Elliothund, I belive the Luntz/Fox plant was in two different cities, at two different debates. He’s been intentified as a neoCON freeper, though I can’t recall his name.

Oh, and, FUCK YOU FRANK!

lol

I live in a city where Frankie does many focus groups– a few blocks from my house. It’s always a quick 100 bucks to go sit and play with his “patented Fox News Dials” (they are actually not patented, and not from Fox News), and get a preview of what agenda will be pushed next.

I have done over TEN groups with him— they never check who they hire— they just need to fill the seats to look good for whatever client is behind the one-way glass.

I have been in many groups where people walk out. He insults people, forces the ‘correct’ answers from people, browbeats people…. He’ll cut you off if you give an opinion he does not like.

Once, when he left the room the whole group was so pi**ed off, we all agreed to swing his ‘dials’ at random– and he concocted ‘trends’ from this to prove a later point.

Scientific, indeed.

He’s just another B.S. artist making a buck…. just like me, also making a buck (from him).

Cheers!

That is a bit of mischaracterization… he is for LIMITED federal government.

“That is pretty nuts in and of itself, back to the laissez faire capitalism that brought us the robber barrons and child labor.”

Where are you getting this from?

dosido January 7th, 2008 at 10:37 am Yeah, I notice Bush really needs his beer and pretzels with a hamburger or hot dog. Doesn’t like to leave the country cuz he can barely speak English and doesn’t like knowing that the brown people speak it better than he does.

************

Oh, come one. Race baiting is so 90s. Bush is a fascsist asshole, but he speaks fluent Spanish and helped engineer the SPP with his fuck buddy Vicente Fox. Bush doen’t have a color problem, he has a corporate problem.

tbetz January 7th, 2008 at 11:47 am 205
Paulites have been beating up on Luntz for a while now.

YouTube is rife with stuff like these:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3BDvfAf2c4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=auFYQY_iOQ0

*********************

WOW! Thanks for those. Obviously, since the plant shills for McCain in a couple instances, and then Romney in another, the message is anybody but Ron Paul.

And Edwards? Puhleeeeze. He’s another ”no option is off the table” for Iran.

********

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this very dangerous legislation. My colleagues would do well to understand that this legislation is leading us toward war against Iran.

Those reading this bill may find themselves feeling a sense of déjà vu. In many cases one can just substitute ”Iraq” for ”Iran” in this bill and we could be back in the pre-2003 run up to war with Iraq. And the logic of this current push for war is much the same as was the logic used in the argument for war on Iraq. As earlier with Iraq, this resolution demands that Iran perform the impossible task of proving a negative – in this case that Iran does not have plans to build a nuclear weapon.

There are a few things we need to remember when thinking about Iran and this legislation. First, Iran has never been ruled in violation of its international nuclear non-proliferation obligations.

Second, Iran concluded a Safeguards Agreement more than 30 years ago that provides for the verification of Iran’s fulfillment of its obligation to not divert nuclear energy programs to nuclear weapons development. Since this agreement was reached, the International Atomic Energy Agency has never found any indication that Iran has diverted or attempted to divert source or special nuclear materials from a peaceful purpose to a military purpose.

But, this does not stop those eager for conflict with Iran from stating otherwise. As the Washington Post reported last year, ”U.S. officials, eager to move the Iran issue to the U.N. Security Council – which has the authority to impose sanctions – have begun a new round of briefings for allies designed to convince them that Iran’s real intention is to use its energy program as a cover for bomb building. The briefings will focus on the White House’s belief that a country with as much oil as Iran would not need an energy program on the scale it is planning, according to two officials.”

This reminds us of the quick move to justify the invasion of Iraq by citing Iraq’s ”intentions” when actual weapons of mass destruction could not be found.

The resolution’s second resolved clause is a real misrepresentation of the Iran/EU3 talks. The ”efforts of France, Germany, and the United Kingdom” were not ”to seek…suspension of enrichment and reprocessing related activities…” As the EU3-Iran Paris Agreement makes very clear, the suspension of enrichment is a purely voluntary measure taken by Iran and is ”not a legal obligation.”

This is similar to the situation with Iran’s voluntarily observation of the Additional Protocols (allowing unannounced inspections) without legally being bound to do so. Suspending voluntary observance of the Additional Protocols is not a violation of the NPT. But, those seeking to push us toward war with Iran are purposely trying to connect the two – to confuse voluntary ”confidence building” measures taken by Iran with the legally-binding Treaty itself.

Resolved clause four of this legislation is the most inflammatory and objectionable part of the legislation. It lowers the bar to initiating war on Iran. This clause anticipates that the US may not be successful in getting the Security Council to pass a Resolution because of the potential of a Russian or Chinese veto, so it ”calls upon” Russia and China to ”take action” in response to ”any report” of ”Iran’s noncompliance. That is right: any report.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution is a drumbeat for war with Iran. Its logic is faulty, its premises are flawed, and its conclusions are dangerous. I urge my colleagues to stop for a moment and ponder the wisdom of starting yet another war in the Middle East.

- Congressman Ron Paul, on the floor in the House of Representatives
February 20, 2006

Hillary is absolutely correct in saying that Obama has gotten this far on thin abstractions. THAT- by the way- is the GOAL in a primary- win without commiting yourself to much of anything. It’s an art form.

A “new kind of politics” huh?

Maybe it’s just a fancy way of lying to people. Promise pie in the sky and let them find out later it was just a mirage.

Count me out. I want some specifics and Edwards is the candidate who connects with people and provides a Progressive vision with a lot of detail.

Ya know, the more we discuss Obama the less I like him, regardless of whether he’s in league with Republicans or not. How can a person who is supposedly as Liberal as him (his voting record) attract so many Republicans without lying? It makes no sense.

John Edwards for President — Leadership America needs!

Paul supporters chase Hannity down New Hampshire street – ”Fox you suck!”:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUXKddQvC1o

Electing Obama may not be change…it may be same old same old.

You can’t unite and reach across the aisle and such without compromising some. How much depends upon the person.

I think what most of us are hoping for is a working majority, so we can get things done without much compromise at all. Taking the senate will be nearly impossible, but if we get close we’d still get a lot done. So, part of the question is whether our party’s nominee can help us get the working majority. Nobody really knows which would be best at that.

I say ‘nobody knows’ because we don’t really know whether Obama won Iowa on his own merits!

If he did, then he’s the guy. If he didn’t, then we might have more difficulty than we wanted. Worst yet, if he’s in on a Rovian plan, then he might sabotage the party and cause massive problems.

God, I wish I had some information to base a decision on. This must be how Clinton & Edwards felt when the AUMF vote came up. Of course, it’s very Bushie/Rovian to put this kind of impossible situation to the opponent(s). We just have to deal with it.