kumble_rocks Posted January 2, 2008 Share Posted January 2, 2008 This cowardly Neo con mouth piece which is a parody in the name of Fair and Balanced news does it again - Ron Paul does not get an invite in a debate by Foxnews before the New Hampshire primary .. What so you Right wingers in this message board who readily embrace this channel ... For those who want to know more about Ron paul can visit his website at http://www.ronpaul2008.com/. Here is my take on this gentlemen- 1. He is a honest politician who has voted against Irag War and Patriot act. He is generally an anti War candidate . 2. Mr. Paul’s vociferous stands on foreign policy, he opposes American foreign policy of empire building and world policing . 3. Just like me , agrees with the concept of blow back principle .. in short what you sow is what you reap .. Incidentally the 9-11 commission and CIA agrees with me on this blow back principle .. That is America's bad foreign policy is somewhat responsible for nascent of terrorist organizations like Al-queda and their subsequent attacks on US interest. 4. Concept of small governments with no federal bureaucracy. Also He is more Libertarian which is, he believes in minimal regulation at home and minimal intervention abroad. 5. Calls for Immediate with drawl of our troops from Iraq and yes South Korea. 6. Trade with Iran and not engage in needless war monging with them. And yes surprise surprise , he is a republican . http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/31/debate.limits.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. Fox News says it has limited space in its studio, which leaves Rep. Ron Paul out of a weekend debate. 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 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. 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, 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." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted January 2, 2008 Share Posted January 2, 2008 Not surprising to see this. It is hilarious to see Fox News channels criticizing Ron Paul whenever they get a chance. I thought they were a news channel and not some analysis coverage agency. Not surprised to see them not invite Ron Paul hence. It remains an enigma where Ron Paul draws his support. The man raised most money via Internet if I am not mistaken, clearly a media where you have 20-30$ donations and not half a million bucks. The man has his supporters though he keeps trailing in the polls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kumble_rocks Posted January 2, 2008 Author Share Posted January 2, 2008 Not surprising to see this. It is hilarious to see Fox News channels criticizing Ron Paul whenever they get a chance. I thought they were a news channel and not some analysis coverage agency. Not surprised to see them not invite Ron Paul hence. It remains an enigma where Ron Paul draws his support. The man raised most money via Internet if I am not mistaken, clearly a media where you have 20-30$ donations and not half a million bucks. The man has his supporters though he keeps trailing in the polls. In an era Special interest , this guy represents what true democracy ought to be . you have hit the nail in the coffin here , it is the individual posters who donate money . Unfortunately we are up against well funded institutionalized republican and democratic machinery . Guys like Ron Paul will never win , but with the advent of the internet who knows ? I am bullish that an average joe in terms of money can become President in the future using only internet as the medium for election campaigning . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandtest Posted January 2, 2008 Share Posted January 2, 2008 KR..could you please elaborate more on US potential presidential candidates.... What are the general view of Indian/Indian origin communities about some Presidential candidates. Whom do you think Indians would support or raise funds (i guess funds play an important role there).. Pardon me for off topic....but I ask since any future Amreekan Prez (from either party) is gonna be cricial for India for some important Indian interests. (1) Support for Nuclear deal with full recognition of India as a "Nuclear state" same as P5 in IAEA which will eventually wave us for carrying out any future tests of miniaturized nukes. (2) Support for India's permanent UN seat -- currently US is the only major country other than Chincommies opposing this. (3) Deep defense co-operation in future with India with respect to sanction free technology transfer for certain ket techs such as AESA radars for jets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted January 2, 2008 Share Posted January 2, 2008 Pardon me for off topic....but I ask since any future Amreekan Prez (from either party) is gonna be cricial for India for some important Indian interests. (1) Support for Nuclear deal with full recognition of India as a "Nuclear state" same as P5 in IAEA which will eventually wave us for carrying out any future tests of miniaturized nukes. (2) Support for India's permanent UN seat -- currently US is the only major country other than Chincommies opposing this. (3) Deep defense co-operation in future with India with respect to sanction free technology transfer for certain ket techs such as AESA radars for jets. None of that is any issue in this election Sandy saab. The policy change, if any, would be in sync with traditional policies of the parties. The issues in this election are - Pakistan, Iraq, China, Health, Immigration & George Bush. xxx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dada_rocks Posted January 2, 2008 Share Posted January 2, 2008 Not surprising to see this. It is hilarious to see Fox News channels criticizing Ron Paul whenever they get a chance. I thought they were a news channel and not some analysis coverage agency. Not surprised to see them not invite Ron Paul hence. It remains an enigma where Ron Paul draws his support. The man raised most money via Internet if I am not mistaken, clearly a media where you have 20-30$ donations and not half a million bucks. The man has his supporters though he keeps trailing in the polls. I have similar complaints about all the indian channels they sound like congress party campaigners .. hardly watch north american TV so have no clue what's on there.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theguyinallblue Posted January 2, 2008 Share Posted January 2, 2008 what is this funda with american president elections and funds raised by supporters..? how does it matter? where is it used..? why it is important..? throw some lights pls... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandtest Posted January 2, 2008 Share Posted January 2, 2008 None of that is any issue in this election Sandy saab. The policy change, if any, would be in sync with traditional policies of the parties. The issues in this election are - Pakistan, Iraq, China, Health, Immigration & George Bush. xxx fair enough Lurker boss.....in fact for any country local/national interest will dominate in election. As you noted -- Pakistan and China -- the US has issues with these two for totally diferent reasons, this is where Indian interests will co-incide in coiming years. So far US has maintained a dual policy with respect to Pakistan. While acknowledging that source of terrorism originates from Pakland, still under Chenney influence Bush authorized sell of latest block F16s jets to Pakistan loaded with AMRAAMs --which are obviously not required for hunt against AK-47 carying Talibunnies. I see this as an act of US to contain growing influence of India over south asia....also another key defense sell to Pakistan is supply of P3C Orion maritime aircraft--under the veil of monitoring sea based terror infiltration. these sofisticated technology to Pakis is an example of CIA influenced US policy of "containment". But there are some candidates (last time Obama gave an statement) to stop arms sale to Pak unless there is full co-operation. Btw...who this Huckabee guy is...I read some positive review from India-defense review. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted January 2, 2008 Share Posted January 2, 2008 Well funds are obviously important. Not only in USA but in India too. It requires money to drive an election campaigning, to recruite pollsters, buy all those jhanda/danda, pay the people who work for you, air-time etc etc. Once we agree that money is needed then the question is who pays the money? Because noone is gonna pay you cos he likes your face, he would do so cos he expects a return on investments. In other words once you become President/PM/MLA he can expect some favours. And so people who get in pockets of big companies are looked as having sold their souls to be with the devil. On the other hand people who raise money from people, like Ron Paul, enjoy their success as people's-man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted January 2, 2008 Share Posted January 2, 2008 So far US has maintained a dual policy with respect to Pakistan. And they will. You have to realize that Pakistan and USA has historical relationship. Specially between Armed Forces. Most of Pakistani bigwigs have enjoyed training in USA. Their defence strategy heavily borrows from USA(including not signing no-first use) and will most likely be this way until next 10 years. AFter this the new officers that will turn up are rabid anti-US and I am not frankly very optimistic of that either. Btw...who this Huckabee guy is...I read some positive review from India-defense review. Huckabee used to be Governor of Arkansas. He is a right winger with strong emphasis on family values. Like a family man he is well behaved and soft spoken. However he is a staunch Christian(he used to be a pastor, still is if I am not mistaken) and you can expect many of his policies to be God-driven. Oh and he doesnt have much knowledge of foreign policies. xxx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kumble_rocks Posted January 2, 2008 Author Share Posted January 2, 2008 KR..could you please elaborate more on US potential presidential candidates.... What are the general view of Indian/Indian origin communities about some Presidential candidates. Whom do you think Indians would support or raise funds (i guess funds play an important role there).. Pardon me for off topic....but I ask since any future Amreekan Prez (from either party) is gonna be cricial for India for some important Indian interests. (1) Support for Nuclear deal with full recognition of India as a "Nuclear state" same as P5 in IAEA which will eventually wave us for carrying out any future tests of miniaturized nukes. (2) Support for India's permanent UN seat -- currently US is the only major country other than Chincommies opposing this. (3) Deep defense co-operation in future with India with respect to sanction free technology transfer for certain ket techs such as AESA radars for jets. Let me start from here - What are the general view of Indian/Indian origin communities about some Presidential candidates.My fair guess would be that Indian/Indian origin communities generally tend to be 70 -30 percentile in terms of democrat/republican demography. Now , depending your party affiliation I would think the support is mostly for Hillary Clinton from the democratic side . BTW , Hillary Clinton is the co-chair of the Senate India caucus. On economic matters, she is seen as more favorable towards outsourcing than her main Democratic rivals. She has also advocated that the US work with India,cooperating on global climate control, protecting global energy supplies, and deepening global economic development. My guess is Hillary is gonna take Iowa , New Hampshire and then win the primary from the Democratic side. From the republican side , I would think that social liberals like Mccain or Guiliani would garnish more support than candidates like Romney or Huckabee who have considerable evangelical christen base. While Indian Americans do lean Republican on taxes, regulation, and some cultural issues, such as those pertaining to family , they are not flocking to the Republican Party much. My guess is Romney is gonna win the primary from the Republican side although it's too close to call. In fact this Republican primary is wide open. Whom do you think Indians would support or raise funds (i guess funds play an important role there)..Like I mentioned before , Democrats among Indian-Americans have raised at least $5 million for the former first lady's presidential campaign, an impressive sum even at the overheated pace of this year's fund raising. They were aided by Bollywood in this regard. (1) Support for Nuclear deal with full recognition of India as a "Nuclear state" same as P5 in IAEA which will eventually wave us for carrying out any future tests of miniaturized nukes. (2) Support for India's permanent UN seat -- currently US is the only major country other than Chincommies opposing this. (3) Deep defense co-operation in future with India with respect to sanction free technology transfer for certain ket techs such as AESA radars for jetsUnfortunately , none of the candidates from either party will support any of your 3 points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kumble_rocks Posted January 3, 2008 Author Share Posted January 3, 2008 Check out Ron Paul's response to Pakistan and Bhutto assassination . He talks about minding our own business and not supporting tin pot dictators like Mushy ... More power to independent thinkers ... DR , pay attention to this video .. z6wlku1aB0k Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dada_rocks Posted January 3, 2008 Share Posted January 3, 2008 Not supporting tin-pot dictators is fine but leaving them to what they please altogether is kind of scary too.. If left alone they will bring taliban in islamabad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kumble_rocks Posted January 3, 2008 Author Share Posted January 3, 2008 Not supporting tin-pot dictators is fine but leaving them to what they please altogether is kind of scary too.. If left alone they will bring taliban in islamabad Like he said , it's also scary that Kim Jong has nukes and erstwhile countries split from USSR also has nukes... What he says is right .. mind our business and trade with countries ..quit meddling in the internal affairs of other country .. just look at Vietnam now , It has MFN status as regards to bilateral trade with USA . Also, do you seriously think Taliban would have been such a force had USA followed Mr Ron Paul's advice and did not seek to topple Najibulla government in Afghanistan ? This foreign policy of world policing must be stopped. Heck , Bush Jr ran on this humble foreign policy .. if only he had followed his principles .. we would have never invaded Iraq and got into this quagmire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dada_rocks Posted January 3, 2008 Share Posted January 3, 2008 Like he said ' date=' it's also scary that Kim Jong has nukes and erstwhile countries split from USSR also has nukes... What he says is right .. mind our business and trade with countries ..quit meddling in the internal affairs of other country .. just look at Vietnam now , It has MFN status as regards to bilateral trade with USA . Also, do you seriously think Taliban would have been such a force had USA followed Mr Ron Paul's advice and did not seek to topple Najibulla government in Afghanistan ? This foreign policy of world policing must be stopped. Heck , Bush Jr ran on this humble foreign policy .. if only he had followed his principles .. we would have never invaded Iraq and got into this quagmire.[/quote'] If he thinks Kim Jong or xyz none-islamist country having nuclear bomb and jihadist jannat-desiring qayamat-fantasizing having nuclear bomb is the same then I am sorry to say he is awfully naive. Just one sentence MAD ( mutually agreed destruction) works as deterrant for the rest not for islamist they freaking want precisely that. It's supposed to expedite arrival of Mahadi Dujjal and subsequently the judgement day. They have hooris and jannat to look forward too in that MAD but the rest don't want that crap. If this guy is trailing I am happy about it this sort of gross lack of understanding in an influential post like american president is uncalled for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kumble_rocks Posted January 3, 2008 Author Share Posted January 3, 2008 If he thinks Kim Jong or xyz none-islamist country having nuclear bomb and jihadist jannat-desiring qayamat-fantasizing having nuclear bomb is the same then I am sorry to say he is awfully naive. Just one sentence MAD ( mutually agreed destruction) works as deterrant for the rest not for islamist they freaking want precisely that. It's supposed to expedite arrival of Mahadi Dujjal and subsequently the judgement day. They have hooris and jannat to look forward too in that MAD but the rest don't want that crap. If this guy is trailing I am happy about it this sort of gross lack of understanding in an influential post like american president is uncalled for. You got to be kidding me ! This guy has done extensive studies in foreign affairs .. Heck he made Guiliani and Romney look like a fool when it comes to foreign affairs during the debates for the primary . No wonder fox news does not want him to participate in the debates .... and I see that you have conveniently dodged the poignant question that I raised ... Q ) Also, do you seriously think Taliban would have been such a force had USA followed Mr Ron Paul's advice and did not seek to topple Najibulla government in Afghanistan ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dada_rocks Posted January 3, 2008 Share Posted January 3, 2008 Convince me why then he is equating martyrdom-lovers to those who fear death.. Kim young no matter how loony fears for his life his people's life otoh these jihadi mofo want to die and wud love to take down the rest with them.. KR how Taliban came is water under the bridge, what is going to happen in future that decides policy as of today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kumble_rocks Posted January 3, 2008 Author Share Posted January 3, 2008 Convince me why then he is equating martyrdom-lovers to those who fear death.. Kim young no matter how loony fears for his life his people's life otoh these jihadi mofo want to die and wud love to take down the rest with them.. KR how Taliban came is water under the bridge, what is going to happen in future that decides policy as of today. Don't agree, Saar ! The question begs who is more dangerous and to whom . Saddam was never a threat to India , yet the USA wanted the world to believe that he is .. Same with these Taliban fools .For all you know , they may never attack India directly. I would rather that these fools be tied down to one geographical area encompassing Afghanistan and NW Pakistan and then we can bomb them to oblivion . And as regards to collateral damage , I don't have an answer to that . Care must be taken to prevent civilian casualties . USA missed the plot here by not completing the Afghan war and taking unnecessary detour of invading Irag . If we truly want to eradicate radical Islam, then we need the support of Moderates in the Arab world ...And I still maintain , I support Ron Paul's minimum intervention policy . Stay out of other countries internal affairs . Only Congress should declare wars not the President. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dada_rocks Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 Again u erroneously think USa cares about what is dangerous for India they have their own intrest rightly or wrongly they thought saddam a problme in that regard went for the kill..these are separate issue issue here is why jihadi marturdom-seekers can't be trusted with nuclear bombs and I guess I have made that amply clear.. yes taliban is their creation yes in iraq they scrwed up their calculation and intellligence sucked too but those things doesn't mean suddenly ua must leave everythign and go into shell let these martyrdom seekers have a ball.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts