digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate

Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.
See the original image at bigheaddc.com

Fox News limiting next debate to 'so-called' Top Teir

bigheaddc.com — According to this website, only Rudy, Huck, Mitt, McCain and dead Fred will be on the next Fox debate. Even though Ron Paul is polling higher than Thompson on all national polls. Gonna be a boring debate when everyone agrees.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • marco114, on 12/28/2007, -24/+25NOT YET verified but saw it on 3 different blogs.
    • davidjsmitty, on 12/28/2007, -8/+64Called Ron Paul headquarters. Verified.
      • ufia, on 12/28/2007, -34/+2Comedy gold!

        /Could not have thought of better Ron Paul bashing myself.
        • jaymzdean, on 12/28/2007, -13/+13Does your father know you're a *****?
          • nospinhere, on 12/28/2007, -7/+6What do you guys care, you all hate Fox any way.
          • ayeroxor, on 12/28/2007, -1/+8When it must be shown to the sheep that they're being spoonfed pre-qualified media instead of actual options, it's worth noting.
          • nospinhere, on 12/28/2007, -2/+2The sheep? I thought liberals didn't watch Fox either.
        • Tilon, on 12/28/2007, -3/+16His name DOES mean Unsolicited Finger In *****.
      • V3n0M, on 12/28/2007, -0/+13Verified?

        http://www.dailypaul.com/node/17667#comment-148770
      • davidjsmitty, on 12/28/2007, -2/+20I don't know what to say... I called the contact number on Ron Paul 2008 (703-248-9115), asked "Hello, I just read that Ron Paul may not have been invited to the Jan 6th New Hampshire debates hosted by Fox and wanted to check to see if that's the case." and the guy replied "Yes, that's true.", and I said "So he wasn't invited?" and he said "Yup!" ... Hell if I know what to do when you call up the Ron Paul line and get bad info. Digg me down??
        • V3n0M, on 12/28/2007, -3/+9I ain't mad at ya! :)
          The link was down below just wanted to get it near the top.

          We're on the same team - just doing what we can... I'm not 100% sure we can trust that blog either - I haven't seen a real credible source yet. We'll just see how it pans out, but I'm going to hold off on any emails or calls for the time being.
    • lukehh, on 12/28/2007, -1/+18I think the Ron Paul Campaign has found a TV market to plaster with $6 million worth of ads on January 6th......
    • prowlerjm, on 12/28/2007, -1/+17The answer is NO! He is just not confirmed yet.
      On December 27th, 2007 Jane Aitken says:
      Please do NOT bombard the NH GOP. I spoke to them about this LAST WEEK and they said all the candidates were invited..

      This is my post from below.

      This is an unconfirmed schedule for the last days before the NH primary. I am in touch with the campaign and with the NH GOP to find out if he will be attending the GOP's two events.. I assure you, the NH GOP (Fergus Cullen) would NOT dare to exclude him. NH does not do things like that, so whoever wrote that snarky piece is a jerk. It was more likely that the AP was given the list of those who'd already RSVP'd and Ron likely hadn't at the time. It never said he was 'excluded'. That was an assumption by that blogger..

      RON PAUL AT ST. ANSELMS for DEBATE - JANUARY 5th at 7:00 PM
      ABC, WMUR-TV and Facebook will jointly host back-to-back Republican and Democrat debates from Saint Anselm College on Saturday evening, 7 PM EST, just three days before the official first in the nation primary the following Tuesday. Charles Gibson will moderate.

      RON PAUL IN MILFORD - JANUARY 6th (Unconfirmed)
      First in the Nation Presidential Brunch on Sunday, January 6th, 2008 from 11:00 AM to 1:00 PM at Hampshire Hills, Milford, NH.

      RON PAUL AT LIBERTY FORUM - JANUARY 6th
      This event is at Crowne Plaza in Nashua and Ron will speak at the closing event on Sunday at around 12:15 PM. (Milford and Nashua are 5 minutes from each other so this is doable)

      CANDIDATE FORUM - JANUARY 6th (Unconfirmed)
      The New Hampshire Republican Party is sponsoring a forum for Republican presidential candidates on Jan. 6, two days before the state's first-in-the-nation primary.
      Unlike a debate, the candidates will face questions from Chris Wallace around a table in a studio on the campus of St. Anselm College in Goffstown, N.H. The 90-minute encounter will air live beginning at 8 p.m. ET on the Fox News Channel and on Fox News Radio.
      So please hold your emails to the NH GOP. I am in touch with them about the brunch as well as the round table.

    • spankaccount, on 12/28/2007, -20/+2This would be a good idea, because the crazy people like Ron Paul take time away from the real candidates.
      • JCM0165, on 12/28/2007, -2/+5you're being sarcastic . . right?
        • jcm267, on 12/28/2007, -3/+3Are you trying to say that Ron Paul isn't crazy?
        • card51short, on 12/28/2007, -2/+1"Are you trying to say that Ron Paul isn't crazy?"

          Even if you think Ron Paul is crazy, nothing is as crazy as someone who literally spends their entire day reading about and commenting on someone they think is totally crazy.
          You either have an unhealthy obsession with the man or you are totally batty!
    • squinky86, on 12/28/2007, -8/+4I had to bury the story as inaccurate, considering that Ron Paul is behind all candidates listed in the Rasmussen Reports poll. "Ron Paul is polling higher than Thompson on all national polls..." Give me a break; Rasmussen has been extremely accurate over the past 8 years. Thompson: 11%. Paul: 5%. That doesn't look like a Paul victory to me! Reference: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/pol ...
      • jcm267, on 12/28/2007, -3/+3And the Ronbots are already digging you down!
      • gwtgator, on 12/28/2007, -1/+3scott rasmussen is a pro-republican evangelical christian pollster who promotes the notion of a GOP majority electorate that would last for at least a generation...sounds like a possible conflict of interest to me.
  • edward9145, on 12/28/2007, -33/+266We'll they are going to have egg on their face when Ron Paul comes in first.
    • fadeout, on 12/28/2007, -68/+36What's the weather like in fantasy land?
      • mnewcomb, on 12/28/2007, -15/+56Oh, about $19 million and rising...
        • bjornski, on 12/28/2007, -25/+8Just because dreamers are able to pool a bunch of money, doesn't mean they can BUY the dream they want.

          You're starting to sound like the "person with the most money wins" crowd.
          • PeppermintPig, on 12/28/2007, -3/+17Dreamers tend to be judged based on their ability to actualize their dreams. Even if Ron Paul doesn't win, he's proven that his platform draws a great deal of support and, notably, FUNDING. It's not just about money, but it does matter when competing for a position like this.

            It shouldn't, though... I mean, technically, in a free society you shouldn't have to fight to control others and dictate morality like this government has. Too much power in the hands of a few, and erosion of liberty. Ron Paul is one of a select few candidates who actually advocate smaller government.
          • mnewcomb, on 12/28/2007, -4/+1The simple fact is that if Huckabust had 20-30% support of all Republicans he would be leading the money race... However he is very low on the money race so any reasonable person could conclude that the polls must be wrong...

            How else do you explain $19 million in funding for Ron Paul?
        • StandupShowcase, on 12/28/2007, -19/+5bjornski--don't you get it? that is what libertarianism is based upon. whoever has the money makes the decisions--that is the "free market" where corporations run things.
          • PeppermintPig, on 12/28/2007, -3/+15You're joking, right?

            Corporations != Free Market
          • ShrimpCrackers, on 12/28/2007, -3/+2Even Ron Paul is against in his words the Medical and Military Industrial /complex where they rule by having politicians pass laws that benefit them and not the people. Guess who took the most money from Medical and Military lobbying orgs? Hillary Clinton, then Obama.
          • TheTaoOfBill, on 12/28/2007, -3/+5How do people not understand that corporations ALREADY rule our market because it ISN'T a free market.
        • Tilon, on 12/28/2007, -9/+19You are a couple of tards, man. Libertarianism isn't based on 'Those with money buying the government'. You're a tool.

          What we have TODAY is that system you are describing, AT ITS WORST.

          The government Lobby system is nothing more than MONEY ---------------------> POWER. Care to try to argue that? Paul wants to take all that power AWAY from Government and DECENTRALIZE it back among the PEOPLE where it EFFING BELONGS.

          Get Educated, tools. And get a life.
          • StandupShowcase, on 12/28/2007, -12/+5oh you are right, he wants to take the power of regulation away from the government and let the corporations do what they please--exactly what they are lobbying for. thanks for update!
          • Tilon, on 12/28/2007, -5/+12"oh you are right, he wants to take the power of regulation away from the government and let the corporations do what they please"

            You think the Government and the Corps are seperate right now?
            See, that's your problem. It's an open secret nowadays, dude.

            They don't want NO regulation. The MOST IDEAL situation for a company is to MAKE the rules, so they can tailor things in their favor.

            THAT is why they lobby. Not for NO rules, FOR THEIR RULES!

            Any blind man can see this. Can you?
          • chaosium, on 12/28/2007, -1/+2"THAT is why they lobby. Not for NO rules, FOR THEIR RULES!"

            They vote for rules ONLY for when there are rules, when there are no rules they can do whatever the ***** they want.
        • jcm267, on 12/28/2007, -1/+5http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/pol ...

          Ron Paul is NOT doing well in the polls. You people are delusional.
      • mr.gates, on 12/28/2007, -10/+10America isn't whatever you want it to be it is the ideals of our founding fathers expressed within our constitution. If you do not support the 'majority' of the 'ideas' perpetuated by Ron Paul then you do not support the constitution and you are not an American.
        • PeppermintPig, on 12/28/2007, -7/+1Well, 'founding fathers' and RP semantics aside, do you support liberty? How far do you support that liberty for yourself, as opposed to others?
          • chaosium, on 12/28/2007, -2/+2You use "liberty" and "Freedoms" like the stupidest neocons throw around "terrists".

            Let that digest for a while.
      • bbardlbradd, on 12/28/2007, -7/+10The weather in fantasy land is fresh and liberating... not to mention more realistic.
      • 89992, on 12/29/2007, -1/+1Whats the weather like in bury land?
    • PATSCRU, on 12/28/2007, -61/+19You will have an egg on your face when you find out spam accounts can't vote and he places at the bottom.
      • mnewcomb, on 12/28/2007, -10/+52Spam accounts come up with $19 million?
        • chaosium, on 12/28/2007, -36/+8How is that supposed to impress anyone?
          • spucky, on 12/28/2007, -4/+35Maybe that is sarcasm, but $19 million sounds like a lot of money to me. I'm not a big Paul supporter, but his revolution is quite impressive and due to his massive internet presence, I would think Fox would take notice.
          • Tilon, on 12/28/2007, -3/+30Fox isn't a news org. It's a propaganda and PR outlet.
          • schroeder, on 12/28/2007, -4/+24$19 million mostly from individual citizens not several multinational corporations IS impressive.
          • Tilon, on 12/28/2007, -6/+16"How is that supposed to impress anyone?"

            You ***** Fascist. I guess the power elite are the only ones allowed to make decisions for us Little People then, huh?

            ***** you. This used to be a government for the People.
          • chaosium, on 12/28/2007, -20/+6Obama has done far better from individual citizens.

            "You ***** Fascist. I guess the power elite are the only ones allowed to make decisions for us Little People then, huh?

            ***** you. This used to be a government for the People."

            So in other words you're throwing a tantrum because I'm not impressed.
          • Minarchian, on 12/28/2007, -5/+23I would wager that if Paul had not been able to raise money you loons would be using THAT to say he has no support. Since he DID raise the money you want to ignore it. In the end all you really have are polls bought, paid for and manipulated by the very media that says he has no support.
          • UltraKill, on 12/28/2007, -3/+1@chaosium
            Yes, but can any of the republicans say that?
          • chaosium, on 12/28/2007, -2/+2The rest of the Republicans get their donations from the Free Market. I'm voting Democrat, so I have a candidate that blew yours out of the water when it comes to private donations. It's just not that impressive of a comeback.
        • jcm267, on 12/28/2007, -1/+4No. Overzealous conspiracy theorists, white supremacists, and stupid college students came up with the money. Unfortunately for Ron Paul, this rabid base not only doesn't translate into a whole lot of votes but it turns "sane" voters away.
          • card51short, on 12/28/2007, -4/+1woohoo! Now we just need the underzealous conspiracy theorists, the black supremacists, and some smart college students and we can win!
    • nittanylion06, on 12/28/2007, -42/+12Comes in first .. where? Because it won't be in New Hampshire...
      • Rickler, on 12/28/2007, -3/+10With their state motto "Live free or die" there is no way New Hampshirens would vote for a libertarian like Ron Paul.
        • nittanylion06, on 12/28/2007, -6/+2Even with their state motto, it looks as if only ~10% of likely republican primary voters are going to vote for this libertarian. Who is that more telling of: Ron Paul, or "New Hampshirens"?

          (fyi, yes, he's going to turn a lot of heads, but no way in hell does a TX Congressman jump a former MA governor polling at 34% in New Hampshire... no matter how many "unlikely voters" you have in your back pocket)
          • TheTaoOfBill, on 12/28/2007, -4/+5I disagree. If you can get a good 50,000 unlikely voters you win. Turnout is so low that beating even someone polling at 34% is only a matter of having organized supporters. And that's something Ron Paul has. I gaurentee he will come in at least 2nd in NH. 3rd in Iowa.
          • amiches, on 12/28/2007, -0/+3Putting faith in unlikely voters? Great campaign strategy!
          • TheTaoOfBill, on 12/28/2007, -3/+2Campaign strategy? This isn't about campaign strategy. This is about getting the right guy in. And it's obvious the "likely" voters don't know how to do that when they elect idiots like Bush and they seem to want to go for Huckabee and Hillary this time around. You better hope there is a lot of unlikely voters because the likely voters are killing this country.
        • AeonTorpor, on 12/28/2007, -3/+2Libertarian because he believes in liberty... I'm not exactly sure what you were getting at there. Based on that i would think they indeed would vote for him.
    • StandupShowcase, on 12/28/2007, -28/+18please be here when he doesn't come close, so I can remind you.
    • StealthMonkey, on 12/28/2007, -28/+9ROFL
    • chambana, on 12/28/2007, -23/+7their decision is retarded if true but so is your notion of him coming in first
    • jonpotz, on 12/28/2007, -26/+29To let all you haters know, I have soooo many people in Jersey for the Ron Paul cause'. Come primaries, we are going to own everyone. Trust me. The net owns the system, new media is the new age. Bow down and wake up. This is NO Nater and no Ross Pero type *****. Don't be confused. RP fans bomb the system with knowledge. Anyone who disagrees, is just part of the hate fueled by the MSM. Peace, Love....
      • eggo, on 12/28/2007, -8/+29Seriously, "bomb the system with knowledge"??? WTF does that even mean? No wonder people think his campaign is a joke. I agree with Dr Paul and I plan to vote for him, but I'm digging you down for sounding like such a douche.
      • iofthestorm, on 12/28/2007, -17/+12Thank you for painting all people who disagree with RP's ideology as part of the MSM. I don't know what I would do without ignorant blanket statements like your's to categorize myself. Personally, I oppose RP's ultra-right-wing ideology and am surprised more people on digg don't agree. I'm hoping a more progressive candidate than Hillary wins the Democratic nomination, preferably Obama, and I don't really care who wins the GOP nomination although I agree that Paul is the best out of the Republicans, that really isn't saying much.
        • Osjpr, on 12/28/2007, -7/+4Bush is ultra-rightwing. Not Paul you moron. Paul represents both sides of politics.
          • darkzealot89, on 12/28/2007, -0/+3Thats a load of crap I would expect from a Ronbot. Ron Paul is a Republican. /thread
          • chaosium, on 12/28/2007, -0/+2If you don't think Paul is right-wing, you really have no idea what his policies are or what conservatism consists of.
      • dood, on 12/28/2007, -3/+4The net owns the system? Ask Howard Dean about the net.
        • imaxami, on 12/28/2007, -2/+2hear it here: http://www.marriedadults.com/howarddeanscreamaudio ...

          nyeaaaaaaaauuuuuuuuhhhhhh!!!!
        • TheTaoOfBill, on 12/28/2007, -3/+2Howard Dean had the support of a completely different and less efficient net. Myspace was not big yet. Facebook wasn't created until Kerry was killing the primaries and Youtube was just a dream.

          If Howard Dean had the same tools today he probably would have won.
      • bob501337, on 12/28/2007, -1/+5I'm seriously impressed with how politically adept you are, especially with your knowledge of Ralph NaTer and all.
        • Miche1987, on 12/28/2007, -3/+1Don't be a hater just because he misspelled Nader.
        • bjornski, on 12/30/2007, -0/+2Couldn't spell Nader OR Perot. Odds are he doesn't know what their platforms were, either.

          Guess what. You'd have liked them. Maybe even bought them a blimp.
    • bob501337, on 12/28/2007, -6/+7I'm guessing that you're in the Ron Paul camp judging by your grammar.
    • malakite33, on 12/28/2007, -3/+4What is funny is how I see hundreds of Ron Paul supporters posting and I can actually name off the same 20-30 people that digg down and negatively comment in Ron Paul threads. Those few anti RP spammers are the pathetic ones. Get a life and use Digg for stuff that you enjoy please.
      • tumples, on 12/28/2007, -0/+4Get a life he says, but he is the one who can remember "the same 20-30 people that digg down and negatively comment in Ron Paul threads."

        :)
      • malakite33, on 12/28/2007, -3/+1Maybe get a life was the wrong phrase. I spend time on Digg looking at articles and videos I enjoy. My point is that there is a group of people that when you look at their profiles do nothing but digg down and put negative comments on Ron Paul stories, all day, everyday. I think that this a huge waste of time on their part when they could be supporting a candidate they think should be president by putting forth some relevant arguments for their case. In the majority of the anti RP brigade all I see is insults and childish responses. Childish responses are fun in moderation and when they are funny. If you look at some of these guys histories though...it's like they have abosolutely nothing at all better to do than to bury and put insults on Ron Paul posts. I just think it's pathetic. Maybe it's just me but I'd rather spend the majority of my time on Digg enjoying what I read.
  • stealthc, on 12/28/2007, -18/+171Well this is a great big steaming pile of *****. Who at FOX do we have to email about this?

    Oh, and the solution is simple: Ron Paul needs his own rally in the next room.
    • davidjsmitty, on 12/28/2007, -5/+83yourcomments@foxnews.com and 1-888-369-4762
    • Petrarch1603, on 12/28/2007, -1/+44its obvious that the media responds to people's requests. He's been on Meet the Press and Situation Room because of the barrage of emails. Keep it up and they'll invite him. Make it a true debate fox.
    • schrankage, on 12/28/2007, -2/+34This is the corporate media rubbing it in your face. He's raised so much money, and has a lot of support (at least online) yet they're going to exclude him. I don't support Ron Paul, but can't help but notice the tounge in cheek bashing they give him and any apparent populist revolt.
    • ostracize, on 12/28/2007, -1/+9Phone calls would probably be more effective. Pro Ron Paul e-mails make everyone think Paulbot.
    • hellyes, on 12/28/2007, -1/+9I just called the number and the voicemail for comments is full.
    • bariswheel, on 12/28/2007, -1/+6Watching fox this morning to see if they would mention him on America's Newsroom, as they were covering polls, they mentioned EVERY SINGLE candidate and their poll numbers (text on the bottom of the page, with percentages), but no mention of Ron Paul, at all. It is clearer than crystal they are doing this on purpose, it is the armpit of humanity doing journalism. What a disgrace, how can you sleep at night?
      There is a little box on the lower left hand side of their web page:
      http://www.foxnews.com/americasnewsroom/
      Even if you're not supporting RP, they are purposely excluding him from further exposure. It is clear this is not accidental, it's happened way too many times. They'll do it with RP today, and your candidate tomorrow, let them know this is completely unacceptable. They are flat out lying to the American public.
    • jcm267, on 12/28/2007, -1/+2Now what would calling Fox and telling them that the Ronbots are up to their ***** again accomplish?

      I think that your idea of keeping Ron Paul (and most importantly, his supporters) away from the civilized people is a wonderful idea, though.
      • card51short, on 12/28/2007, -1/+1"...way from the civilized people is a wonderful idea, though."

        By civilized you mean only partially nuking third world countries, right?
  • jimbabb, on 12/28/2007, -9/+134If true, please express displeasure directly to Fox sponsors.
  • Corrosionx, on 12/28/2007, -7/+65Ouch, they better back up now, this will blow up in their face!
    • RunawayElf, on 12/28/2007, -0/+12Yeah, if they don't change their mind no one here will watch fox news again!
      Oh... wait a minute...
    • Lancer383, on 12/28/2007, -1/+4Damn straight. Nine southern states left Abraham Lincoln off of the ballot and he still won the presidency (not to mention two of the states that left him off).
      Also, how in the hell is Fred Thompson a "Top Tier" candidate? He couldn't even get enough signatures in Delaware to have his name on the ballot for the primary.
  • raisputin3, on 12/28/2007, -13/+69I just wrote to the Paul campaign to see if he had been invited as I didn't see anything on the article saying that Paul was specifically NOT invited.
    • Digg4This, on 12/28/2007, -5/+91Dr. Paul is not invited. I got a response. He didnt meet their "qualifications". it was a great ploy to ***** over the highest GOP fundraiser.
      • Drahkar, on 12/28/2007, -2/+51Its the standard tactic of the mainstream media. They don't like the message that Ron Paul has and because they don't like it they are trying everything they can to prevent people from getting that message and voting for him. Manipulating polls, preventing him from attending debates. When he does get on they try and make him look bad only to come out looking like ignorant fools themselves. The fact that each time they try and make him look bad when he comes on is why they just try and keep him out of things.
      • DiscoJohn, on 12/28/2007, -6/+3Would you rather host a candidate with the most money, or the most popular support?
        Gee, I wonder which.
        • jkremer3, on 12/28/2007, -1/+10I don't see how you can support Rudy. Some of the others, perhaps. But seriously, can someone tell me one good thing about Rudy? One reason to support him please.

        • flyingcatcircus, on 12/28/2007, -3/+69/11, nine eleven and 9.11.01

          Q.E.D.

          - (!!
          • Drahkar, on 12/28/2007, -2/+1That's not a reason. Everyone including all the emergency personnel in NY say he didn't do anything except stand outside the bad areas and talk about how he's pulling things together and making things better; all the while the real heroes of 9/11 were dying as they tried to save people trapped in the rubble.
          • familynight, on 12/28/2007, -2/+3@Drahkar that's not very 9/11 of you. why do you hate our troops so much? terrorist. 9/11.
    • DiscoJohn, on 12/28/2007, -15/+5That's because he's NOT a "top tier" candidate. The caption says he's polling ahead of Fred Thompson in ALL NATIONAL POLLS, but I couldn't find a single one where Ron Paul was ahead of Fred. Before you digg me down, visit http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/ and find one. Ron Paul not being in the debates is a perfectly legitimate and justifiable call for any news station to make; The congressman simply doesn't have the popular support.
    • richardbowles, on 12/28/2007, -2/+3your a tard. poeple speak with their money even more than straw polls ...

      - RonPaul has support. If the internet voted he would dominate.
  • brunner, on 12/28/2007, -21/+13It should be noted that they cited no source, and Googling quotes of the "release" in this blog post reveals nothing. This is completely unverified and should be treated as such.
  • cashman57, on 12/28/2007, -8/+39I would not put it past faux
    • bob501337, on 12/28/2007, -8/+2Faux, how clever, I guess studying that SAT vocabulary helped you after all.
  • brunner, on 12/28/2007, -16/+5So such press release exists. See for yourself:
    http://www.nhgop.org/press-releases/
  • EndersGame, on 12/28/2007, -5/+42http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iNxTApa2sQRu0Xx ...

    There is a reliable source that claims that so far Ron Paul is not participating, it could just be that he didn't confirm it himself or it could be he didn't get invited. If he was not invited then its not Fox we should be contacting but the NH GOP, as they are the ones in charge of this debate.
    • johndi, on 12/28/2007, -2/+27I like how they call it a forum instead of a debate. It's actually taking place the day after the "official" debate held by ABC. What's even more disturbing though is it is sponsored by the New Hampshire Republican Party. Last time I checked New Hampshire still believed in liberty. If you live there tell your party reps to fix their rectal-cranial inversion.
    • PeppermintPig, on 12/28/2007, -0/+8Prohibiting Ron Paul from attending a debate? In New Hampshire? This is going to further destroy support for the GOP there while more socialist politics flood into the state from MA.
    • jabbott0, on 12/28/2007, -0/+3Here is the contact form link for the NH GOP:
      http://www.nhgop.org/e-mail-us/
      • jabbott0, on 12/28/2007, -0/+3OK, I may have spoke too soon... Many people are saying that RP was invited but hasn't accepted yet... The suspense is killing me!
  • brunner, on 12/28/2007, -8/+77I was wrong. EndersGame is correct. There is an AP press release about it. This is a real story. Please digg it up.
  • ChrisBearkat, on 12/28/2007, -5/+44They did this at one other debate, and the result was a very loud and much larger rally next door. I suspect they'll be a really big party outside the debate.
    • ChrisBearkat, on 12/28/2007, -1/+9STOP THE PRESSES!

      The AP article is incorrect, campaign staff have confirmed that ALL the candidates were invited. At the time of print, Dr. Paul's camp had not been confirmed. (but it will be)
      • bonked, on 12/29/2007, -0/+1either you are a liar or are misinformed, Paul's campaign has a press release stating that he has not been invited and they have contact Fox who told him he won't be.

        DROP THE INACCURATE ON THIS ONE!
  • StephnDolenc, on 12/28/2007, -6/+25what are the best methods of contacting fox news in order to protest? does anybody have their phone number, email address, snail mail address, location of their headquarters (we ought to protest this in person -- make it a rally they wont forget), and finally: we need to protest at the event itself. you know, cheer so loudly from outside that they can hear us during the debate.

    We can't let anybody, especially these hacks, ignore the revolution.
    • cypher303, on 12/28/2007, -11/+3The best way to show Fox your disapproval about this would be for all the Ron Paul supporters to strap dynamite onto themselves and suicide bomb the Fox News headquarters located in Fantasy land... where Ron Paul will always win all of the elections by %1000!
  • Minarchian, on 12/28/2007, -14/+7I didn't read that Paul was not invited.

    Only that 5 have confirmed.
    • Digg4This, on 12/28/2007, -4/+2Rudy, Mitt, Mike, John, and Fred. You are 100% right!
  • shadash, on 12/28/2007, -16/+139Let them know that you'd like to have Ron Paul in the Debate as well....

    Chairman: Fergus Cullen
    Vice-Chairman: Wayne MacDonald
    Executive Director: Stephen DeMaura

    E-mail http://www.nhgop.org/e-mail-us/
    Telephone: (603)225-9341
    Fax: (603) 225-7498
    • shadash, on 12/28/2007, -3/+23I sent an email asking to please include Ron Paul in any debate the nhgop my have planned.

      I also called but was unable to speak with a live person so I left a voice mail asking that Ron Paul be included in any future planned debates.

      I encourage everyone else to do the same. We need to send a message that Ron Paul supporters will not be marginalized.
      • thumperings, on 12/28/2007, -0/+4I left phone messages, being very polite, and simply acting as baffled as I could be, stating how this has to be a mistake, and kindly thanking them to make sure he is invited (As if anything less would be insanity for a guy who raised more money than anyone) ... screaming like a lunatic is what they want)
    • artdeco42, on 12/28/2007, -11/+35I emailed and called - he is not in, but his message says to call his cell phone if it is an emergency...
      Not sure if this constitutes an emergency, but just in case someone feels it does...

      Fergus Cullen (cell)
      603-520-5450
      • KMye, on 12/28/2007, -20/+7you guys are real pricks; you talk about facism and our government being nazis, but your tactics are the most heavy-handed and obnoxious any campaign or political cult in the US has employed in the last 50 years.
        • edjenkins234, on 12/28/2007, -0/+2wha?
        • KMye, on 12/28/2007, -1/+1You think posting a guy's cellphone online as an obvious incitement to barrage him with calls about something that may be a moot point anyway is something civilized people do?
    • eunosx, on 12/28/2007, -4/+41As stated in the Ron Paul meetup group emails:
      "DO NOT CALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! He was not excluded! He has been invited but has not accepted yet. They wouldn't dare exclude him at this point. We have to be very careful of knee-jerk reactions."
      So please, don't bring any negative light on the campaign by overflowing Fergus Cullen's voicemail. The meetup groups have people on the pulse of the campaign working with them and they said to let it go..Dr. Paul will confirm.
      • ufia, on 12/28/2007, -21/+14Ron Paul has not decided yet if it's constitutional to use a telephone, as the founding fathers made no mention of it, Ron Paul is at lost.
      • Humptydank, on 12/28/2007, -18/+8Oh come on, you guys are at your best when you have your torches and pitchforks out.

        If you start neutering the thuggery now you'll have to rely on thinking and reason, and believe me, you don't want to expose Ron Paul's ideas to that.
      • DesignEx, on 12/28/2007, -0/+1It's probably too late, I'm sure his voice mail is already filled. By the way, here is the announcement that he did not confirm:
        http://www.dailypaul.com/node/17667#comment-148770
  • davidjsmitty, on 12/28/2007, -7/+77I called and the campaign verfied that Dr. Paul was not invited.
    • Digg4This, on 12/28/2007, -5/+13you are correct sir.
    • shadash, on 12/28/2007, -5/+19I sent an email asking to please include Ron Paul in any debate the nhgop my have planned.



      I also called but was unable to speak with a live person so I left a voice mail asking that Ron Paul be included in any future planned debates.



      I encourage everyone else to do the same. We need to send a message that Ron Paul supporters will not be marginalized.
      • ufia, on 12/28/2007, -11/+3I called and threatened them that if Ron Paul was not invited to the debate, his supporters will have no other option but to enter the building by force and take control of the TV studio.

        Ron Paul Revolution 08!
        • banmaster, on 12/28/2007, -1/+2Yeah, way to be mature about it you *****!
      • amiches, on 12/28/2007, -1/+0Too late.
    • Humptydank, on 12/28/2007, -2/+13You verified with the campaign that they were not invited, others are saying they talked to the campaign and he was, but he hasn't accepted yet.

      This is a lot like every Ron Paul issue -- everybody just believes what they want to believe and then attributes it to the campaign.
      • davidjsmitty, on 12/28/2007, -1/+6I disagree that "...everybody just believes what they want to believe and then attributes it to the campaign." Mistakes do happen, and I think most Ron Paul supporters are genuinely interested in knowing the truth.
        • Humptydank, on 12/28/2007, -6/+3I think you should look back over the history of Ron Paul debates on Digg.

          Just for fun, do a Digg-only Google search for "Ron Paul believes" or "Ron Paul thinks". You'll see that even on the same issue people are projecting whatever revolution is important to them onto his campaign.

          Is this a coincidence? Not at all. It has little to do with what he says because he says very little. He is running as a populist demagogue, intentionally working to keep the focus on slogans and single paragraph positions on all major themes in the campaign.

          Ron Paul supporters are genuinely interested in knowing the truth? That's absurd.
          • davidjsmitty, on 12/28/2007, -1/+1touché.
          • card51short, on 12/28/2007, -2/+2"Just for fun, do a Digg-only Google search for "Ron Paul believes" or "Ron Paul thinks"."

            Keep in mind this guy HATES ron paul and he searches for articles on him...every day...all day. Then comments on them. Constantly. Obviously an unbiased intellectual. I would take his opinions on Ron Paul as the gospel.
          • Humptydank, on 12/28/2007, -2/+3@USMarinesTanker:

            Ron Paul's failings are not in a lack of rigmarole or pomp, they're in statements like "I think the Income Tax is unconstitutional." That takes four seconds to say and exactly one line on his campaign website, now what do we do with the rest of the time?

            We elect Presidents not just to believe things but to do something about what they believe, so how he intends to implement these bumper-sticker statements is pretty critical and something he simply hasn't addressed.

            She may be full of crap, but at least Clinton has a sixteen page plan on how she will implement her health care plan, including funding sources. Ron Paul wants to eliminate the IRS and there isn't any more than a paragraph on his web site, and a few passing statements in interviews? Military out, DOE out, all the usual suspects, but that doesn't even come close to his minimum 25 percent cuts number. How will he specifically reach this goal?

            I've seen economist on other web sites try to work it out, I've even seen Ronbots try to work it out. The only person I haven't seen work it out is the person who is proposing it.

            Why doesn't he present detail on these plans? Wouldn't that be the best weapon against the haters, to show in black-and-white how it can be done?

            The reason why is the premise of my last post. He has a mainstream populist groundswell going here, and if people actually learned more about the impact his Presidency would have on them, then the Revolution would turn into Vietnam.

            He's intentionally deceiving his supporters by covering up how he would implement his policies, and keeping the focus on chants and slogans. Demagoguery at its purest.
          • Humptydank, on 12/28/2007, -1/+3@card51short:

            My history is public just like anyone else's. Have a look. I started out unbiased, but the complete inability of the Ron Paul campaign or his community to support his positions are what formed my opinion.

            I'm straightforward about the fact that I think Ron Paul is dangerous, because he is using anti-intellectualism as a tool in a campaign. I have seen that lead to disaster too many times in history to let it stand.

            The irony is that Ron Paul could leave me nowhere by simply providing his plans for making his policies work, something he has failed to do. Or you could leave me nowhere by simply responding to the multiple points I have raise when you taunt me into a discussion; something you have failed to do.

            Ron Paul is running away from addressing the facts, you are running away from addressing the facts, you don't need people like me to portray him as a demagogue, you do fine all by yourselves.
    • davidjsmitty, on 12/28/2007, -2/+3I don't know what to say... I called the contact number on Ron Paul 2008 (703-248-9115), asked "Hello, I just read that Ron Paul may not have been invited to the Jan 6th New Hampshire debates hosted by Fox and wanted to check to see if that's the case." and the guy replied "Yes, that's true.", and I said "So he wasn't invited?" and he said "Yup!" ... I don't know what to do when you call up the Ron Paul line and get bad info. Except wait for a written statement or something.
    • alphaterminus, on 12/28/2007, -0/+1What will matter is the Caucus results in Iowa on Jan 3. If he places higher than 2 or 3 of the invited candidates, excluding him will be at the Republican party's peril.
      • amiches, on 12/28/2007, -2/+0It's a good thing that's a statistical impossibility, then!
  • V3n0M, on 12/28/2007, -8/+81Ron Paul is polling higher than Fred Thompson in New Hampshire.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/presi ...
  • NightVortez, on 12/28/2007, -8/+36No biggie, Fox does this kind of ***** every day, I say we "spam" them (one of the only times I approve of such activities) until the debate and if they still don't invite him hold our own Rally type of thing.
    • jonpotz, on 12/28/2007, -0/+8Spam them? How bout' we do what we always do, sent legit requests and have them ACCUSE US of spamming. I already sent my email. I hope you all do the same. RP' in Jersey! REP!
      • NightVortez, on 12/28/2007, -0/+4I've used the word spam in quotation marks, for that is what they refer it to, obviously the emails have to be respectful and convincing.
      • thumperings, on 12/28/2007, -0/+3why don't we raise 100 million dollars and start an independent news station. With built in protections that profits will never determine content or news. Even if it's an online news source. It could still be slickly edited and well written and REAL.
    • njcarlos, on 12/28/2007, -0/+4What a foolish idea. Bombarding them with e-mail (especially negative e-mail), will only garner resentment that will undoubtedly show in their general coverage. Granted he doesn't get much, but the coverage he does get would be better received if it wasn't tainted by anchor hatred for his supporters.
  • GoatRoper, on 12/28/2007, -39/+5Buried, duplicate
    • metapop, on 12/28/2007, -1/+11i have no doubt you buried the other one as well, claiming it was a dupe of this one.
  • AAK15, on 12/28/2007, -45/+7wow fox news got something right! Ron Paul isnt top tier! (not teir dumbass)
  • hackthesystem, on 12/28/2007, -49/+13Ron Paul is a creationist. Suck on that for a second. Looks like there's gonna be no 'evolution.'
    • mediaspree, on 12/28/2007, -7/+4please, which republican isn't? or democrat? so who should we elect?
    • Tilon, on 12/28/2007, -3/+11Too bad he doesn't believe government has anything to do with people's beliefs, you moron.
      • Ulisses, on 12/28/2007, -5/+3Would you vote for a geocentrist? A flat-earther, maybe?
        • NightVortez, on 12/28/2007, -4/+4I can prove the Earth isn't flat, can you prove evolution?
          • Ulisses, on 12/28/2007, -1/+6No you can't.
            God just makes earth appear spherical to test your faith, just like he does with the fossil record.

            The earth ain't round. Mom and pops sure as hell ain't no monkeys!
          • NightVortez, on 12/28/2007, -2/+4We can actually see the Earth and it's spherical shape.

            Evolution on the other hand is still a theory, fossil records don't prove anything except that perhaps similar animals existed at a point in time, scientists have made an assumption that we've evolved from them. People who act like theories are facts are just as uneducated as people who deny them completely.

            Again wtf is with you people and bringing religion into stuff like this? Has nothing to do with it, hell I'm an atheist but I don't see either the creation theory or the evolution theory as a solid fact.
          • amiches, on 12/28/2007, -0/+2NightVortez, I say this with as much charity as humanly possible, but open up a ***** biology textbook and read it. You're right, evolution is a theory. Theory means a bedrock set of ideas that explain other things. So, you can observe an apple falling out of a tree, which can be explained by the theory of gravity. You can observe increasing specialization between species, and similarities in fetus development, and adaptation to different environmental circumstances, which all can be explained by the theory of evolution.

            Evolution is the bedrock of modern biology and medicine. Which begs the question: seeing that he's a doctor and presumably is well-acquainted with biology, either Ron Paul is a) pandering to his base by pretending to be a creationist or b) stupid enough to go through an undergraduate science degree and med school without having learned ***** about biology.

            No real other way out of that one.
      • Tilon, on 12/28/2007, -4/+3Were you born stupid or did you have to work on it, Ulisses? The only thing that matters about Paul is his beliefs on GOVERNMENT.

        I'm a ***** agnostic, you idiot. Go to bed. Spirituality has jack ***** to do with Religion OR the lack of it. Any institutionalized system of thought breeds Corruption. It's human nature.
        • amiches, on 12/28/2007, -0/+0Not when our government makes decisions about what kind of research to fund, what kind of things to teach kids, and how we can compete with other countries doing the same thing. You're simple-minded.
          • Tilon, on 12/28/2007, -0/+1Government shouldn't have anything to do with that. It promotes corruption and hoarding of technology by the power establishment.

            Yeah, I'm simple-minded. haha. Maybe you need to stop believing corporate-government collusion is a good thing.
          • amiches, on 12/28/2007, -0/+0Uhh..what the ***** does that even mean? Individual firms can't afford R&D on cutting-edge medications, or multi-billion dollar weapons systems, so the government shoulders some of the cost.

            Oh, that's right, you're a crazy Paultard and you think that medicine and defense are bad things. Good thing approximately 1% of Americans agree with you.
    • enjoiskaterguy, on 12/28/2007, -1/+1and thats your reason not to vote for him? thats sad. Thats like me saying I won't vote for someone who isn't religeous but whole-heartedly beleives in evolution? Come on man? Why are you so damn arrogant and picky about such a petty issue that in fact has nothing about Ron Paul running for public office?
      • amiches, on 12/28/2007, -0/+1Governments make important scientific decisions on a daily basis, and the President of the United States is the main driver of what gets spent where. We have important issues on where our science dollars are going to be spent in the next 20 years, questions that could decide whether America stays at the forefront of scientific research or whether we become second-tier. I'm not willing to leave those decisions in the hands of a guy who denies the underlying theory of biology, something that's been as empirically proven as it ever will be.
  • syroncoda, on 12/28/2007, -7/+41unbiased news reporting my ass. why does anyone still pay any attention to fox? their ratings must be coming down and NOBODY is talking about how irrelevant these ***** are.
    • bob501337, on 12/28/2007, -3/+5Actually, it is the number one watched news channel. Which means one of two things since it is obviously so conservatively biased: 1-The country's liberal base does not watch the news and therefore would be politically uneducated (sorry, reading blogs all day doesn't count.) 2-Liberals still watch it because they trust it more than any other channel. If you want to talk about biased take a look at good old Keith Olbermann on MSNBC.
      • carter5434, on 12/28/2007, -0/+2Liberals trust fox news more than any other news channel? Are you being serious here? I bet the majority of people who watch it only watch it for how absurd it is like I do. I don't beileve a word they say.
        • bob501337, on 12/28/2007, -0/+1I was actually thinking more along the lines of the first possibility. Also, I just watch clips of the Keith Olbermann show. Why would you watch a channel you don't like? Do you actually watch news that you don't think is "absurd"? I don't think you do.
  • brycelb, on 12/28/2007, -25/+8Thanks for the email address to contact Fox. I am impresses that they are finally making the debates watchable by giving the big boys time to answer some questions. I think I will email them to let them know.
  • DeviantDragon, on 12/28/2007, -0/+11You'd think they'd have learned that exposure via these debates can propel someone who's polling low to a popular contender as evidenced by Huckabee's jump in popularity, Iowa straw poll notwithstanding.
    • mbgalvin, on 12/28/2007, -0/+8Yes, I think they have learned exactly that.
  • chupavacas, on 12/28/2007, -3/+27Do we really need another debate with these looze bags? Who cares if Ron Paul is 1st, 2nd or 9th tier, it's all *****. Put it up for a vote. We'll tell 'em who's first.
    • spyd3rweb, on 12/28/2007, -1/+8Hell i say put everyone democrat, independent, republican, libertarian, anarchist, communist, whatever in the arena and let them exchange ideas.
  • bousquetcm, on 12/28/2007, -12/+40Hmmm... funny.... RP is kicking the crap out of everyone on AOL's straw poll....
    Funny. He even took Utah, aka Mittville, and Huckabee's Arkansas.
    How is RP not a top-tier candidate???
    http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2007/12/21/s ...
    • LightSpeed4, on 12/28/2007, -22/+15because he gets 0% on all polls that dont require online fanboys using proxies to vote
      • spyd3rweb, on 12/28/2007, -3/+19You're referring to those phone polls that don't even list him as an option?
    • caffeinelover, on 12/28/2007, -2/+26Self-selecting poll. Completely unreliable. It will be nice when the real elections happen and we can see what real voter opinion is
      • Corrosionx, on 12/28/2007, -2/+15Real elections are self-selecting polls.
        • iofthestorm, on 12/28/2007, -1/+6To a smaller extent, but yes, they are. Real elections are less liable to be affected by this type of bias but considering that around 40-50% of the population votes in the presidential election, if one party merely got 60% of its members to vote they would be sure to win.
          • Corrosionx, on 12/28/2007, -0/+1What about the primaries? This is what we're talking about here....

            About 25% of eligible voters usually show up in primaries..
        • amiches, on 12/28/2007, -1/+0Right, but it's a lot harder to commit fraud in an actual election, whereas duping an online poll is a simple matter of setting up some vote-bots with proxies.
          • Corrosionx, on 12/28/2007, -0/+2I'm pretty confident noone had the motivation or the time to do anything like that. We organized, we voted one time each. We won.

            When you got proof, send it over.
    • StandupShowcase, on 12/28/2007, -16/+8because he gets 2% in a poll where that is the margin of error.
      because he is an extreme right winger that nobody who knows policy takes seriously.
      • mooseontheloose, on 12/28/2007, -5/+14I polled myself and the consensus is that you're a douchebag. 100% with 0 margin of error
        • bob501337, on 12/28/2007, -0/+2Way to show the maturity present in the RP camp.
    • bob501337, on 12/28/2007, -8/+4Maybe he can go on to be president of AOL, because realistically that's as far as he's gonna get.
      Being dugg down in 5, 4, 3, 2, .....
    • cypher303, on 12/28/2007, -1/+1Because AOL is totally like the most secure service ever! Anyone who knows anything knows that!
    • squinky86, on 12/28/2007, -0/+1Maybe because he loses every national poll to every top-tier candidate listed on the linked story?
      http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/presi ...
  • w3bsmith, on 12/28/2007, -2/+6What?!
  • LightSpeed4, on 12/28/2007, -33/+11cant wait until ron paul gets destroyed and these internet fanboys go away
    • JenadaeXX, on 12/28/2007, -4/+17I got news for you. It's only going to become worse.
      • Ulisses, on 12/28/2007, -5/+5Can't get much worse. I mean there's only 0, 1 and 2% below what you're getting now.
        • JenadaeXX, on 12/28/2007, -1/+2When are you people that throw around these polled numbers going to understand that 1) they only call REGISTERED republicans, and 2) they only call people that voted last year...
        • amiches, on 12/28/2007, -0/+0No, they call "likely Republican caucusgoers". They make that decision by asking you when you pick up the phone. But by all means, keep deluding yourself into thinking that RP will pick up any more than 5% of the vote in a few days.
    • spyd3rweb, on 12/28/2007, -4/+15Liberty in the United States will never go away, no matter how hard you try.
    • NightVortez, on 12/28/2007, -2/+7That's what they said about killing Jesus....
    • mooseontheloose, on 12/28/2007, -2/+8Then you could go back to digging ever important stories like "How To Create Web 2.0 Effects With Photoshop". I must say, your insightful comment: "how to create web 2.0 effects with photoshop: type in BETA in everything, put gradients, add reflections, ***** text, and delete vowels from all words" was quite profound.

      But hey, who needs this annoying politics *****, right? You need to know who Britney is dating this week!
      • LightSpeed4, on 12/28/2007, -2/+2dont lie, u know that comment i made was funny
  • elfprince13, on 12/28/2007, -10/+7tier?
    • S1ngular1ty1, on 12/28/2007, -1/+2Wow, that comment is even more retarded the 4th time it shows up in this thread. Who would have thought?
  • jaymzdean, on 12/28/2007, -4/+33***** 'em.
    Go be a delegate for Ron Paul. We don't need the media.
    http://tinyurl.com/yuaadt
    • bariswheel, on 12/28/2007, -0/+2You can also join Vijay's operationlivefreeordie.com project in NH.
      http://www.digg.com/2008_us_elections/Ron_Paul_fan ...
      "You may remember Vijay, the Googler on the Ron Paul Candidates@Google interview who flew in from Seattle to hand deliver a donation check to Ron Paul.Well, Vijay is organizing a very exciting campaign to get over 1000 Ron Paul supporters to New Hampshire in the days before the primary. More info @ operationlivefreeordie.com"
  • LightSpeed4, on 12/28/2007, -22/+7good, i dont want to waste time having someone who wont win the election in this debate
    • BeyondGoodNEvil, on 12/28/2007, -1/+4You win for dumbest comment. You do realize what you're proposing is to have a debate AFTER the election, since only 1 person wins the election? That's the ONLY time when your statement could be true, but the new president wouldn't have anyone else to talk to, so there wouldn't be a debate, but a monologue. However, I don't mind Ron Paul having an hour long monologue as President, I look forward to it.
      • LightSpeed4, on 12/28/2007, -3/+0what i mean is he has 0% chance, the others at least have a chance
  • pintomp3, on 12/28/2007, -5/+85i'm no ron paul supporter, but to have fred thompson there instead of ron paul is just ridiculous. the des moines register excluded kucinich on a technicality, but it looks like fox news is using absolutely no criteria for excluding ron paul. disgusting.
  • artdeco42, on 12/28/2007, -18/+10I emailed and called - he is not in, but his message says to call his cell phone if it is an emergency...

    Not sure if this constitutes an emergency, but just in case someone feels it does...



    Fergus Cullen (cell)

    603-520-5450
    • eunosx, on 12/28/2007, -2/+18Please do not call this number. From the 4th e-mail in the messages concerning this in the Ron Paul meetup group here:
      "DO NOT CALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! He was not excluded! He has been invited but has not accepted yet. They wouldn't dare exclude him at this point. We have to be very careful of knee-jerk reactions."
      Don't raise hell yet unless there is the go ahead from the meetup groups. They're more in touch with the pulse of the campaign
      • Humptydank, on 12/28/2007, -2/+2Eunosx is clearly part of the anti-Ron Paul bury brigade and is trying to trick you!!!

        Since when were the meetup groups ever in charge? At least do your research eunosx!!!

        I'm not suggesting that you call his cell phone and leave multiple messages, but I am saying you shouldn't listen to eunosx!!!
  • Theoxenmooving, on 12/28/2007, -4/+15I say your three cent titanium tax goes too far!
    I say your three cent titanium tax doesn't go too far enough!
    • dsmx, on 12/28/2007, -0/+3I agree with everything my opponent said.
    • carter5434, on 12/28/2007, -0/+3Abortions for all.

      Booooooooooooooo

      Abortions for no one.

      Booooooooooooooooo

      Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others.

      yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay
  • cadmiumpaint, on 12/28/2007, -21/+3Thats what you get. You call yourself a Republican and go against all of their party views, and you cry like a little baby when they don't invite you to play with them. Ron Paul should have run as an independent or something....not like it would have mattered.
    • StandupShowcase, on 12/28/2007, -3/+7he doesn't go against all their party views...he is the purest right winger when it comes to deregulation of corporations--anti trust law, against workers and consumer rights, against pollution controls, etc etc
      • cadmiumpaint, on 12/28/2007, -8/+1He's a republican in concept. yes he believes in their old fashioned party views but that means nothing.

        in reality the GOP in 2007 stands for
        1. the war in Iraq
        2. limiting American Freedoms in the name of national security
        3. Discriminating against Homosexuals
        4. Shoving a distorted redneck version of "Christianity" down everyones throat

        Paul has aligned himself with that group. He is one of them. Big surprise no one wants him to play in their sandbox.
    • Corrosionx, on 12/28/2007, -2/+2Ever wondered why they called the GOP the big tent?
    • AdrewMc3, on 12/28/2007, -2/+2Explain the Republican views...You mean low taxes, small government and less spending? Thats what they are about right I get confused every other decade....

      would you run as a independent when your a republican congressmen, (or at all and expect to win)?
      • cadmiumpaint, on 12/28/2007, -2/+1What people say the GOP stands for and what its leaders do once they get power are two very different things.
        • Corrosionx, on 12/28/2007, -0/+1Which is why we're trying to get Ron Paul instead of Giuliani or Clinton, who will abuse the ***** out of the office.
  • luftrofl, on 12/28/2007, -18/+8Nobody cares. Not being an ass but really, nobody cares. It may seem like there's a lot of support for RP because everyone diggs stories about him on this website. According to Ron Paul's campaign site, ~130,000 people have contributed. That's not a lot, folks. Sorry.
    • d3ik, on 12/28/2007, -2/+6You realize that he has (more than likely*) raised more in the fourth quarter than any other GOP candidate, right? And he has a lower average contribution ($100, I believe) than other candidates. There are plenty of points of opposition that you can take against Ron Paul, but fund raising is *not* one of them.

      * While Ron Paul has a running ticket on his website of how much has been raised, most other candidates only reveal how much has been raised in FEC filings once a quarter.
      • actorboy, on 12/28/2007, -2/+3His argument in not about how much money he's raised, but how few people have contributed. 130,000 votes will not win an election. Suppose only half of Paul's supporters contributed -- still, 260.000 votes will not win an election. You are confusing the ability to raise money and shout the loudest with something more tangible, like a head count.
  • BenMuldowney74, on 12/28/2007, -9/+20this will blow up in their faces, they haven't learned anything yet. Fox is the war monger network. run by neocons that need to be brought up on war crime charges. rupert murdoch is a slivering filth peddler and his network is a clown channel.
    • pyronik, on 12/28/2007, -7/+6war crimes? haha do you realize how that sounds? really.. just think about it this.. YOU.. yes YOU don't like and agree with fox news, disregard the fact that most of country aren't as wacked out crazy as you ... even if they were Fox is a new agency not a government agency and barring the camera men going into Iraq and bashing in little children's heads with their cameras they really can't commit war crimes (I am sure you think they do that too don't you), but if I have to explain that then really you probably don't have the mental ability to comprehend basic concepts like the difference between the news and the military anyways.
      • seanpetrash, on 12/28/2007, -3/+5you sir, may be unaware of the term "propaganda." But essentially, the administration could not have gone to war without a medium to exchange and force-feed their web of lies to the American people. ABC and FOX are at the top of the list that the CIA contracted out to pull this sham off. It is you who are incapable of higher-level thinking because it is you sir, who believe Faux Noise is a legitimate source of news.
        Btw, the german people thought they were winning WW2 right up until the American tanks rolled into Berlin. Why? Propaganda. This isn't new. Read a ***** book. Hell, read 3. Start with George Orwell's 1982. Then you'll have enough of a clue to actually comment on things of this nature. Until then, shut the ***** up.
  • ThePerkins, on 12/28/2007, -16/+7Oh great, I can't wait for the onslaught of whining from these predictable ronbots. Its a shame when an ignorant subculture like the paultards emerges as a reaction to an already ***** white house. Go away, and get off paul's sack long enough to realize his policies are a joke.
    • jonpotz, on 12/28/2007, -4/+2Paultards says the Bushbot.

      Why do you hate America?
  • palindrome12, on 12/28/2007, -17/+1Why won't the dems, excuse me, the dims, debate on Fox? What are they scared of? Hard questions?
    • StandupShowcase, on 12/28/2007, -1/+11you mean like how bush had "town halls" where the audience was pre screened?
  • eunosx, on 12/28/2007, -4/+35This story is wrong. There was a mass e-mail stating that to the Ron Paul Meetup groups. Just a few minutes ago I got the 4th e-mail in the string stating that he has been invited, he just hasn't accepted yet. That e-mail looks pretty legit since there was a huge warning not to call the people involved in hosting the event (whose phone numbers were posted in the first e-mail).
    The exact e-mail text was:
    "DO NOT CALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! He was not excluded! He has been invited but has not accepted yet. They wouldn't dare exclude him at this point. We have to be very careful of knee-jerk reactions."
    • Humptydank, on 12/28/2007, -12/+8"We have to be very careful of knee-jerk reactions."

      I nominate that as the Ronbot quote of the month.
      • card51short, on 12/28/2007, -2/+1haha you should go post it on your Ron Paul Has No Chance BUT WE MUST STOP HIM Blog.
        I'm sure you have at least 8 blogs dedicated to hating on Ron Paul.
      • Humptydank, on 12/28/2007, -0/+4You seriously think that with my pitifully unedited and incredibly long-winded posts here on digg I have time to post anywhere else? I know you have me as part of some paid super-elite liberal posting swat team, and believe me that's fun for both of us, but in reality I'm actually just a guy who doesn't like how it's going.

        Ron Paul should be opposed not because he has a chance of winning, but because he sets a new low in American politics. Not an easy feat. The demographics of his campaign indicate that for many of his supporters this is their first opportunity to vote for a President, and Ron Paul should not be allowed to use time-honored anti-intellectual campaign tactics against them without some principled opposition.

        You don't have to win to do damage to people, and that's why I bother.
  • onetimer, on 12/28/2007, -1/+13Has this been verified? The article only states that those five candidates so far have accepted an invitation. Nothing about Paul not being invited.

    Regardless, as much as I vehemently disagree with Paul on many issues, I am curious to see what metric fox used that would qualify Thompson but disqualify Paul.
    • Minarchian, on 12/28/2007, -1/+5Thanks for having an open mind on this onetimer :)

      But I think this is a "false call" by some over zealous supporter. I haven't seen anything yet that tells me Paul wasn't invited.... actually I fell into that trap too :(
  • brjohnson789, on 12/28/2007, -7/+9I would normally be extremely pissed at this kind of treatment of my favorite candidate, but I think this will turn out well. Once Paul shows in the top 5 in the Iowa caucus on Jan 3rd (higher than some of the so called top tier candidates) then it will show to anyone who isn't totally brain dead how biased fox is.
    • EditorResponse, on 12/28/2007, -1/+5Last week on Digg every RP supporter was saying wait until he posts in the top three and now you are saying the top five? What a joke...one has already pulled out.
    • amiches, on 12/28/2007, -1/+0Haha...way to manage expectations. I hate the ***** out of Ron Paul and his supporters and even I concede that top 5 (as in, #5) is possible.
    • bob501337, on 12/28/2007, -0/+1I can picture the committee now: "Holy ***** guys, brjohnson789 is going to be extremely pissed, we better put Ron Paul in that debate."
  • onetimer, on 12/28/2007, -15/+14The last part of the description claiming Paul is polling higher than Thompson in all National polls is a complete lie.

    Every SINGLE national poll during the last month (all thirteen of them) have shown Thompson with a clear lead over paul on a national level. http://www.pollster.com/08-US-Rep-Pres-Primary.php
    • V3n0M, on 12/28/2007, -7/+14True. But in New Hampshire where the forum is taking place, Ron Paul is polling higher.
      http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/presi ...
      • ToadX, on 12/28/2007, -1/+7"True. But in New Hampshire where the forum is taking place, Ron Paul is polling higher."

        Unfortunately New Hampshire is not equivalent to "all national polls" as it states in the description: "Even though Ron Paul is polling higher than Thompson on all national polls"
      • onetimer, on 12/28/2007, -1/+4Your post would be relevant if the description had said "All in-state Polls" instead of "All national polls"

        But of course you're dugg up and I'm buried because I countered a claim with facts that reflect poorly on the paul campaign.
    • Corrosionx, on 12/28/2007, -8/+8And these polls only measure name recognition, and he's an actor. Nobody really believes this guy can run the country.
      • iofthestorm, on 12/28/2007, -5/+1See Arnold Scharzenegger, California Recall election of 2003. And he's actually a pretty good governor, after his special election campaign was shut down he started listening to the people.
        • Corrosionx, on 12/28/2007, -0/+1Fred Thompson is no Arnold Schwarzenegger.
      • shauncorleone, on 12/28/2007, -2/+1Actually, if you look back at the guy's voting record, he's the most classically conservative candidate with a legitimate chance to win the nomination. Assuming the Christian Conservative crowd eventually comes to their senses and sees Huckabee for what he is, which is a lib in republican clothing using his faith as a diversion, that support will be dispersed amongst the other candidates, giving Thompson just as solid a chance as Romney, McCain and Giuliani. He's my candidate, after several months of studying all the GOP options.
    • Minarchian, on 12/28/2007, -11/+4Not true.

      In a blind poll at Zogby, Paul took 1st place!

    • Humptydank, on 12/28/2007, -0/+6@V3n0M:

      1. Sorry, but I couldn't find the margins of error for these polls, are they available?

      2. Are you seriously telling me that they created their "RCP Average" by adding up the percentages from five different polls, with different methodologies, different sample sizes, and different wording in the questions, and then just dividing by five? Do they think that's how statistics works?

      You really need a better primary source, because they're idiots.
      • Humptydank, on 12/28/2007, -0/+3I agree. I just saw this on the AP news wire:

        "In a recent 'guess the number of marbles in the jar' contest at Wilkies Drug Store in North Pomfret, New Hampshire, customers guessed 324 Ron Paul marbles, nearly twice as many as his nearest competitor, Purple Finch, the New Hampshire state bird.

        "The Ron Paul Campaign said that this is yet another clear indication that he will be the next President of the United States, and be elected with 97 percent of the popular vote. Purple Finch was not returning calls at press time."
  • shmekel, on 12/28/2007, -5/+62BE CAREFUL. IT LOOKS LIKE HE HAS INDEED BEEN INVITED. PLEASE DO NOT OVERWHELM THE NH GOP WITH EMAILS.

    http://www.dailypaul.com/node/17667#comment-148770

    • cadmiumpaint, on 12/28/2007, -5/+3please do. The republican party stands for everything that is wrong with this country. digg users please spam them and monopolize their time and money.
      • pyronik, on 12/28/2007, -0/+2thats immature
        • cadmiumpaint, on 12/28/2007, -0/+2and digg users, moreover Ron Paul disciples are the pinnacle of maturity?
        • thumperings, on 12/28/2007, -1/+2so is killing a million Iraqis needlessly.
  • austinisi, on 12/28/2007, -3/+25READ THIS FIRST!!

    http://www.dailypaul.com/node/17758
  • Zlorp, on 12/28/2007, -8/+19buried for inaccuracy
    • eunosx, on 12/28/2007, -4/+2Same here, I just sent a mass email out to my local meet-up group to hopefully avoid causing unneeded waves.
  • dgreichert, on 12/28/2007, -23/+17Ron Paul is NOT polling higher than Thompson on a national level by any means!
    http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08rep.htm

    RP is averaging (and being very generous) about 5%. Thompson (again, being generous to the RP crowd) is at about 10%.
    • dgreichert, on 12/28/2007, -10/+14LOL @ Paulbots burying the comment. Whats wrong with it? I was not stating any opinion, I was stating FACT and being generous to the Paulbots in the facts, too!
      I guess the truth hurts Paulbots and they'd rather believe their fantasy dreamland where America secedes from the planet and isolates completely while Ron Paul is able to live off of taxes fro...wait... HOW THE HELL IS HE GOING TO GET HIS SALARY?!?!?!?!? NO TAXES!!!! AHHH!! BRAIN HURT!
    • Minarchian, on 12/28/2007, -7/+7Who paid for those "polls"?

      Who created the questions?

      Guess who.

      The very same media that is saying he has no support.

      Go ahead and ignore the fact that Paul is in the lead or the top three in every metric of support except your precious polls.
      • dgreichert, on 12/28/2007, -2/+8Quick! Post some straw polls to show "facts!" We all know theres NO WAY at all straw polls can be unbalanced and paid for!!!
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_GADQv3vKs
        Find me ONE poll where he leads. Not ones done by a 16 year old on his blog, or any of them conducted by web sites or phone polls, etc- real, statistically accurate, scientific polls only... respected polls.
        The denial most Paulbots are in is astounding and sad.
      • DiscoJohn, on 12/28/2007, -2/+5Oh god, little boy, grow up.
        Yeah, the reason Ron Paul isn't polling as well as you want him to is because corporations are rigging the results. And when I ejaculate, clowns climb out of my penis.
    • njcarlos, on 12/28/2007, -6/+7It's a NH debate, he is polling higher than Thompson in NH. Was cool you wasted your time though. :)
    • deadmann, on 12/28/2007, -7/+4Fox news opinion poll? How about looking at the straw polls.

      http://www.ronpaul2008.com/straw-poll-results/
      • dgreichert, on 12/28/2007, -1/+6PSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSST! Theres most major polling agencies in there. The Fox News one is just the most recent one. Good idea though to post a non-biased poll DIRECTLY FROM PAULS SITE.
  • Tohdman, on 12/28/2007, -31/+5No offense to all you radical Ron Paul supporters but I would like to see a debate with actual conservatives and candidates who actually have a chance of winning the primaries.
    • zeebo323, on 12/28/2007, -5/+10Sorry, offense taken.
    • NightVortez, on 12/28/2007, -4/+5I would like to see a debate with Ron Paul as well, I'm glad we agree.
    • chuckpenzone, on 12/28/2007, -3/+8Radical? Do you actually understand Ron Paul's position? I guess bringing things back to and preserving the US constitution is a radical notion these days.
    • njcarlos, on 12/28/2007, -2/+9Keep up that mentality and we'll be voting in the Media's candidates for years to come.
      • deadmann, on 12/28/2007, -1/+5Which is handy if you are a Zionist.
    • Progrockusa, on 12/28/2007, -2/+5pay no attention he's a bush lover.
      probably thinks iraq had something to do with 9/11
    • iofthestorm, on 12/28/2007, -0/+3I don't like Ron Paul but the reason I don't is because he is so conservative, although he is more likable as a person and ideologically than the neo-cons who are not conservative by any stretch of the imagination.
    • thecoolestguy, on 12/28/2007, -1/+2lol at you calling big-government neocon imposters 'actual conservatives'.

      War is peace
      Ignorance is strength
      Big government is conservative
    • tybris, on 12/28/2007, -0/+2Ron Paul is the only conservative Republican candidate...
  • kakos, on 12/28/2007, -13/+2What's the address to write Fox saying that I'm glad that Ron Paul isn't in the debate?
  • Garmonbozzia, on 12/28/2007, -4/+2Here's what I just sent to the NH GOP:

    I have read that you are not inviting Ron Paul to the upcoming debate. This is an affront to all the decent Americans who have invested valuable time and money into spreading Dr. Paul's message. In case you haven't noticed, there is a revolution brewing out here, and you do NOT have the authority to simply "uninvite" the will of the American people. By this point you may already be feeling the weight of the revolution pressing on your email servers. We are here, we are a force to be reckoned with, and we trust that you will make the right decision. Thank you.

    I don't care if they did really invite him. The thunderous roar of the revolution is always a good thing. Email away! Make certain they know not to mess with us!

    Ron Paul 2008! Vive la revolucion!
    • prgmctan, on 12/28/2007, -0/+1retard, read the posts above yours before you do something stupid

      don't email them
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 100 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.