Ron Paul treated fairly at debates
Ron Paul summarizes the essential principles which guide most of his positions in a fraction of the time non-Ron Paul people speak. henceforth he gets less questions because most potential questions are retroactively answered given he speak once where he lays the principles down; once he does that, its hard to ask questions that aren't redundant.
because other politicians positions have no underlying principles and have no relation to each other, you can always ask them anything, because who knows? they have random inconsistant un-principled answers..... It takes a long time to for moderators to learn everything from these NON-RP people.
The moral of the story is... don't be mad Dr. Paul gets less time, be happy his positions are so principled and he is so good at summarizing them really fast....
Sorry,
Bump.
I Go Along With the 3 People Who Commented Before Me...
Even though Ron Paul was at least included in the debate, where before he wasn't and even though he wasn't totally mocked, laughed at and made fun of...the point is all of the candidates should get a more equal amount of questions and a more equal amount of time to speak to answer the questions. It was really bad that none of the other 4 candidates would even ask Ron Paul a question when they had the opportunity to - I figure this is because they were afraid of what his answer might be, but still he should have been asked a question too.
Along these same lines, someone on another thread mentioned USA Today completely left Ron Paul out as one of the remaining Republican candidates. That is a complete lie and something should be done about these type of situations!
Ron Paul for President 2008 !!!
Paul's ideas are easily
Paul's ideas are easily marginalized when he only has 60 seconds to explain. Someday if there ever is a proper debate he ill be able to show how his ideas will work, and not just quickly throw them out there.
Extremism in the defense of Liberty is no vice.
You may be right about Dr. Paul, but...
There is no reason whatsoever that we or any American should accept the intentional censoring of any presidential candidate. What right does anyone, any organization, or any government agency have to decide for the American People which candidate should or should not be heard to the fullest extent. Only when all options are recognized and considered, can we make a sound, educated decision on who we want to lead this country.
You are woefully off the mark here.
It's not just about principles
Victory does not go to the shortest or best answer. To sway people to vote for you they need to be comfortable with you. And that takes repeated exposure for most people. So the more time Dr. Paul gets to talk, the more voters become used to him and are more likely to support him or at least want to learn more. It's no coincidence that Mitt Romney was viewed to have won the debate - he had the most speaking time.