I just saw on CNN that you are working hard to election fairness in reference to Fox new’s exclusion of Ron Paul. Thank you!, Thank you!

Keep the heat on Fox News and don’t give in if they are hard headed. We don’t need what is viewed as their 3rd World type politics in our American system.

This is a clip a a Richmond, Virginia protest of the Fox News decision which is felt to be biased and un-American!:

NBC 12 website (article and video: http://www.nbc12.com/news/state/13037447.html

What do the American people think nationally:
A recent poll showed an overwhelming number of Americans who think Fox News is wrong for their bigotry. 72% of about 58,000 Americans polled here at this poll feel that Fox is wrong:

http://news.aol.com/political-.....ox-debate/

“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.” — George Orwell

Ken
http://www.LaserGuidedLoogie.com

Yes, it is clear why you see Rudy Giuliani as desirable.

Ron, Ron Paul was given the chance by Wendell Goler to correct and revise his first set of remarks. Goler said, “Congressman, surely you’re not blaming the United States for the attacks…” Paul took the opportunity to talk more about “Blowback” and the Saudis.

All he had to do was to say simply, “No Wendell, I’m not blaming the US…” And continue on with his rant.

But he didn’t!

And for that he should be called on the carpet at the very least. I’d prefer to see him castigated for badmouthing his own country.

40 or 50 years ago, they would have brought up on charges of treason people like Paul, for a lot less.

But of course, it’s just one more example of the wussification of America. Today we coddle those who badmouth America and in some corners even praise them.

How disgusting.

Eric Dondero, Veteran
United States Navy
1981-85

USS Kittyhawy CV-63 & USS Luce DDG-38

Member, Veterans of Foreign Wars, American Legion

It may be different but it is still regulated by the FCC, for example the regulation of cable rates. All this is not to say that this is a good thing.

http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consume.....rates.html

Ron said: Both of these lead to matters of significance. Paul is right on Iraq not because he understands the specific problems with this war but because he has opposed every war.

The specific problem with the war was that is was unnecessary. The two major conflicts in my lifetime as a citizen have been the Vietnam War and the Iraq War. Both have been disasters for the US, divided the country, and were unnecessary. As for whether he has opposed every war, I can’t say, but there are some people who are opposed to violence as a means to solving problems and include Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr. I’m not one of them but I respect their view.

Ron said: His denial of evolution and lack of understanding of science further suggest a lack of ability to come to rational decisions about the world, as is also seen in his belief in conspiracy theories.

Your key word is ‘suggest.’ Just because someone denies evolution doesn’t necessary mean that they do not make rational decisions; just as someone who believes in evolution doesn’t necessary mean that they will makes rational decisions.

Ron said: The manner in which he places his religious beliefs over modern science is also reflected in his denial of separation of church and state and his support of measurs such as an amendment to legalize school prayer.

You have to be more specific here. I think that some people mistake that his particular vote is a no to a solution by federal law. That is, just because someone is against having the federal government do something doesn’t mean they don’t want that thing done. To be more specific, just because he is against federal marijuana laws doesn’t mean he wants you to smoke marijuana.

Ron said: You are also misleading with regards to the views of the Democrats. Leaving the possibility open of having some residual troops (which is not the same as saying they will do so) is reasonable considering it is true that we don’t know the situation. What is important is that they realize what a mistake the war was (and preferably opposed it as Obama did). It is also important that the next president realizes we cannot achieve a military victory. A diplomatic settlement is needed which will hopefully include the rapid withdraw of all US troops but at this time it is understandable that a candidate might not want to totally take the possibility of some remaining off the table.

I didn’t mean to be misleading. But they can call it what they want, phased withdrawal, redeployment etc. But Clinton, Edwards, and Obama would not commit to a full withdrawal of troops “by the end of their first term, saying in a televised debate here that they could not predict the future challenges in Iraq.” Since the war was unnecessary, having any troops in Iraq compounds the problems for the Iraqi people since polls show that a majority of the Iraqi people want the US out.

Link

Ron said: Your comments on the Patriot Act are also misleading. The Democrats voted yes as a parliamentary move in order to achieve compromises to make the act less restrictive on civil liberties and in order to have the sunset provisions included. An argument could definately be made that they made for a poor opposition party on this matter. However in considering individual candidates for president what matters is their own views on civil liberties, not whether they participated with their party on what might have been a poor compromise.

I didn’t mean to mislead, I just read their voting record. You can’t compromise liberty and you can’t compromise with Bush and Cheney. That should be clear by now and I think Chris Dodd finally realizes that.

Cheers and Have a Great New Year.

Tom

“Since the Federal Government is involved via the FCC”

Keep in mind that Fox News is on cable, not broadcast so the situation is quite different with regards to licensure of broadcast channels.

“As for his views on the Civil War and evolution, I care not a wit.”

Both of these lead to matters of significance. Paul is right on Iraq not because he understands the specific problems with this war but because he has opposed every war. His denial of evolution and lack of understanding of science further suggest a lack of ability to come to rational decisions about the world, as is also seen in his belief in conspiracy theories. The manner in which he places his religious beliefs over modern science is also reflected in his denial of separation of church and state and his support of measurs such as an amendment to legalize school prayer.

You are also misleading with regards to the views of the Democrats. Leaving the possibility open of having some residual troops (which is not the same as saying they will do so) is reasonable considering it is true that we don’t know the situation. What is important is that they realize what a mistake the war was (and preferably opposed it as Obama did). It is also important that the next president realizes we cannot achieve a military victory. A diplomatic settlement is needed which will hopefully include the rapid withdraw of all US troops but at this time it is understandable that a candidate might not want to totally take the possibility of some remaining off the table.

Your comments on the Patriot Act are also misleading. The Democrats voted yes as a parliamentary move in order to achieve compromises to make the act less restrictive on civil liberties and in order to have the sunset provisions included. An argument could definately be made that they made for a poor opposition party on this matter. However in considering individual candidates for president what matters is their own views on civil liberties, not whether they participated with their party on what might have been a poor compromise.

In any event, I plan on voting for Paul in the New Hampshire on January 8. I’m doing this for a number of reasons including his Nay votes on the Iraq War resolution and the Patriot Act. Also I like his non-interventionist policy and his questioning the wisdom of a number of major party consensus issues like US military bases overseas. What is the need for the US to have military bases in Germany, Italy, Japan, Spain, and The Netherlands?

As for his views on the Civil War and evolution, I care not a wit. All I have to do is to see how the Democrats voted on the Iraq War Resolution (Clinton, Dodd, Edwards, Biden – all Yea) and the Patriot Act (Clinton, Dodd, Edwards, Biden – all Yea) to see how they stood when it mattered. In addition, according to the NY Times, “the three leading Democratic presidential candidates refused on Wednesday night to promise that they would withdraw all American troops from Iraq by the end of their first term, saying in a televised debate here that they could not predict the future challenges in Iraq.”

Link

The Iraq war was started on false premises. You don’t compound the problem by having the US military stay there because you don’t think that the Iraq people are smart and brave enough to fix the problems which the US contributed to.

First of all, you are distorting what Paul said at the debate. He did not simply blame America. He drew a connection between US involvement in the middle east and the opposition to the US by al Qaeda. That is far more accurate that the Republican line that they attacked us because they hate us for our freedom.

Secondly, don’t you believe in freedom of speech? Even if Paul was totally incorrect he would have the right to express his views.

As for the Ron Paul coins, the argument makes little sense. Paul was not the one making the coins.

His refusal to back the eventual nominee is a weak argument. It might be a stronger argument if the Republican Party was disciplining him over this, but it is Fox and not the party which made the decision. (I believe there is still some separation between Fox News and the Republican Party.) However, along these lines, did you note the recent story (which I posted here) in which Paul finally did admit he is considering running as a third party candidate?

The propaganda arm of the GOP – the same GOP with which Ron Paul chooses to caucus and associate himself with as a member of that party? The debate for the party of Rove, Libby, Abramoff, Cheney Bush and rest of the neocons?

Serves him right. One reaps what one sows.

Ron and Dennis and Gravel (and a few others) should have discarded the veil of party long ago, maybe there would be a viable third party by now.

Maybe in another eight years.

The fact that the unconventional candidates associate with either of the conventional parties just gives the party more power to control the message and damages the foundations of real non-gop or real non-demo candidates.

IMHO

He’s lucky we Americans are even letting him run for President, after such a treasonous statement.

Hell, he’s lucky we’re allowing him to keep his citizenship. I think we ought to consider stripping him of his citizenship for that idiotic near treasounous statement, and putting him on a bus with the rest of the illegal aliens and force him to walk across the border to Mexico.

He can think about how he dissed the United States of America, the country of his birth, while he’s sitting around some shack in Matamoros negotiating with some coyote to sneak back into the US using his minted Ron Paul gold coins.

Eric Dondero, Fmr. Senior Aid
US Congressman Ron Paul
1997-2003

There have been occasional comments here and elsewhere where people argue there is, or should be, something illegal about Fox excluding Paul. Despite these comments, I think that almost everyone agrees that Fox has the right to decide who to include, but we also have the right to question their decision.

I utterly detest anyone or any group presuming to suggest that ANYONE, especially themselves, should presume to affirm who is a candidate, other than the candidates themselves. I would only ask whoever would even consider such a thing: who do YOU think you are? You want to count an American out of a contest? JOIN, and then count YOURSELF out.