• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Press Release -? Fox News Excluded Ron Paul from Debate

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: Perry404
Originally posted by: Wreckem


No what it appear to me is, the New Hampshire Republican Party, who is hosting/sponsoring the forum have excluded Paul, not Fox News.
Click to expand...

This could very well be. The result would be the same however. At any rate they should know by now that they won't get away with this and ultimately it will only play into pauls favor by garnering him additional press en mass.
Click to expand...
It will work for them fine. Neither the republicans nor fox nor any other large group wants to see Paul president and as such he will not become president. I like the guy, but once these primaries are done, we'll not hear another peep out of him. He's been interesting but never had a real shot because he is not palatable by the status quo crowd (of whom most of the country is in).

 
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Originally posted by: Perry404
Originally posted by: Wreckem


No what it appear to me is, the New Hampshire Republican Party, who is hosting/sponsoring the forum have excluded Paul, not Fox News.
Click to expand...

This could very well be. The result would be the same however. At any rate they should know by now that they won't get away with this and ultimately it will only play into pauls favor by garnering him additional press en mass.
Click to expand...
It will work for them fine. Neither the republicans nor fox nor any other large group wants to see Paul president and as such he will not become president. I like the guy, but once these primaries are done, we'll not hear another peep out of him. He's been interesting but never had a real shot because he is not palatable by the status quo crowd (of whom most of the country is in).
Click to expand...

Stop believing what foxnoise tells you. You will be absorbed
 
why would Fox have a vested interest in deliberately working against Paul?

wtf do they care who wins the election? they'll continue on with their spin like they always have.
 
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Originally posted by: Perry404
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Originally posted by: Perry404
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
This is horrible, i will call 112 as fast as i can to provide an ambulance for your mind.
Click to expand...

You mean 911? 😀 Thanks for the bump.🙂
Click to expand...

No i mean 112 (I'm English) and you are very welcome.

I just hope you don't go hang yourself when reality hits and Hillary is president.

😀
Click to expand...

Oh you're English. Two peoples separated by a common language then.
Now ah heck off.:beer: We defeated you now we will have victory at home once again.
Click to expand...

One day even you will master the English language, today is not that day.

And you did not defeat us, the French saved your arses since most of you fled like pussies, it it was not for the brave French your nation would not even exist.

And please do not rewrite history, you did bow before our Queen before the French got itsidy mad.

We could have had the most of it but we pretty much divided you into morons and intellectuals, morons in the south and intellectuals in the north.

I am just kidding of course, mixing reality with stories, but in essence, the morons in the south actually were morons who liked race biology and whatever made them appear smarter than they are.

Serious nutjobs... Canada on the other hand is a country i love.
Click to expand...

:brokenheart:
 
Originally posted by: loki8481
why would Fox have a vested interest in deliberately working against Paul?

wtf do they care who wins the election? they'll continue on with their spin like they always have.
Click to expand...

They have ties to the GOP, and the GOP doesn't want someone like Paul making gains. Because even if Paul loses with just 10% of the vote, that is 10% of the GOP that will not vote for any other GOP candidate. Once people support Paul, they are really supporting the ideas of limited government, which all of the other GOP candidates merely talk about. Paul supporters know this, and won't support other candidates.

If Paul loses, I'm not voting in the general election. I cannot be held morally responsible for electing such terrible people. Whether it is Clinton, Guiliani, McCain, Fucklebee, or whatever.

I suspect that Romney is actually a very tolerant person, because of his background. He could be a decent candidate, but he panders so much I can't tell what he actually believes in. I'm pretty sure he would just bring status quo in the end.
 
^ at the same time if all you Republicans who support Paul refuse to vote for Rudy or Romney etc you will in effect help Hillary get elected.

Therefore, by standing on your principles and refusing to vote for a Republican who is not as strongly small government as Paul you will end up with the exact opposite.
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
^ at the same time if all you Republicans who support Paul refuse to vote for Rudy or Romney etc you will in effect help Hillary get elected.

Therefore, by standing on your principles and refusing to vote for a Republican who is not as strongly small government as Paul you will end up with the exact opposite.
Click to expand...

Yup. And don't care. I'll write Paul's name in if I have to.

I will vote for who I think is the best candidate. Period.

Those who vote for different reasons are the problem in this country.

As sad as it is to say, the number one problem with America, is in fact, Americans.
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
^ at the same time if all you Republicans who support Paul refuse to vote for Rudy or Romney etc you will in effect help Hillary get elected.

Therefore, by standing on your principles and refusing to vote for a Republican who is not as strongly small government as Paul you will end up with the exact opposite.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is unfortunate, but neo-conservatives of the GOP now aren't exactly for small government.

Back in the days of Barry Goldwater, the GOP's foundation was holding principles of limited government, individual liberty, and self-determination. I'm not going to fight Democrats by voting for Democrats.

There are two major things that seperate present day Republicans with the Democratic party of 50 years ago:
1. Jesus.
2. They only oppose permanent socialized programs like socialized medicine, but endorse seemingly endless "temporary" programs of the welfare state.

That isn't enough for me.
 
Originally posted by: Legend
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
^ at the same time if all you Republicans who support Paul refuse to vote for Rudy or Romney etc you will in effect help Hillary get elected.

Therefore, by standing on your principles and refusing to vote for a Republican who is not as strongly small government as Paul you will end up with the exact opposite.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is unfortunate, but neo-conservatives of the GOP now aren't exactly for small government.

Back in the days of Barry Goldwater, the GOP's foundation was holding principles of limited government, individual liberty, and self-determination. I'm not going to fight Democrats by voting for Democrats.

There are two major things that seperate present day Republicans with the Democratic party of 50 years ago:
1. Jesus.
2. They only oppose permanent socialized programs like socialized medicine, but endorse seemingly endless "temporary" programs of the welfare state.

That isn't enough for me.
Click to expand...


Exactly. If the Republicans want my vote again, then they need to represent my views. And that means smaller government, and a more humble, non-interventionist foreign policy.
 
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: Legend
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
^ at the same time if all you Republicans who support Paul refuse to vote for Rudy or Romney etc you will in effect help Hillary get elected.

Therefore, by standing on your principles and refusing to vote for a Republican who is not as strongly small government as Paul you will end up with the exact opposite.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is unfortunate, but neo-conservatives of the GOP now aren't exactly for small government.

Back in the days of Barry Goldwater, the GOP's foundation was holding principles of limited government, individual liberty, and self-determination. I'm not going to fight Democrats by voting for Democrats.

There are two major things that seperate present day Republicans with the Democratic party of 50 years ago:
1. Jesus.
2. They only oppose permanent socialized programs like socialized medicine, but endorse seemingly endless "temporary" programs of the welfare state.

That isn't enough for me.
Click to expand...


Exactly. If the Republicans want my vote again, then they need to represent my views. And that means smaller government, and a more humble, non-interventionist foreign policy.
Click to expand...

Yep, and I don't think you even need to point out foreign policy. It's just a part of the effect of a small government. Too often people just think small government means lower spending domestically in regards to economic liberty. But it also means we don't have troops deployed to 100+ other nations, and it doesn't mean we have a government controlling people's social lives.

And Paul isn't a saint either. He is just closest to my position. I think that the government, with the consent of the people, should fund research. Because the free market sometimes is discouraged because returns take several years with millions of funding. But I don't believe that the government should throw money at ethanol. I think the government should really step up stem cell, cancer, nutrition, and anti-aging research.

I don't agree with Paul with abortion. I agree with his logic on how by the Constitution it should be a states issue and that the judicial branch should not legislate. But I don't think we should just end it there. I think the best solution would be to amend the US Constitution to force the states to handle it locally at each district. That way a 14 year old rape victim doesn't have to chose between a long road trip or the black market. But at the same time, an issue that cannot be resolved will be handled locally, as the Founders intended for such issues to be.
 
So you will take Hillary and Universal Healthcare over Romney or Rudy and at least a chance at controlling spending?

That is a rather foolish view to take.

Bush HAS grown the government in the past few years, but outside of Medicare Part B he hasn?t done it in ways that are impossible to reverse. Hillary or Obama take over and give us Universal Healthcare and we will be stuck with it for 20+ years if not longer.

If the choice comes down to a not so good Republican and any Democrat I?ll be pragmatic and take the Republican. At least I know I?ll have a chance, however small it is, to see limited growth in government.
 
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Truthfully, i challenge you arseholes to a debate on topics on Hillary where you are against her, these have to be named topics that she has claimed she will push for.

If i as a spectator can even pull a little bit of this off (and vic, wait for your turn) then your politics suck arse.
Click to expand...

You claim to know HRC's stance on teh issues? So far she's given little indication that she even knows what they are. Even the Dem leaning press has pointed this out (e,g,. Chris Mathews formerly of the Carter Admin). Anytime the MSM tries to press her on her positions, her husband and campaign scream like stuck pigs (e.g., Tim Russert in a previous debate)

So, that's one h3llva boast on your part.

Other than health care, seems to me the top 3 Dems are primarily running on platitudes ("work together for change" "I'll stand up the DC corporate interest for the small people" etc.), not details. And the media has primarily covered their campaigns as one of style, not substance. OTOH, the Repub side has a lot to do with their records.

I suppose this is to be expected. The top 3 Dems (unlike Biden & Dodd) really don't have much as far as records go. Very little experience in office, and all as junior members. HRC claims a "record" as far as First Lady, but won't release any actual records.

OTOH, Romney, McCain & Rudy all have a record of their time in office. Not saying it's a good record. Just that they actualy have one.

I have seen HRC be specific with promises of goverment benefits. Free $500 dollars eductaion savings account for newborns in poverty, free $1,000 saving/retirement account IIRC (it's been a while since those promises were tossed out. That was back before she decided to re-invent herself as the "change candidate" since it was working so well for Obama).

I have recently seem her claim that she would have responded to our current credit crunch by freezing home forclosues. But this is a head scratcher - how? Here, property law is primarily the domain of the states, not the federal gov. I've got bank/court forclosure documents here at hand - it's state court, not fed court. But we'll never know, cuz it's a "promise" about what she WOULD have done, not what she will do.

Fern
 
Of course I'm laughing about RP being left out on this one (I see mental images of Paulbots beating their heads against keyboards in despair; and I laugh of course).

But this is wrong on so many levels and I do not agree with not including him.
 
Perry,

I suggest you edit your thread title & post.

It's not Fox news that is excluding RP, it's the NH Repub party.

HERE is a link providing contact info for the Chairman of the Repub party in NH, the guy who made the decision.

Fern
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
So you will take Hillary and Universal Healthcare over Romney or Rudy and at least a chance at controlling spending?

That is a rather foolish view to take.

Bush HAS grown the government in the past few years, but outside of Medicare Part B he hasn?t done it in ways that are impossible to reverse. Hillary or Obama take over and give us Universal Healthcare and we will be stuck with it for 20+ years if not longer.

If the choice comes down to a not so good Republican and any Democrat I?ll be pragmatic and take the Republican. At least I know I?ll have a chance, however small it is, to see limited growth in government.
Click to expand...


No, what it comes down to is something that is even more important to me, PJ. And that is my own peace of mind. My principle is of more value to me. If we get universal healthcare, its going to be the end of the world. Is it something I want? No, in fact it something I don't support at all, obviously.

But I am either going to be part of the problem, or part of the solution. And I am going to try and retain some integrity here and vote for who I think is the best candidate. Regardless of the result. Like I said, to me, my own peace of mind is more important. And if the republicans lose, its not my fault, PJ, it's their own damn fault.

We can't change the country until we change our parties. We can't change our parties by supporting them when they do wrong.
 
Originally posted by: Fern
Perry,

I suggest you edit your thread title & post.

It's not Fox news that is excluding RP, it's the NH Repub party.

HERE is a link providing contact info for the Chairman of the Repub party in NH, the guy who made the decision.

Fern
Click to expand...

The NH republican party is already swamped. many people are discouraging this and the word is that there are individuals in the NH party working on this for the campaign. From what I can see the pressure is being distributed properly. Trust me the NH republican party is feeling the heat as we speak.
 
Originally posted by: Perry404
Originally posted by: Fern
Perry,

I suggest you edit your thread title & post.

It's not Fox news that is excluding RP, it's the NH Repub party.

HERE is a link providing contact info for the Chairman of the Repub party in NH, the guy who made the decision.

Fern
Click to expand...

The NH republican party is already swamped. many people are discouraging this and the word is that there are individuals in the NH party working on this for the campaign. From what I can see the pressure is being distributed properly. Trust me the NH republican party is feeling the heat as we speak.
Click to expand...

Yup, as they should be. They are learning a lesson here, don't fuck with Ron Paul supporters. 😉
 
Well, there ought to be a law, a federal law ... no wait, it's a state's rights thing .. no wait, this is a private committee (i.e., not a state or federal government organization), isn't it?

The RP folks should be the first to accept the decision to exclude their candidate, painful as it may be. After all many / most / all of them aren't even NH residents, and as Libertarians, they should acknowledge the committee's right to invite anyone they choose for their debates.

Or, do the principles only apply when it makes their candidate sound good?

He'd probably do better to take a blimp ride or do a little campaigning ... chances are he only gets to answer a couple benign questions anyway.

 
It's actually heart warming to see all of these people who don't support Ron Paul agreeing that it was wrong to leave him out of the debate. Gives me a little bit more hope for the future
 
Originally posted by: ScottMac
Well, there ought to be a law, a federal law ... no wait, it's a state's rights thing .. no wait, this is a private committee (i.e., not a state or federal government organization), isn't it?

The RP folks should be the first to accept the decision to exclude their candidate, painful as it may be. After all many / most / all of them aren't even NH residents, and as Libertarians, they should acknowledge the committee's right to invite anyone they choose for their debates.
Click to expand...

If you truly believe this then you must believe we as individuals have a right to protest this decision. No?
The right to protest is at the very heart of a republic and, more specifically, our constitution.

I will not go quietly into the night...

 
PLAISTOW, N.H. -- Ron Paul said the decision to exclude him from a debate on Fox News Sunday the weekend before the New Hampshire Primary is proof that the network "is scared" of him.

"They are scared of me and don't want my message to get out, but it will," Paul said in an interview at a diner here. "They are propagandists for this war and I challenge them on the notion that they are conservative."

Paul's staff said they are beginning to plan a rally that will take place at the same time the 90-minute debate will air on television. It will be taped at Saint Anselm College in Goffstown.

"They will not win this skirmish," he promised.

The Fox debate occurs less than 24 hours after two back to back Republican and Democratic debates on the same campus sponsored by ABC News, WMUR-TV and the social networking website Facebook.

Paul, the Republican Texas Congressman, was wrapping up his final day of campaigning in New Hampshire until the Iowa Caucuses on Thursday.

He spent much of the day campaigning at diners in Manchester and Plaistow and downtown walks in Derry and Exeter.
Click to expand...

Source: Boston.com

I still think Fox and the republican party will give in but this could turn out to be even better then letting Paul into the debate. His rallies are surreal and drowned in excitement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top