the establishment?

It seems to me that the heads of each of whatever businesses do not like Ron Paul, and they decide to use their companies as a way of, if not hurting ron paul, then definitely not helping ron paul. The reporters choose to follow suit, even if they choose so to keep their job and not because of conscience.

Now if a reporter (I'm using that term to mean any newsperson) was fired for making pro-ron paul statements on air. Wouldn't that be justified because companies should be free to hire/fire at their will?

Why should they not be free to use their means (by being a reporter on tv, or owning a media company, etc) to put forth the viewpoint that they most agree with? (Even if its only for prudence reasons)

Seems to me that for paul supporters to say the companies, reporters, etc SHOULDNT be biased in reporting, is claiming that their liberty should be limited (Liberty to be biased) and that definitely goes against Ron Paul's message.

Many of the FOX personalities went out of their way to shit on ron paul during the primaries.

I'm not sure of any evidence the network itself worked AGAINST ron paul.

Fox News' failure to support Ron Paul is the reason he didn't win the nomination "big time"?  Seriously?  lol

Ok.  What exactly should Fox News have done, other than put in on the air repeatedly, despite his poll numbers and poor primary/caucus performance? 

I've made this point before, but why would ron paul supporters object to businesses performing actions that they want to perform? Paul is in favor of liberty, for example the liberty of news corporations to talk about what they want to talk about. They are obviously making profit doing so, so why object? Are you merely pointing out that the media ignores Ron Paul, or are you saying, that the Media SHOULDNT ignore Ron Paul?

I can see your point if you are going with the former. Although I think it is so well known I don't see why another thread should be made about it.

I think if you make the latter point, that is inconsistent with Paul's liberty values.

Who wouldn't want to stay there for 36 years?  Don't Senators make something like $250,000 a year?  Just to occupy a seat and vote every now and then.  Plus add lobbyist campaign donations on top of that and you are  a guaranteed multimillionaire. 

Cut these guys' pay back to the median annual income of the rest of the country and I bet you get better people in there. 

sorry, but you can't tell me dog shit tastes good because cat shit is worse.

I always knew Santorum was a giant douchebag hypocrite from day one.  Why couldn't all those other "tea partiers" that supported him figure that out?  People are so blind it is sickening. 

he loves america, i'm sure.

but his plan slashed medicare and social security greatly.  I'm fine with medicare, but a little iffy about social seurity - cause that money BELONGS to the people who paid it. 

Even conceding those points - his belief that of the 3 trillion cut, 2 trillion should go to the super rich was absurd.  Unbelievably absurd.  Indefensible - and so much that the GOPers at the time all tiptoed around it. 

Romney was forced to agree to it.

Most middle class people dont pay much income tax.  Where they get raped is state taxes and fees mostly.  FICA taxes are what they are and no one should be immune from that if they want to take money out later in life. 

yep.  i'm all for balancing the budget, and all for cutting spending.  And I am cool with KEEPING the budh tax cuts.

but ryan wants to give the super wealthy an extra 2 tril above what they're gtting now under the bush cuts.

mm2k, it's not about "RAISING taxes" - keep them constant for everyone, leave bush cuts in place, and slash spending.  

but cutting 'entitlements' like social security then handing the bulk of it to those making 1+ million a year, in the belief they'll suddesly invest it here (when they have a nice track record of taking bush tax cut $ and stim money and NOT doing that) is nuts.

and most repubs know it - everyone backed away from the ryan plan until romney was pretty much trapped into agreeing.

Poor dont pay taxes

No, Conservatives are slowly but surely getting fired up and supporting him. If anything, they are encouraged by the early polling and the smash mouth political tactics of the Romney Campaign. Right now Team Romney is achieving the best of both worlds. It is being aggressive but still being calm and not looking angry. I think McCain was afraid to go after the Bill Ayers/Jeremiah Wright stuff because he thought it would make him look negative and angry.

By the way, its interesting that in 2008, liberals didnt think accounts of Obama hanging out with a domestic terrorist were a "real issue", but stories of Mitt Romney putting his dog in an airtight kennel on top of his car 30 years ago is a "real issue".

Balancing the budget HELPS ADD JOBS, just as it did in the 90s. But you cant do what moronic Europe did, which is raise taxes AND cut spending. That's the worst possible thing.

Because there is no such thing as voter fraud in this country.   

Yeah.  This whole process is supposed to be about letting the voters decide.  And after 42 state contests, they've decided they don't want Ron Paul.  It's really ironic that some of his supporters mention "liberty" so much while at the same time try to disenfranchise millions of voters. 

True, it would be very undemocratic.

I'm at a crossroads though of thinking that him getting in, even if sneaky, may be the best thing.  But, maybe I'm just being a self-righteous douchebag.  If it's the people's will to keep him out...so be it.

The trash at the Repub establishment set the rules for the primary which favored mittens and if Paul can use those rules to get in or get what he wants so be it.

You arent playing with a full deck of cards bro. Rove and Morris arent perfect, and Morris particularly allows himself to get intellectually lazy sometimes, but you cant possibly compare the man who got Bush Jr. elected twice and the man who single handedly turned around Clinton's presidency to the useless turd that is Ed Shultz. Come back to Earth. Being objective doesnt necessarily mean viewing both sides as being equally pathetic.

Remember when you tried to spin Karl Rove's words about the first electoral map? Well, in this video clip he basically says that Romney will win the election, and he shows you why. Pay special attention to what he says about the swing state polls that "show Obama leading".

http://www.klup.com/videoclip.aspx?Id=f35e80d3-72bb-41b3-8537-7287a9f95b1d

is there a solid republican position on afghanistan?   what's mitt's position?

obviously "obama is doing it all wrong"

but has he said anything about being there another 12 years?  support/don't support?

What about the afghan surge?  we lost a lot of soldiers in iraq but it worked.  now repubs are upset about obama doing a surge in afghanistn - what's mitt saying?

OR

is mitt just being quiet until he sees the outcome, THEN doing the criticizing? 

Let me help you out.. just own it... you froze, others acted to grab one, you let the other slip by you because you were momentarily frozen with shock. Nothing to be ashamed of. It's easy to talk a big game on the net. All the things you would do if you saw this or that.. but when it suddenly is happening right there and you aren't used to it you can get frozen. It happens to people like yourself all the time. Don't beat yourself up over it. Just cut those of us who actually do something in those split seconds a little slack on ocassion

Yes it was.   Hey if the sons of obama didnt act like they do, you and many other cops, corrections officers, parol officers, etc would be out of work.