World Net Daily RON PAUL Poll. VOTE right now!

[TheConstitutionLives]

QUESTION:

What do you think of Ron Paul in his quest for the White House?

MY ANSWER (AND THE MOST POPULAR ANSWER):

I'm fed up with the so-called 'GOP frontrunners.' It's time to revolt and vote for meaningful change with Paul

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/polls/

[Harald]

Oh noes. You are leading the witness. You are almost as bad as CNN poll! :)

Though it was my choice as well. (it == I'm fed up with the so-called 'GOP frontrunners.' It's time to revolt and vote for meaningful change with Paul)

[RonPaulCult]

QUESTION:

What do you think of Ron Paul in his quest for the White House?

MY ANSWER (AND THE MOST POPULAR ANSWER):

I'm fed up with the so-called 'GOP frontrunners.' It's time to revolt and vote for meaningful change with Paul

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/polls/

That was my choice. I thought the "he has won every poll and will win this one too" thing was pretty funny.

[billv]

WND readers scare me, at least many of them do. They drink the "Kool-aid" daily. Just as the results of this poll show.

[rockfree33]

I don't like these websites that require you to have an account with them just to vote on a poll. It seems like they just made a Ron Paul poll to get more users.

[TheConstitutionLives]

WND readers scare me, at least many of them do. They drink the "Kool-aid" daily. Just as the results of this poll show.

no doubt. they'll follow Lord Bush until the bitter bitter end. their allegiance is to a man and/or a party, not to princple, liberty, or the constitution.

[Lois]

Thanks for posting this -- I just voted. He needs more help -- it's tied.

Also, this reminds me that we need to keep voting in the Ron Paul polls. I did so religiously for a while, then slacked off completely. Can we keep reminding Ron Paul supporters to keep voting.

[ronpaulhawaii]

wnd has always required registration for voting to control those dang spammers. I have never been bothered by advertisers because of that.

That said, I questioned J Farah about the media (including him) ignoring RP back in March. His replies were terse, with ignorance betraying arrogence.

"Ron Paul has run repeatedly for president and never garnered 1 percent support. That’s why." - J Farah

His true colors are turning out worse than I expected and I would not doubt that he is "spamming" his own poll.

Go vote people...

Edit- the way they framed the poll is... sad. A current breakdown sees 38.3% positive votes combining the fed up, got vote, regardless, and slam dunk answers. The negative side is at 37.59% with the wrong choice and indefensible answers. I consider the "like but, no chance" answer @ 11.88% as a swing vote and the other 3@ 12.24% seem just filler...

[buffalokid777]

World Net Daily used to be just a neocon parrot.

But most of em besides Farrah seem to be coming around....

At least there are some positive things said there about Ron Paul today...

Jerome Corsi has been doing an Excellent Job exposing the North American Union and the SPP....

Hopefully the World Net Daily will continue to get away with drinking the neocon kool aid!

I just voted....The revolt the GOP and vote for a real change in Dr. Paul is currently the most voted answer!

[DisabledVet]

This poll is interesting, as while it looks like a close race between the "Yes he'll make it to the presidency" and the "Wrong choice for America" if you tally the votes tat are positive and for Ron Paul, you see he has a huge margin over the definite naysayers.

[Original_Intent]

In WorldNetDaily interview:

WND: You suggest the nation would be better if it were left to the Democrats to investigate 9/11. Do you believe the Bush administration has anything or something to hide with regard to the terrorist attacks?


Ron Paul: No. I don't think so much to hide about ulterior motives as much as, I think it's very natural for any government to resist investigations because they want to hide ineptness, you know, there's always mistakes. Bureaucracies are always inept. And I think that nobody wants to be investigated because it makes one look bad. Obviously if you have something as tragic as 9/11, somebody slipped up somewhere, and I think that's the main problem with these investigations. Even though I've given some token support to the idea that we ought to really look into it and find the real truth, frankly another government investigation is not likely to reveal a whole lot of difference because government is sort of protective of itself, sometimes even party to party they do that.


That seems to be a pretty clear statement of position. No more trying to put words into his mouth.

[LibertyEagle]

Link?

[Original_Intent]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56525

sorry )

several articles on worldnetdaily today about RP - apparently they are going to do an in depth focus on each candidate in coming days.

here are some other articles

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56526

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56581

[Original_Intent]

wow double post fubar

[RP08]

http://img369.imageshack.us/img369/3871/pollvz1.jpg (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/polls/index.asp?VIEW_RESULTS=Y)

[AZ Libertarian]

Here's what Joseph Farah thinks;

Why Ron Paul is disqualified
Posted: June 15, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern

For a long time, I have considered Ron Paul to be among a small handful of principled members of the U.S. Congress.

I respect the fact that he reveres the Constitution and takes it seriously.

He and I were virtually alone on the national stage in calling on Congress to debate a declaration of war before invading Iraq. Had we done so back then, it would be a little more difficult for people like John Edwards and Hillary Clinton to dismiss so cavalierly their previous votes to authorize combat.

If I were in Congress, my voting record would be closest to the voting record of Ron Paul – no question about it.

But I want to be clear about why I oppose Ron Paul's bid to become president.

The main reason is this: He is clueless about the nature of the threat we face from Islamo-fascism. He is clueless about the nature of the conflict in the Middle East, a subject I have studied intensely for 30 years.

Paul actually blames American interventionism in the Middle East for our problems with Islamo-fascism and the attacks of Sept. 11. In the May 15 Republican debate in South Carolina, Paul said it was America's history of interventionism in the Middle East that sparked our problems with terrorism.

"They attack us because we've been over there," he said. "We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We've been in the Middle East [for years]. I think [Ronald] Reagan was right. We don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics."

Paul called this "blowback." He illustrated his point by blaming the 1979 Iranian Ayatollah Khomeini revolution on CIA involvement in installing the shah 26 years earlier, not on U.S. undermining of the shah in his last days in power.

While I am not a defender of the way the war in Iraq has been waged by President Bush, Paul essentially calls for running up the white flag of surrender to an enemy that seeks America's destruction. It is a wholly untenable position he shares with people like Rosie O'Donnell and Bill Maher.

He also flirts with many of those who believe 9-11 wasn't really an attack by Islamo-fascists at all but an inside job by the U.S. government. While I take a backseat to no one in my distrust of government, these conspiracy theorists Paul courts are, quite simply, doing the propaganda work of America's fiercest enemies.

America has made many foreign policy mistakes in my lifetime. We have indeed intervened militarily too often. I have preached non-interventionism many times. However, America is under siege from Islamo-fascist enemies. We've been attacked – the worst ever in our history. This is no time to back down or even to appear to be weak.

It would be disastrous if we cut and run now as Ron Paul suggests.

Let me tell you something else that disturbed me about Paul's position on amnesty for illegal aliens.

In the most recent debate, he implied amnesty wouldn't be such a bad idea if we could stop attracting illegal aliens with welfare-state programs.

This demonstrates, again, a fundamental misunderstanding of why illegal immigration is so threatening to our country.

Hardened criminals come to the U.S. illegally.

Terrorists come to the U.S. illegally.

Drunk drivers come to the U.S. illegally.

Millions of low-skilled workers come to the U.S. illegally and transform our culture.

Yes, I would like to dismantle the welfare state, too. But it would still be no substitute for securing our borders and enforcing our immigration laws.

The defense of the country is a paramount issue in a presidential election. It is the most important responsibility of the executive branch of government. Yet, Paul's positions on the key defense and security issues of the day are closer to those of Hillary Clinton and John Kerry than Ronald Reagan.

That's why, for me, he's disqualified – even if he had the support necessary to win, which he doesn't and never will.
Found HERE: http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56177
__________________________________________________ ________
BUT - on the same site I also found THIS:

What about Ron Paul?
Posted: June 20, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Jesse Benton

WorldNetDaily’s editor Joseph Farah recently published an opinion piece critical of Congressman Ron Paul's run for the presidency. While we respect his right to disagree we are very concerned by misstatements of fact and the harsh tone of his commentary. We were surprised by his tone as Mr. Farah states that Dr. Paul is one of the most principled members of Congress, with whom he frequently agrees.

Mr. Farah writes that Dr. Paul is "clueless" about terrorism, and rejects Dr. Paul's position that intervention in the Middle East has caused unintended consequences which have empowered the Jihadists. The list of experts who agree with Congressman Paul includes former National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft, Iraqi war architect Paul Wolfowitz, former CIA bin Laden Task Force chief Michael Scheuer, and the premier expert on suicide terrorism, Dr. Robert Pape. Are these experts also clueless?

The truth is our intervention in Iraq is another misadventure in liberal-style nation building, a no-win police action based upon U.N. resolutions which has galvanized our true enemies, the Jihadists. Dr. Paul opposes this incredibly expensive gift to Osama bin Laden.

On immigration, Mr. Farah states Dr. Paul "implied amnesty wouldn't be such a bad idea." Totally false. Dr. Paul is on the record in the last debate and in a hundred other places as being completely opposed to amnesty. He is also opposed to the welfare magnet that attracts illegal aliens, to birthright citizenship, to student visas from terrorist nations, and to the GOP proposed "reform" of legal immigration that could allow 60 million more immigrants into the country.

Government intervention in violation of the Constitution, at home and overseas, is bankrupting this nation. We must stop the elites opposed to American independence who seek to erase our borders and want our troops in 130 foreign countries. The people are waking up, on the Internet and in living rooms across our land. There is hope for America, in the candidacy of Ron Paul for president.

Jesse Benton is communications director for the Ron Paul 2008 Presidential Campaign.
found HERE: http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56269
__________________________________________________ ___________

Farah is Editor and CEO of World Net Daily. Jesse Benton is one of ours. Is Farah just covering his a$$ by including Bentons' article? Definitely mixed signals coming from WND.....

[RP08]

HERE


WND: You suggest the nation would be better if it were left to the Democrats to investigate 9/11. Do you believe the Bush administration has anything or something to hide with regard to the terrorist attacks?


Ron Paul: No. I don't think so much to hide about ulterior motives as much as, I think it's very natural for any government to resist investigations because they want to hide ineptness, you know, there's always mistakes. Bureaucracies are always inept. And I think that nobody wants to be investigated because it makes one look bad. Obviously if you have something as tragic as 9/11, somebody slipped up somewhere, and I think that's the main problem with these investigations. Even though I've given some token support to the idea that we ought to really look into it and find the real truth, frankly another government investigation is not likely to reveal a whole lot of difference because government is sort of protective of itself, sometimes even party to party they do that.