So who watched the Sunday morning Debate?

[Eric_Boyer]

This was my highlight:

http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=3958

70% of Iowa republicans want out of Iraq. The straw poll is going to be interesting!

The lowlight? Paul gets the least amount of speaking time of all 9 candidates on the stage.
Polls higher then several, has raised more money then all but Guliani and Romney - yet least amount of time given.

He gets completely skipped on the question of healthcare. I guess a Dr. dsoesn't have much insight on that topic so it isn't media bias.

He also gets skipped completely on taxes, but I guess since he is so weak on that issue it also isn't media bias.


Lastly - Gulaini is disgusting. you know what the problem is with our empire building? According to him the problem is we hand over the democracy to fast. We need to dictate how these countries are run for a much longer time. I'm not making this up, remove the politicaly speak and that is what he was telling us. Exporting demacracy is a great thing, but because these people don't immediately agree with a nation of laws, we need to take it slower. the man is pure evil!

[BrAinPaiNt]

I completely forgot about the debate yesterday. But was watching it on youtube earlier.

Rudy boggles my mind with some of the stuff he says. It really is funny because they gave multiple examples of democracy in other areas that resulted in the people voting in players that are not sympathetic to the US. It is one thing if they put in power who we want. Problem is they don't seem to fathom that many of these people just don't believe in what we think they should believe in.

I honestly wonder if some of these politicians actually think we believe they are only after democracy or if they just don't care if we believe them or not. I would much rather hear them come out and say. We don't really care about the people there, we only care about our own self interests.

As I noted before though, they don't seem to grasp that those people don't always want what is best for the USA. They want what they believe is best for them.

[Eric_Boyer]

I completely forgot about the debate yesterday. But was watching it on youtube earlier.

Rudy boggles my mind with some of the stuff he says. It really is funny because they gave multiple examples of democracy in other areas that resulted in the people voting in players that are not sympathetic to the US. It is one thing if they put in power who we want. Problem is they don't seem to fathom that many of these people just don't believe in what we think they should believe in.

I honestly wonder if some of these politicians actually think we believe they are only after democracy or if they just don't care if we believe them or not. I would much rather hear them come out and say. We don't really care about the people there, we only care about our own self interests.

As I noted before though, they don't seem to grasp that those people don't always want what is best for the USA. They want what they believe is best for them.


This is why I give Tancredo credit. He says some controversial things but if he believes in them then he should say them. He isn't saying something for the sake of electability.

I'm not sure why Tancredo's view on Mecca and Medina are so out of line anyway. He is talking about a hypothetical situation where terrorists are nuking our cities. Push comes to shove, we do come first. And just like Japan, we will be sorry to nuke a bunch of innocent civilians, but America comes first and we will do it if our very existance is in jeopardy.

If some other country wants to embrace natural rights, then we can talk. Otherwise, America will always come first.

[Crown Royal]

I completely forgot about the debate yesterday. But was watching it on youtube earlier.

Rudy boggles my mind with some of the stuff he says. It really is funny because they gave multiple examples of democracy in other areas that resulted in the people voting in players that are not sympathetic to the US. It is one thing if they put in power who we want. Problem is they don't seem to fathom that many of these people just don't believe in what we think they should believe in.

I honestly wonder if some of these politicians actually think we believe they are only after democracy or if they just don't care if we believe them or not. I would much rather hear them come out and say. We don't really care about the people there, we only care about our own self interests.

As I noted before though, they don't seem to grasp that those people don't always want what is best for the USA. They want what they believe is best for them.


One of the biggest reasons I am on the Paul bandwagon is that he has, to my knowledge, never given some silly 'democracy' diatribe. He is a constitutionalist before anything else, not some cold-war era democracy flinging talking head.

And I agree with you Boyer - the media is controlling this far too much. Paul would probably, at this point, be up there with Romney and Rudy if the Media would give him any kind of respect. It's sad that the media can control such things.

[Eric_Boyer]

For 10 years I have been complaining about media bias - and the evidence keeps getting louder and louder.

The debate was a great example. As I mentioned previously, only about 1% of the American Public is watching these debate. the truth is more people tune in that already know who they are voting for - it's like a sporting event to see how your team performs.

So in all of these debates Dr. Paul has won in a landslide. He has very little support from America at large, but out of those watching the debates, a vast majority support him.

It certainly didn't change with this one:

VOTE: WHO WON THE REPUBLICAN DEBATE?Now that the debate's over, it's time to consider the winners and losers.

Who do you think won the Republican debate?

Ron Paul
31,979
Mitt Romney4,028
Rudy Giuliani2,991
Nobody won. I'm voting Democratic.2,957
Nobody. I'm waiting for Fred Thompson or Newt Gingrich to enter the race.2,697
Mike Huckabee2,471
Sam Brownback1,012
Tom Tancredo703
John McCain677
Tommy Thompson400
Duncan Hunter399
Total Vote: 50,314

Now for the problem - the majority of people tuning in to these debates are doing so to watch Ron Paul. 99% of the country doesn't watch. So either the coverage should be tailored to be fair to all candidates, or it should be tailored to give the viewers what they want. Neither thing is happening though. Duncan Hunter is polling lower then Paul nationally yet receives more time in every single debate. Same with Brownback.

That my friends is a case of media bias. The only candidate with a difference message, the only candidate that is getting people to tune in to watch, is the candidate given the least amount of time to air his views.

[BrAinPaiNt]

For 10 years I have been complaining about media bias - and the evidence keeps getting louder and louder.

The debate was a great example. As I mentioned previously, only about 1% of the American Public is watching these debate. the truth is more people tune in that already know who they are voting for - it's like a sporting event to see how your team performs.

So in all of these debates Dr. Paul has won in a landslide. He has very little support from America at large, but out of those watching the debates, a vast majority support him.

It certainly didn't change with this one:



Now for the problem - the majority of people tuning in to these debates are doing so to watch Ron Paul. 99% of the country doesn't watch. So either the coverage should be tailored to be fair to all candidates, or it should be tailored to give the viewers what they want. Neither thing is happening though. Duncan Hunter is polling lower then Paul nationally yet receives more time in every single debate. Same with Brownback.

That my friends is a case of media bias. The only candidate with a difference message, the only candidate that is getting people to tune in to watch, is the candidate given the least amount of time to air his views.

Is that number gap between paul and romney really that big or is that a typo?

The reason I ask is because with the one on fox some time back Paul was leading but once the poll closed he was a couple of points behind romney but both were ahead of Rudy.

Those poll numbers you posted looks like a typo because they are just so much of a gap. Not saying you are wrong but that is a staggering gap.

On a side note.

Has Ron Paul considered doing something like Ross Perot did back in the day and having an hour long show with him talking about this or that so he can get face time?

I don't know if he has the money to pull that off or if there are restrictions for that now.

[Crown Royal]

the truth is more people tune in that already know who they are voting for - it's like a sporting event to see how your team performs.


This is the truth of politics as a whole.

[Eric_Boyer]

Is that number gap between paul and romney really that big or is that a typo?

The reason I ask is because with the one on fox some time back Paul was leading but once the poll closed he was a couple of points behind romney but both were ahead of Rudy.

Those poll numbers you posted looks like a typo because they are just so much of a gap. Not saying you are wrong but that is a staggering gap.

On a side note.

Has Ron Paul considered doing something like Ross Perot did back in the day and having an hour long show with him talking about this or that so he can get face time?

I don't know if he has the money to pull that off or if there are restrictions for that now.

Those numbers were accurate. Now he is down to 26,000 votes so they must of eliminated duplicates or something?

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/BeSeenBeHeard/popup?id=3135373

I don't know what Ron Paul's plans are - I just lead a group of activists. I have a direct line to talk to the campaign manager, the campaign chairperson, and even Ron's kids who are helping with the campaign - but I'm on a need to know basis only as to what they plan on actually doing.

[Crown Royal]

Those numbers were accurate. Now he is down to 26,000 votes so they must of eliminated duplicates or something?

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/BeSeenBeHeard/popup?id=3135373

I don't know what Ron Paul's plans are - I just lead a group of activists. I have a direct line to talk to the campaign manager, the campaign chairperson, and even Ron's kids who are helping with the campaign - but I'm on a need to know basis only as to what they plan on actually doing.

As I was researching him last night, I came across some questions that I had on issues I never saw addressed either in his legislative demeanor, campaigns or debates. What is the best way for me to get answers to these questions?

[Eric_Boyer]

As I was researching him last night, I came across some questions that I had on issues I never saw addressed either in his legislative demeanor, campaigns or debates. What is the best way for me to get answers to these questions?

If you send an email - they do respond....slowly.

If you lie and mention you are from Iowa - it will get answered in far greater detail and with more urgency.....for this week anyway.

Or you could ask it here and I can try to give you the answer.

[Danny White]

Eric -- I was surprised to read today that Ron Paul had proposed some 65 earmarks this year, amounting to over $400 million (including $8 million to market wild American shrimp).

I would have thought that shenanigans like that were beneath him.

Have you heard anything about this?

[Eric_Boyer]

Eric -- I was surprised to read today that Ron Paul had proposed some 65 earmarks this year, amounting to over $400 million (including $8 million to market wild American shrimp).

I would have thought that shenanigans like that were beneath him.

Have you heard anything about this?

He introduces spending earmarks for people in his district, then votes no on them. Media tends to omit that last part.

His feeling is his people deserve this just as much as people in other districts and they shouldnt be the only ones getting punished because they elected a constitutionalist.

[Danny White]

He introduces spending earmarks for people in his district, then votes no on them. Media tends to omit that last part.

His feeling is his people deserve this just as much as people in other districts and they shouldnt be the only ones getting punished because they elected a constitutionalist.

So he's for them before he's against them? That sounds vaguely familiar. :D ;)

You have to admit, though, that the introducing part of it is really the worst part. The fact that he introduces them has a much bigger negative impact on the budget than his lone vote against the bill. He'd have voted against the bill anyway, but thanks to his earmark, an additional $8 million is going to get pisssed away on shrimp marketing.

[Crown Royal]

So he's for them before he's against them? That sounds vaguely familiar. :D ;)

You have to admit, though, that the introducing part of it is really the worst part. The fact that he introduces them has a much bigger negative impact on the budget than his lone vote against the bill. He'd have voted against the bill anyway, but thanks to his earmark, an additional $8 million is going to get pisssed away on shrimp marketing.

It seems to me that he is caught between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand, he is responsible for his constituency and providing for them in an equitable manner. Even if he disagrees that money is spent, he can't very well watch other districts make money while his own is made relatively impoverished because he disagrees on the spending.

[thescarface1989]

Ron Paul after the Debate

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIIHNvt__34

[Eric_Boyer]

So he's for them before he's against them? That sounds vaguely familiar. :D ;)

You have to admit, though, that the introducing part of it is really the worst part. The fact that he introduces them has a much bigger negative impact on the budget than his lone vote against the bill. He'd have voted against the bill anyway, but thanks to his earmark, an additional $8 million is going to get pisssed away on shrimp marketing.

I strongly disagree.

Introducing bad legistlation doesn't create a problem. Passign bad legislation does.

And anycase, I'm not going to criticize the one guy that is trying hard to reduce government spending. He can't do jack if he can't win an election!

Take term limits - Dr. Paul is strongly in favor of them.

Well gee - what a hypocrite - he has served 10 terms in congress yet supports term limits? Yes - and as soon as he can get the rest of congress to go along with him, he will stop running for reelection. Some call this hypocrisy, I call it pragmatic integrity.

[joseephuss]

I strongly disagree.

Introducing bad legistlation doesn't create a problem. Passign bad legislation does.

And anycase, I'm not going to criticize the one guy that is trying hard to reduce government spending. He can't do jack if he can't win an election!

Take term limits - Dr. Paul is strongly in favor of them.

Well gee - what a hypocrite - he has served 10 terms in congress yet supports term limits? Yes - and as soon as he can get the rest of congress to go along with him, he will stop running for reelection. Some call this hypocrisy, I call it pragmatic integrity.

Introducing bad legislation can cause a problem. He may vote no, but it can still pass by other yes votes. It would be better not to introduce it in the first place. That specific part seems pointless to me.

I agree he is not getting a fair amount of time in the debates. I thought it was shameful for Guiliani to demand Paul to apologize for some of his comments during one of the earlier debates. Ron Paul has received face time on Bill Maher's show(twice) and The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.

[AtlCB]

Introducing bad legislation can cause a problem. He may vote no, but it can still pass by other yes votes. It would be better not to introduce it in the first place. That specific part seems pointless to me.

I agree he is not getting a fair amount of time in the debates. I thought it was shameful for Guiliani to demand Paul to apologize for some of his comments during one of the earlier debates. Ron Paul has received face time on Bill Maher's show(twice) and The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.This strategy will not work for Ron Paul. If you're trying to win a Republican primary, you should try to get on Fox News or talk radio. I can't imagine many Republicans watch Bill Maher or Jon Stewart.

[joseephuss]

This strategy will not work for Ron Paul. If you're trying to win a Republican primary, you should try to get on Fox News or talk radio. I can't imagine many Republicans watch Bill Maher or Jon Stewart.

I was not implying that was a winning strategy or that was even his strategy. Just the fact he was on both shows. I know both shows invited him to be on. I am sure he and his crew probably inquired as most candidates do about being on their shows, but those shows sought him out.

Maybe Fox News won't let him on or limits when he is on just like he is limited during the debates. Sure that is what he needs to do to win, but barring any success there he at least just needs to get his name and face out there somehow. Heck, he could even go on The View or something.

[Crown Royal]

Ron Paul was on Fox News yesterday for about 8 minutes.

[Crown Royal]

Introducing bad legislation can cause a problem. He may vote no, but it can still pass by other yes votes. It would be better not to introduce it in the first place. That specific part seems pointless to me.

I agree he is not getting a fair amount of time in the debates. I thought it was shameful for Guiliani to demand Paul to apologize for some of his comments during one of the earlier debates. Ron Paul has received face time on Bill Maher's show(twice) and The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.

I'm confused though. I don't understand everything of the process, so let me know - the earmarks aren't actual laws or asking for additional spendin, but aren't they instead asking for ALLOCATIONS of money that has already been approved to be spent? If he voted no on the money being spent, then I don't see how he has damaged his integrity. if it is going to be spent anyway, he seems to have the responsibility to make sure that his district gets an equitable amount of the money.

[Crown Royal]

If you send an email - they do respond....slowly.

If you lie and mention you are from Iowa - it will get answered in far greater detail and with more urgency.....for this week anyway.

Or you could ask it here and I can try to give you the answer.

OK - here are some things that I have questions on that I haven't found the answers to.

1) Education is my number one issue. I have an affinity for pedagogy, and feel that the US, in terms of education, is in major need of reform. I understand that Paul, as a constitutionalist, feels that states rights are supreme, however, I am unsure where in the constitution this item has ever come up, and education is an issue that is important the nation as a whole. What is his stance on the condition of education in the country, and what would his stance be on educational initiatives if elected.

2) I wish he would go into more detail on his foreign policy. Does he plan on pulling ambassadors from everywhere? Does he plan on slashing defense spending? At what point does he allow us to maintain an international voice, or does he want to build a wall around the country and not let anyone in?

I had more last night - if I think of anything else, I will let you know.

[Crown Royal]

Also, I would like to know his stance on federally funded scientific research, such as NASA.

[Eric_Boyer]

OK - here are some things that I have questions on that I haven't found the answers to.

1) Education is my number one issue. I have an affinity for pedagogy, and feel that the US, in terms of education, is in major need of reform. I understand that Paul, as a constitutionalist, feels that states rights are supreme, however, I am unsure where in the constitution this item has ever come up, and education is an issue that is important the nation as a whole. What is his stance on the condition of education in the country, and what would his stance be on educational initiatives if elected.

2) I wish he would go into more detail on his foreign policy. Does he plan on pulling ambassadors from everywhere? Does he plan on slashing defense spending? At what point does he allow us to maintain an international voice, or does he want to build a wall around the country and not let anyone in?

I had more last night - if I think of anything else, I will let you know.

You are correct on his views on education - he wants states to settle the issue. Even the smallest state has more then a million tax payers - we don't need one federal solution to this problem. You can't find him talking about government solution because he won't be suggesting any.

Two things to keep in mind when it comes to all discretionary spending

1) He understands a transition period is needed to truly end these federal programs. He mentions that the honest thing to do is amend the constitution rather then let it evolve via the courts, threaten the courts, etc.

2) He isn't running to replace King George. The proper role of president doesn't have the power that people make it out to be. He can veto spending that he views is unconstitutional and use the power of his office as a bully pulpit explaining his views. That's it. A veto means unconstitutional spending requires more bipartisanship which is a good thing.

As for foreign policy he is less restricted. I don't anticipate ambassadors being pulled as he wants to pursue talks and free trade with nations. He would begin removing all the ground troops stationed around the world since WW2 and would pull back our naval forces into a less aggressive posture. So yes, spending would be slashed.

That is the extent of what the POTUS can do on his own. He wants out of the UN, but that will require congressional support. If congress wishes to pursue a war he disagrees with he will follow the contitution and faithfully execute the war declaration.

I noticed you asked about NASA and stem cell research. Those are both areas that need an amendment or 2/3 support in congress. I certainly support NASA. I'm not convinced stem cell research - or any potentially lucrative medical research needs corporate welfare to receive funding but am certainly open to debate on it.

[Danny White]

I strongly disagree.

Introducing bad legistlation doesn't create a problem. Passign bad legislation does.

And anycase, I'm not going to criticize the one guy that is trying hard to reduce government spending. He can't do jack if he can't win an election!

Take term limits - Dr. Paul is strongly in favor of them.

Well gee - what a hypocrite - he has served 10 terms in congress yet supports term limits? Yes - and as soon as he can get the rest of congress to go along with him, he will stop running for reelection. Some call this hypocrisy, I call it pragmatic integrity.

Here's Paul's own defense of his earmarking... it's an interesting take but the whole thing still kinda leaves a bad taste.

"Because earmarks are funded from spending levels that have been determined before a single earmark is agreed to, with or without earmarks the spending levels remain the same. Eliminating earmarks designated by Members of Congress would simply transfer the funding decision process to federal bureaucrats rather then elected representatives. In an already flawed system, earmarks can at least allow residents of Congressional districts to have a greater role in allocating federal funds - their tax dollars - than if the money is allocated behind locked doors by bureaucrats. So we can be critical of the abuses in the current system but we shouldn't lose sight of how some reforms may not actually make the system much better."

[Eric_Boyer]

Here's Paul's own defense of his earmarking... it's an interesting take but the whole thing still kinda leaves a bad taste.

Of course it does - they are earmarks - they stink.

Ron Paul passes direct requests from his district onto the body that designates how the funds are distributed. Then he voters against unconstitutional spending. Nobody else is doing a better job. I find it funny that these hit pieces are coming out now - the media is either trying to convince us Dr. Paul is a nobody or they apply distortion.

You know what leaves even a worse taste in my mouth regarding earmarks? The candidates that refuse to release their own list. What are they hiding I wonder? You are close to Brownback - ask him what he is hiding.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2007-07-05-candidates-funding_N.htm

As of Tuesday, 55 House members and two senators —Barack Obama of Illinois, a Democratic candidate for president, and Republican Jon Kyl of Arizona — had released their requests as part of a growing trend, according to Citizens Against Government Waste. Eighty House members and 11 senators have told Schatz's watchdog group that they will not do so.

In addition to Obama, Republican Reps. Duncan Hunter, Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo, all heavy underdogs in the presidential race, have put out their request lists. Republican Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas, Democratic Sens. Joseph Biden of Delaware and Chris Dodd of Connecticut, and Democratic Rep Dennis Kucinich of Ohio have not followed suit.

Hillary also hasn't - but they kind of sneak that in in a different part - she is the chosen one you know. :rolleyes:

[BrAinPaiNt]

Of course it does - they are earmarks - they stink.

Ron Paul passes direct requests from his district onto the body that designates how the funds are distributed. Then he voters against unconstitutional spending. Nobody else is doing a better job. I find it funny that these hit pieces are coming out now - the media is either trying to convince us Dr. Paul is a nobody or they apply distortion.

You know what leaves even a worse taste in my mouth regarding earmarks? The candidates that refuse to release their own list. What are they hiding I wonder? You are close to Brownback - ask him what he is hiding.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2007-07-05-candidates-funding_N.htm



Hillary also hasn't - but they kind of sneak that in in a different part - she is the chosen one you know. :rolleyes:

They would not be putting out hit pieces on Paul if he was such a non threat no chance in hades candidate like they try to pass him off to be.

Shows clearly to me that they are worried about him but don't want to come out and say it so they start throwing some of this stuff out.

[BrAinPaiNt]

This strategy will not work for Ron Paul. If you're trying to win a Republican primary, you should try to get on Fox News or talk radio. I can't imagine many Republicans watch Bill Maher or Jon Stewart.

He has been on fox at least two times off the top of my head and I would venture to say more.

He was on fox after one of the debates and Hannity was going at him and he was on the big show on fox as well. That is at least two separate occasions.

Funny thing about hannity and some of the other republicans going after him just goes to show that they are not true conservatives but neocons.

Paul is the most conservative of the group running yet gets the least talk time and treated like a pariah.

That should be a signal to true conservatives about where their party is at now.

[AtlCB]

He has been on fox at least two times off the top of my head and I would venture to say more.

He was on fox after one of the debates and Hannity was going at him and he was on the big show on fox as well. That is at least two separate occasions.

Funny thing about hannity and some of the other republicans going after him just goes to show that they are not true conservatives but neocons.

Paul is the most conservative of the group running yet gets the least talk time and treated like a pariah.

That should be a signal to true conservatives about where their party is at now.I guess I'm a little out of touch with what is going on the Fox News these days. Hannity makes me wretch. The guy has to be the whiniest talk show host I've ever heard.

[AtlCB]

OK - here are some things that I have questions on that I haven't found the answers to.

1) Education is my number one issue. I have an affinity for pedagogy, and feel that the US, in terms of education, is in major need of reform. I understand that Paul, as a constitutionalist, feels that states rights are supreme, however, I am unsure where in the constitution this item has ever come up, and education is an issue that is important the nation as a whole. What is his stance on the condition of education in the country, and what would his stance be on educational initiatives if elected.

2) I wish he would go into more detail on his foreign policy. Does he plan on pulling ambassadors from everywhere? Does he plan on slashing defense spending? At what point does he allow us to maintain an international voice, or does he want to build a wall around the country and not let anyone in?

I had more last night - if I think of anything else, I will let you know.I think the federal government should completely get out of education. They could just send all of the money collected for education to the states (with the exception of federal grants and guaranteed loans for college). The performance of our elementary, middle, and high schools didn't start going downhill until the federal government got involved.

[Mavs Man]

I think the federal government should completely get out of education. They could just send all of the money collected for education to the states (with the exception of federal grants and guaranteed loans for college). The performance of our elementary, middle, and high schools didn't start going downhill until the federal government got involved.

I think what you said (moving accountability from federal level to state/local level) and implementing some form of school choice/voucher system would help loads in this area.

I also wonder how much it would improve if we would simply raise standards (and salaries) for teachers and remove the extra, unneeded administration and bureaucracy.

[burmafrd]

THere are quite a few places where teaches make a lot of money now. Does not seem to help much. Just throwing money at a problem is a very discredited theory that rarely works. I absolutely agree that there is way too much school bureaucracy.

[Crown Royal]

I think the federal government should completely get out of education. They could just send all of the money collected for education to the states (with the exception of federal grants and guaranteed loans for college). The performance of our elementary, middle, and high schools didn't start going downhill until the federal government got involved.

I think what you said (moving accountability from federal level to state/local level) and implementing some form of school choice/voucher system would help loads in this area.

I also wonder how much it would improve if we would simply raise standards (and salaries) for teachers and remove the extra, unneeded administration and bureaucracy.

THere are quite a few places where teaches make a lot of money now. Does not seem to help much. Just throwing money at a problem is a very discredited theory that rarely works. I absolutely agree that there is way too much school bureaucracy.

I agree with everything you have said here. School funding isn't what I see as the problem when it comes to education. The funds might be distributed inappropriately, but it isn't NASA.

[Sasquatch]

Just throwing money at a problem is a very discredited theory that rarely works.

See Iraq as a case in point.

[Ben_n_austin]

So he's for them before he's against them? That sounds vaguely familiar. :D ;)

Yeah, politicians in general do this a lot. It's not just the John Kerry's of the world. But Ron Paul, however much of a loser candidate he may be, has done this probably the least of them all.

You have to admit, though, that the introducing part of it is really the worst part. The fact that he introduces them has a much bigger negative impact on the budget than his lone vote against the bill. He'd have voted against the bill anyway, but thanks to his earmark, an additional $8 million is going to get pisssed away on shrimp marketing.This is a strong point you make, from a conservative standpoint. But it could be a lot worse than pisssing away money on shrimp marketing....

You know this as well as anyone else, Danny.

I don't know who I'm voting for yet, though. I'll be happy just for the fact that this country is finally moving on.... the sooner we get out of Iraq, and stop spending money there, the better.

And the sooner we get a president who doesn't have his grimy hands in the pockets of big oil, this country will be better of; if only for the fact that it would become more of an honest country.

We need that as opposed to some self-serving, born again Christian....

Gimme a break....

Just bring in the change!

[Ben_n_austin]

I strongly disagree.

Introducing bad legistlation doesn't create a problem.

Yes it does, it wastes time that they could be using to come up with good legislation.

[AtlCB]

I think what you said (moving accountability from federal level to state/local level) and implementing some form of school choice/voucher system would help loads in this area.

I also wonder how much it would improve if we would simply raise standards (and salaries) for teachers and remove the extra, unneeded administration and bureaucracy.I agree. About a third of what is collected by the federal government for schools actually reaches the school itself. :eek:

[Eric_Boyer]

Yes it does, it wastes time that they could be using to come up with good legislation.

We are talking about earmarks only.

The legislation gets penned for these appropriations regardless of what Paul does. Paul is passing along the wishes of the voters in his district to the appropriation committee and they then act on it (or not).

If the federal government is spending 100 billion on earmarks, and my district contributes to this spending, my district deserves to get something back for our tax dollars.

[Eric_Boyer]

Guliani trend

http://img514.imageshack.us/img514/1159/giulianiclosingchartpo4.png

Ron Paul trend

http://img389.imageshack.us/img389/6092/ronpaulclosingchartxg1.png

That large downward trend for Guliani - that was debate #2. :D

[Eric_Boyer]

So, who won the Aug 5th debate?

Based on web traffic after the debate - I think the answer is obvious. :D

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v367/twogunkitten/Picture6.png

[BrAinPaiNt]

So, who won the Aug 5th debate?

Based on web traffic after the debate - I think the answer is obvious. :D

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v367/twogunkitten/Picture6.png

I am not exactly sure of what that graph represents.

It appears, to me, to show traffic to each candidates web site after the debate.

Now as much as I am for Paul I do not know if that shows who WON the debate.

It would seem that at the very least it got others interested in a candidate that was not getting much press and so they went to read up on him.

I might read up on any candidate after a debate if I don't know much about him, does not mean I think that candidate won the debate.

Either way at least it opened up some people to go visit his site, which is a good thing IMO.

[Eric_Boyer]

I am not exactly sure of what that graph represents.

It appears, to me, to show traffic to each candidates web site after the debate.

Now as much as I am for Paul I do not know if that shows who WON the debate.

It would seem that at the very least it got others interested in a candidate that was not getting much press and so they went to read up on him.

I might read up on any candidate after a debate if I don't know much about him, does not mean I think that candidate won the debate.

Either way at least it opened up some people to go visit his site, which is a good thing IMO.

Yep, that's all it is. It shows trends in website traffic.

On the day of the debate Ron Paul's website traffic went way up. Since Ron Paul can't get the media to report on him accurately, seeing a big raise in traffic on his website is a big victory.

I personally wouldn't bother with a candidate that didn't spark in interest based on what was said, but that is just me.