Ron Paul comes second in American Primaries

[Rupert_Baehr]

Who's got crystal balls?

 

There have been 2 primaries to date. Only another 52 to go, yet the OP says Ron Paul came second in the American primaries.

[Sierra]

I've never minded being called fior jury duty. Always found it interesting.

The system works pretty well. I call the Court I've been assigned to once a day for five days. The computer voice tells me if I need to report to the Court or not the following day. After five days if I'm not needed my Jury service is over. If I am called to the Court and they dont put me on a Jury that same day then I'm finished for 2-3 years.

 

I remember on one occasion when a gent was complaining loudly about the inconvenience of having to do service while we were on our way up to the Jury Assembly room.

A lady asked him if he would expect a jury if ever he was on trial. He said something like "I'm a law abiding citizen. I'll never be in that situation"

The lady said "Okay. But if you were. Would you expect a jury"?

He said "Of course I would"

Then she replied somewhat tartly

"In that case you should have no problems about doing jury duty yourself, unless you expect everybody else to do it instead"

That shut him up right quick

 

I must confess, when my children were small, I did consider it a pain. I had to arrange a sitter (and pay them) unless it was a friend. Then I had to watch her kids. But they do let you postpone it (within reason) and will consider a hardship.

 

2-3 years? You're lucky. Ours is every 12 months. But then some people seem to get called all the time and some never or rarely.

 

You're right, it is our civic duty as Americans, it's important, and some people are not happy to be there. The tone seems to be set by the individual judge. Some will draw out jury selection to three days, some go a couple hours, figure this is good enough for the likes of this guy and rush through it.

 

I was once a prospective juror for a gang member and three striker. The defense didn't like this juror and they didn't want that one. It seemed like time was going backwards. We'd been there all morning and the defense and prosecution only agreed on two jurors. Out of twelve with two alternates. The judge finally told them they were picking the rest of the jury out of those present. They were going to do it TODAY, they were trying the case tomorrow and they were NOT calling in another pool of jurors. I got the feeling not many people argued with that judge.

[cressida]

Indeed it does, but so does every cell that ever exists. Are you going to amend the definition of murder to include people who scratch away some of their own skin? Or are you going to accept that "having life potential" is a silly definition of "being alive?"

 

I'm not accusing anyone of murder just wanted to establish that there was life-potential

[Phanerothyme]

just out of interest, what would one of them do?

 

They would be isolationist in their foreign policy, they would strive for a smaller federal government and more state autonomy. They would repeal illiberal laws, and enshrine liberties in law.

 

Thomas Jefferson was a slave-owner.

 

So were Washington, Adams & Madison. (and probably Hamilton as well)

 

I'd like to see what definition of life he uses that enables him to reach that conclusion. I can pretty much guarantee that the definition is a poor one, since a single-cell embryo palpably is not alive in any sensible way.

 

Any sensible way? So you can be alive in a non-sensible way and a sensible way. I cannot wait to read the distinction between the two, as I'm certain you're not actually suggesting a single cell embryo is non-living.

 

Indeed it does, but so does every cell that ever exists. Are you going to amend the definition of murder to include people who scratch away some of their own skin? Or are you going to accept that "having life potential" is a silly definition of "being alive?"

 

No because skin is dead already, and nothing apart from a fertilised embryo will grow into a human being in the womb.

 

TBH I have some sympathy with Paul's position on this, although I do support the right to choose. Does the life of an individual human being begin? If so when? And if not at the moment of conception, when?

 

I simply see abortion as sanctioned killing. That doesn't mean I think it wrong by definition. I just don't accept that human life has any kind of 'sanctity'.

 

But your thinking on it seems to be much woolier than both myself and Ron Paul.

[mort]

Back on topic please

[Harleyman]

I must confess, when my children were small, I did consider it a pain. I had to arrange a sitter (and pay them) unless it was a friend. Then I had to watch her kids. But they do let you postpone it (within reason) and will consider a hardship.

 

2-3 years? You're lucky. Ours is every 12 months. But then some people seem to get called all the time and some never or rarely.

 

You're right, it is our civic duty as Americans, it's important, and some people are not happy to be there. The tone seems to be set by the individual judge. Some will draw out jury selection to three days, some go a couple hours, figure this is good enough for the likes of this guy and rush through it.

 

I was once a prospective juror for a gang member and three striker. The defense didn't like this juror and they didn't want that one. It seemed like time was going backwards. We'd been there all morning and the defense and prosecution only agreed on two jurors. Out of twelve with two alternates. The judge finally told them they were picking the rest of the jury out of those present. They were going to do it TODAY, they were trying the case tomorrow and they were NOT calling in another pool of jurors. I got the feeling not many people argued with that judge.

 

I was picked as an alternate the last jury service I was on. The pool was down to three, myself and two others. They picked the first alternate and questioned a second prospective. The guy was wearing a very colorful Hawaiian shirt, shorts and sandals and was answering some of the questions put by the defence and prosecution with a lot of witty remarks thrown in which was causing a few laughs. I reckon the guy was doing his best to get off by dressing the way he was and answering the questions. He succeeded anyway and I was called and then selected.

 

Being alternates is pretty boring once the jury start deliberating and they send the alternates back up to the jury room. We sat in that jury room for three full day reading old magazines and watching soaps on the TV until the jury called it quits and told the judge that they were "hung" as one juror refused to agree to a guilty verdict

[Runnybabbit]

Ron Paul came third in Iowa and was less than 1000 votes behind Romney. Rick Santorum dedicated his entire campaign to winning in Iowa and you won't hear from him again now.

 

Paul came 2nd in New Hampshire. But admittedly this was much more Romney's state to begin with.

 

Paul has strong support throughout the country. His supporters are more dedicated than those of any other candidate. He is gathering momentum every day despite nothing but negative press coverage (that's on the few occasions when there is any press coverage at all).

 

People like Paul because he is HONEST unlike all the other candidates who flip flop on issues and essentially work for the bankers and the Rothschilds.

 

Ron Paul is the only anti war candidate. All the others would like to see an escalation of violence throughout the world. Expanding it in to Iran and Syria.

 

Ron Paul is the only candidate against Torture. All the others are "pro-torture" (are we starting to see why the media is ignoring him yet?).

 

The media has gone all out to demonize Ron Paul, dragging up some story about a racist newsletter that first broke in 1995, had nothing to do with Ron Paul and which has been covered repeatedly by CNN and others for the last 16 years. Funny how they never mention Rick Santorums connections to known child molester Jerry Sandusky, or Rick Perry's Gardasil connections.

 

Sadly what people like Harleyman fail to realize is that according to the American model of democracy, presidents are chosen by Fox news, not by the people. Fox have made it quite clear that they will not allow Paul to win. So the American people must chose a different candidate, even if they don't like any of them.

 

BTW it isn't just the American propaganda that behaves this way. Ron Paul has been consistently polling in the top three of candidates and yet in two completely separate pieces on Newsnight they never even mentioned his name. Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry, John Huntsman and all the others were featured, but Ron Paul wasn't mentioned once.

 

I wonder who it is at the BBC that has banned the Newsnight team from talking about the candidate now polling in second place?

[Harleyman]

Ron Paul came third in Iowa and was less than 1000 votes behind Romney. Rick Santorum dedicated his entire campaign to winning in Iowa and you won't hear from him again now.

 

Paul came 2nd in New Hampshire. But admittedly this was much more Romney's state to begin with.

 

Paul has strong support throughout the country. His supporters are more dedicated than those of any other candidate. He is gathering momentum every day despite nothing but negative press coverage (that's on the few occasions when there is any press coverage at all).

 

People like Paul because he is HONEST unlike all the other candidates who flip flop on issues and essentially work for the bankers and the Rothschilds.

 

Ron Paul is the only anti war candidate. All the others would like to see an escalation of violence throughout the world. Expanding it in to Iran and Syria.

 

Ron Paul is the only candidate against Torture. All the others are "pro-torture" (are we starting to see why the media is ignoring him yet?).

 

The media has gone all out to demonize Ron Paul, dragging up some story about a racist newsletter that first broke in 1995, had nothing to do with Ron Paul and which has been covered repeatedly by CNN and others for the last 16 years. Funny how they never mention Rick Santorums connections to known child molester Jerry Sandusky, or Rick Perry's Gardasil connections.

 

Sadly what people like Harleyman fail to realize is that according to the American model of democracy, presidents are chosen by Fox news, not by the people. Fox have made it quite clear that they will not allow Paul to win. So the American people must chose a different candidate, even if they don't like any of them.

 

BTW it isn't just the American propaganda that behaves this way. Ron Paul has been consistently polling in the top three of candidates and yet in two completely separate pieces on Newsnight they never even mentioned his name. Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry, John Huntsman and all the others were featured, but Ron Paul wasn't mentioned once.

 

I wonder who it is at the BBC that has banned the Newsnight team from talking about the candidate now polling in second place?

 

I was watching the CNN News on the Primaries at lunch time. According to the statistics Ron Paul gets a high percentage of support among the young and the poor.

The question is which poor? I would say that very few African-American poor who are among the highest percent in the poor category would even bother to vote for a Republican under any circumstances and possibly that could apply to Hispanic American poor also

[Runnybabbit]

I was watching the CNN News on the Primaries at lunch time. According to the statistics Ron Paul gets a high percentage of support among the young and the poor.

The question is which poor? I would say that very few African-American poor who are among the highest percent in the poor category would even bother to vote for a Republican under any circumstances and possibly that could apply to Hispanic American poor also

 

Watching CNN is your problem. That's why you don't know what's going on in your country.

 

Still think NDAA will never pass? LOL!

[Runnybabbit]

Who's got crystal balls?

 

There have been 2 primaries to date. Only another 52 to go, yet the OP says Ron Paul came second in the American primaries.

 

Ron Paul did come second in New Hampshire. I new this would be the case because I actually looked at the various polls that have shown support for Ron Paul growing steadily. The MSM either didn't bother to look or (more likely) chose to ignore the polls and continue top pretend RP doesn't exist.

 

Once again the disconnect between the MSM and reality is plain for all to see.

 

Ladies and Gentlemen, boys and girls....Turn off your telly's and get your info off the internet. Then you will actually be informed instead of simply brainwashed by people with ulterior motives.