EVEN ABC's Poll has Ron Paul MAJORLY AHEAD after the debate!!

[Warwagon]

Thought you fellas would like to see this one ...
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/BeSeenBeHeard/popup?id=3135373

Check out the YouTube version here ...
http://youtube.com/watch?v=dNvoaGfwZcc

I'd say he :hammered: them all! :rockon:

[okie shooter]

Thought you fellas would like to see this one ...
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/BeSeenBeHeard/popup?id=3135373

Check out the YouTube version here ...
http://youtube.com/watch?v=dNvoaGfwZcc

I'd say he :hammered: them all! :rockon:

Read the last line on your site, "Not a scientific survey"




http://abcnews.go.com/poll/images/poll8271_0.gif

Not a scientific survey.



Thus just a example of how folks can moblize to make a canidate look good but they didnt call any one. I am not knocking your canidate but remember the line from the right stuff, "what makes this rocket go up, funding, no bucks, no buck rogers" Thus without a national name, and if he doesnt have great fund raising ablity, there will be a fade before New Hampshire, and Iowa next year. Remember in the last election, in NH, who raised the most money, or almost the most money in the democratic race, Howard Dean, who then self destructed later.

[Warwagon]

Not necessarily "my" candidate - I don't "own" any humans - just a possible option that I wanted you gents to be aware of. I am not funding his run, so it is my belief that he feels no indenture to me for my listing links to his responses to the questions posed to him.

As to the "Not a Scientific Survey" disclaimer on the poll, no calls were made to the general populace - true. Few of the internet polls are "Scientific." Think I'm kidding, check for yourself. Statistics are in the realm of mathematics, not science anyway. Time will tell whether Paul is a viable candidate come election time, though it is an indication that he has a group of followers that were willing to expend the effort to generate those types of numbers. LESS than 8% of the population was "actively" involved in the Revolutionary War. I offer this as evidence of what a few motivated individuals can achieve. I would rather have the chance to vote for a person, who I feel has a good grasp of the Constitution as based on the original intent of the founders, from a greater number of candidates - than - choose from a few candidates, and have to pick the lesser of evils.

Too many voters these days, in my opinion, want to claim they voted for a member of a winning "team". Being part of a winning team seems to be of a higher priority to them than voting for the one they perceive to be the best candidate. I have always voted for the candidates that I believed were the best all around choices - even when their opposition vehemently claimed that they were NOT in the running. It falls under the "The lady doth protest too much. methinks" philosophy. I'm not much for the lemming mentality. And I figured that there are some on this board that are of the same ilk.

Ever notice how many statues and monuments, throughout history, have been made of "teams"? Damn few. Most are for INDIVIDUALS. Those bold or enlightened few that had the gumption to do something outstanding. The only exception that readily comes to mind is of Marines planting the flag on a chunk of dirt called Iwo Jima. Semper Fi.

Just anteing up my $.02.

[kevin]

i thought out of all the people he came in dead last, i watched the whole thing on TV

i thought his reasoning that we brought on 9-11 on ourselves for dropping bombs on iraq over a period of ten years was ABSURD

also when guilioni piped up and asked him to basicly applogize for those remarks was the best part of the debate.

Clearly his supporters dont realize we are fighting people who just plain want to kill us because we are not muslims

Clearly larry the cable guy sums it up best

the difference between a terrorist and an infant:
the baby wears the diaper on its butt.... but both diapers are full of Shi#