Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Iowa straw poll in the "News"

  1. #1
    Regular Member hermannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Okanogan Highland
    Posts
    2,332

    Iowa straw poll in the "News"

    I don't know anything about what anyone else heard on the news but here in Central WA, what we hear is about the Iowa poll is:..

    Bachmann wins, Perry anounces candidicy, Romney in NH, and narry a word by how closely Ron Paul came to coming out first in that poll...even garbage about Palin, and McCain. What is the media going to do when Ron Paul gets more votes in NH than either (or maybe both) Romney and Perry?

    Romney is not trustworthy, look at his record in MA. IMHO Perry is not trustworthy either...consider his TX OC veto? I know nothing about Bachmann, but I do not want a mother hen in the white house. We'll all be playing the "mother may I" game.
    Last edited by hermannr; 08-16-2011 at 12:44 AM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    SEMO, , USA
    Posts
    578
    Both the Right and Left media are doing everything they can to downplay Paul. Conservative talk shows like Hannity will not mention Ron Paul unless they absolutely have to. Liberal media only uses him to try and show him(and by association conservatives) in a bad light. What really kills me about the Reagan conservatives like Hannity(his own description) is that they have wrapped themselves in the blanket of the Tea Party Movement and are trying to co op it in to a new version of the old GOP. Hannity constantly spouts how he is a part of the Tea Party Movement, then tauts candidates like Newt, who when Tea Party candidates were running against Rinos said you should vote along party lines for the Rinos. Let's not forget the Tea Party Express and FreedomWorks, both of which Dick Armey has had a huge roll in. He's old guard GOP and has successfully re-branded himself as a Tea Party organizer.

    Here are two links from Drudge about Paul and how the media has been treating him


    http://news.yahoo.com/once-fringe-ca...205132862.html



    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/61412.html

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    There is no need to downplay him. He won't do well as his views on defense and foreign policy are too extreme (wack-a-doodle) for most conservatives. Personally, I believe his presidency would put the nation's very existence at risk. Obama's policies are corroding the nation from within. Paul's short-sighted policies could end it in a blinding flash.

    The only reason that he fares as well as he does is that his supporters are a noisy minority (as opposed to the old silent majority). They know how to make their numbers seem much larger than they really are--yet, with all of his spending in Iowa, he still wasn't able to buy a win.

    The main problem is that most of his supporters go all petulant when he loses and refuse to accept any other candidate, many saying that all the other candidates are just as bad as Obama. [Again, the new smilies stink. This one looks nothing like rolling eyes.]

  4. #4
    Regular Member hermannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Okanogan Highland
    Posts
    2,332
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    There is no need to downplay him. He won't do well as his views on defense and foreign policy are too extreme (wack-a-doodle) for most conservatives. Personally, I believe his presidency would put the nation's very existence at risk. Obama's policies are corroding the nation from within. Paul's short-sighted policies could end it in a blinding flash.

    The only reason that he fares as well as he does is that his supporters are a noisy minority (as opposed to the old silent majority). They know how to make their numbers seem much larger than they really are--yet, with all of his spending in Iowa, he still wasn't able to buy a win.

    The main problem is that most of his supporters go all petulant when he loses and refuse to accept any other candidate, many saying that all the other candidates are just as bad as Obama. [Again, the new smilies stink. This one looks nothing like rolling eyes.]
    So I would take it you think that George Washington and clan are all "wacky-doodles"? I will agree, mainsteam republocrats do not like, maybe even fear, Ron Paul, but his ideas are no more radical than George Washington's, James Madisen's, or Thomas Jefferson's.

    I am with him because he does not believe the government's purpose is to babysit it's citizens. The purpose of Good government is to present a level and secure playing field for business to thrive on.

    Do you know why so many good jobs have gone to China? And don't claim wages, especially in electronics which are almost totally automated in their production, very little human intervention. Try the US business tax environment. If there were no taxes on US business, all those jbs would still be here.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by hermannr View Post
    So I would take it you think that...
    Please do not try to tell me what I think. I have explained it. If my post is giving you any trouble, please read it again--more carefully this time.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    There is no need to downplay him. He won't do well as his views on defense and foreign policy are too extreme (wack-a-doodle) for most conservatives. Personally, I believe his presidency would put the nation's very existence at risk. Obama's policies are corroding the nation from within. Paul's short-sighted policies could end it in a blinding flash.
    It is only in the last few decades that "conservatives" have become hawkish. Historically, the Right has worked hard to keep the US out of foreign entanglements. Only since the rise of the NeoCons and the pseudo-fascistic amalgam of the Military-Industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us about, have "conservatives looked gleefully at opportunities to send our brave men and women onto foreign soil into harms way...

    Ron Paul's position on Defense is VERY strong.

    What he objects to is the OFFENSIVE position that the "Right" seems to have taken, and his position on that is purely Jeffersonian.

    If Ron Paul's foreign policy is viewed as "extreme", then it's no wonder the people of this nation are so blase' about the tyrannical abuses of the TSA, DHS, BATFE and other unconstitutional power-grabs here at home--they have lost their way, they have no historical frame of reference, and they have forgotten the words, deeds, and intent of the Founding Fathers.

    If the military-industrial-banking complex would stop funding training, and equipping marginalized tribal groups around the world, and stop their programs of INTENTIONALLY radicalizing these groups in their little Ivy League parlor games of brinkmanship to keep emerging nations destabilized, we wouldn't have to worry about ANY of these so-called "terrorists"...

    Vote for Peace --- Ron Paul--2012 ---- Anything else is a vote for serfdom...
    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression—and this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •