Positive for Ron Paul in Louisiana Caucus Results
Filed under: News, Politics | By: Daniel
Posted on: January 23, 2008 | 27 Comments
The Louisiana caucus results are not in yet (will be in a few hours), but things are looking very positive for Ron Paul.
We have heard a rumor that in Natchitoches Ron Paul won 11 of the 15 Delegates and that there were less than 100 people at some sites, some Ron Paul supporters are saying “Dr. Paul must be doing well, since I haven’t seen anything about it on the so called news channels”.
What do you make of the Louisiana caucus and the lack of news in the main stream media?
Keep an eye on the GOP website, news of the results will be posted there
CLICK HERE to keep updated with the latest news, share a comment or problems with products and services. Follow us on twitter or read more news.
“I have an opinion on the blind loyalty you all seem to share for a candidate that really doesn’t, your own delusions aside, have any chance of winning.
If I may quote the ‘article’ here,
“Dr. Paul must be doing well, since I haven’t seen anything about it on the so called news channels”.
How in the world do you get that from a lack of news coverage? People aren’t talking about the stampede of pink elephants running through Times Square as I am typing this.”
“As much as I can appreciate support for a independent candidate, I fail to see why one radical right-winger would garner such a following.”
He is a republican candidate not an independent candidate. Radical: a person who holds or follows strong convictions or extreme principles; extremist. I think you perhaps watch too much television, routinely the media calls Ron Paul a radical when he is not. I’m staunchly opposed to your use of the word radical in this case. Follow core values our country was founded on is not radical and Ron Paul is not an extremist. Too many times does the media use the word radical/extremist with the word terrorist,jihadist. Now when they mention him when they want to do hit pieces on him or his supporters they use radical to describe them.
I think perhaps once again you have fallen victim to the labeling and categorizing of people the media encourages. Believing in and following the greatest and most important document in our nation’s history (the constitution) is not a radical idea. If anything or anyone is radical it is McCain and the 100+ year long war he proposed and said he would pursue if elected. If anything is extreme or radical it is Mike Huckabee who said if elected he would revoke the constitution and replace it with “God’s Law”, that is radical, that is extreme.
Blind Loyalty? Are you kidding me? No it is not blind loyalty as we know where are candidate stands, we know his voting record, we know the warnings he gave in 1988 about our monopoly, our fiat currency system and it’s short comings and it’s deception. His position hasn’t changed to line up with his yearnings to become president like ALL the other candidates.
Blind loyalty really more accurately describes Mike Huckabees followers or John McCain’s followers. Huckabee supporters are blinded by their loyalty to their religion, McCain supporters are blinded by their emotions and McCain’s prisoner of war status and experiences.
Huckabee promised to get rid of our constitution, the constitution of the united states of America. McCain promised to pursue a 100+ year long war in Iraq yet promises to spend less money and have less government in peoples lives and to limit the size of government, a direct result of more wars and more prolonged wars is that the government will grow up around that and get bigger, and another result is more government in our everyday activities, one more result is the YOU SPEND MORE MONEY! This all more accurately describes blind devotion than anything else.
No chance of winning? Fox really has you in it’s palms doesn’t it. You are eating every bit of propaganda fed to you through the idiot’s box. He has set a record in fund raising no other candidate has, in fact is a record in all America’s political history. He won second place in Nevada, He was the 2nd in Louisiana’s delegate caucus. All without one iota of help from the media and with zero coverage.
Each day Ron Paul receives hundreds of new donors to his fund raiser, each day he receives new supporters who finally had a chance to listen to him speak on his issues. If the media covered him as much as they covered Giuliani he would be an unstoppable force. They realize if they did cover him he would resonate with 80 percent of America because of his stance of invalid wars, because of his stance on over spending, because of his stance on corrupt factions of government (IRS), because of his stance on a private central bank our forefathers were always staunchly opposed to, because of his stance on Habeas Corpus and reinstating it and all freedoms that have been trampled on by those in control of our government.
Once again blind loyalty? No this is a position I have always had way before I have ever heard Ron Paul’s name even uttered. This is the stance my conscience has told me to take, not because of what the media wants me to vote, not because of peer pressure, but because of my conscience and moral stance. He has a better chance of winning than Fred Thompson ever had, he has a better chance than Rudy Giuliani ever had, he has a better chance of winning than Edwards ever had, and now he has a better chance of winning than Huckabee. If the truth got out about Hillary, Romney, and Obama he would have a better chance than all three of them to become president.
I think in all honestly your blind devotion, your blind adoration of the media and it’s reporters is what is deluding you and affecting you. Regards,
T.L.
Well, the official Republican Party website of Louisiana hasn’t been updated since Jan. 23rd.
Yes, I think that Paul must have won. That’s the only possible explanation for the media silence.
Now that Dennis is out… Go Ron Paul!
“Yes, I think that Paul must have won. That’s the only possible explanation for the media silence.” I wouldn’t say that is the only reason for the silence. Even when Ron Paul came in 2nd in Nevada they pretty much were silent on it except for the fact that Romney won, they did a hell of a job at saying just how HUGE that was for Romney and little else was said about Nevada.
So even with him coming in 2nd if you believe that report (which I really don’t buy that, I’m more inclined to think if it were official Ron Paul would be the winner, we’ll see) then it shows why it is being blacked out. Perhaps they just want to make it seem that Louisiana doesn’t have a voice and doesn’t exist altogether. Speculation does no good really. I stick to what I know for sure and I know the media is controlled, I know all major networks have the same agenda, and I know that Ron Paul doesn’t support their agenda and their “Status quo is good” mantra.
Any good reports on Ron Paul will be supressed (if there happen to be moral reporters anymore), and all good results for Paul in the primaries will be blacked out. If Ron Paul wins a state the mass media will skip entirely reporting on that states primary, and if they are forced somehow into giving results they will just right out lie about the winner and say someone like McCain won that primary even though we know to the contrary.
The new york times recently endorsed a GOP candidate and said that their candidate will not run the country like bush and will not support strategies and policies that bush supported,,, guess who the New York Times endorsed…. John McCain! He who says we should be in Iraq for 100+ more years. Staying in Iraq one could argue is a Bush policy, Staying there and staying in prolonged wars for over 100+ years is Bush’s wet dream. So the New York Times is completely either fooled and they don’t have any intelligent people there, or they are just one more bought and paid for media head. Either way they can kiss the ass of this patriot!
All right, having read your responses, I will at least retract the radical adjective from my description of Ron Paul. I do have some qualms with some of your statements though. To say that I have a blind adoration of the media and reporters, especially without any actual evidence of that, seems to be out of line. Frankly, I believe less of what I hear on the news every passing day. My opinions on Ron Paul are not culled from press coverage (And one of you said that he receives zero media coverage, while the other proclaimed that the media is always proclaiming him a radical. I don’t suppose you can have it both ways), but from sites much like this. My problem with getting behind a candidate like Ron Paul is that he really stands against alot of the things that I am for, and that I think that rational human beings should be for. His pro-life (a misnomer if there ever was one) stance, his ideas on gun control are either inconsistent or borderline dangerous, his refusal to accept the theory of evolution (which I know will be countered with “how does that make a difference in how he will run the country?”, but it does certainly speak volumes about the rationality of a person), his refusal to stand up for gay and lesbian rights (Instead choosing to say that Congress shouldn’t be defining things that were already in the dictionary. Civil rights be damned, I guess), not to mention his outright decrying of so-called ‘activist’ judges.
This is not to say that he doesn’t have good points, but there are certainly other candidates who I feel encompass those good points while managing not to completely alienate me with their stance on every other issue.
But, you know, and this was really the whole reason I was posting here in the first place, if I had been planning on voting for Ron Paul, the massive amount of just random gaming, spamming and useless rhetoric that the Ron Paul bots have been posting everywhere that they could would have totally turned me off to Ron Paul.
The measure of a man can be found in the company that he keeps, and if Ron Paul’s company includes those who feel it necessary to bombard everyone else connected to the internet with story after story, post after post, and blog after blog of pro-Ron Paul writing, then that is definitely company that I do not want to keep.
Anonymous
“My problem with getting behind a candidate like Ron Paul is that he really stands against alot of the things that I am for, and that I think that rational human beings should be for. His pro-life (a misnomer if there ever was one) stance, his ideas on gun control are either inconsistent or borderline dangerous, his refusal to accept the theory of evolution (which I know will be countered with “how does that make a difference in how he will run the country?”, but it does certainly speak volumes about the rationality of a person), his refusal to stand up for gay and lesbian rights (Instead choosing to say that Congress shouldn’t be defining things that were already in the dictionary. Civil rights be damned, I guess), not to mention his outright decrying of so-called ‘activist’ judges.”
Hey Anonymous,
Freedom means you can believe what you want no matter how silly. Most people in office believe there is an invisible man watching over them in the sky that loves them. If a fetus was alive wouldn’t they be able to rent another “womb” if they got thrown out of the one it was in. Guns don’t shoot people…people shoot people…everyone has to be responsible for what they do…maybe we shouldn’t let people drive cars because they might hurt someone. Individual rights covers just about everything that can happen to you and so redheaded rights are unnecessary. Marry a tree or a rock if you want, it won’t bother me, I’ll be your best man if you want. Activist judges shouldn’t really be making stuff up out thier butts but if they want to be nicer to me I wouldn’t complain about it. I am not in agreement with Ron Paul on alot of things but when it comes to FREEDOM and the CONSTITUTION(which defines who we are by the way) those two things need defending. I am sure Ron Paul is the man for the job and I fully support him. When the boat is sinking the color of the drapes on the portholes is not that important. Fix the leak. Then on to the drapes. All the other presidental candidates are meatpuppets for WAR and will keep us in a war for generations with irrational arabs so if you have any children they will grow up and die fighting for gasoline in some strange place on the other side of the world so I can sit here and type random useless rhetoric to people that don’t know what’s good for them.
Also I urge you to reconsider your evaluation of a person’s worth based on them hanging out with Ron Paul……..M O O N that spells Ron Paul…some of the dumbest people in the world might just be the most important …how do you really know…
Well I got the jist of what he said. The thing is if you simplify it he is saying that freedom (certain ones?) scare him. The thing is the rights that will be restored to their original volume people originally already had, we are talking about getting something we already had, were promised and deserve. Thoughts on abortion… he believes that the federal government shouldnt tell states what to decide. He believes in rights of the individual (not collective) which is the way this country was meant to be by the founders of it. That is the way it always was and always should be. I still can not believe that there are others like you who would rather sell their country out because there is something really petty that they dont believe. You know I dont ever recall Ron Paul ever saying he doesnt believe in evolution, so I wont take what you said at face value because it could just be complete bs. Most of what you said are dividing factors that those (including media) that control what is going on in government routinely use to divide people. You attack people on speaking out over the internet by calling is “spamming”. You assume that everyone that mentions Ron Paul posts it hundreds of times over the net (spamming). You call people Paul Bots, just because they support a candidate you obviously find distasteful to you. My conscience has weighed in heavily on my decision to support Paul. I have found contradiction after contradiction, lie after lie and downright corruption in all the other candidates, not to mention they are all members and sympathizers of a private/special interest council that I find particulary offensive as an American, and someone who cares about my country. Romney lied about lobbyists being tied to his campaign, McCain said he plans on pursuing a 100+ year long war, then later says he plans to spend less and have a smaller government. A direct result of more wars and more prolonged wars is more spending, larger government everything he said he was against, Huckabee said he plans on getting rid of the constitution and replacing it with “God’s Law”, Obama was named in a federal corruption case, Clinton was involved in fundraising fraud. If one of any of the other candidates gets theirselves into office you will have more worries than who supports abortion, or who believes in evolution or not, You’ll see is all I have to say. Time will prove me right on that. Regards,
T.L.