Ron Paul Excluded From Iowa Presidential Forum - Audio of both sides

[DosEquis]

On thread though, i think it is crappy that they didn't invite Ron. It is their right to invite whoever they want though. I just hope people recognize it and because of this I hope people take away the legitimacy/credibility of the debate when they are evaluating candidates.

[hsmith]

I have an idea, lets have a "free tax" and "lower tax" forum and fail to invite the only congressman that doesn't vote to raise taxes and wants to abolish the IRS.

Yeah!

[phreak]

Originally Posted by Fed Up

My guess is that it's Sean Hannity and Michell Malkin. Who's to say it isn't?

jesus christ... you have got to be kidding me.

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by Publius

No one makes you open a single thread on this forum, if you don't like reading threads about Ron Paul, don't open them. It's as simple as that.

Thanks for the suggestion.

[Fed Up]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Because it's his right to invite whom he wants. He doesn't have to explain to the bandwagoners.





Conspiracy? Right. There are PLENTY of people who don't want someone in the White House. So this guy doesn't want Paul, so what? You don't want McCain or Clinton do you?



At this point, Clinton has my vote. There's still a long way to go and anything can happen up until election time. I throw darts at Paul because I am sick of hearing about him on this forum. Thread after thread is started about him. He is not news. He doesn't have the slightest chance of winning...so why do I have to sort through 40 threads about him? He's got his little bandwagon chugging along with all his fanboys. I can't wait until he's out of the race for good.




Tyranny? Right.

You say it is his right to invite whom he wants yet in the interview on the Iowa radio station, if you would have taken the time to listen to it, he said that his "501c3 corpoartion can't be biased." Isn't this being biased?

To your second point, see above. McCaain and Clinton were invited and declined. Ron Paul wasn't invited.

To your third point, most in America haven't heard about Ron Paul yet there are still people on this forum, like you, who don't understand what Ron Paul stands for. You would rather vote for Clinton who will put upon our nation a government run health program that will be as successful as the government run rail system. Name one thing the government does well! Don't you understand that our nation is almost 9 trillion in debt? Don't you understand that our current socialized system of medicare and social security are in need of $40 TRILLION in the years to come? Where is the money going to come from to support these programs? Where is the money going to come from to support the "universal" health care system? Well in Europe they pay twice what we pay for gasoline to help subsidize it. So are you ready to pay more? Can America, already deep in personal debt, pay more? But wait, we need to take care of the environment or we'll fry to death from Global Warming....so dig deeper!

Tyranny?....absolutely...only Ron Paul stands in the way.

But good luck to you and Bill's wife just the same.

[Fed Up]

Originally Posted by phreak

jesus christ... you have got to be kidding me.

Hey, it's a joke...but you get my drift. Have you listened to these two neo-con's constantly attack Paul? I have.

[Publius]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

On thread though, i think it is crappy that they didn't invite Ron. It is their right to invite whoever they want though. I just hope people recognize it and because of this I hope people take away the legitimacy/credibility of the debate when they are evaluating candidates.

People keep saying they have the right not to invite him, but technically speaking if they are a 501c3 organization they're probably breaking the tax code regulations on a 501c3 organization's political activity...

Organizations with this classification are prohibited from conducting political campaign activities to influence elections to public office. Public charities (but not private foundations) are permitted to conduct a limited amount of lobbying to influence legislation. Although the law states that "no substantial part" of a public charity's activities may be devoted to lobbying, charities with very large budgets may lawfully expend a million dollars (under the "expenditure" test) or more (under the "substantial part" test) per year on lobbying. [1]

All 501(c)(3) organizations are also permitted to educate individuals about issues, or fund research that supports their political position without overtly advocating for a position on a specific bill. Think tanks such as the Cato Institute, Center for American Progress, and Heritage Foundation and other 501(c)(3) organizations produce reports and recommendations on policy proposals that do not count as lobbying under the tax code."

Refusing to invite a candidate for office can be seen as an attempt to influence elections, especially since they can't argue that they only invited frontrunners, given that Thompson (Tommy, not Frank), Tancredo, Brownback, Hucakbee, and Hunter are all polling lower than Paul.

[Publius]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Thanks for the suggestion.

You're welcome, I'm sure you and everyone else will be happier and sleep better at night if you put it good use!

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by Publius

People keep saying they have the right not to invite him, but technically speaking if they are a 501c3 organization they're probably breaking the tax code regulations on a 501c3 organization's political activity...

Organizations with this classification are prohibited from conducting political campaign activities to influence elections to public office. Public charities (but not private foundations) are permitted to conduct a limited amount of lobbying to influence legislation. Although the law states that "no substantial part" of a public charity's activities may be devoted to lobbying, charities with very large budgets may lawfully expend a million dollars (under the "expenditure" test) or more (under the "substantial part" test) per year on lobbying. [1]

All 501(c)(3) organizations are also permitted to educate individuals about issues, or fund research that supports their political position without overtly advocating for a position on a specific bill. Think tanks such as the Cato Institute, Center for American Progress, and Heritage Foundation and other 501(c)(3) organizations produce reports and recommendations on policy proposals that do not count as lobbying under the tax code."

Refusing to invite a candidate for office can be seen as an attempt to influence elections, especially since they can't argue that they only invited frontrunners, given that Thompson (Tommy, not Frank), Tancredo, Brownback, Hucakbee, and Hunter are all polling lower than Paul.

Nothing said here says they HAVE to invite Ron Paul.

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by Fed Up

You say it is his right to invite whom he wants yet in the interview on the Iowa radio station, if you would have taken the time to listen to it, he said that his "501c3 corpoartion can't be biased." Isn't this being biased?

I don't think it's biased under the rules.

Originally Posted by Fed Up

To your second point, see above. McCaain and Clinton were invited and declined. Ron Paul wasn't invited.

Again...I don't it's bias.

Originally Posted by Fed Up

To your third point, most in America haven't heard about Ron Paul yet there are still people on this forum, like you, who don't understand what Ron Paul stands for. You would rather vote for Clinton who will put upon our nation a government run health program that will be as successful as the government run rail system. Name one thing the government does well! Don't you understand that our nation is almost 9 trillion in debt? Don't you understand that our current socialized system of medicare and social security are in need of $40 TRILLION in the years to come? Where is the money going to come from to support these programs? Where is the money going to come from to support the "universal" health care system? Well in Europe they pay twice what we pay for gasoline to help subsidize it. So are you ready to pay more? Can America, already deep in personal debt, pay more? But wait, we need to take care of the environment or we'll fry to death from Global Warming....so dig deeper!

So because we don't like Ron Paul, we're stupid and uneducated on what he stands for? Wrong. But you my friend are pretty typical of the fanboys that ride his bandwagon. I ain't sayin...I'm just sayin.

Originally Posted by Fed Up

Tyranny?....absolutely...only Ron Paul stands in the way.

But good luck to you and Bill's wife just the same.

Sure thing buddy.

[Fed Up]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

Fed Up most post an embarrasing moment he or she had for all of us to laugh at. Its part of the new rules i created here:

now that I am the vice president..

2. Every user that starts a ron paul thread, they need to reveal a secret about themselves in the thread that everyone will laugh at. Example: I peed the bed last night because in my dream I was at a toilet. (no, this didn't happen to me)

Ohhhh...that's why in my other thread about FreedomFest I didn't understand the comments....sorry about that...

I actually like this rule...

[Publius]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Nothing said here says they HAVE to invite Ron Paul.

Showing preferential treatment to certain candidates over others is a violation of the regulations for a 501c3 organization's political activity. Even if they only invited frontrunners it would be skirting the edge of legality, but the fact that they invited front runners AND candidates polling lower than Paul points to a concerted effort to intentionally shut out Paul and is almost certainly a breach of the regulations, as it can and will influence elections to public office.

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by Publius

Showing preferential treatment to certain candidates over others is a violation of the regulations for a 501c3 organization's political activity. Even if they only invited frontrunners it would be skirting the edge of legality, but the fact that they invited front runners AND candidates polling lower than Paul points to a concerted effort to intentionally shut out Paul and is almost certainly a breach of the regulations, as it can and will influence elections to public office.

It can prove extremely difficult to show intent of preferential treatment or bias. They could use excuses like they have a limited budget or otherwise

At any rate i think it would be tough to prove.

[Publius]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

It can prove extremely difficult to show intent of preferential treatment or bias. They could use excuses like they have a limited budget or otherwise

At any rate i think it would be tough to prove.

Probably so , and they'll never get called on it anyway since it is under the tax code and the IRS has an internal court system for breaches of the tax code (and since Paul is for abolishing the IRS, you know they aren't going to do him any favors like actually enforce something like this).

The intent is obvious logically, but would be hard to prove in a court and even harder to actually get in front of an IRS court.

[Fed Up]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

I don't think it's biased under the rules.



Again...I don't it's bias.




So because we don't like Ron Paul, we're stupid and uneducated on what he stands for? Wrong. But you my friend are pretty typical of the fanboys that ride his bandwagon. I ain't sayin...I'm just sayin.




Sure thing buddy.

To your first point....

If Ron Paul was gay, would that be discrimination? What do the "rules" say about that? I'm a Certified Specialist in Planned Giving and know a little something about 501c3's. They cannot discriminate. Just ask any Muslim charity.

To your second point, there is a difference between "stupid and uneducated on what he stands for" and ignorance! I never called you "stupid" or "uneducated." The ignorance comes from an education system that doesn't teach you to think for yourself.

For your information, I'm not a "bandwagoner" as you may suggest. I've been following Ron Paul long before he declared he was running for President as I have been writing a book on where this country is headed if the same old left and right candidates are allowed to continue to take us down the path that Ron Paul says will lead us to bankruptcy.

Think of it this way Donkey. If the U.S. was a corporation that you could buy stock in and you knew it had almost 9 trillion of current debt and 40 trillion of future debt, would you invest in it? Well, every dollar you have in your pocket is that investment, and it's lost 96% of its purchasing power since 1913.

It's time for a change don't you think?

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by Fed Up

Think of it this way Donkey. If the U.S. was a corporation that you could buy stock in and you knew it had almost 9 trillion of current debt and 40 trillion of future debt, would you invest in it? Well, every dollar you have in your pocket is that investment, and it's lost 96% of its purchasing power since 1913.

It's time for a change don't you think?

Government is basically a big business. It is a large corporation where people elect the board members. Unfortunately some customers have more preferential treatment than others, via campaign contributions or otherwise. Personally, I would not invest in this country in its present condition. If our country was to be compared with a corporation, it would be like Enron. Everything is presented as economically peachy because the stock market looks good, but one day our policy is going to sneak up on us and there will be a rude awakening. 1/2 of our board members are corrupt and could care less about the company, only themselves and how they can feather their own nest. They forget they are there for public service, not to service themselves.

[lew]

Originally Posted by phreak

classy move by ron paul supporters.

Originally Posted by Simius

Wow. I'm all for bitching and moaning when your candidate gets the shaft. But these people need to understand that RP doesn't have some unalienable right to be there. The people holding the debate have the right to invite who they wish. Threatening his family for exercising his rights in a way you don't like seems kind of anti-libertarian philosophy to me.

If the RP crowd wants to be taken seriously, they need to start taking themselves seriously and not acting like a bunch of teenage brats.

Originally Posted by JaJae

That's not funny...

Originally Posted by Publius

uncool.

It is uncool. I think it's horrible that some supporters have done that. People should NOT be doing that.


I still find it funny though.

[Dumpy Dooby]

I laughed lew. I laughed.