Pisano wrote:
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 00:37:13 -0800, David Friedman
wrote:

In article ,
Pisano wrote:

On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 23:42:13 -0800, David Friedman
wrote:

In article ,
Pisano wrote:

On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 22:58:21 -0800, David Friedman
wrote:

In article ,
Crowfoot wrote:

I would have thought that most Ron Paul supporters believed in
freedom
of the press, not of having government tell the press how much they
had
to cover of whom.

Are you sure you aren't a McCain supporter?
One way to try to curb the enormous burgeoning of spending on campaigns
is the limiting of TV exposure to the same amount for every candidate,
which would ...
There are certainly arguments for limitations of one sort or another,
although I'm not sure I find them convincing. My point was that McCain
is a prominent supporter of campaign expenditure limits, I suspect
(although don't know for certain) that Ron Paul is a strong opponent,
and the poster was a Paul supporter arguing for them.

Where did I ever do that?

Cite, please.

When you wrote:

Also needed is a scheme to insure that ALL candidates on the
ballot are guaranteed an equal amount of coverage in the mainstream
media, without having to rely upon the consent of the media to allow
only those with deep pockets to be heard.

And just how do you read that as arguing for expenditure
limits?
In order to get an equal amount of coverage, you either need to forbid
some candidates from buying more air time than others, or subsidize
whoever would otherwise buy less.

Considering what I wrote following that (which was snipped):


It is a matter of utmost
importance to the security of the nation and due process for all.
Those factors should override the rights of the private business
interests who run the media corporations because the very survival of
our constitutional government completely depends upon the public's
ability as a whole to descern and then elect leaders we can trust to
follow the rule of law.
Or in other words, like McCain, you think that the national interest
requires restrictions on publicity for candidates.

If our personal liberties can be so easily traded for
so-called "security" from the farce of threats from invisible boogy
men, then certainly the media can contribute time, or our taxes can
certainly pay for, such an equal time requirement. It is simply the
right thing to do.

I was clearly saying that time should be provided by the
media, either free of charge, or paid for with public funding.
In order to get equal coverage of all, you must not only fund the people
who otherwise wouldn't get much coverage, you must also forbid other
candidates from spending their own money to get even more coverage.

Or is your proposal that we first find out which candidate wants to buy
the most television time, and then offer the same amount of time for
free (i.e. paid for by tax money or provided for free by broadcasters
compelled to do so) to all the others?

I don't think any version of such a proposal is consistent with either
Ron Paul's general principles or his stated views on the subject. Much
closer to McCain. You're clearly supporting the wrong candidate--or, to
put it differently, you sound as though you don't understand Ron Paul's
position very well. He isn't strong on overriding private rights because
of what someone thinks is the national interest.


I want them to all have equal time. How that is achieved
would have to be worked out. But one issue does not a candidate make.

Ron Paul is, in my opinion, a very wise man, and a highly
respectable candidate, who is wholly correct in light of the total
package. He is a constitutionalist, and American government has
always been, or should always be, grounded in constitutional
principles. If it isn't, then it would soon cease to be America.

I understand that the changes he proposes can not, and will
not be made overnight, but I trust and respect him far more than the
others, and accept his platform as stated here as the best chance we
have for beneficial change, and the restoration of our great republic:


http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/

Hear hear!
I will vote for Ron Paul when i have the opportunity, starting with next
Tuesday here in TX

On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 17:00:40 -0600, Rex wrote:

I will vote for Ron Paul when i have the opportunity, starting with next
Tuesday here in TX

The post I saw from him, on his site, was a pretty clear suspension of
his campaign. What did you, or I, miss about it?

Dave Hinz wrote:
On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 17:00:40 -0600, Rex wrote:

I will vote for Ron Paul when i have the opportunity, starting with next
Tuesday here in TX

The post I saw from him, on his site, was a pretty clear suspension of
his campaign. What did you, or I, miss about it?

He didn't suspend it, but he's scaled back to ensure he does not lose
his seat in the House. Still actively campaigning as of yesterday.

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 09:05:30 -0600, Rex wrote:
Dave Hinz wrote:
On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 17:00:40 -0600, Rex wrote:

I will vote for Ron Paul when i have the opportunity, starting with next
Tuesday here in TX

The post I saw from him, on his site, was a pretty clear suspension of
his campaign. What did you, or I, miss about it?

He didn't suspend it, but he's scaled back to ensure he does not lose
his seat in the House. Still actively campaigning as of yesterday.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

OK, sure, call it what you will. "Charge towards the rear" then?

On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 21:30:54 -0600, David R. Birch wrote:
Dave Hinz wrote:

OK, sure, call it what you will. "Charge towards the rear" then?

NO NO NO! "Courageous tactical retreat as the enemy advances in ragged
disorder!"

Of course, how silly of me. I crave that you shall accept my most
humble apologies.

/me: knows who has the big lasers