a lot of people and not of conservatives.
4)A lot of Ron Paul supporters are young and usually have cellphones. The official polls do not count them.
5) Having 5% of neo-conservatives converted to traditional conservatism is already good.

I'm not saying Ron Paul is going to win. But I'm ready to bet he is going to do well and be at least 3rd in New Hampshire.

[Gurdil]

I like the answer of this republican
http://www.nolanchart.com/article772.html


A Letter to Fox News: Explain Excluding Ron Paul from Debate
Maybe we'll get an answerby John Armstrong
(Libertarian)

Minor Correction: The Debate is Actually a "Forum" which is kind of a chat. Dr. Paul may not have been intentionally left out, but how easy would it have been to just answer an email or phone call from anyone instead of keeping people in the dark?
Below is a letter I sent to Fox this morning asking them to explain Ron Paul's being excluded from the January 6th New Hampshire Round Table style debate. If and when I hear back, I will update the post and share their response below.
Email Title: A Sane Ron Paul Supporter
Dear Fox News,
I have trusted your integrity as a major news network since the 2000 election. I am a staunch republican who registered to vote in the state where I was attending college in 1996; I proudly displayed my Jesse Helms sticker on my dorm room door in uber-liberal Chapel Hill. Seeing all of the ridiculous liberals there made me even more conservative. I grew up with a family who loved me but financially had very little. After graduating I have since gone on to build a multimillion dollar (and growing) business. I understand from personal experience the importance of integrity, personal responsibility, hard work, foresight, and making good decisions. My respect for these principles coupled with diligent research of all of the candidates has caused me to support Ron Paul's bid for the Republican Party nomination. For a Carolina grad to support someone who graduated from Medical School at Duke, you know there have to be some pretty solid reasons to justify that support.
I am not writing you to rant about the "unfairness of the Mainstream Media" or to accuse Fox of being a "puppet of the Neo-Cons" as I am sure many of the others who support Dr. Paul's candidacy are. I am just trying to understand candidate Paul's exclusion from the January 6th roundtable debate. I want to be able to watch Fox and not feel like I have to read between the lines like I do when I watch the liberal network media that Fox was created to balance. Please help me understand how someone who:
Will be the 4th quarter's leading Republican (if not overall) fundraiser,
Has indications that he could place as high as 3rd in the Iowa Caucus to be held three nights prior to the roundtable event,
Has a voting record that is so conservative it would make an Amish legislator look like Ted Kennedy,
Is a ten term Republican Congressman,
Truly believes in a smaller federal government as his voting record shows,
Has reasoned analysis based on extensive study for his reasons for not supporting the war in Iraq and his markedly different idea for how to conduct the war on Islamo-Facism (which is quite different than the "hippy" crowd's reasons on these issues),
Has never voted to raise taxes,
Has been married to the same woman for 50 years,
Served in the Air Force as a flight surgeon,
Is the only candidate discussing incredibly important issues like monetary policy,
Returns part of his office's budget to the Treasury each year,
Doesn't accept money from special interests,
Has done the seemingly impossible in awakening a previously apathetic general public to our political system and process,
could not be invited to the debate. When I joined this Party to vote for Bob Dole and Jesse Helms all of the things listed above were things the Republican Party believed in. Many of them bedrock issues. So how was he excluded? The only non-conspiracy theory possibilities I can deduce myself are:
His poll numbers are low (but higher than some of the candidates who are invited).
He hasn't ruled out running as a third party candidate and this could hurt the Republicans' chance of beating whomever they face in the general election so there is no need to give him face time.
He doesn't support the War in Iraq and this somehow makes him not a "real" Republican.
He isn't electable.
These last two issues seem most likely.
As for the first issue, I doubt the executives at Fox will ever read this, but if you (the individual) are still reading, please click the link below.
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002/cr091002.htm (http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002/cr091002.htm).
It is from one of Paul's 2002 speeches and explains why he didn't and doesn't support our military action in Iraq. If you read it, you will see the reasoned; sensible nature of this man and understand that he in no way belongs in the "pacifist hippy" camp in which he seems to be thought of by mainstream republicans. Although he has attracted many of those people as his supporters (which is something no other GOP candidate can say).
For the second issue, isn't electability determined by the voters? Did I miss a memo on that one? When Fox News says, "We report, you decide" does that really mean "We decide, then report, and you decide between our pre-screened options?" Does Fox not realize that Republican Party Loyalists will support whoever is nominated from our party? Does Fox not understand the impact creating these new Republicans (many of whom will be voting for decades to come) could have on our Party? Has Fox thought about the possibility of the loss of all small "l" libertarians from our party, or even the rise of the large "L" libertarian party if Paul’s supporters feel as if our candidate is unfairly omitted?
Does Fox not remember that the reason we were obliterated two years ago in the mid term elections was due to the one issue on which mainstream Republicans (the ones being polled) seem to disagree with Paul most (the War) yet it's also an issue where most Americans agree with him? When Clinton got destroyed halfway through his first term, he made adjustments so that he could win in 1996. Our strategy hasn't changed in the last two years, and anyone running against an Anti-War (for the wrong reasons) democrat while carrying the same old Republican mantle will likely not be electable in a general election anyway.
Maybe I'm wrong about these things (and hopefully I am if Paul isn't nominated) but doesn't Fox owe it to Americans to really let them decide? Please help me understand the exclusion of Dr. Paul from the roundtable debate on January 6th so that I don't have to join the conspiracy theory camp.
Humbly,
John Armstrong

[Spuyten_duyvil]

Is using youtube videos to back u your argument whats up now, as far as ronpaulians are concerned? Terrible
Our economic system has failed over and over? What?
I am sorry I didnt think the discussion deal with alternative universes.
As far as my understanding of economics, I am pretty sure you and at least 85 percent of the members are outclassed by definition.
Modern american economic system is collectivism? I am not sure if wasting my time reading the rest of your post is a good idea.

[Spuyten_duyvil]

You might as well be a damn Democrat.
Because I actually have genuine libertarian views as far as abortion and otehr social issues go? As opposed to being a poser like ROn Paul?

If in your vocabulary democrat stands for common sense, than I appreciate the compliment.

[shocker1]

As far as my understanding of economics, I am pretty sure you and at least 85 percent of the members are outclassed by definition.
.
Really? So you assume your mind exceeds the logic of others and thus is right 85% of the time? What a high minded attitude you have there.



Because I actually have genuine libertarian views as far as abortion and otehr social issues go? As opposed to being a poser like ROn Paul?

If in your vocabulary democrat stands for common sense, than I appreciate the compliment.
Really, well if abortion and social issues are your voting stimuli then you have been deceived. The last thing the Feds should be legislating are bills on social issues. How is he a poser? By letting the States handle rights not in the Constitution? Oh yes the SCOTUS said it is in there but I am still looking for it.

[Gurdil]

Is using youtube videos to back u your argument whats up now, as far as ronpaulians are concerned? Terrible
Our economic system has failed over and over? What?

I could do a 10000 words answer if you want. I just thought it was more suitable to see a serious person answering this (he is part of the GAO, I could be anyone). But I'm not going to waste my time doing this. If you're too lazy to do some basic research. I doubt you will read an endless answer.
now if you don't like youtube. here is the GAO website
http://www.gao.gov/
google is your friend.



I am sorry I didnt think the discussion deal with alternative universes.
As far as my understanding of economics, I am pretty sure you and at least 85 percent of the members are outclassed by definition.
Modern american economic system is collectivism? I am not sure if wasting my time reading the rest of your post is a good idea.Social security, medic aid, Medicare, IRS, FED, department of education, department of energy, no balanced budget etc. well yes that is collectivism.

[Spuyten_duyvil]

I could do a 10000 words answer if you want. I just thought it was more suitable to see a serious person answering this (he is part of the GAO, I could be anyone). But I'm not going to waste my time doing this. If you're too lazy to do some basic research. I doubt you will read an endless answer.
now if you don't like youtube. here is the GAO website
http://www.gao.gov/
google is your friend.


Social security, medic aid, Medicare, IRS, FED, department of education, department of energy, no balanced budget etc. well yes that is collectivism.
Never was a fan of quite a few of the social programs, but calling it collectivism without some sort of a smily face in the end, truly is lunacy.

[Gurdil]

Never was a fan of quite a few of the social programs, but calling it collectivism without some sort of a smily face in the end, truly is lunacy.
The peole behind the classic liberal (libertarianism) ideology (like John Adams, Smith, Toqueville, Bastiat, Hayek, Rothbart, Friedmann, von Mises etc) never said that a half-free society can work. They just said that a society can only work with minimal government spending,with a minimum of fair taxes, sound money and no deficit.
America is far from doing this. It looks like but that's probably because you compare it to Europe. Instead compare America to the America before 1913.
The Bush administration did nothing but increasing the size of the departments and create stupid entitlements programs.

America is far from being a free market society. If you accept the IRS, you accept collectivism as a whole. Today the federal government accept paying the social security, tomorrow it is going to pay unemployed to not do anything and increase minimum wage, just like in Europe.



And even if I had to consider America not being a collectivist country, it is heading towards collectivism at full speed.


Since Ron Paul is probably not going to get the nomination, you can be sure that the next president is going to be Hillary Clinton. She is a complete socialist.

When I hear reporters asking Ron Paul 'What would you let to the federal government?
They should ask to Hillary 'What would let to the private sector?'

[AZRON]

We seem to have all kinds of definitions of Republicans . But I don't see any of the GOP candidates being close to a Dem.

As to Ron Paul he has many good issues he brings up but to me the individual states roll-over to the Feds all the time. Why some states don't challenge the Feds using the 10th Amend. is beyond me. Utah did on the voucher issue and lost Fed funds for ed. Could that be a violation of the 10th. Amend ? Nothing in the USSC delegating ed. to the Fed. gov't.

But I wouldn't vote for RP.

If a Republican refuses to vote by staying home on election day they are giving their voting power to the Dems.

[Gurdil]

We seem to have all kinds of definitions of Republicans . But I don't see any of the GOP candidates being close to a Dem.

As to Ron Paul he has many good issues he brings up but to me the individual states roll-over to the Feds all the time. Why some states don't challenge the Feds using the 10th Amend. is beyond me. Utah did on the voucher issue and lost Fed funds for ed. Could that be a violation of the 10th. Amend ? Nothing in the USSC delegating ed. to the Fed. gov't.

The FED is a private institution above everything. They haven't made one single report since it was created in 1913. They don't have to go in front of the supreme court.

Quick story. I have a friend who went in front of the FED's office in Chicago to promote the anti-fed documentary "America : Freedom to fascism". He talked to the FED's employee and they were pretty receptive. After 15 min a guy came out and ask my friend to leave. My friend wanted to argue (he was on a public sidewalk) but when the FED's guy told he was going to call the cops, he decide to stop arguing. He was so astound, he went to a police car and asked the police officer if this could really happen. The officer answered something like "Whatever the fed guy is saying, we just do it".
Remember the FED is a private institution. They have control of the Police and the FBI. State just have to shut up.



But I wouldn't vote for RP. Could you correct this and say "I wouldn't vote for RP. But I fully understand that America is going bankrupted and the monetary system is not making any sense what so ever."


If a Republican refuses to vote by staying home on election day they are giving their voting power to the Dems.

I think only Ron Paul can beat a Democrat. Most of American are against the war. But they don't realize people like Clinton, Obama or Edwards are probably not going to able to bring to troops home.

[Lt. James Anderson]

I think only Ron Paul can beat a Democrat. Most of American are against the war. But they don't realize people like Clinton, Obama or Edwards are probably not going to able to bring to troops home.

Only RP can beat Hillary. If she wins there will be plenty of stupid wars for us to fight .. If she wins war with Iran is a sure thing (by her second term will have people being sent to gulags).

[Power_serj]

That's because Ron Paul will bring this country down and Fox and CBS don't want to see that happen. His foreign policy of removing US military bases out of Europe and the Middle East, and pulling our troops out of Iraq the first day of his presidency would remove our Super Power status almost immediately, and would cripple our standings in global politics.

This would give Iran and Islamic extremists groups complete control of the Middle East oil, which is vital to the economy of our country. His moves that he promises would lead to the fall of the United States, and possibly the fall of the entire West.

I'm a Republican, but if it were Ron Paul against a Democrat I would not vote, and I would cry for this country.

[Lt. James Anderson]

pulling our troops out of Iraq the first day of his presidency would remove our Super Power status almost immediately, and would cripple our standings in global politics.

Bla bla bla ... I bet you we can still kick anybody's azz with or without our bases in Europe and everywhere else .
Have you been to Iraq? If not (why not), what are you waiting for since you are so concern about out "superpower status" being lost with us not being there?

[2Sheds_Jackson]

The FED is a private institution above everything. They haven't made one single report since it was created in 1913. They don't have to go in front of the supreme court.

The fed is only partially private - it consists of both private and federal entities. The fed's board of governors is a federal agency. Both federal and private entities are subject to the law, so neither are "above everything". Both can face scrutiny, prosecution, and can wind up in front of the SC.

As far as having never made one singe report - how about these?
2006 Annual Report (http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/rptcongress/annual06/default.htm)
2005 (http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/rptcongress/annual05/default.htm)
2004 (http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/rptcongress/annual04/default.htm)
2003 (http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/rptcongress/annual03/default.htm)
2002 (http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/rptcongress/annual02/ar02.pdf)
2001 (1.7 MB PDF) (http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/rptcongress/annual01/ar01.pdf)
2000 (1.6 MB PDF) (http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/rptcongress/annual00/ar00.pdf)
1999 (1.5 MB PDF) (http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/rptcongress/annual99/ann99.pdf)
1998 (1.5 MB PDF) (http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/rptcongress/annual98/ann98.pdf)
1997 (1.4 MB PDF) (http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/rptcongress/annual97/ann97.pdf)
1996 (2.1 MB PDF) (http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/rptcongress/annual96/annual.pdf)
1995 (2.5 MB PDF) (http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/rptcongress/ann95.pdf)

TITLE 12 > CHAPTER 3 > SUBCHAPTER II > § 247Prev | Next § 247. Reports to Congress

The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System shall annually make a full report of its operations to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, who shall cause the same to be printed for the information of the Congress. The report required under this paragraph shall include the reports required under section 1691f of title 15, section 57a (f)(7) of title 15, section 1613 of title 15, and section 247a of this title.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/rptcongress/



He was so astound, he went to a police car and asked the police officer if this could really happen.

I'm a private person, and if your friend was doing the same thing in front of my home or business, I could call the cops, and they'd drag your friend away from there too.



Remember the FED is a private institution. They have control of the Police and the FBI. State just have to shut up.

Wow. That's all, just wow. Where are you gettin' this stuff?

[lider_r]

what is the point in Ron Paul running when he knows he doesn't stand a chance? What is he going to do with all that campaign money?

[Spuyten_duyvil]

Fed controls Police and FBI? I will limit my response to a rhetorical/sarcastic question due to an acute risk of infraction points acquisition. However, I cant help but notice that Ron Paul constituency scares me more than his absurd policies.

[kamaz]

the zealoutry of RP supporters scare me at times. Driving home yesterday, they hung a gigantic banner over the highway with his campaign poster, which annoys the sht out of me. I dont need to see every politicians name in my face for me to make decisions.

His supporters keep spamming every political poll to inflate their true numbers which went from being a minor nuisance to an annoying and pathetic display of idiocy. I've seen all his talking points and he does not impress me, and if the networks use realistic projections, he doesn't have enough support to continue in further debates, just like Brownback and other minor republicans. Enough with the RP drama already.

[Buckeye67]

Funny, I was just thinking that the zealotry of the Ron Paul haters scares me.

[Spuyten_duyvil]

Funny, I was just thinking that the zealotry of the Ron Paul haters scares me.
I am rubber, you are glue? How sophisticated.

[kamaz]

Only RP can beat Hillary. If she wins there will be plenty of stupid wars for us to fight .. If she wins war with Iran is a sure thing (by her second term will have people being sent to gulags).

this is just stupid. way to hype up the hysteria. Only RP can save the Republic. Only RP can save Christmas and the American way of life, only RP can bake cookies perfectly crisp and chocolaty, vote for RP!!

[Spuyten_duyvil]

this is just stupid. way to hype up the hysteria. Only RP can save the Republic. Only RP can save Christmas and the American way of life, only RP can bake cookies perfectly crisp and chocolaty, vote for RP!!
Also, between RP and HIllary, I would probably make it a point to actively go to the polling station and vote for hillary. I dont think she is capable of doing nearly as much damage...

[Buckeye67]

I am rubber, you are glue? How sophisticated.

Takes one to know one.

[MEGR]

the zealoutry of RP supporters scare me at times. Driving home yesterday, they hung a gigantic banner over the highway with his campaign poster, which annoys the sht out of me. I dont need to see every politicians name in my face for me to make decisions.

His supporters keep spamming every political poll to inflate their true numbers which went from being a minor nuisance to an annoying and pathetic display of idiocy. I've seen all his talking points and he does not impress me, and if the networks use realistic projections, he doesn't have enough support to continue in further debates, just like Brownback and other minor republicans. Enough with the RP drama already.

I'm more concerned about the dude holding a RP sign with "Investigate 9/11" written on his shirt.

[kamaz]

Also, between RP and HIllary, I would probably make it a point to actively go to the polling station and vote for hillary. I dont think she is capable of doing nearly as much damage...

I dont understand the republican/far right hysteria over Hillary. I personally am not planning to vote for her, but lets be honest, she isnt a fringe lefty 'Che' tshirt wearing lunatic. If anything she is a cookie-cutter politician that will bend to every special interest group and every poll, with a hint of Bill in the mix.

One of my best friends who handles UK markets for Deutsche Bank is planning on voting for her simply because she is predicted to be a stable choice for markets and economy, not because of her politics. The entire concept of painting a person into a devil simply because they are a god-forbid a 'democrat' is stupid and child-like, and represents the worst in our politics and divisive culture. This goes for democrats as well.

[Buckeye67]

I'm more concerned about the dude holding a RP sign with "Investigate 9/11" written on his shirt.

Yes because no whackos have ever supported any other political candidate.

We've already had that thread several times.

[Spuyten_duyvil]

I dont understand the republican/far right hysteria over Hillary. I personally am not planning to vote for her, but lets be honest, she isnt a fringe lefty 'Che' tshirt wearing lunatic. If anything she is a cookie-cutter politician that will bend to every special interest group and every poll, with a hint of Bill in the mix.

One of my best friends who handles UK markets for Deutsche Bank is planning on voting for her simply because she is predicted to be a stable choice for markets and economy, not because of her politics. The entire concept of painting a person into a devil simply because they are a god-forbid a 'democrat' is stupid and child-like, and represents the worst in our politics and divisive culture. This goes for democrats as well.
Predictably quoted for truth.

[MEGR]

Yes because no whackos have ever supported any other political candidate.

We've already had that thread several times.

I don't disagree; however, that doesn't alleviate my concern. And no, I'm not saying Ron Paul is a nutter who purposely attracts these folks.

[Lt. James Anderson]

this is just stupid. way to hype up the hysteria. Only RP can save the Republic. Only RP can save Christmas and the American way of life, only RP can bake cookies perfectly crisp and chocolaty, vote for RP!!

No! RP is the only REAL person a true American among them all and his the only one that gives a fcuk about the Constitution and this country!

Everybody else is in it for themselves. We are well on our way to become a third world country and he's the only person that can (at least) try to change that ... Most of his supporters are just regular people, middle class, who are sick and tired of all this BS that's been going on for the past 20 + years *actually longer but in the past 20 years it's become more obvious* ...

If Hillary becomes a president, I see this country becoming something along the line of the Soviet Union in 1930s ...

[Lt. James Anderson]

Also, between RP and HIllary, I would probably make it a point to actively go to the polling station and vote for hillary. I dont think she is capable of doing nearly as much damage...

What damage are you talking about? Gold standard instead of printing worthless paper (buying power of an average American has never been lower) ? Protecting our borders as opposed to just BS-ing about it? Going back to what our forefathers meant this country to be as opposed to more and more of the communist BS that we have now?

[Spuyten_duyvil]

O my....
:-(

[kamaz]

.

If Hillary becomes a president, I see this country becoming something along the line of the Soviet Union in 1930s ...

this is exactly the kind of zealot hysteria that I'm talking about.

[I can't think of a name]

the zealoutry of RP supporters scare me at times. Driving home yesterday, they hung a gigantic banner over the highway with his campaign poster, which annoys the sht out of me. I dont need to see every politicians name in my face for me to make decisions.

His supporters keep spamming every political poll to inflate their true numbers which went from being a minor nuisance to an annoying and pathetic display of idiocy. I've seen all his talking points and he does not impress me, and if the networks use realistic projections, he doesn't have enough support to continue in further debates, just like Brownback and other minor republicans. Enough with the RP drama already.


Those posters are in violation of McCain Feingold. Those are campaign contributions.

Also the manipulation of Online polls by Ron Paul supporters is well known.

There is a lot of other embarassing stuff on Ron Paul around the web now. Pictures of him posing with the founders of Stormfront etc...

[lider_r]

No! RP is the only REAL person a true American among them all and his the only one that gives a fcuk about the Constitution and this country!

except when it comes to his rather creative interpretation on religion within the constitution.

Basic scientific research has already been greatly reduced under Bush, Paul removing it completely would kill of so many beneficial programs-


Basic scientific research in the past has provided us with advances such as radiation therapy, the world wide web (created at the CERN in Geneva), satellite technology, cell phone technology, MRIs, radar, DVDs, new drugs, genome research, DNA research and even war technology. Can you imagine life without our laser technology: laser printers, laser surgery? The NY Times just reported that doctors now want to use powerful accelerators (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/26/business/26proton.html?_r=1&oref=slogin) to destroy cancer cells. All this has been the result of basic research. Where is the future of science if the government fails to support it?
Source (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/esther-wojcicki/scientific-research-in-am_b_78842.html)

[Gurdil]

what is the point in Ron Paul running when he knows he doesn't stand a chance? What is he going to do with all that campaign money?
The founders didn't have much support when they start war against England. Not do anything because you were just capable of doing a little is what I call cowardice.


Fed controls Police and FBI? I will limit my response to a rhetorical/sarcastic question due to an acute risk of infraction points acquisition. However, I cant help but notice that Ron Paul constituency scares me more than his absurd policies.

Never heard about the liberty dollar?
http://www.libertydollar.org/ld/legal/raid.htm


the zealoutry of RP supporters scare me at times. Driving home yesterday, they hung a gigantic banner over the highway with his campaign poster, which annoys the sht out of me. I dont need to see every politicians name in my face for me to make decisions.

His supporters keep spamming every political poll to inflate their true numbers which went from being a minor nuisance to an annoying and pathetic display of idiocy. I've seen all his talking points and he does not impress me, and if the networks use realistic projections, he doesn't have enough support to continue in further debates, just like Brownback and other minor republicans. Enough with the RP drama already.

Those are rich spammers. They raised $19millions in 3 months.


Also, between RP and HIllary, I would probably make it a point to actively go to the polling station and vote for hillary. I dont think she is capable of doing nearly as much damage...

Unfortunately for you, History always showed that big government is what is most dangerous and damaging for a country. Ron Paul is the only small-government candidate. Hillary Clinton doesn't want to let anything to the private sector.
OMG, do you know what is a debt going from $20 trillions dollars to 60 trillions dollars in 7 years?? Do you really want the dollar to worth toilet paper?


I'm more concerned about the dude holding a RP sign with "Investigate 9/11" written on his shirt.
I'm not a 9/11 conspiracy theorist but I'm not against a 2nd investigation. Because I don't like the "I won't blame anyone" theory either.

[Spuyten_duyvil]

The founders didn't have much support when they start war against England. Not do anything because you were just capable of doing a little is what I call cowardice.



Never heard about the liberty dollar?
http://www.libertydollar.org/ld/legal/raid.htm



Those are rich spammers. They raised $19millions in 3 months.



Unfortunately for you, History always showed that big government is what is most dangerous and damaging for a country. Ron Paul is the only small-government candidate. Hillary Clinton doesn't want to let anything to the private sector.
OMG, do you know what is a debt going from $20 trillions dollars to 60 trillions dollars in 7 years?? Do you really want the dollar to worth toilet paper?


I'm not a 9/11 conspiracy theorist but I'm not against a 2nd investigation. Because I don't like the "I won't blame anyone" theory either.

Lol Dollar depreciation doesnt have much to do with how much we owe to China and Dubai.
To limit the subprime fallout the fed (correctly)lowered the interest rate, which has a direct effect on the value of the dollar. If they raise it back the dollar will 'magically' appreciate, due to a higher yield for US treasuries.
I mean,this is not even advanced finance...

[AZRON]

The only Dem I would trust is Joe Biden. He gives specifics that are in line with main-line Dem. party issues.

The Clintons are dirty , unethical as all hell and totally ruthless and power hungry.

Obama has to be more specific but comes across as clean and ethical.

Edwards is a trial lawyer , enough said.

As to the Republicans , I trust McCain and Rudy . Undecided about Romney as I find him too smooth. But if you think the economy and trade are key factors Romney is probably better than Clintion.

Social issues are a backseat item to me. None of the Republicans are going to go to the left on them and pushing hard to the right on them isn't critical to me.

[Clayton Gold]

There isnt much to post in this thread that has not already been discussed, but I found this post quite funny:


As far as my understanding of economics, I am pretty sure you and at least 85 percent of the members are outclassed by definition.


Id be pretty interested to see you back this statement up with some qualifications. It's pretty easy to talk, but when you're smarter than 85% of others - you've gotta have something to go on. Being 21 years old and all, you must have - what a PHD in economics ? Maybe a member of Mensa ?

[Andreas]

No matter what, there is to much money in the US election process PERIOD. Its way beyond redicilous, and I cant think of any way to justify spending that much.

Cheers
Andreas

[Spuyten_duyvil]

There isnt much to post in this thread that has not already been discussed, but I found this post quite funny:




Id be pretty interested to see you back this statement up with some qualifications. It's pretty easy to talk, but when you're smarter than 85% of others - you've gotta have something to go on. Being 21 years old and all, you must have - what a PHD in economics ? Maybe a member of Mensa ?
My estimate is based solely on the debates regarding economy and finance I see on these boards, provided ron paul threads are representative of the whole mpnet membership. Within these threads a good 9 out of ten posters do not know what they are talking about and know literally zero about the basic concept of leverage. I am almost done getting a relevant degree (one more semester) and I have been following the economy at large and certain specific sectors for quite a while, in addition to working for a relevant (especially as far as the subprime thing goes) firm.

[shocker1]

Well what a bloated vision of contempt you have for those who do not agree with you. I have a degree in Business Management, B.E.E from UTC, Master Technician, 6 year business owner, 6 year member of the Chamber of Commerce, inventor, Field Engineer for a DOD contractor for 3 years, Field engineer for an electric vehicle company, investor and all round fix anything. I will leave it at that as to the appeal of Ron Paul and why my support for him means a great deal. I think you should back off the condescending attitude you have in all your posts.

[Spuyten_duyvil]

Well what a bloated vision of contempt you have for those who do not agree with you. I have a degree in Business Management, B.E.E from UTC, Master Technician, 6 year business owner, 6 year member of the Chamber of Commerce, inventor, Field Engineer for a DOD contractor for 3 years, Field engineer for an electric vehicle company, investor and all round fix anything. I will leave it at that as to the appeal of Ron Paul and why my support for him means a great deal. I think you should back off the condescending attitude you have in all your posts.

I didnt say you or anyone else were a moron, or a retard. I implied you do not have a proper understanding of how the economy operates, and I stand by that. WHat does business management, technicial, engineer have to do with anything? What do you invest in? I hope its not anything related either directly of inversely related to the performance of the dollar, since in your rhetoric you often times link dollar depreciation to lack of gol standard, when in fact there are a myriad of other more important factors involved.

[D-gin]

It's always funny and yet sad how these threads always end up.


Bottom line is the man is in primaries and not including him is bias. If he is on a ballot he has a place in debates, period.

In regards to what the original story for this thread was, the quote above sums it up.

[Clayton Gold]

My estimate is based solely on the debates regarding economy and finance I see on these boards, provided ron paul threads are representative of the whole mpnet membership. Within these threads a good 9 out of ten posters do not know what they are talking about and know literally zero about the basic concept of leverage. I am almost done getting a relevant degree (one more semester) and I have been following the economy at large and certain specific sectors for quite a while, in addition to working for a relevant (especially as far as the subprime thing goes) firm.

A "relevant degree". That doesn't say much.

I like to think that I'm smarter than everyone else too, but just thinking that doesn't make it so.

I think you'll find people are more receptive to your posts when you present fact, and not simply your condescending opinions. Especially when speaking to those who are more experienced, and successful than yourself.

Either way - I think RP is on to something, and the fact that he can get such strong reactions from both sides of the fence makes him relevant IMO. Whether or not he is right is another story, but he is at least worth listening to during the primaries.

[Spuyten_duyvil]

A "relevant degree". That doesn't say much.

Using deductive reasoning, I think I have provided enough information, seeing as how my major HAS to be related to economic or finance.



I like to think that I'm smarter than everyone else too, but just thinking that doesn't make it so.
My conclusions are self-evident to people with a very basic understanding of how the economy works.



I think you'll find people are more receptive to your posts when you present fact, and not simply your condescending opinions. Especially when speaking to those who are more experienced, and successful than yourself.

Either way - I think RP is on to something, and the fact that he can get such strong reactions from both sides of the fence makes him relevant IMO. Whether or not he is right is another story, but he is at least worth listening to during the primaries.Most people have strong negative reactions because they feel embarassed that someone with RonPaulian ideas can get an audience of more than 3 people. It embarrasses me as an american.

[shocker1]

I WHat does business management, technicial, engineer have to do with anything?
What does your high minded attempt at boasting of your impeccable judgment of MP.net member's ignorance have to do with anything?

What do I invest in? Gold and silver coins, my tools, various Stock funds and my family.

On topic Fox is influencing an upcoming Primary by not inviting all those on the ballot. Americans should expect the political process to run it's course and not have the media decide who is in or out for us. We can do that in the next few months. That is how the system works. Ridiculous and clumsy attempt at shutting out those not in line with the RNC minders at Fox.

[Spuyten_duyvil]

What does your high minded attempt at boasting of your impeccable judgment of MP.net member's ignorance have to do with anything?

What do I invest in? Gold and silver coins, my tools, various Stock funds and my family.

On topic Fox is influencing an upcoming Primary by not inviting all those on the ballot. Americans should expect the political process to run it's course and not have the media decide who is in or out for us. We can do that in the next few months. That is how the system works. Ridiculous and clumsy attempt at shutting out those not in line with the RNC minders at Fox.
Various stock funds? Be more specific, since you attempted to use it to prove your competency in the field of economics/finance.

[Clayton Gold]

Using deductive reasoning, I think I have provided enough information, seeing as how my major HAS to be related to economic or finance.

Using deductive reasoning - that you refuse to specify after making grand claims about your intelligence and education - One would deduce that your claims are not true.


My conclusions are self-evident to people with a very basic understanding of how the economy works.Notice not many people are arguing your "conclusions", but the manner in which they are presented.


Most people have strong negative reactions because they feel embarassed that someone with RonPaulian ideas can get an audience of more than 3 people. It embarrasses me as an american.You should be more embarrased for assuming you know what others think. You are certainly entitled to your own opinion, but telling others that you already know theirs is arrogant.

[Beowulf]

Various stock funds? Be more specific, since you attempted to use it to prove your competency in the field of economics/finance.

What?

Quit being a d-bag.

Do not post in this thread again.

Do not send me a PM.

[Beowulf]

On second thought this thread has gone the same way as so many others.

Locked.