Ron Paul for President 2008

[SOP]

Ron Paul (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/)has officially announced his bid for the Republican nomination.

If you're not too familiar with the man and what he stands for, here are some links to help acquaint you.

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_views_of_Ron_Paul

[yeahwho]

SOP, are you Ron Paul?

[QueenAdrock]

I'm far too lazy to click on those links and do all that reading. What kind of platform does he have regarding environment, abortion, Iraq war, education, poverty, etc.? Two sentences each, please.

[SOP]

I've known about Congressman Ron Paul for a while. As a US citizen, I feel that he's one of the better choices for president. I don't completely agree with him on all of his policies, but I think you'll find him a consistent voter who firmly defends his record.


Brief Overview of Congressman Paul’s Record
He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.

[yeahwho]

I'm far too lazy to click on those links and do all that reading. What kind of platform does he have regarding environment, abortion, Iraq war, education, poverty, etc.? Two sentences each, please.

according to those links, his position is....

none.
none.
none.
none.
none.

Quite the groundswell being generated, he's the Jerry Seinfeld of the candidates.

[yeahwho]

I didn't find that info anywhere in your links SOP

[SOP]

I didn't find that info anywhere in your links SOP

Here you are (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/html/AboutRon_fx.html), yeahwho.

[QueenAdrock]

Can't say I agree with not limiting gun use. And I think taxes are a necessary way of life, and should be raised when need be. I do agree with his voting against the Iraq war and I do think the government should be limited. Not in a full-libertarian way, but this administration has expanded it to the point where they can go check your damn library records to see what books you take out (and then have the audacity to say that they're "small" government, HA!) and that needs to be kept in check. I want a semi-hands-on policy from our government, not totally hands-on (like Bush is doing now), or totally hands-off (like libertarians want), but somewhere balanced in the middle.

Overall, seems like a decent guy but I don't think I'd vote for him.

[yeahwho]

He's a cool old coot from what I've read, definately on the fringes of mainstream politics, I mean that in a good way. Here is a very good article from the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/08/AR2006070800966.html) I just read through,

Paul's supporters see him as principled. He is known for constituent services such as getting medals for veterans who never received theirs. He is also a proponent of gun rights and he personally opposes abortion, though he thinks the matter should be left to the states.

SOP it would be OK if you are Ron Paul. Are you Ron Paul?

[EN[i]GMA]

Ron Paul is like what I used to be. Take that for what's it worth.

[yeahwho]

GMA']Ron Paul is like what I used to be. Take that for what's it worth.

Are you now even more fiscally conservative? Are you the same but would like to cut out the "medals for veterans who never received theirs" program to cut back on frivolous expenditures?

[EN[i]GMA]

Are you now even more fiscally conservative?

Than I previously was or than Ron Paul is?

Either way, no, I'm much more liberal.

Are you the same but would like to cut out the "medals for veterans who never received theirs" program to cut back on frivolous expenditures?

There was a time when I might have been amenable to that idea.

No longer.

[yeahwho]

Originally Posted by yeahwho
Are you now even more fiscally conservative?

GMA']Than I previously was or than Ron Paul is?
Either way, no, I'm much more liberal.


Thats good to hear, especially now with the population peaked, your not such a mean guy afterall Mr. ENGMA



Ron Paul is making a lot of sense in one category, his speech a few weeks ago on funding for the Iraq (http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2007/cr032007.htm) war is excellent.

excerpt; [I]Our leaders cannot grasp the tragic consequence of our policies toward Iraq for the past 25 years. It’s time we woke them up.

We are still by far the greatest military power on earth. But since we stubbornly refuse to understand the nature of our foes, we are literally defeating ourselves.

In 2004, bin Laden stated that Al Qaeda’s goal was to bankrupt the United States. His second in command, Zawahari, is quoted as saying that the 9/11 attack would cause Americans to, “come and fight the war personally on our sand where they are within rifle range.”

Sadly, we are playing into their hands. This $124 billion appropriation is only part of the nearly $1 trillion in military spending for this year’s budget alone. We should be concerned about the coming bankruptcy and the crisis facing the U.S. dollar.

We have totally failed to adapt to modern warfare. We’re dealing with a small, nearly invisible enemy--an enemy without a country, a government, an army, a navy, an air force, or missiles. Yet our enemy is armed with suicidal determination, and motivated by our meddling in their regional affairs, to destroy us.

[SOP]

I guess it's not so strange to see this but, among many other candidates, the Ron Paul campaign is up on myspace (http://www.myspace.com/ronpaul2008).

http://www.myspace.com/ronpaul2008

[SOP]

I thought some of you might enjoy this compilation from the first Republican debate: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Hfa7vT02lA

And Rudy and Ron get it in here: http://www.dailymotion.com/relevance/search/ron%2Bpaul/video/x1zuts_gops-ron-paul-giuliani-terrormonger

[D_Raay]

The man was talking sense at the debates and Guiliani's response to him drew all sorts of applause... it's really quite embarassing.

[QueenAdrock]

Apparently if you suggest that American foreign policy may have been a contributing factor as to why 9/11 happened, the GOP will try to bar you from future debates.

http://www.woodtv.com/Global/story.asp?s=6527543

You know, the Islamic fundamentalists hate us for a reason - it's not just because WE'RE AMERICA AND WE HAVE FREEDOM, perhaps it has something to do with us putting troops on their "Holy land." But don't you dare say that, nor even suggest it. They hate us because we're free. We have capitalism. Just that. No other reasons. And if you suggest that it may be because of policy decisions, well, you're an asshole.

[SOP]

Apparently if you suggest that American foreign policy may have been a contributing factor as to why 9/11 happened, the GOP will try to bar you from future debates.

http://www.woodtv.com/Global/story.asp?s=6527543

You know, the Islamic fundamentalists hate us for a reason - it's not just because WE'RE AMERICA AND WE HAVE FREEDOM, perhaps it has something to do with us putting troops on their "Holy land." But don't you dare say that, nor even suggest it. They hate us because we're free. We have capitalism. Just that. No other reasons. And if you suggest that it may be because of policy decisions, well, you're an asshole.

Absolutely, Queen Adrock. At least this "radical(?)" point of view is getting mainstream coverage now: http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/05/18/martin/index.html

[JobDDT]

I'm falling in love with this man.

[SOP]

They hate us because we're free. We have capitalism. Just that. No other reasons.

You may enjoy this:
http://www.youtube.com/v/K7aFXRAW7mg

...You're gonna love our egg!

[Lyman Zerga]

i was gonna mind vote for that black dude but sop knows his shit so ill mind vote for that old dude instead

[SOP]

I just read about two, upcoming Ron Paul appearances. It's nice to see one of those appearances will be on The Colbert Report. (y)

I was at the taping of the Metaphoroff with Sean Penn about a month and a half ago. During the pre-show, warm-up session, the hype man was asking for people to shout out candidates they supported. Whenever I yelled out Ron Paul's name, it wasn't acknowledged.

Ron Paul on the Daily Show
This event is planned to start at 11:00 pm on Jun 4, 2007 at Comedy Central.

Ron Paul on the Colbert Report
This event is planned to start at 11:30 pm on Jun 13, 2007 at Comedy Central.

[Ali]

Who are his campaign donors?

[SOP]

In case you missed it last night:
Ron Paul on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart 6-4-07 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUf_CawuPag)

Who are his campaign donors?
Is this the kind of info you were looking for, Ali? http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.asp?CID=N00005906&cycle=2006

[b i o n i c]

im with him, but lets say he really was elected, how would he REALLY come in and eliminate the income tax in his first week?

regardless of whether we think they should go away or be funded from sources other than our pockets, what would all the organizations/groups being funded by income tax and people working for them do for money - all of a sudden? wouldnt things get a bit chaotic ?

if he has an answer for this, it should always be attached to his statement about getting rid of the income tax within his first week of office. 'splain me dis.

[SOP]

im with him, but lets say he really was elected, how would he REALLY come in and eliminate the income tax in his first week?

regardless of whether we think they should go away or be funded from sources other than our pockets, what would all the organizations/groups being funded by income tax and people working for them do for money - all of a sudden? wouldnt things get a bit chaotic ?

if he has an answer for this, it should always be attached to his statement about getting rid of the income tax within his first week of office. 'splain me dis.

I think this may be a good place that starts 'splainin' things, Bio: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZl6202HJGQ

[saz]

it is certainly refreshing and invigorating to see a presidential candidate that has such a realistic view and understanding of american foreign policy, why terrorists have been attacking american interests, in addition to his desire in drastically altering foreign policy (and stop meddling in the affairs of sovereign nations), as well as being such a strong vocal opponent of the patriot act, iraq war, the war on drugs, big money in politics, and war in general.

however, as a libertarian republican, a lot of his stances are very alarming and archaic:

"He wants America to pull out of the United Nations, NATO, the International Criminal Court, and most international trade agreements. He wants to abolish FEMA, end the federal war on drugs, get rid of the Department of Homeland Security, send the U.S. military to guard the Mexican border, stop federal prosecutions of obscenity, eliminate the IRS, end most foreign aid, overturn the Patriot Act, phase out Social Security, revoke public services for illegal immigrants, repeal No Child Left Behind, and reestablish gold and silver as legal tender."

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/06/02/ron_paul/index.html

pulling out of the united nations, nato, icc, plus abolishing fema, the irs and social security would be disastrous. americans already rejected bush's proposed social security privatization scheme.

[b i o n i c]

so he will start legislating during his first week of presidency. i thought, vote for him and you will have 25% more money in your pocket the week after he takes office.

im with that

[SOP]

The next GOP debate starts in about 20 minutes at 7pm EST.

[yeahwho]

I probably will not vote for him due to my highly principled and rightfully so skeptical view on folks with two first names.

He should change his last name to Ramone.

[SOP]

He should change his last name to Ramone.:confused: That can be a first name, too.

I'm glad Ron Paul's an educated, well-spoken man who gets right to the point when asked to speak. He's only been asked to speak twice in the past 45 minutes.

[yeahwho]

:confused: That can be a first name, too.

I'm glad Ron Paul's an educated, well-spoken man who gets right to the point when asked to speak. He's only been asked to speak twice in the past 45 minutes.

Your right, how about.....?.....hmmmmmmm, Rotten, Ronny Rotten!

I'll sift through the text of the debate and see what he has to say.

[SOP]

No reason to sift through text if you haven't yet, yeahwho.

It's all compiled right here for you and everyone else to view: Ron Paul at Republican Debate 6-5-07 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frtQ51TA3PY&eurl=)

[Waus]

I'm pretty impressed with this guy overall. (y)

[b i o n i c]

i really like his stance. i also like what rudy said about japan and germany and how that worked out for us. it may be a good time for an isolationist president, but i dont believe any country can remain as isolated as he wants us to be for too long. there are benefits to being engaged with the rest of the world that would put any country at a disadvantage to go without for too long.

[yeahwho]

Ron Paul is a very principled man, I admire him for his core beliefs and fiscal responsibilty, yet the underlying problems of society in our country are not even addressed.

A return to sound monetary policies is his mantra, this is all fine and dandy but the US has destroyed it's credibility on an international level, it is going to cost money and actually take investment on a grand style to restore the damage done in the past 7 years.

Here is the ISSUES (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/) page of Ron Paul's website.

Here is the issues page of Dennis Kucinich's (http://kucinich.us/issues) website.

To me the choice is clear, one is isolationist and actually sort of dim...the other has a ray of light and intelligence.

[SOP]

Here is the ISSUES (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/) page of Ron Paul's website.

Here is the issues page of Dennis Kucinich's (http://kucinich.us/issues) website.


From what I know so far, I like a lot of what Dennis Kucinich represents. He seems pretty green. (y)

Wouldn't it be great to have an election between those two? A boy can dream, can't he?

[yeahwho]

From what I know so far, I like a lot of what Dennis Kucinich represents. He seems pretty green. (y)

Wouldn't it be great to have an election between those two? A boy can dream, can't he?

The two are IMHO head and shoulders beyond they're respective competition, one an actual Republican the other a true Democrat. Paul said it best on Bill Maher last Sunday. "I'm $100,000,000 out of the race. So is Dennis Kucinich.

And the media and corporate America have given the coverage to the most fucked up candidates of the whole group, the Republicrats.

Two very great men.

[Carlos]

good interview with him:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mb7aiM9K9Q

[saz]

the dark side (http://www.shanebrady.com/2007/06/04/the-dark-side-of-ron-paul/) of ron paul:


"In 2005, Ron Paul introduced H.R. 4379, which has the purpose of “To limit the jurisdiction of the Federal courts, and for other purposes.”
The Supreme Court of the United States and each Federal court–
(1) shall not adjudicate–
(A) any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion;
(B) any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or
(C) any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation"


in other words, it seems that he wants to specifically deny the ability to appeal to federal courts, and constitutional protections in the areas of gay rights and religious freedom rights.

this is not only an extreme "states' rightist" perspective, but specifically advances a social-conservative agenda by denying constitutional protections in certain areas. they could not only block gay marriage, but outlaw homosexuality, and make christianity the official religion of a state.


"Also in 2005, Ron Paul introduced H.R. 776 which said:
(a) Finding- The Congress finds that present day scientific evidence indicates a significant likelihood that actual human life exists from conception.
(b) Declaration- Upon the basis of this finding, and in the exercise of the powers of the Congress–
(1) the Congress declares that–
(A) human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency; and
(B) the term `person’ shall include all human life as defined in subparagraph (A); and
(2) the Congress recognizes that each State has the authority to protect lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that State."


so, he wanted to declare via legislation that a fertilized human ovum, a zygote, is a person with all the attendant protections of law. that would make abortion murder.

this is the most extreme anti-abortion position available, and highly contrary to the libertarian ideal which leaves the woman in full control of her own body, the decision of abortion being a private one to be made by her alone.


finally, among ron paul's weekly newsletters was this one speaking on "christmas in secular america", in which it stated:


"The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life."


now, correct me if i'm wrong, but not only is that factually incorrect, but there is no mention of "god" in the u.s. constitution and only one to "nature's god" in the declaration. and paul ignores the writings of many of the founders, for instance i'm pretty sure it was thomas jefferson who wrote: "i contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole american people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state."

as much as he would like to appeal to those who value individual liberties and a reduction in the size of federal government, ie libertarians, ron paul has a clear socially-conservative agenda he is willing to advance through legislation, that would come at the cost of minority groups such as gays and atheists, as well as directly attack women's personal autonomy, by extending the reach of the federal government into her uterus.

[Waus]

You make some good points Sazi.

I think it's important to remember that Ron is actually running as a Republican for this election, and not a Libertarian. True - he ran as a Libertarian in the past, but what does that mean? Does that mean every Libertarian must subscribe strictly to the ideas of that party?

I would say he is a conservative among conservatives, and that he has some Libertarian traits. That's been kind of an upset to a lot of the cookie-cutter republicans running right now.

That being said, Paul has actually been campaigning on sound monetary policy and foreign affairs, and not really emphasizing or running based on his religious rights, gay rights, pro-life ... social stances.

Whether you agree or not with his pro-life stance, he's stated his belief and doesn't try to hide behind it. According to his biographies, he's delivered over 4000 babies as an OBGYN - so his beliefs might spawn from experience. He hasn't flip-flopped on it or ever voted in a way that contradicts the positions he's maintained while in office. If he is an honest pro-lifer, then you simply disagree with him on that point, but surely you can respect his consistency.

Whatever his voting history is, I think that Ron would primarily pursue legislation that moved towards tax reform and foreign policy changes. He's talked a lot about the Federal Reserve (from my understanding) and United Nations...how private interest banks and groups of officials not elected by the US are controlling our finances.

[yeahwho]

You make some good points Sazi.

I think it's important to remember that Ron is actually running as a Republican for this election, and not a Libertarian. True - he ran as a Libertarian in the past, but what does that mean? Does that mean every Libertarian must subscribe strictly to the ideas of that party?

I would say he is a conservative among conservatives, and that he has some Libertarian traits. That's been kind of an upset to a lot of the cookie-cutter republicans running right now.

That being said, Paul has actually been campaigning on sound monetary policy and foreign affairs, and not really emphasizing or running based on his religious rights, gay rights, pro-life ... social stances.

Whether you agree or not with his pro-life stance, he's stated his belief and doesn't try to hide behind it. According to his biographies, he's delivered over 4000 babies as an OBGYN - so his beliefs might spawn from experience. He hasn't flip-flopped on it or ever voted in a way that contradicts the positions he's maintained while in office. If he is an honest pro-lifer, then you simply disagree with him on that point, but surely you can respect his consistency.

Whatever his voting history is, I think that Ron would primarily pursue legislation that moved towards tax reform and foreign policy changes. He's talked a lot about the Federal Reserve (from my understanding) and United Nations...how private interest banks and groups of officials not elected by the US are controlling our finances.

Are you endorsing Ron Paul as your choice for president? Of all the candidates is he your choice? I too admire him for his convictions and integrity, but not as much as I admire Kucinich.

Not baiting you into a tiff, just curious how fellow board members are leaning politically.

[Waus]

Are you endorsing Ron Paul as your choice for president? Of all the candidates is he your choice? I too admire him for his convictions and integrity, but not as much as I admire Kucinich.

Not baiting you into a tiff, just curious how fellow board members are leaning politically.

Yeah, I'd say he's my candidate right now. I'm not usually that politically informed, but I took an interest after there were all those digg articles about his debate with Rudy.

I don't know - it's nice to see a member of congress who doesn't waffle and has a pretty solid voting history to back up his claims. It just seems like I agree with him about a lot of things and he's intelligent and articulate enough to speak for himself without a board of advisors. Doesn't seem overly-ambitious or power-mongering...just appeals to me I guess. It's a little exciting for me to find out about someone who I'd actually like to vote for beyond "the lesser of two evils." Know what I mean?

[Documad]

If any of you are going to work for a republican candidate or vote in the republican primaries, I wish you would back a candidate who has a chance of defeating Rudy. I think it's lovely to follow your heart, but it's more important to take out the most dangerous guy who actually has a chance of getting the nomination.


I've gotta say, I'd never vote for anyone that old.

[Waus]

If any of you are going to work for a republican candidate or vote in the republican primaries, I wish you would back a candidate who has a chance of defeating Rudy. I think it's lovely to follow your heart, but it's more important to take out the most dangerous guy who actually has a chance of getting the nomination.


I've gotta say, I'd never vote for anyone that old.

Yeah, I see what you're saying. I've kind of adopted the idea of no-compromise now though. If I do vote for some guy I think has a better chance of really going all the way - and he does - and I don't like what he does once he's in office, I'm partially responsible because I cast a vote for him.

I'd rather be able to say "don't blame me" and have someone I stand fully behind than support someone just because they have the money and means to win.

[mathcart]

He's fascinating. I know some people are alarmed by his more libertarian policies, but hes honest and hes principled, thus he impressivly does not stop short of the unpopular logical extensions of his beliefs(repeal of both IRS and Social Security). I can't say enough about how impressed i am with him. As a person that believes people should speak truth to the powerful, it is a rare treat to have truth spoken to you. Our foreign policy is catastropicly dangerous and counterintuitive. Our federal goverment is bloated and unresponsive to its citizens. The longer I live I realize that while I am social uber-liberal, I am fiscially conservative, to the point now that the huge money do nothing goverment structure we have in place is offensive to me on the level that racism is. The system is beyond broken and any call to reform it (such as Obama's) are ultimately just playing into the hands of the monied special intrests that hold all power over the peoples goverment. I don't know who I am voting for, but I don't know that I've run across a canidate that made me not what to barf a little while voting for them- Ron Paul thus far affects my gag reflex the least!

[Waus]

Colbert Report tonight!

[SOP]

The Colbert Bump, eh?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUd7OW2TvN8&mode=related&search=

Ron Paul: In-depth Interview - Part 1 of 6:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=t632kLFaPO8

[DroppinScience]

I like Ron Paul a lot and I think he's a good voice to have within the Republican party. Now if only there were more of those voices.

I don't agree with lots of his stances (I'm never big on the Libertarians wanting to de-regulate government... call me a big government whore, I like the roads to be paved :p ), but he is definitely someone I can respect. He's dead-on with Iraq.

[saz]

I think it's important to remember that Ron is actually running as a Republican for this election, and not a Libertarian.

*moans*

yeah dude, i'm quite aware of the fact that paul is a republican, is running as a republican, and has been participating in the republican debates. that has been the primary point of my posts in this thread: that he's just another republican douche, ie fuck the poor, fuck minorities, fuck women and their rights, we don't need social/government programs, the magic of the free market will work its wonders and cure all of society's ills etc. i have to admit though with paul, at least he has a realistic understanding of american foreign policy, how it's made a mess of the world, and how to correct it.


True - he ran as a Libertarian in the past, but what does that mean? Does that mean every Libertarian must subscribe strictly to the ideas of that party?

no, of course not.


That being said, Paul has actually been campaigning on sound monetary policy and foreign affairs, and not really emphasizing or running based on his religious rights, gay rights, pro-life ... social stances.

exactly, because he's probably trying to cause a stir, or better yet a positive stir, hoping that he'll sucker in all sorts of people who won't check out his background, voting record, core views etc.


Whether you agree or not with his pro-life stance, he's stated his belief and doesn't try to hide behind it.


and not really emphasizing or running based on his religious rights, gay rights, pro-life ... social stances.

well, which one is it? has he stated what he believes and not trying to hide them, or is he "not really emphasiziing or running based on his religious rights, gay rights, pro-life...social stances"?


According to his biographies, he's delivered over 4000 babies as an OBGYN - so his beliefs might spawn from experience.

so what, who cares. only a woman decides what she wants to do with her body. the government has no business telling a woman what very personal choices she ought to be making.


He hasn't flip-flopped on it or ever voted in a way that contradicts the positions he's maintained while in office. If he is an honest pro-lifer, then you simply disagree with him on that point, but surely you can respect his consistency.

i can't respect anyone who thinks that the government should interfere in the private, personal decisions of a woman.


Whatever his voting history is, I think that Ron would primarily pursue legislation that moved towards tax reform and foreign policy changes.
He's talked a lot about the Federal Reserve (from my understanding) and United Nations...how private interest banks and groups of officials not elected by the US are controlling our finances.

that sounds very similar to what bush was saying in '00.

[Documad]

Why aren't any of you people reading sazi's stuff? I knew this guy was socially conservative, but that is a scary collection of shit and sazi put it in a post that's easy to read and understand.

I'd rather have a flip flopper or hack than a zealot who wants to turn back the social clock to 1950. What's wrong with you people?

[Waus]

he's just another republican douche, ie fuck the poor, fuck minorities, fuck women and their rights, we don't need social/government programs, the magic of the free market will work its wonders and cure all of society's ills etc.


I was just saying it's not really fair to compare him to a libertarian candidate since he's not really running as one. He's saying that we have a lot of wasteful and unnecessary government programs that encroach on our liberties and spend our hard-earned money. Trying to give that money back to the poor, instead of having it taxed from them.

The only anti-minority thing you could accuse him of is immigration reform. He wants to close the borders and ensure that the American people aren't paying for non-citizens benefits.


exactly, because he's probably trying to cause a stir, or better yet a positive stir, hoping that he'll sucker in all sorts of people who won't check out his background, voting record, core views etc.


He might be gaining popularity for certain issues, but he's definitely not hiding his views on anything. If anything, in my experience he's been one of the candidates easiest to read information on. Let me google here...yeah, http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/



well, which one is it? has he stated what he believes and not trying to hide them, or is he "not really emphasiziing or running based on his religious rights, gay rights, pro-life...social stances"?



I'm saying he's stated his positions on those things, but what he's declared to be his focus for presidency if elected is on monetary and foreign policy as well as government reform and reduction. There's a difference between hiding something and just not highlighting it and shouting it from a rooftop.


so what, who cares. only a woman decides what she wants to do with her body. the government has no business telling a woman what very personal choices she ought to be making.


That's not what I'm arguing. Basically, in my opinion, the difference between pro-life and pro-choice is whether you believe a person is a baby at conception or birth, not women's rights. I believe women should have every right to decide what to do with their body, but I also believe that a fetus is a human being who has rights just the same. Maybe you disagree on that, but don't accuse me of ignoring women's rights.


i can't respect anyone who thinks that the government should interfere in the private, personal decisions of a woman.


Paul's voting to repeal Roe V. Wade and make the decision a state-based one. He's basically trying to get rid of the federal government's ability to make any kind of legislation on abortion, not force pro-life legislation.

[yeahwho]

Why aren't any of you people reading sazi's stuff? I knew this guy was socially conservative, but that is a scary collection of shit and sazi put it in a post that's easy to read and understand.

I'd rather have a flip flopper or hack than a zealot who wants to turn back the social clock to 1950. What's wrong with you people?

Everybody's looking for something.....he just seems like such a limited commodity. What happens when Katrina II hits? Let them sort it out themselves?
He feels theres plenty of debate on both sides of the "Global Warming" issue. Has talked about how growing up in Pittsburgh how the sky used to be black but now it has cleaned up quite a bit on it's own.

Clueless answer, c'mon get real. It is 2008. What is the debate? With whom?

[Waus]

Everybody's looking for something.....he just seems like such a limited commodity. What happens when Katrina II hits? Let them sort it out themselves?
He feels theres plenty of debate on both sides of the "Global Warming" issue. Has talked about how growing up in Pittsburgh how the sky used to be black but now it has cleaned up quite a bit on it's own.

Clueless answer, c'mon get real. It is 2008. What is the debate? With whom?

If I understand what you're saying...you don't think he could handle a big natural disaster and he's ambivalent about global warming?

I think if Katrina 2 hit he'd probably do a better job, since he's bringing back in all the troops that would be allocated for disasters like that. Focusing on our own defense beefs up things like that.

There is plenty of debate on both sides of climate change. Paul says basically that he's not using a "SAVE THE PLANET OMG" fear tactic to rally blind support and fear monger. He didn't outright deny that it's possible that there is global warming and it could be harmful, I guess he just hasn't been convinced that it's the immediate and quantifiable threat to the extent that some of his contemporaries claim.

[yeahwho]

There is plenty of debate on both sides of climate change. Paul says basically that he's not using a "SAVE THE PLANET OMG" fear tactic to rally blind support and fear monger. He didn't outright deny that it's possible that there is global warming and it could be harmful, I guess he just hasn't been convinced that it's the immediate and quantifiable threat to the extent that some of his contemporaries claim.

I disagree and so do millions of other fellow Americans, the days of debating human contributions to Global Warming are coming to a screeching halt. Until the man recognizes the scientific evidence, why would millions who have accepted it vote for him?

Finding any stance on environmental issues on his own site is dismal, buried away....his WashPirg scores are below 29% on environmental issues and his own words he seems to think this will sort it's self out.

Ron Paul speaks on Global Warming (http://www.theksbwchannel.com/politics/13212896/detail.html) (scroll down a bit)

Dennis Kucinich speaks on Global Warming (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpDRN7ycq7A&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fitsgettinghotinhere%2Eorg%2F2007 %2F05%2F18%2Fmeet%2Dthe%2Dcandidates%2Ddennis%2Dku cinich%2F)

[BangkokB]

Internets loves him: ABC doesn't

He's against the separation of Church and State though eh? Let's talk about that for a while(n)

[DroppinScience]

He's against the separation of Church and State though eh? Let's talk about that for a while(n)

Exactly, there's lots of stances like that that are troublesome and I wouldn't support him. Far from it, but I can respect the guy for using his noggin and not following the party line.

But don't worry everyone, Ron Paul has no chance of going anywhere. ;)

I was talking with my brother on what would be an entertaining election if the bottom-tier candidates got their parties nominations. Just imagine it... Gravel/Kucinich vs. Paul/Huckabee. Then Mike Bloomberg would run as an Independent and win. :p

[Waus]

He's against the separation of Church and State though eh? Let's talk about that for a while(n)

I think pretty much all the "against separation of church and state" claims come from a couple issues of one newsletter. That ongoing newsletter (I'm made to understand) was also once the source of an argument where a smear was written against another candidate in a local election, and Paul was upset because the newsletter is sometimes ghostwritten. I'm not saying he didn't write that, but I'm just saying it's the only example people are using to define his 'stance' on that.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html

The section most people are looking at goes like this "...the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life."

He also makes a couple of arguments about cases where judges legislate from the bench instead of staying true to the letter of the law, and some of what's involved with one of those cases is people claiming separation of church and state as reasons to evict boyscouts from a public park they had a camp in on the grounds that they are a 'religious organization.' One key to the case being that the land was donated from a private owner for the express purpose of the camp.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul120.html

My interpretation of his explanation of the church's role is not as a government funded/enforced entity, but he's saying that the Christian church is threatening to people because he feels it could overshadow the government in importance if it fulfilled the function he believes it's called to. Not because it would replace the government or necessarily be a part of it.

[memphisgreg]

Glad to see a real good discussion on here, thought I'd add my two cents.

Washington Post, Page 1: Ron Paul!

http://mparent7777-2.blogspot.com/2007/06/washington-post-page-1-ron-paul.html


Thought you might be interested in this story on this board. Ron hit page one in the Sat Washington post!!! - I included the link above.

Remember - Paris Hilton is on TV to distract viewers from the important issues. How much have you heard about Ron on CNNBCBS or Faux news? Or Gonzales, or Bush increasing executive powers 2 weeks ago... right - news kept you asleep too huh?

Write your media and tell them you could care less about Paris Hilton and other distractions and let them know you want to know why they act like Ron Paul is a nobody when their own polls clearly showed he was the front runner in the debates yet CNN Faux and even MSNBC all say former mayor of NY. and Mayor Giuliani and John McCain were the leaders in the polls when the truth is Ron beat everyone by collecting over 43% of the overall vote in the last two debates !

So if you want to, Lets turn up the heat on the media! Write and tell them you want non-biased media. You want to have a choice - with the internet age we have that power.

DOCUMAD

I've gotta say, I'd never vote for anyone that old.

And for those claiming Ron Paul is too old?!!? He's 71 and healthy - riding a bike... How old is McCain? Put things into perspective before you sound like an idiot - He was born in 1936 too! Not voting for someone because their old is like trying to fight in the special olympics - it's retarded.

And a little separate from Ron Paul - here's some more info to help wake you up.

I also want you all to read this link about the federal reserve, it is owned by private owners not the USA! The constitution gives the country the right to coin money, not a group of men who's names are for the most part not know to 99.9 % of Americans. These men print money then loan it to our government at interest, this interest is where your tax money goes to pay. This is called fiat money and is backed by nothing unlike the old days when money was backed by gold. There are many great links on this page about the way this happened and how we have been getting robbed by crooked politicians. Knowledge is power! There is not enough money in circulation to even pay off the national debt, your all being conned and Ron Paul knows this.This makes Ron the only candidate to vote for.

PS.Under Bush one, the USA became incorporated in guess what state? Yep, DELAWARE the fine state I reside in. As did the CIA etc! That means it is a for profit corporation. In fact the paperwork in filed somewhere in Wilmington though I do not have the exact address right now,(I have file somewhere and will post that later).Prisons have become a source of income and that is why it is almost impossible to get through a day without breaking one law or another. I don't think our forefathers died or fought for our country to be this way. Just take some time and think about it,
http://www.apfn.org/money/money.htm

[QueenAdrock]

before you sound like an idiot

trying to fight in the special olympics - it's retarded.

lol.

[Documad]

And for those claiming Ron Paul is too old?!!? He's 71 and healthy - riding a bike... How old is McCain? Put things into perspective before you sound like an idiot - He was born in 1936 too! Not voting for someone because their old is like trying to fight in the special olympics - it's retarded.
Yeah, I'm not voting for McCain either.

The president who is elected in 2008 will be president until 2013. I have a lot of experience with people over 70, and they often seem vital one minute and hit a sudden downward spiral the next. It's just too risky. I don't want a president with dementia.

The main thing Paul has going for him right now is that no one really knows him. As he gets more and more attention, we'll get more and more old stories coming up that show just how bad a candidate he is for national office.


P.S. Most corporations are incorporated in Delaware. It's because they have laws that favor corporations and it's kind of nice because everything's standard. And it's really all that Delaware has going for it. ;)

[memphisgreg]

I have a lot of experience with people over 70, and they often seem vital one minute and hit a sudden downward spiral the next. It's just too risky. I don't want a president with dementia.

The main thing Paul has going for him right now is that no one really knows him. As he gets more and more attention, we'll get more and more old stories coming up that show just how bad a candidate he is for national office.


P.S. Most corporations are incorporated in Delaware. It's because they have laws that favor corporations and it's kind of nice because everything's standard. And it's really all that Delaware has going for it. ;)

You are one ignorant person. I think your post itself speaks volumes.

1. You already HAVE a president with dementia.
2. The only story I have seen run on Paulk negatives - was that he flew 1st class. (weak)
3. You missed the point about incorporations. It's not that it's in Delaware's friendly laws - It's WHAT IS IN Delaware that's incorporated.

Read the back of your dollar a little closer next time. It's in plain view - it always has been and always will be. Until this country wakes up, you'll continue to reject candidates such as Ron Paul or Mike Gravel - and continue eating and consuming what their feeding you. Enjoy the sleep.

[QueenAdrock]

1. You already HAVE a president with dementia.

She doesn't like him either, nor did she vote for him. I fail to see how this is a valid arguing point at all. Since we already have a president with dementia, we shouldn't be cautious towards electing someone else who may have a downward spiral towards dementia too?

[Bob]

come on documad wake up, don't be so ignorant

wake up!

why won't you wake up

[QueenAdrock]

Yeah, just like that one Rage Against the Machine song...what's it called

Sleep Now in the Fire, i think

[Waus]

You are one ignorant person. I think your post itself speaks volumes.


Hey, this is debate - don't make it personal.

[Schmeltz]

He sounds like a liberal's conservative, which might not be such a bad thing on the whole, but I think yeahwho's right to emphasize the weakness of his foreign policy platform. The USA's international commitments have grown and are growing exponentially and to withdraw from them without serious consideration to the consequences of doing so - foreign and domestic - would be absolute folly.

I was thinking about this during the G8 Summit recently. How would Ron Paul, with his mainly isolationist attitude to international relations, approach the forthcoming installation of the American missile shield systems in Eastern Europe? Would he scrap it - at the cost of alienating Poland (one of the most valuable American allies in the region) and the Czech Republic, giving Vladimir Putin a foreign policy bullseye, and backing out of colossally valuable deals with the enormous manufacturing concerns responsible for the production, installation, and maintenance of some of the heaviest and most complex military equipment in the world? Is that a realistic treatment of an incredibly sensitive and complicated issue? Would that actually leave America, and Paul himself, in an advantageous position?

In terms of its position in the global community, America needs a statesman with the finesse to smoothly and carefully begin to defuse a situation lurching with increasing speed between crises and catastrophes, not an ideologue to slam down on the brakes. This also means a Secretary of State and State Department that function in a context of practical realism, not commitment to ideology; we've had quite enough of that already. With the right leadership America could resume its position as a leader in and example to the world community, and still manage and govern its assets in a manner that befits such a station.

[Marlene]

people should go out in droves to the primaries and vote for one of those creationist idiots to be on the republican ticket.

[QueenAdrock]

I concur. One of my friend's father's is registered Republican just so he can put the worst person on the ticket. I mean, it doesn't make a difference, but the point is, it's funny.

[SugarInTheRaw]

.

[SugarInTheRaw]

I was thinking about this during the G8 Summit recently. How would Ron Paul, with his mainly isolationist attitude to international relations, approach the forthcoming installation of the American missile shield systems in Eastern Europe? Would he scrap it - at the cost of alienating Poland (one of the most valuable American allies in the region) and the Czech Republic, giving Vladimir Putin a foreign policy bullseye, and backing out of colossally valuable deals with the enormous manufacturing concerns responsible for the production, installation, and maintenance of some of the heaviest and most complex military equipment in the world? Is that a realistic treatment of an incredibly sensitive and complicated issue? Would that actually leave America, and Paul himself, in an advantageous position?


Interesting points, Schmeltz. Paul does argue that it is our current, foreign policy that has already made the U.S. out to be diplomatic isolationsists.

It seems to me that Ron Paul is just bringing a lot of important information like the American Union, an outgrowth of the NAFTA agreement, to the awareness of more people. This, among many other issues, is not being given its proper attention in these debates.

[memphisgreg]

Sorry for getting personal. I just know that some people are more capable of thinking this through then others. I get passionate when someone is missing "What's wrong with this picture" comparisons, and they make it about something else.

Enjoy my new post about the Acronym game.

Thank you so much to Ron Paul for raising if nothing else, awareness.

To all, I hope that no matter who you vote for, your at least 1% as passionate as I am about Congressman Paul.

[SugarInTheRaw]

Sorry for getting personal. :)

I just know that some people are more capable of thinking this through then others.
:mad:

You so crazy.

[Carlos]

I was thinking about this during the G8 Summit recently. How would Ron Paul, with his mainly isolationist attitude to international relations, approach the forthcoming installation of the American missile shield systems in Eastern Europe? Would he scrap it - at the cost of alienating Poland (one of the most valuable American allies in the region) and the Czech Republic, giving Vladimir Putin a foreign policy bullseye, and backing out of colossally valuable deals with the enormous manufacturing concerns responsible for the production, installation, and maintenance of some of the heaviest and most complex military equipment in the world?

you can't seriously be thinking the missle defence system will be a good idea??!!
or that america needs to worry what Poland think :confused: lol.. you must be joking, right?

[Lo_Lyfe]

I'm far too lazy to click on those links and do all that reading. What kind of platform does he have regarding environment, abortion, Iraq war, education, poverty, etc.? Two sentences each, please.

So...you take your politics serious, yeah?

[Schmeltz]

you can't seriously be thinking the missle defence system will be a good idea??!!
or that america needs to worry what Poland think :confused: lol.. you must be joking, right?

Whatever I personally think of the missile defence system is totally irrelevant to what the consequences will be if the project is started and then suddenly interrupted. Similarly, the issue is not whether Americans need to be concerned with what Poles think of them, but rather what consequences might follow an outright failure to live up to very hefty commitments made to an ally that has made considerable rapprochement to the United States in recent times.

If you're suggesting that it's alright for any American government to continue behaving just as the Bush administration has (ie entering and abandoning international commitments on a whim and behaving with total disregard for the consequences of its actions on the world community), just because you like them better than the Bushies, then perhaps you ought to re-examine the inconsistencies in your position.

[Carlos]

If you're suggesting that it's alright for any American government to continue behaving just as the Bush administration has (ie entering and abandoning international commitments on a whim and behaving with total disregard for the consequences of its actions on the world community), just because you like them better than the Bushies, then perhaps you ought to re-examine the inconsistencies in your position.

consistency is having a position on something, and not flinching from that conviction. I am against having US missles on european soil, epecially not Menwith Hill in yorkshire! And so it would be a good thing if it didn't happen in my opinion - that is purely consistent. I would argue that yours is the one that is blatently inconsistent, if you are against this system, but yet would be happy for it to go ahead because it might cause a little disruption to some companies in either poland or the uk.

maybe you should be more worried about what Bush might sign the next president up to, not what the next preseident might have to stop!

not to mention that, stopping the proliferation of nuclear arsenals and not abiding with human rights commitments like Bush are comparable... then your logic really does decieve me Smeltz.

[Schmeltz]

maybe you should be more worried about what Bush might sign the next president up to, not what the next preseident might have to stop!

In this instance, does that not amount to the same thing? And why does the missile deal have to stop? Because you say so?

The point is that yanking the rug out from under the missile shield deal, especially after proceeding to whatever extent is reached in satisfying the commitments made to the various parties involved, might be worse than going ahead with it, distasteful though it seems to you and me. Personally I think this missile shield is a foolish notion; it's a thinly veiled extension of direct American military presence into the sphere of influence of a foremost military competitor, which will produce a direct and unavoidable reaction from that secondary power, and it probably doubles as a big cash windfall for major defense manufacturing firms in both Europe and the USA. But my opinion counts for little in the realities of the situation, and the means to the end might not be justifiable or productive in the long term.

I think something you might have failed to consider is that while you and I might not like seeing American missiles on European soil, others might be more than glad to see them there. In particular I suspect the citizens of Poland would be very glad to host the missiles and all their attendant security and economic benefits (this is perhaps the one time I would be interested in hearing freetibet's input on any issue). Point being: you and I have no right to tell the citizens of other countries how to construct their security infrastructure, or what deals to make in the process. Now, if you don't want missiles in Yorkshire, by all means step up and do something about it.

[Carlos]

interesting interview with Ron Paul:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-VNVqtcywU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBvD4VVaGZI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSMECBE0Rzk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66Eh2EkfYzc

whether you agree 100% or not with his position on things, at least he speaks from the heart, and doesn't seem to dodge real questions like the majority of politicians!

[saz]

I was just saying it's not really fair to compare him to a libertarian candidate since he's not really running as one.

fair enough. however, this is the hype that he is getting, that he is very libertarianesque, and people are buying it and falling for it.


He's saying that we have a lot of wasteful and unnecessary government programs that encroach on our liberties and spend our hard-earned money. Trying to give that money back to the poor, instead of having it taxed from them.

just off the top of my head, the only real government programs that encroach on your liberties are the patriot act, and the illegal domestic spying program. a lot of conservatives are opposed to universal, government health-care for the same reasons. however, the government providing health-care for the citizenry wouldn't be encroaching their liberties, but rather the government helping and serving the citizenry. i wouldn't be surprised at all if ron paul is opposed to universal, government provided health-care.


The only anti-minority thing you could accuse him of is immigration reform. He wants to close the borders and ensure that the American people aren't paying for non-citizens benefits.

plus the fact that he's opposed to the seperation of church and state, and that he's a christian. so, he therefore wants america to be more of a christian nation, and is less inclined to care about other faiths, and the religions of ethnic minorities.


I'm saying he's stated his positions on those things, but what he's declared to be his focus for presidency if elected is on monetary and foreign policy as well as government reform and reduction. There's a difference between hiding something and just not highlighting it and shouting it from a rooftop.

that's fine. however, you can be sure that his focus will also include narrowing abortion rights, and further blurring the line which seperates church and state.


Paul's voting to repeal Roe V. Wade and make the decision a state-based one. He's basically trying to get rid of the federal government's ability to make any kind of legislation on abortion, not force pro-life legislation.

that's so misleading; you're completely misconstruing the issue. paul may want every state to make and enforce its own laws on abortion, however he still wants to see it completely outlawed, or have roe v. wade overturned. and it will be much more easier for the southern states to have their own way, if they have the final call on abortion laws.


There is plenty of debate on both sides of climate change.

are you serious? there's only those are in touch with reality, plus thousands of the most credible scientists from around the world who confirm that climate chaneg is real. and of course, those "scientists", pundits, and corporate hacks who are funded and supported by the oil and energy industries, and right-wing think tanks.

I think pretty much all the "against separation of church and state" claims come from a couple issues of one newsletter.

ah no. it has to do with his voting record, and the legislation he has proposed, supported, and endorsed in congress:



"In 2005, Ron Paul introduced H.R. 4379, which has the purpose of “To limit the jurisdiction of the Federal courts, and for other purposes.”
The Supreme Court of the United States and each Federal court–
(1) shall not adjudicate–
(A) any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion;
(B) any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or
(C) any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation"


in other words, it seems that he wants to specifically deny the ability to appeal to federal courts, and constitutional protections in the areas of gay rights and religious freedom rights.

this is not only an extreme "states' rightist" perspective, but specifically advances a social-conservative agenda by denying constitutional protections in certain areas. they could not only block gay marriage, but outlaw homosexuality, and make christianity the official religion of a state.


"Also in 2005, Ron Paul introduced H.R. 776 which said:
(a) Finding- The Congress finds that present day scientific evidence indicates a significant likelihood that actual human life exists from conception.
(b) Declaration- Upon the basis of this finding, and in the exercise of the powers of the Congress–
(1) the Congress declares that–
(A) human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency; and
(B) the term `person’ shall include all human life as defined in subparagraph (A); and
(2) the Congress recognizes that each State has the authority to protect lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that State."


so, he wanted to declare via legislation that a fertilized human ovum, a zygote, is a person with all the attendant protections of law. that would make abortion murder.

this is the most extreme anti-abortion position available, and highly contrary to the libertarian ideal which leaves the woman in full control of her own body, the decision of abortion being a private one to be made by her alone.


anyways, the bottom line is that ron paul is just like pat buchanan: a very interesting conservative, because on many issues they are both very informed, enlightened and a take a very firm progressive or populist stance; however when it comes down to it, they are still conservatives who unabashedly want to restrict women's rights, gay rights, and ultimately erase the line between the seperation of church and state.

[SugarInTheRaw]

Ron Paul has been excluded from the next Republican debate. I hope it backfires on the sneaks running the show and calls even more attention to Paul.

I thought many of you would appreciate this article titled Can Ron Paul Win?: http://redstateeclectic.typepad.com/redstate_commentary/2007/06/can-ron-paul-wi.html

[memphisgreg]

I have not found anything about him being left out of the next debate. No news from his camp either. Are you getting this from the Iowa Forum? Because that's not a debate that's officially covered.

I talked on the phone with the Communications Director last week, and were all doing a good job, keep awareness, and keep to facts. I'll look into this a bit further.

best,
me

[memphisgreg]

BUMP and Grind.

[Documad]

You are one ignorant person. I think your post itself speaks volumes.

1. You already HAVE a president with dementia.
2. The only story I have seen run on Paulk negatives - was that he flew 1st class. (weak)
3. You missed the point about incorporations. It's not that it's in Delaware's friendly laws - It's WHAT IS IN Delaware that's incorporated.

Read the back of your dollar a little closer next time. It's in plain view - it always has been and always will be. Until this country wakes up, you'll continue to reject candidates such as Ron Paul or Mike Gravel - and continue eating and consuming what their feeding you. Enjoy the sleep.

W has dementia? Seriously? Was that announced while I was on vacation?


By the way, you are an excellent spokesman. I encourage you to spam as many message boards as possible for Paul. (y)

[memphisgreg]

:)
it's not Spam - look at Ron - drudgereport.com had him as a headline yesterday. just keeping the awareness going. He's now in third place for Republican finances and ABC has him gaining momentum in the Nat'l polls.

Like VOLTRON.

Ron Paul Unite.

[yeahwho]

:)
it's not Spam - look at Ron - drudgereport.com had him as a headline yesterday. just keeping the awareness going. He's now in third place for Republican finances and ABC has him gaining momentum in the Nat'l polls.

Like VOLTRON.

Ron Paul Unite.

It is spamming (http://www.pronetadvertising.com/articles/ron-paul-supporters-need-a-lesson-in-social-media-marketing34389.html).

Masquerading as genuine Digg Users (as well as MySpace. Facebook, YouTube, BBMB and Friendster users) in order to influence others is not ethical. It is schilling. If mass manipulation is the weapon of choice for the Paul camp, then I hope it does not translate to the methods of the man himself.

[Documad]

I just want to know whether his supporters understand how extreme his stance is on social/moral issues. I can believe that you're all anti-choice, but are you all really in favor of state-imposed religion? As he gets more popular, he will have to respond to accusations like what sazi is posting.

I put my personal freedoms ahead of almost everything. They're even more important to me than ending the war in Iraq.


I don't even read many internet sites, but I've noticed that most of the Paul supporters don't contribute anything except comments about Paul. That's how I define spam. They also tend to be intolerant of differing opinions, which is nice because it makes them bad salespeople.

[memphisgreg]

Documad,

I really don't think a handful of Ron Paul supporters have been spamming YouTube, MySpace, FaceBook, The BB'sMB's etc. Look at his meetup.com numbers, which you can't fake: he has 18,000 members, more than all the other Republicans combined!

And today it was announced that he's third in fundraising among declared Republicans behind Giuliani and Romney.

The buzz is real, and the campaign is very different from any we've ever seen. It's based on principle, integrity, and our constitution. That's why he's going to win.

The issue is that people are saying he's anti-choice... Is this because he's pro-life? Just curious, because everything I've read has said the government should have less say in our freedoms, and that we should live strictly to what made our constitution successful. The Right to life and equality is a principle that all human beings are entitled too. He believes in Christian Ethics... If anything, hate him because you don't agree with those views. Don't put words into his mouth that are false - like "He doesn't want you to have a choice."

WEAK.

Matter of fact - your weak. If you don't like what I'm writing on here, suck a pole. I'm not going anywhere, I've contributed mix-ups on this board - it's not just about the politics, if you don't like what I'm writing read a different posting. I'm loving the PM's and mail I'm getting in support of these posts. If there's a few people who don't like it - move along - nothing to see here.

[yeahwho]

memphisgreg, you must mean the self interested crap you generate by doing this (http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/showpost.php?p=1486258&postcount=83). Your being a schill.

[Documad]

The issue is that people are saying he's anti-choice... Is this because he's pro-life? Just curious, because everything I've read has said the government should have less say in our freedoms, and that we should live strictly to what made our constitution successful. The Right to life and equality is a principle that all human beings are entitled too. He believes in Christian Ethics... If anything, hate him because you don't agree with those views. Don't put words into his mouth that are false - like "He doesn't want you to have a choice."

WEAK.



I can't understand your post. I'm saying that he's anti-choice because he doesn't want women to be able to make the decision to have an abortion. I believe that women should be able to have abortions. Paul doesn't. I think states shouldn't be allowed to take that right away from women. Paul thinks they should be able to. Everyone has reported that he thinks it's a good idea to outlaw abortion. Is he actually pro-choice? Has he changed his mind?

He doesn't want the FEDERAL government to have power. He is fine with every STATE government (and cities and counties) taking away rights that are important to me. That's what Paul's proposed legislation says (as posted by Sazi twice in this thread). You can agree with Paul and you can call me a moron or otherwise act like a jerk, but you can't hide from Paul's record.

The official stats haven't been posted for July, but Paul's apparently raised a lot of money in the last month or so. That says something about McCain unpopularity for sure. But if that is supposed to make Paul a better candidate, then you must agree that Clinton and Obama are far, far better candidates. I don't judge candidates on their bank accounts myself, but if you do they're far ahead of your candidate. The numbers indicate that democrats are raising a lot more money than republicans overall as well. I don't know whether that reflects the mood of the country now, and I don't know whether this positive trend for democrats will continue through Nov.2008. And I don't much care about the horse-race side of this election. Those are just the facts right now.

[Documad]

By the way, George W. Bush is a very principled man too. And W stands by his principles. I guess that I prefer hound dogs who don't destroy the country. :p

[D_Raay]

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/07/08/open-thread-525/
See how it really is? We love this guy right? The people love this guy right?
Here is the mainstream media telling him he has absolutely no shot of winning.

Essentially telling us we are insignificant. We have the power supposedly and the VOTE, but he can't win.

[memphisgreg]

By the way, George W. Bush is a very principled man too. And W stands by his principles. I guess that I prefer hound dogs who don't destroy the country. :p

HAHAHA!

Now I know I don't need to give any credibility to your words.

[Documad]

If you're working for a politician, you should be thankful when the media asks your candidate about the issue everyone's thinking, so that he can respond to it. You know it's an issue, so you would rather put it out there publicly instead of having most people think it and never hear your response. From that tiny clip, it seemed like George was asking the question that many people wonder about -- is Paul another Nader? Is this a vanity thing? Is he trying to raise the level of discourse on his pet issues? Is he like Biden and he's running for an appointment to another office? Or is he going to run to win? Paul got a chance to answer the question and he should be prepared to answer it every day until the republicans pick their candidate.

I know that the Paul supporters are new to politics, and that's what they like about each other and their candidate, but if he hits the mainstream they will have to adapt. The comments attached to that clip make Paul look bad. Paul comes across much better than his supporters. Honestly, there is a rude and unprofessional tone every time the Paul supporters voice their opinions. It's never a reasoned and civil argument in those blogs. This continues to remind me of the worst of Dean's supporters last time. If you're running as a third party candidate, that's one thing. But you're running for the republican nomination. You're going to need some votes from long-time republicans who voted for W twice.

[memphisgreg]

memphisgreg, you must mean the self interested crap you generate by doing this (http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/showpost.php?p=1486258&postcount=83). Your being a schill.

I thought I was getting ALL R. Kelly up in here by Bumping and grinding. It's the remix to ignition poppin fresh out that kitchen.

I prefer to be the walleye then the schill, but that's cool.

It's that WOO WOO. that's it thats all.

Good night and good luck.

[Documad]

HAHAHA!

Now I know I don't need to give any credibility to your words.
Neither you nor I are taking each other seriously here -- that's been quite obvious.

I'm confident that there are people who post here who are clever enough to understand exactly what I was saying in that post. :) And it wasn't for humor. I stand by what I said. I liked Bill Clinton better than George W. Bush.

The more I think about it though, the more Paul reminds me of Bush. He's someone that we don't know much about, and he hasn't been responsible for anything in the government, so he can talk about his positions but we have no real idea who he would appoint to the most important jobs in the country. But there is a lot more in Paul's record that can be attacked if the democrats ever have to take him on. Right now, he's helping them so they're keeping quiet. I should do the same. :o

[memphisgreg]

I'm a long term Republican. Unfortunately I made the mistake of voting for George for both of his terms. Only because at the time I thought he was the lesser of two evils. To a degree I'll stick to those principles too! John Kerry is a douche, and Gore WAS a stiff. And the whole global warming thing isn't my cup of tea.

Hillary is the devil and Barrack is a bought man. Honestly - who can we elect? Politics in our country are a joke - although - I can't imagine living anywhere else, I love my country and if I actually believed in the policies, I would go to war for my country. I refuse to accept that these stiffs are the best we can do. We need someone to lead this country that doesn't need money and talks common sense.

That's the bottom line.

[SugarInTheRaw]

I'm a long term Republican. Unfortunately I made the mistake of voting for George for both of his terms. Only because at the time I thought he was the lesser of two evils. To a degree I'll stick to those principles too! John Kerry is a douche, and Gore WAS a stiff. And the whole global warming thing isn't my cup of tea.
Bush and Kerry are cousins and both members of Skull and Bones (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skull_and_bones). So, ok, but voting for Bush the first time?

That's the bottom line.
No, this is.

[memphisgreg]

we all make mistakes.

[SugarInTheRaw]

we all make mistakes.
The pope doesn't.

[QueenAdrock]

Hey, just because he's infallible doesn't mean he doesn't make mistakes.

[yeahwho]

Here is another look at Ron Paul w/o name calling, Congressman Paul's Legislative Strategy? He'd Rather Say Not. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/08/AR2006070800966.html)

[Documad]

His website says that he was named one of the most effective guys in congress, but you're a pretty insignificant guy if you're always voting the minority and you're not running any committees. It makes you sound cool, but you tend to lose your battles.

He sounds like he would be a fun crusty old guy to have a beer with (does he drink alcohol?). I wouldn't want him representing me in congress though.

[Marlene]

John Kerry is a douche, and Gore WAS a stiff. And the whole global warming thing isn't my cup of tea.

Hillary is the devil and Barrack is a bought man.


why are you here?

[memphisgreg]

Either God created me, or I chose to be here. You figure it out.

[memphisgreg]

Here is another look at Ron Paul w/o name calling, Congressman Paul's Legislative Strategy? He'd Rather Say Not. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/08/AR2006070800966.html)

Thanks for sharing - hadn't seen this.

[SugarInTheRaw]

why are you here?
Why are you came?

[Jasonik]

Knights of Liberty song "Ron Paul 4 Freedom" with video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlPjsGFcXlg)

http://www.myspace.com/knightsofliberty :cool:

Good compilation video here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFfdB5OzlyQ)

Iowa Staw Poll 8/11/07
Ron Paul Speech at Iowa Straw Poll (Part 1 of 2) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uoB2a7kM0YY)
Ron Paul Speech at Iowa Straw Poll (Part 2 of 2) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUHM5RnUGzE)

H.R. 1009: To amend the Controlled Substances Act to exclude
industrial hemp from the definition of marihuana, and for other purposes
aka-Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2007 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h1009:)
Rep. Paul has 11 cosponsors, - 10 of whom are Democrats.
Ron Paul & Hemp for American Farmers Video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDLiHJFPWsM)

For the full view:
http://ihateronpaul.com/

[yeahwho]

I don't get it. Ron Paul was #5 in the Iowa straw poll. The clear winner was the Stormin' Mormon Mitt Romney?

Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, got 31.6 percent of the more than 14,000 ballots cast, compared with 18.1 percent for second-place finisher Mike Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas; 15.3 percent for Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback; 13.7 percent for Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo; and 9.1 percent for Texas Rep. Ron Paul, who rounded out the top five in the 11-man field.

It is quite an accomplishment I suppose for Ron Paul to be #5. But the real world is actually focusing on Mitt's win (http://news.google.com/nwshp?tab=wn&ncl=1119100865&hl=en&topic=h).

[Jasonik]

You're right, you don't get it.

... (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/09/AR2007080902379.html)former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, has assembled an unrivaled operation for the event: a statewide corps of 60 "super-volunteers," who have been paid between $500 and $1,000 per month to talk him up; a fleet of buses (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rRM4YZWL78); more than $2 million in television ads in Iowa; a sleek direct-mail campaign; and a consultant (http://video.on.nytimes.com/?fr_story=FRsupt209886) who has been paid nearly $200,000 to direct Romney's straw poll production, which will include barbecue billed as the best in the state.

... (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1652210,00.html)For most of the past year, Romney has targeted his resources in Iowa in an effort to transform himself from a little-known governor of a liberal northeastern state with dubious conservative credentials into a candidate who can appeal to the social conservatives who dominate the GOP electorate in Iowa.

Paid 'volunteers', >$2 million, months of work, buses, golf carts, BBQ, T-shirts, buying 8-10,000 tickets all for... 4,516 votes?
-----
Ron paul is on the ground for only a week with an 'official' organization. He buys 800 tickets, and independent supporters buy the rest. No buses, no food, a few days of TV adz and an independently created and supported newspaper ad (http://www.spirit76.org/blog/index.php), and he turns out... 1,305 votes?

His message is stronger. His supporters are more motivated. He is smarter with his money. And as of yet he isn't even named in 70% of MSM pieces about the Republican field. He is rising fast (http://techpresident.com/scrape_plot/myspace).

[yeahwho]

You're right, you don't get it.

I get it, your pumped up about a straw poll that traditionally if you come in below the top two it's time to look at other options besides wasting resources running for president. I get it in a different sense than your getting it. The one who really is claiming victory is Huckabee.

The reality of traditional politics and the mainstream media is not going to change anytime soon.

As a supporter of Kucinich I am watching the exact same lack of media and having futile hopes that something different well occur than the numbers I see. Paul will need some steroid charm pills to claim the nod from mainstream America, but he looks as though he's kicking ass on youtube and blogs, the internet is decieving.

I get it in a sense of how Rudy, McCain and the majors aren't even involved in this poll, thus claiming an arrogant self imposed victory for themselves. Until the numbers change dramatically it's great that he's getting his message out there, less government interference in a drastic sense. He is a needed kick in the ass for all those other toads.

[Jasonik]

You're waiting for the MSM to recognize Kucinich?!

NEW MEDIA BITCH!

I understand Kucinich and Paul are friendly and frequently cosponsor bills and such, but they're not even in the same league when it comes to grassroots/netroots support. The reason why Paul is steadily climbing is because of real life supporters who go out and raise awareness and name recognition in their community both on and offline.

I am fully aware that the GOP establishment, and by extension MSM will do everything they can to avoid Ron Paul - so it must be shown by real people at the community level that he can and has mobilized enough support to be viable. Paul supporters need to go to local republican committees en mass and visibly register with the party to vote in the primaries.

Truth be told, most of these people have never been involved in politics before and rather than take the mainstream opium of horserace frontrunner bullshit, are actively retaking control of their country.

Dennis Kucinich (http://denniskucinich.meetup.com/about/)
1,325 Members in 42 Meetup Groups, 2,818 waiting for a Meetup Group

Ron Paul 2008 (http://ronpaul.meetup.com/about/)
28,478 Members in 702 Meetup Groups, 4,411 waiting for a Meetup Group

I would love to see Kucinich support increase, but if the attitude of his supporters is anything like yours we'll all be waiting...and waiting...

BTW, there are no Romney groups (http://www.meetup.com/topics/polact/cand/pres/), take what meaning you will.

[Documad]

All that matters is how many Paul supporters show up at republican caucuses and primaries and wind up being delegates. I'm guessing there won't be many. The Paul supporters seem too independent-minded to work their way through the caucus system for one thing. You've got to play a lot of games without being abrasive and turning off the long-time republican activists.

[yeahwho]

I would love to see Kucinich support increase, but if the attitude of his supporters is anything like yours we'll all be waiting...and waiting...


The superiority of Paul is evident. You've fully convinced me. He's a genius.

The meet ups do have a telling statistic, the 42 Kucinich meetup groups have held 1915 actual events. While Paul has a whopping 708 groups yet they've mustered only 2929 meetup events.

To be as active as the lazy Kucinich supporters on the meetup scale, your meetups should be right around 32,280 actual events.

[Jasonik]

Considering most of the Kucinich groups have been around since his 2004 run, your assertions have no merit.

Kucinich was on the national stage during that race and his support hasn't really blossomed considering the groundwork of support already in place.

I do sympathize with the plight of the democrats in this race, - I mean how could they not choose a woman or a black man, or for that matter choose between them. It is a quandary.

Obviously your Kucinich support means that you're a male chauvinist and a white supremacist. /sarcasm:p

[yeahwho]

Considering most of the Kucinich groups have been around since his 2004 run, your assertions have no merit.

Actually of the 42 Kucinich groups that are on meetup.com, only 5 are pre 2007. So your assertions have 0 merit or credibility.

Speaking of credibility, as I research these meetup "events" I see many of them have as little as 0-5 people participating, for all of the candidates. There are a few with more than 20, but that is the rarest of event. Events where 0-1 show up is ridiculous to even make a statistical record of.

Back to Ron Paul himself, he attracts support from a variety of people who share his opinions on some things, but not necessarily on all of them. He's the inner conflict candidate.

[Jasonik]

Boy do I feel stupid for only clicking the first 5 or 6... :o

I don't understand the internal conflict thing, for me the fundamental issue is reestablishing the primacy of the constitution.

If somehow my views of policy or government don't fit within the constitution then I'll have to change it with an ammendment or grin and bear it. I mean, no matter how much I'd like to make a law saying "x" if the constitution says I can only make laws if they don't say "x" then I can't make that law!

It is disturbing to me and many others that officials' oath to protect and defend the constitution has become perverted to mean ignore the inconvenient parts and pretty much disregard the rest when it doesn't suit your reelection strategy.

We can argue about policy and ideology later, but lets first restore the rule of law, meaning the supreme law of the land, aka the constitution.

[Pxpwop]

Check out these awsome polls!!! And then read the comments at the bottom following the polls.....

http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/texas.html

[Jasonik]

Hey - a heads-up for everyone in the New York area, with an interest in the mainstream and Internet media coverage of the 2008 Presidential election, and its current percolating campaigns:

Paul Levinson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Levinson) has been invited to talk to the New York City Ron Paul Meet-Up group (http://ronpaul.meetup.com/50/?gj=sj2) at 7:30pm this Tuesday - in particular, about the media's misreporting and in one case outright attack on Ron Paul, and what can be done about it.

He'll be talking at the Village Pourhouse (http://www.pourhousenyc.com/) on 11th Street and 3rd Avenue (southwest corner) for 30-45 minutes, followed by 15-30 mins for questions and answers.

The meeting room will be spacious. The general public is welcome. Admission will be free.

The media coverage of our election campaigns thus far should be of concern to anyone who values our democracy.

Ron Paul and his supporters, in particular, have received less than truthful treatment from a variety of media. ABC News and its affiliates has had the greatest confluence of misreporting, and Prof. Levinson be talking in particular about ABC's posting of misleading photos, reporting of Internet poll results which left out Ron Paul's standing (http://paullevinson.blogspot.com/2007/08/abcs-abuse-of-american-electorate-to-be.html), and, in the case of ABC radio talkshow host Mark Levin, about his urging listeners to call Ron Paul headquarters with hostile comments. In short, he'll be discussing the many abuses he'e been loudly blogging (http://paullevinson.blogspot.com/) about for the past weeks.

[SugarInTheRaw]

Hey - a heads-up for everyone in the New York area, with an interest in the mainstream and Internet media coverage of the 2008 Presidential election, and its current percolating campaigns:

Paul Levinson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Levinson) has been invited to talk to the New York City Ron Paul Meet-Up group (http://ronpaul.meetup.com/50/?gj=sj2) at 7:30pm this Tuesday - in particular, about the media's misreporting and in one case outright attack on Ron Paul, and what can be done about it.

He'll be talking at the Village Pourhouse (http://www.pourhousenyc.com/) on 11th Street and 3rd Avenue (southwest corner) for 30-45 minutes, followed by 15-30 mins for questions and answers.

The meeting room will be spacious. The general public is welcome. Admission will be free.


Jasonik, how was this meeting? What was it like?

[emreka]

I will obey. God bless them, the few.

[yeahwho]

I watched this you tube video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOdMOqYBrqM&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Ejbs%2Eorg%2Fnode%2F5590)of Ron Paul's recent visit to Salt Lake City, it's sort of cool to see what computer geeks look like when they come out of the house.

I think he has a very good chance at becoming the President of the Internet.

[Waus]

Check it out - my old roomie got his picture taken with him at the Ann Arbor rally!

http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/6507/n13703220384238637168ql2.jpg


I'm re-excited about Paul's campaign after he got some considerable donations last quarter.

[Pxpwop]

Fox just never learns. Paul wins the Fox Poll with 34% of the vote....(y)

http://youtube.com/watch?v=MT0qpjm6NT8

Don't wake the sleeping Giant. Paul 2008(!)

[SugarInTheRaw]

Fox just never learns. Paul wins the Fox Poll with 34% of the vote....(y)


That is an interesting clip. Sean is on top of it though. I believe in Hannity.

What is up with this CNBC clip?
CNBC learns not to 'mess with' Ron Paul, followers?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEFmAqfiXnk

[Waus]

The primaries are coming up. Fox News is looking to exclude Paul from their upcoming debate coverage in Iowa there. Apparently because Paul isn't ranking high enough in the gallup polls. Take note that Paul's name is sometimes excluded from Gallup polls (I still need a source on this) and that the polls are done via random land-line dialing.

(he doesn't have more than 5%)
http://www.iowagop.net/shownews.asp?artid=33

So, despite raising 4.2 million on Nov. 5th and outranking other candidates in the post-debate polls, online polls - he won't be invited to the republican debate.


How Gallup Polls work (acc. to wiki) - -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallup_poll

[Jasonik]

Rasmussen Reports Wednesday, November 14, 2007 (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/2008_presidential_election/election_2008_clinton_42_giuliani_39_ron_paul_8) (Paul @ 8% yesterday)
Ron Paul has stunned the political world with his fundraising capacity and has recently gained ground in national polling on the Republican race. Over the past week, he has consistently been in the 5% to 6% range among Republican Primary Voters nationwide. His cash resources could enable him to shake up the race in early voting states.

Paul @ 4% in Iowa for October. (http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?category=caucus)
ARG has him @ 3 % (http://www.americanresearchgroup.com/)

Thompson %'s have been falling as Huckabee's have been rising and undecided are still in the low teens. The MSM have done a good job of putting a stigma on being a Paul supporter. To be honest, all he needs now is a respected celebrity supporter (http://www.theadvocates.org/celebrities.html) to endorse him and it's on. (No thanks Mark Cuban)

A new hip-hop video pushing "Ron Paul two thousand eight dot com ya'll" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdV7YsM-N50) by Roy Shivers (http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=32699567)

[SugarInTheRaw]

So Glenn Beck states here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Rc4OJWH1nE) that Ron Paul supporters are terrorists. That seems a little bold, don't ya think? I mean, I'm still undecided about Paul, but even I found Glenn's implications on mainstream news disturbing. Does anyone else find this newscast alarming?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Rc4OJWH1nE

Did Ron Paul himself endorse Guy Fawkes on the 5th of November? Wasn't that phrase also used in V for Vendetta? Is it just a metaphor? :confused:

[Jasonik]

Did Ron Paul himself endorse Guy Fawkes on the 5th of November? Wasn't that phrase also used in V for Vendetta? Is it just a metaphor? :confused:

1. The Paul campaign had NOTHING to do with organizing the fundraiser. The campaign found out about it ahead of time, did nothing to discourage the event, but had nothing to do with the symbolism of the date.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kGzPT-scnw

2. The independent grassroots fundraising organizer, 37 yr old Trevor Lyman whose day job is running a music promotion Web site and was "mostly apathetic" politically before he supported Paul - states, "we're not going in any way violent. ...If you look at the pop culture feel-good message of [V for Vendetta] the people in the end say 'we are the deciders.' That's the best way to describe it. And this is a country of and by the people."
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=3822989

3. Jesse Benton, a campaign spokesman clarified that Mr. Paul did not support blowing up government buildings. “He wants to demolish things like the Department of Education,” Mr. Benton said, “but we can do that very peacefully, in a constructive manner.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/06/us/politics/06paul.html

There is another "money bomb" fundraiser in the works for Dec. 16th to remember the Boston Tea Party.
http://www.teaparty07.com/

I wonder how these proto-fascist talking heads will try to spin this one.

[roosta]

If Barack isnt going to win i hope its Ron Paul!

And thats based entirely on the start of this you tube clip!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=K7aFXRAW7mg

[The Notorious LOL]

yeah duuuuude!!! Ron fuckin' Paul!!!!


Im so sick of hearing about this marginally less evil bastard being talked up like hes a descendant of Christ.

[roosta]

yeah duuuuude!!! Ron fuckin' Paul!!!!


Im so sick of hearing about this marginally less evil bastard being talked up like hes a descendant of Christ.

I know absolutely nothing else about him other than that one clip.

All we hear over here is Rudy, Hillary and Barack.

[The Notorious LOL]

never understood why the states election coverage is so important but I couldnt tell you who the current leader of Ireland was if my testicles depended upon it

[roosta]

never understood why the states election coverage is so important

Well, ya know, the President of America tends to do things that affects the whole world..so we keep an eye on it


but I couldnt tell you who the current leader of Ireland was if my testicles depended upon it

He's a corrupt, inept bollox, that's all you need to know.

[Bob]

less evil

that's debatable

i think he conceded at some point that one of his policies would likely result in the death of something like 100,000 people or something, i dunno i heard a comedian say it i think

[roosta]

ha...yeah, I just read some stuff bout Ron Paul.

He seems like an idiot.

[Jasonik]

Willful ignorance is a sight to behold...

[Waus]

ha...yeah, I just read some stuff bout Ron Paul.

He seems like an idiot.

Why?

I think he's an idealist at worst.

[saz]

"I have to admit that when Rep. Ron Paul announced his candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination, I didn't raise much of an eyebrow, even though I am a longtime Paul watcher. After all, he's run before; his 1988 Libertarian Party candidacy attracted little attention because he ran mostly from the fringe, and his views haven't changed substantially over the years.

What I didn't expect was that his anti-war advocacy would attract as many evident admirers from the left as it seems to have, particularly those who are dissatisfied with Democrats' apparent fumbling of the Iraq war issue. Certainly, the message boards at liberal outlets like Crooks and Liars who've carried factual counterinformation about Paul have been flooded with raging defenses of the man, as have some of our comments threads.

To what extent this is an illusion created by Paul's legion of True Believers is difficult to ascertain. Paul is very well organized online -- much of his support is derived from this -- and it's entirely likely the flood of "liberals" and "progressives" who are busy arguing that someone like Paul is worth forming an alliance with are, in fact, simply part of Paul's corps and they're doing their part to muddy the waters and ultimately attract new supporters in a "Third Way" kind of strategy.

And to some extent it seems evident that they're succeeding. Mostly, they seem to be taking advantage of a combination of amnesia among those experienced enough to know better, and simple ignorance on the part of progressives who've never heard of, or paid any attention to, Ron Paul previously. They hear Paul's carefully crafted antiwar rhetoric and his critique of the Bush administration -- all of which elide or obscure his underlying beliefs -- and think it sounds pretty good, especially for a Republican.

As Sara has already explained, there's a real problem with that -- namely, for all of Paul's seeming "progressive" positions, he carries with him a whole raft of positions well to the right of even mainstream conservatives.

A more important point, though, that's overlooked in all this is that Ron Paul has made a career out of transmitting extremist beliefs, particularly far-right conspiracy theories about a looming "New World Order," into the mainstream of public discourse by reframing and repackaging them for wider consumption, mostly by studiously avoiding the more noxious and often racist elements of those beliefs. Along the way, he has built a long record of appearing before and lending the credibility of his office to a whole array of truly noxious organizations, and has a loyal following built in no small part on members of those groups.

The Republican Party has a history of hosting right-wing fringe figures like Paul, people who portray themselves as patriotic conservatives and exploit the latent conspiracism and paranoia of their audiences well enough to win election to Congress, but who actually build remarkable records of non-achievement once in D.C., mainly because their beliefs are so far removed from the mainstream that no one pays them any mind, except the folks back home, who are persuaded by all the bellicose flag-wrapping that these characters are doing the job they want done back in Washington. I had the fortune (both good and bad) of covering three such figures from Idaho over the course of my newspapering career: George Hansen, Steve Symms, and Helen Chenoweth.

The same is generally true, I think, of Ron Paul. While I think the evidence that Paul is incredibly insensitive on racial issues -- ranging from a racially incendiary newsletter to his willingness to appear before neo-Confederate and white-supremacist groups -- is simply overwhelming, it isn't as simple to make the case that he is an outright racist, since he does not often indulge in hateful rhetoric -- and when he has, he tries to ameliorate it by placing it in the context of what he thinks are legitimate policy issues. (Hansen, Symms and Chenoweth were also skilled at this.)

If Paul's express views on racism are less than convincing, then the piece that appeared under his name in 1992 about black crime, as reported by the Houston Chronicle, was simply damning. The ugly smear intended by the rhetoric in that case was unmistakably racist. Paul has since claimed it was ghostwritten and he wasn't paying enough attention, but that doesn't explain why he continued to defend those views to a reporter four years later, in 1996:

Paul, a Republican obstetrician from Surfside, said Wednesday he opposes racism and that his written commentaries about blacks came in the context of "current events and statistical reports of the time."

... Paul, writing in his independent political newsletter in 1992, reported about unspecified surveys of blacks.

"Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action,"Paul wrote.

Paul continued that politically sensible blacks are outnumbered "as decent people." Citing reports that 85 percent of all black men in the District of Columbia are arrested, Paul wrote:

"Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal," Paul said.

Paul also wrote that although "we are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers."

A campaign spokesman for Paul said statements about the fear of black males mirror pronouncements by black leaders such as the Rev. Jesse Jackson, who has decried the spread of urban crime.

What Paul never explained was that one of the primary sources for this information about black crime came from Jared Taylor, the pseudo-academic racist whose magazine American Renaissance was at the time embarked on a long series of tirades on the subject (the June 1992 issue was primarily devoted to the subject; the statistic claiming that 85 percent of black men in D.C. have been arrested appears in the August issue), the culmination of which was Taylor's later book, The Color of Crime, which made similarly unsupportable claims about blacks.

This sort of unspoken dalliance -- an uncredited transmission of ideas, as it were -- takes place all the time with far-right politicos like Ron Paul. It's one of the reasons to be concerned about any traction they may actually gain within the mainstream.

This is especially the case because there is nothing in Paul's present behavior or positions that is inconsistent with his past; he's just more astute about how he voices them. No reporter yet seems to have asked him about his belief in the "New World Order," notably.

His history is replete with far-right dalliances, and more importantly, many of his current positions are taken directly from the extremist right, and in fact embody the propagation of their longtime agenda. A look at his record makes clear how and why this is so.

With all these extremist beliefs forming the underpinnings of his political agenda, it follows, like night and day, that he'll be exhorting like-minded extremists to follow. This is why you'll find, in Paul's record, a nearly unbroken string of appearances before various far-right groups, from the Gary North wackaloons in the 1980s to various "Patriot" organizations in the 1990s to neo-Confederate and white-supremacist groups like the Council of Conservative Citizens and the League of the South.

It's also why you'll find him coming to the defense of a variety of right-wing extremists involved in violence, from the cross-burners Sara described here, to the Branch Davidians and the Indianapolis Baptist Temple, which engaged in a similar armed standoff with authorities.

And that in turn is why Paul enjoys so much support among the far-right racists and conspiracy theorists out there. These range, as Sara has noted, from David Duke and the Stormfront folks to the neo-Confederates, tax protesters, and Birchers -- all believers in the "New World Order," all fans of Ron Paul. This shows up, for instance, in the unusual level of support that Paul enjoys among members of the Constitution Party -- Howard Phillips' far-right entity that was a significant promoter of the militia movement in the 1990s. Indeed, listed among the leading supporters of Paul's presidential bid this year are Chuck Baldwin, the 2004 Constitution Party Vice Presidential candidate, and Jim Clymer, the Constitution Party chairman.

Ron Paul may or may not be a racist -- and arguing about it is likely to end up nowhere. But what is unmistakably, ineluctably true about Ron Paul is that he is an extremist: a conspiracy theorist, a fear-monger, and an outright nutcase when it comes to monetary, tax, and education policy. The more believers and sympathizers he gathers, the worse off the rest of us will be.


http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/06/ron-paul-vs-new-world-order.html

[saz]

ron paul defends child molestor david koresh and the branch davidians, who killed several atf agents:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/paul1.html


"You know, their rhetoric suggests they might not like the United Nations, and you hear that often. They'll be complaining about the United Nations, and this and that. But, we have to remember, when it came time to get authority and a reason to go to war, they mentioned the United Nations twenty-one times in the authority, when we voted for the authority for the President to go to war when he felt like it.

I think what's going on, they're not anti-U.N., they're anti-U.N. if they don't do exactly what they want. Because there is a fascist-type faction that wants to keep the military/industrial complex going, and the oil control. Then there's the Kofi Anan-type guys. They are Socialists. They like world government."

- ron paul in an interview with "conspiracy planet"

http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?channelid=90&contentid=1659&page=2

[roosta]

Why?

I think he's an idealist at worst.

Yes, and his ideals are idiotic. This hole complete isolationism shit..he wants to pull the US out of the UN.

[Waus]

Yeah, I read those articles forever ago when they were on Digg. Frankly, it's the worst dirt anyone has on him - and most of it is accusations he's rebuffed based on a newsletter that was ghostwritten.

I think there's a fine line between isolationism and just emphasizing home-defense over "world policing." I think we're on the wrong side of that line as a nation right now, and it's not like Paul could just overhaul everything and turn us into an isolationist country even if he wanted to, he'd have to work with congress.

I think the decline of the value of the dollar is a sign that something is wrong with our economic system. I'm not saying I believe Dr. Paul has an absolutely fool-proof plan, but I think he's addressing the problem more than any other Republican.

Decline of the dollar -

http://www.kitco.com/ind/Kirtley_Sam/jul172007.html
http://www.currencytrading.net/2007/7-countries-considering-abandoning-the-us-dollar-and-what-it-means/
http://news.yahoo.com/s/uc/20071102/cm_uc_crpbux/op_334275;_ylt=AvZgJ1Rdc9CrCFBX44p18HOs0NUE
http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5hSPjtwINMoyVzOzvF2ivVPJMdsww

Paul on whether he's an isolationist (Dec.18 2006)
"Noninterventionism is not isolationism. Nonintervention simply means America does not interfere militarily, financially, or covertly in the internal affairs of other nations. It does not we that we isolate ourselves; on the contrary, our founders advocated open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations.

Thomas Jefferson summed up the noninterventionist foreign policy position perfectly in his 1801 inaugural address: 'Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations- entangling alliances with none.' Washington similarly urged that we must, 'Act for ourselves and not for others,' by forming an 'American character wholly free of foreign attachments.'"

[saz]

Yeah, I read those articles forever ago when they were on Digg. Frankly, it's the worst dirt anyone has on him - and most of it is accusations he's rebuffed based on a newsletter that was ghostwritten.

supposedly ghostwritten. besides, apparently paul still cited the same false and grossly prejudicial data in 1996 regarding black men.

the bottom line is that besides from an enlightened view on foreign policy, ie being opposed to meddling in the affairs of sovereign nations, he's just another super right-wing wingnut fanatic, who defends lowlife scumbags like david koresh and the branch dividians, has addressed extreme right-wing and white supremist groups, and wants to privatize virtually everything.

[Jasonik]

Racist Allegations...numerous attacks, including publicizing issues of the Ron Paul Survival Report (published by Paul since 1985) that included derogatory comments concerning race and other politicians. Alluding to a 1992 study finding that "of black men in Washington ... about 85 percent are arrested at some point in their lives", the newsletter proposed assuming that "95% of the black males in Washington DC are semi-criminal or entirely criminal", and stated that "the criminals who terrorize our cities ... largely are" young black males, who commit crimes "all out of proportion to their numbers".
In 2001, Paul took "moral responsibility" for the comments printed in his newsletter under his name, telling Texas Monthly magazine that the comments were written by a ghostwriter and did not represent his views. He said newsletter remarks referring to U.S. Representative Barbara Jordan (calling her a "fraud" and a "half-educated victimologist") were "the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady." The magazine defended Paul's decision to protect the writer's confidence in 1996, concluding, "In four terms as a U.S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this." In 2007, with the quotes resurfacing, the New York Times Magazine concurred that Paul denied the allegations "quite believably, since the style diverges widely from his own."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul#1996_campaign_controversy


[G]overnment as an institution is particularly ill-suited to combating bigotry in our society. Bigotry at its essence is a sin of the heart, and we can’t change people’s hearts by passing more laws and regulations.

In fact it is the federal government more than anything else that divides us along race, class, religion, and gender lines. Government, through its taxes, restrictive regulations, corporate subsidies, racial set-asides, and welfare programs, plays far too large a role in determining who succeeds and who fails in our society. This government "benevolence" crowds out genuine goodwill between men by institutionalizing group thinking, thus making each group suspicious that others are receiving more of the government loot. This leads to resentment and hostility between us.

The political left argues that stringent federal laws are needed to combat racism, even as they advocate incredibly divisive collectivist policies.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul381.html


Waco Massacre

Watch the Emmy Winning and Oscar Nominated Documentary Film
WACO: The Rules of Engagement (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4298137966377572665&q=waco+duration%3Along&total=102&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0)


National Sovereignty

Ron Paul: First Bush Was Working Towards New World Order (http://www.youtube.com/v/Z8DpKKSmaa8&rel=1)

NAFTA Superhighway -- Figment of Ron Paul's Imagination? (http://www.youtube.com/v/QtK2AeONPYg&rel=1)

CNN's Lou Dobbs Reports (http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=6946647208237228392&hl=en)

What is the NAIPN (http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=naipn&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8)?

[Documad]

Waco Massacre

Watch the Emmy Winning and Oscar Nominated Documentary Film
WACO: The Rules of Engagement (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4298137966377572665&q=waco+duration%3Along&total=102&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0)

I'm confused by why you liked the documentary. I think the feds should have done a better job in handling the standoff, but do you and Ron Paul, actually support what Koresh and his followers were doing? Would Paul allow people to marry more than one person at a time? Or are you just trying to point out that the feds did a bad job of bringing them in?

[Jasonik]

Obviously I can only speak for myself when I say that any crimes the Branch Davidians may have committed, I do not endorse. That being said, from my recollection, the only crime they were accused of was modifying semi-automatic weapons into automatic weapons. And the botched and unnecessarily aggressive serving of a search warrant related to that accusation caused the standoff.

I liked the documentary because it was thorough and unwound the official government spin. IMO people who make cavalier and disparaging statements regarding the victims of the Waco tragedy are generally ignorant of the true facts of the case which is why I suggested viewing the critically acclaimed documentary.

As for polyamory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyamory), I'm certain a Paul administration would do nothing to attempt to regulate it federally nor would he attempt to limit any group's constitutionally protected right to freely exercise their chosen religion.


[Ron Paul] wants to privatize virtually everything.
Let me put a finer point on this assertion.

Ron Paul is opposed to the government doing something that the free market can do just fine without government interference. I'll illustrate the approach with a simple example.

Let's take a suburban neighborhood and the way its residents dispose of their refuse:

The statist approach would be to tax the residents and provide a pick-up and disposal service. (progressive/socialist)

The privatization plan would be to tax the residents and give the money to a disposal company contracted by the town. (neocon/fascist)

The market approach would be to let competitive free enterprise offer solutions to the neighborhood of consumers. For example, pay by the pound, or pay by the volume, or some other clever idea that would provide a cheaper more convenient service than a competitor. (free market/libertarian)

[Schmeltz]

All of the fantasy behind Soviet Communism, with none of the military muscle to back it up (probably for the best). Ron Paul and his anarchic abandonism are a joke and this is nothing but fringe theory. If you seriously believe that the clock can be wound back to the gold standard you're living in a dream world. There are practical considerations to be... well... considered.

Seriously though.

[Jasonik]

All of the fantasy behind Soviet Communism, with none of the military muscle to back it up (probably for the best). Ron Paul and his anarchic abandonism are a joke and this is nothing but fringe theory.
I guess you don't draw a distinction between aggressive military coercion (http://www.laissez-fairerepublic.com/Coercion.htm) and defensive military deterrence (http://www.atomicarchive.com/Docs/Deterrence/Deterrence.shtml). I provide the latter link with caveats regarding the nature of 21st century nuclear proliferation and the possibility of gaming a US response. A move toward a truly defensive foreign policy would need to be mindful of discerning between blowback (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20011015/johnson) and existential threats to the Republic.
If you seriously believe that the clock can be wound back to the gold standard you're living in a dream world. There are practical considerations to be... well... considered.

Seriously though.
I seriously believe that decriminalizing the use of gold as money would allow people greater faith in their unit of account and greater faith when saving for the future. As a first step Paul is merely advocating the competition (there's that pesky concept again) of gold or an associated representative money with the current floating fiat dollar.

Ron Paul interview with Larry Kudlow and Steve "living in a dream world" Forbes (http://www.youtube.com/v/abV9tgbG-bA&rel=1)

For a look at our current monetary system: Money As Debt (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9050474362583451279)

[petesboutique]

ron paul is the only hope or our country!!!

[Schmeltz]

Sorry for the rude tone of my post above, I was kind of drunk when I came here last I think. This time it's only 10:00 am, so I won't start drinking for at least another half hour!

A move toward a truly defensive foreign policy would need to be mindful of discerning between blowback (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20011015/johnson) and existential threats to the Republic.

What's the difference between the two?

I don't think a Cold-War era definition of "deterrence" is really relevant anymore; the world has changed in the last 40 years and the greatest threat that faces the Department of Defence is no longer global thermonuclear war but global theo-fundamentalist terrorism. Keeping that in mind, it's blowback that's really the key to the question of Paul's foreign policy stance, which as I understand it involves a dramatic redefinition of American foreign interests and a consequent downward restructuring of America's commitments abroad. Such a withdrawal of American influence will hinder, not aid, the USA's deterrent ability in the face of the threats it faces, which necessarily hinges on both a series of geographically far-flung military deployments and direct military co-operation and involvement with many other globally diverse international security structures.

In other words, the blowback from Paul's disengagement from current US foreign commitments would probably be much larger and more widespread than that incurred from past coercive American actions in other countries, and would hinder the USA's ability to deal with the blowback already in development due to the Bush administration's foreign policy missteps. This is where Ron Paul always falls down for me. It seems like his solution to the difficulties faced abroad by the USA is to pretend that ignoring them will solve them, and while that's probably a step up from actively making them worse (like the Bushies) it's a poor substitute for the type of leadership on the world stage that the USA (and the Western world in general) desperately needs and of which it is really quite readily capable.

I seriously believe that decriminalizing the use of gold as money would allow people greater faith in their unit of account and greater faith when saving for the future. As a first step Paul is merely advocating the competition (there's that pesky concept again) of gold or an associated representative money with the current floating fiat dollar.

There's another weak plank in the Paul platform: what I see as a very shortsighted devotion to competition as the solution to all ills, which is just as idealistic as the belief that direct management of the economy will solve all our problems. Forcing the greenback to compete with a separate domestic gold currency will only further weaken its own ability to compete, in turn, with the other currencies that are currently rising dramatically in value against it (the Euro, the Canadian and Australian dollars, etc). If the Chinese and Middle Eastern economic associations abandon their greenback reserves as a reaction to a precipitous plunge in the value of the dollar, no amount of faith in unit of account or in personal savings will save the American economy from the repercussions.

Again it seems to boil down to pretending that America is the only country in the world, a mindset that has never served Americans well abroad and never will. I can understand some of the appeal as a reaction to the foreign policy catastrophes to which America has been subjected by an inept and mismanaged government (both historically and in unprecedented ways recently), and to the apparent stultifying inability of the current Republocrat system to create productive solutions. But no solution, which to my mind is all Ron Paul has to offer, is not a good solution. If Ron Paul was really a leader or actually had his country's best interests truly at heart he would find ways to engage with America's foreign interests and difficulties actively and progressively, not disengage with them and preoccupy himself with winding the clock back to 1791.

[Jasonik]

It's refreshing to delve into the issues. I must confess that the positions appear simple on their face, but after all, he's trying to appeal to the national public and appear non-threatening abroad. All carrot and no stick perhaps, but since when is the world our mule?

I don't think a Cold-War era definition of "deterrence" is really relevant anymore; the world has changed in the last 40 years and the greatest threat that faces the Department of Defence is no longer global thermonuclear war but global theo-fundamentalist terrorism.
I carefully used the words "existential threat to the Republic" for a reason. The existence of our country is not threatened by terrorists - period.
...a withdrawal of American influence will hinder, not aid, the USA's deterrent ability in the face of the threats it faces, which necessarily hinges on... military deployments and direct military co-operation and involvement...
The erroneous assumption that terrorism is a threat to us is now coupled with the absurdity that terrorism can be fought militarily.
In other words, the blowback from Paul's disengagement from current US foreign commitments would probably be much larger and more widespread than that incurred from past coercive American actions in other countries, and would hinder the USA's ability to deal with the blowback already in development due to the Bush administration's foreign policy missteps.
Misunderstanding the cause of terrorism, is at the root of your confusion, and what you would classify Bush's missteps. Ron Paul cites both of these experts when justifying his non-interventionism.

Robert Pape: The Logic of Suicide Terrorism, It’s the occupation, not the fundamentalism (http://www.amconmag.com/2005_07_18/article.html)

Six Questions for Michael Scheuer on National Security (http://www.harpers.org/archive/2006/08/sb-seven-michael-scheuer-1156277744)
This is where Ron Paul always falls down for me. It seems like his solution to the difficulties faced abroad by the USA is to pretend that ignoring them will solve them, and while that's probably a step up from actively making them worse (like the Bushies) it's a poor substitute for the type of leadership on the world stage that the USA (and the Western world in general) desperately needs and of which it is really quite readily capable.
Rep. Ron Paul: I advocate the same foreign policy the Founding Fathers would (http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?articleId=cc287b0f-941c-4b07-88e9-9e992810f700)

Forcing the greenback to compete with a separate domestic gold currency will only further weaken its own ability to compete, in turn, with the other currencies that are currently rising dramatically in value against it (the Euro, the Canadian and Australian dollars, etc).
Poor greenback! You admit it is failing -- yet you don't want something superior?
If the Chinese and Middle Eastern economic associations abandon their greenback reserves as a reaction to a precipitous plunge in the value of the dollar, no amount of faith in unit of account or in personal savings will save the American economy from the repercussions.
So, you think more smoke and mirrors will mask the truth and save us rather than sounder fiscal policy, less monetary manipulation, and less reliance on foreign creditors?

But no solution, which to my mind is all Ron Paul has to offer, is not a good solution. If Ron Paul was really a leader or actually had his country's best interests truly at heart he would find ways to engage with America's foreign interests and difficulties actively and progressively, not disengage with them and preoccupy himself with winding the clock back to 1791.
Everyone is always talking about foreign interests. Is foreign interests code for oil? Is foreign interests code for dictators we prop up? Is foreign interests code for trade agreements, sanctions or aid? If foreign interests means coercion, interference, or manipulation -- Ron Paul has his country's best interests at heart when he repudiates these means to an imperial end.

[Schmeltz]

It's refreshing to delve into the issues.

Indeed it is. I'm going to try to avoid turning this convo into a quote-war, like we've seen before, just because I find them hard to read. So I'll just pick out what I think are your most important points.

With regard to terrorism - I think you fall down badly with your own assumption that terrorism is not a threat to your country. September 11th proved that it is possible for a terrorist group, even a smallish group operating abroad with comparatively few resources, to engineer a monumentally significant act of material destruction (I hope against hope you're not a member of the ericg camp, because I simply won't speak to you if you are, sorry, nothing personal). And perhaps more importantly, the United States is dependent for the maintenance of its economy on a supply of natural resources located largely in foreign areas subject to very real existential threats: I refer, of course, to Middle Eastern oil. Terrorism in Saudi Arabia can constitute just as vital a danger to the United States as terrorism as home, should it significantly threaten the systems of resource exploitation and distribution that fuel American industry. What's happened to fuel prices since the Bush invasion disrupted the status quo in the region?

Furthermore, I think it is disingenuous to claim that terrorism cannot be fought militarily, though it is probably correct to assert that it cannot be fought purely militarily. I did used to think the way you do, actually, and I've said as much here before. But this fall and winter there has been a dramatic downturn in violence in Iraq, with much lower death tolls spread across a much lower frequency of terrorist incidents, a trend attributed by both military planners and ground-level soldiers to increased levels of co-operation between American troops and Iraqi citizens, as well as the co-option of formerly insurgent militant groups into at least the resemblance of an informal security apparatus. While the situation is of course still appalling, it has measurably improved thanks to a direct change in military strategy involving a deeper level of interaction between foreign soldiers and local citizens (as opposed to hunkering down in fortified bases and driving around in armoured convoys waiting to be hit by IEDs), and one can only hope and pray that it will improve further, unlikely though it seems. The point is that if productive and mutually satisfactory relationships can be adopted between the forces that maintain security and the people who enjoy it, it is indeed possible to militarily confront terrorism. It all depends on context, and the way in which the military is employed by its civilian handlers.

In relation to this I could refer you to Waus' "Leave Iraq" thread, in which we are also discussing the Bush administration's actual legacy in Iraq: a sizeable body of fundamentalist fanatics with an infamously elusive character and years of experience in confounding the advanced and powerful American military machine. This terrorist combat element, while nothing like a formal army, still presents a clear and present security danger to every nation in the region (for an example see the Pakistani army's inability to penetrate the FATA, or the much more sophisticated Israeli army's inability to knock out Hezbollah), along with the crucial American interests invested therein, and there is simply no way to defeat them other than militarily - keeping in mind the contextual caveat I discussed above.

As I've implied through my criticism (and outright loathing!) of Bush and his cabal of cronies, I'm aware of the causes of terrorism. In fact, I started a thread in this forum, I think last year, linking to Michael Scheuer's article and the insights it offers. But the snowball is well down the mountain now, and it's much too late to simply withdraw from the situation and hope it will work itself out. It's too late for non-interventionism, and too early for post-interventionism. But it's the perfect time to turn from interventionism to engagement, and to demonstrate real leadership after seven years of ineptitude and blundering.

Rep. Ron Paul: I advocate the same foreign policy the Founding Fathers would (http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?articleId=cc287b0f-941c-4b07-88e9-9e992810f700)

This article, which is full of evasive doubletalk and upjumped rhetoric, says it all, really. In fact ideas do indeed have expiration dates and thank God for it; I refer you to slavery, fascism, Communism, colonialism, female disenfranchisement, social Darwinism, trial by combat, and any number of the myriad other horrific ideas that have mercifully passed their prime. And while Ron Paul's commitment to the ideals of the Enlightenment as propounded by the Founding Fathers is somewhat admirable, the fact is that our world is very, very different from the world they lived in, due to the intervening two centuries of increasingly complex human interaction. In fact, they would not recognize a single thing about it. And this means that their perspective is somewhat antiquated and not always relevant. What else would you expect?

Poor greenback! You admit it is failing -- yet you don't want something superior?

So, you think more smoke and mirrors will mask the truth and save us rather than sounder fiscal policy, less monetary manipulation, and less reliance on foreign creditors?

This doesn't really say anything; gold is not demonstrably superior to a paper currency, especially in a global currency market of the kind that has evolved since the gold standard was dropped, and Ron Paul can't just snap his fingers and produce less monetary manipulation (especially since people will immediately start debasing gold coinage, which is the most direct kind of monetary manipulation I can think of) or dependence on foreign creditors (since paying off America's massive foreign debts in gold would quickly deplete the country's reserves, further restricting economic activity).

[Schmeltz]

Another thing I might point out is that I didn't say the greenback was failing, merely that other national currencies are rising in value against it - which is a completely disproportionate phenomenon to begin with and has mainly affected international trading, not domestic business. Prices are all the same in Canada, I tell you what. And aren't they the same down there for the most part?

The greenback seems to be serving you well domestically, but is flagging internationally. Electing a new President might not change that. Especially if he ditches the dollar for the ducat. Or florin. Or sovereign? Whatever the idea is.

[drizl]

the US is only dependent on foreign oil because our leaders want us to be. they control the infrastructure of society, funding, and refuse us technology and industry standards (mpg for isntance) that hold us back from better things. they want us addicted to oil, they are the first and biggest problem.


the second problem is our foriegn policy. that is why people hate us. if we want to stop aggression by terrorist groups directed towards our country, then we must change our foriegn policy. these people dont hate us for nothing.

whats the answer schmeltz, irradicate the terrorists! thats totally impossible, because for every one you kill, 7 more spring up, inspired to die for their cause, and that is unlike our current military. its a never ending war you are wishing for (that we will lose, like the russians and the british lost afghanistan) if you think we can take advantage of this opportunity to show our dominance. fuck that bullshit.

ron paul offers real change. the rest are just a bunch of council on foreign relations, trilateral commission, secret society fondeling sacks of shit, looking to perpetuate the bullshit. ron paul is the only hope this election. hes got my vote.

[SugarInTheRaw]

I'm really trying to get a better scope on this whole Ron Paul thing. I did come across an article that asks the same question I have been hearing on Fox News - "Who are these kooks?"

Who Are These Kooks?
by Chuck Baldwin
December 18, 2007

According to the Associated Press, "Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul's supporters raised over $6 million Sunday to boost the 10-term congressman's campaign for the White House."


The AP report also said, "The [Paul] campaign's previous fundraiser brought in $4.2 million."


According to the Paul campaign website, "In a 24-hour period on December 16, the campaign raised $6.026 million dollars, surpassing the one-day record of $5.7 million held by John Kerry.


"During the day, over 58,000 people contributed to Dr. Paul's campaign, including 24,940 first-time donors. Over 118,000 Americans have donated to the campaign in the fourth quarter.


"The $6 million one-day total means the campaign has raised over $18 million this quarter, far exceeding its goal of $12 million."


Now, if one listens to most of the political pundits in the major media, Ron Paul is some kind of "kook," and his supporters are also a bunch of "kooks."
So, the question must be asked, Just who are these kooks that are supporting him, and why are they giving Ron Paul all this money?


First, let's take a look at this "kook" who is receiving all this money. Ron Paul was born the third son of Howard and Margaret Paul, and was brought up with a work ethic in which one worked six days a week and went to church on Sunday. His first job was at age 5 helping his uncle wash bottles. He worked all the way through his youth mowing lawns, delivering newspapers, working in a drug store, delivering furniture and laundry, etc.


In high school, Ron was a track star, winning state as a junior in the 220-yard dash and running 2nd in the 440. His time in the 100-yard dash was 9.8. That's pretty good. I was never able to break 10-flat in the 100. Although, I bet I could have beaten him in the 50-yard dash. He also wrestled in high school. Coincidentally, so did I. But here Ron leaves me: he was president of the student council and an honor student. I never accomplished that. I was just glad to get promoted to the next grade. Even as a senior statesman, Ron Paul keeps himself in terrific shape. Have you seen him lately? He still maintains a rigorous exercise regimen.


Ron's two brothers are both ministers, and he became a medical doctor. He graduated from Duke University School of Medicine. When the Cuban Missile Crisis arose, Ron became a flight surgeon in the U.S. Air Force. He also served in the Air National Guard.


As an OB/GYN physician, Dr. Paul has delivered more than 4,000 babies, and he and his wife, Carol, have been married for more than 50 years. They have 5 children, 18 grandchildren and 1 great-grandchild. Ron Paul is currently in his 10th term as a congressman from Texas.


As a congressman, Ron Paul has never taken a government-paid junket. He is not accepting a government pension. He returns a portion of his office budget every year to the taxpayers. As a member of Congress, he has never voted a raise for himself. Do you know any other member of Congress that can make such a claim? Of course you don't, because Ron Paul is truly one-of-a-kind.


Former President Ronald Reagan said this about Ron Paul, "Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country."


Perhaps this helps explain why many of the "kooks" supporting Ron Paul are active-duty military personnel. In fact, Ron Paul has received more campaign contributions from active-duty military personnel than any other Presidential candidate from either party.


But who are the other "kooks" supporting Ron Paul? What kind of people give more than $18 million in a quarter-year to a Presidential candidate that is almost universally ignored by the mainstream press? What kind of people give record contributions to a Presidential candidate that is lampooned by his fellow Republican Presidential contenders?


For example, Mike Huckabee recently said he could support any of the other Republican Presidential contenders (including Rudy Giuliani), except Ron Paul. That means, Mike Huckabee would rather support a pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, pro-gun control liberal such as Giuliani than support the pro-life, pro-traditional marriage, pro-Second Amendment candidacy of Ron Paul. Why is that?


Furthermore, why are the entire major media and establishment Republican machine either ignoring or lampooning a distinguished Air Force veteran, medical doctor, and ten-term Congressman? What is it about Ron Paul that the elite are so afraid of?


Here is something else: while Ron Paul's contributions have exploded, Mike Huckabee is all but broke! How can that be? How can a political "front-runner" be out of money, while a man who "doesn't have a chance" is breaking fundraising records?


So, who are these "kooks" who are sending Ron Paul so much money? And just why are they sending him so much money? I will tell you who they are, because I am one of them. They are rank-and-file, tax-paying citizens who are sick and tired of out-of-control federal spending and deficits. They have had it with an arrogant federal government that runs roughshod over both the Constitution and the liberties of the American people. They are people who have had enough of the IRS, the BATFE, and a thousand other federal agencies that have "erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance." (Declaration of Independence)


They are people who see through the phony, disingenuous federal politicians who only want to fleece the American citizenry for the purpose of building their own personal fortunes. They have had it with the Military-Industrial complex that desires to build international empires at the expense of the blood and sacrifice of the American people. They have had it with David Rockefeller and his Council on Foreign Relations. They have had it with the arrogance of George W. Bush and Nancy Pelosi.


They are sick and tired of paying outlandish taxes for a public education system that produces high school graduates who cannot read and write.



They are sick and tired of working for 30 years to pay off a mortgage, only then to be forced to pay extortion money (a.k.a. property taxes) for the rest of their lives to the feudal state. They are sick and tired of the government telling them what they can and cannot do with their own property. They are sick and tired of watching people with food stamps buy T-bone steaks and expensive Nike tennis shoes while they are forced to buy fatty hamburger and cheap sneakers.


They are sick and tired of watching their manufacturing jobs go to China and India. They have had it with money-hungry businessmen who hire illegal Mexicans at slave labor wages. They have had it with labor unions promoting politicians who support NAFTA, CAFTA, and the FTAA. They are sick and tired of being bled dry at the gas pump.


They have had it with this phony "war on terrorism" that sends trillions of dollars to nations throughout the Middle East, but refuses to close our own borders to illegal immigration. They have had it with the "war on drugs" and the "war on terror" being used as excuses to trample people's freedoms.



They have it with Vicente Fox and Felipe Calderon. They have had it with Bush's North American Union. They have had it with Joel Osteen and Rick Warren. In short, they have just had it!


They also know that a vote for any other Presidential candidate is a vote for more of the same. Democrat or Republican: it is more of the same. Ron Paul, and Ron Paul alone, will bring a revolution of freedom and independence to America. Believe me, the Ron Paul revolution is bigger than Ron Paul. This is the beginning of a movement.


No matter what ultimately happens to Ron Paul's candidacy, the fight to return America to its roots of freedom and independence has started. The fire is lit. There is no putting it out. There will be other Ron Pauls, other campaigns, other spokesmen, other fundraising. The people supporting Ron Paul will not be silenced; they will not be ignored; they will not be intimidated. In truth, Ron Paul's campaign may just be the beginning of the end of the elitist, globalist, stranglehold over America.


As one who is also fed up with the globalist goons that dominate the two major parties, I join the Ron Paul revolution and vow to fight for the rest of my life for the freedom and independence of these United States. This means I will never again support a business-as-usual, millionaires-club, globalist toady from either party ever again! I will only support candidates who are fully committed to restoring constitutional government. If that makes me a kook, so be it.


© Chuck Baldwin
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2007/cbarchive_20071218.html

[drizl]

word. i think its amazing he is supported by so many active military members...goes to show the "moral" of the military right now, they all must want a serious change in foreign policy! i know if i were in the military, having bases in 130/190 countries in the world, i might be hoping for a big change too especially as anti-american sentiment continues to rise.

i was watching freedom to fascism the other day, and russo popped up a figure saying 67 million americans arent paying the federal income tax! what the fuck! if that is true, there is probably 67 million votes for ron paul speaking the truth about the federal reserve and the irs!!

i think he has a real chance at winning a true popular vote. granted with the use of electronic voting machines, there is no transparency and no garauntee that the election will not be botched, again. fucking a

huckabee can suck a dick, he can suck a cfr dick. the other candidates not only dislkie ron paul, they fear him because he is not going away, and he is not playing their game.

RON PAULS GOT BALLS 08

[yeahwho]

word. i think its amazing he is supported by so many active military members...goes to show the "moral" of the military right now, they all must want a serious change in foreign policy! i know if i were in the military, having bases in 130/190 countries in the world, i might be hoping for a big change too especially as anti-american sentiment continues to rise.



Paul and Obama both are supported by US military personnel (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3601542). One has ideals and the other has actual written proposals on how to direct military operations in Iraq. One is a wet dream the other is reality.

[drizl]

ron paul actually served in the military, obama didnt. so one can argue in your style, that paul is more of an american military expert than obama.
where does obamas plan come from? probably from his buddies at the cfr, they are definately not his ideas, because he is no military expert. if they are his ideas, and you really think that obama is going to enter iraq and withdraw our troops perfectly according to his own plan that he devised himself, you're mistaken. let us not forget that in the run up to election, lots of empty promises are made.

my point being, none of the candidates would work solely to exit iraq. they would consult advisors, think tanks, military commanders, etc...at least one would hope. im sure ron would do the same.

if your voting is deciding on the issue of iraq, solely on the issue of iraq, you should open your eyes, theres much more going on that you might not be aware of. dont trust the CFR we know what they want, and we know its members.

[drizl]

link: http://www.cfr.org/publication/9903/...alisation.html

from richard haass, president of the CFR: article on soveriengty and globalisation, the platform for the CFR's vision for a one-world government, north american union etc...

"Globalisation thus implies that sovereignty is not only becoming weaker in reality, but that it needs to become weaker. States would be wise to weaken sovereignty in order to protect themselves, because they cannot insulate themselves from what goes on elsewhere. Sovereignty is no longer a sanctuary."


"The goal should be to redefine sovereignty for the era of globalisation, to find a balance between a world of fully sovereign states and an international system of either world government or anarchy."

"Moreover, states must be prepared to cede some sovereignty to world bodies if the international system is to function."


so the question becomes, are you in favor of relinquishing more freedoms towards the creation of an american union and then a one world government? or
are you in favor of the constitution, the ideals of america, freedom and soveriegnty?


and also, what right do these people have to go behind our backs and dictate the direction our country has to head????

fuck the CFR.

[Schmeltz]

Can we have a single conversation without degenerating into madcap shadow empire conspiracy theories?

Christ, now I remember why I never come here anymore.

[drizl]

schmeltz, whats conspiracy theory about that? its public domain, direct from the cfr website, a written speech from the president of the cfr himself!

[drizl]

theres plenty of information out there regarding the CFR's agenda, and you can read, in direct quotes from the members themselves- what is conspiracy theory about that?

or maybe we should just sit around and talk about how great america is, and how perfect everything is...

[SugarInTheRaw]

link: http://www.cfr.org/publication/9903/...alisation.html

from richard haass, president of the CFR: article on soveriengty and globalisation, the platform for the CFR's vision for a one-world government, north american union etc...

"Globalisation thus implies that sovereignty is not only becoming weaker in reality, but that it needs to become weaker. States would be wise to weaken sovereignty in order to protect themselves, because they cannot insulate themselves from what goes on elsewhere. Sovereignty is no longer a sanctuary."

"The goal should be to redefine sovereignty for the era of globalisation, to find a balance between a world of fully sovereign states and an international system of either world government or anarchy."

"Moreover, states must be prepared to cede some sovereignty to world bodies if the international system is to function."


Can we have a single conversation without degenerating into madcap shadow empire conspiracy theories?

Christ, now I remember why I never come here anymore.

Schmeltz, I must say that I truly appreciate your take on things in the political forum. You always seem to add an informed and fresh perspective to these discussions. Like you, I am very skeptical of the claims of a one world government and the intentions of the CFR.

Although I must admit, I am alarmed these days as I listen to a mainstream presidential candidate like Ron Paul discuss these topics in the media and I read quotes like Richard Haas' posted above by drizl.

Schmeltz, would you share your perspective on the CFR and what you think its agenda is? I think your ideas will educate others and might even help curb the fear mongering around here. Thanks.

[drizl]

Schmeltz, would you share your perspective on the CFR and what you think its agenda is? I think your ideas will educate others and might even help curb the fear mongering around here. Thanks.

please

[yeahwho]

ron paul actually served in the military, obama didnt. so one can argue in your style, that paul is more of an american military expert than obama.
where does obamas plan come from? probably from his buddies at the cfr, they are definately not his ideas, because he is no military expert. if they are his ideas, and you really think that obama is going to enter iraq and withdraw our troops perfectly according to his own plan that he devised himself, you're mistaken. let us not forget that in the run up to election, lots of empty promises are made.

my point being, none of the candidates would work solely to exit iraq. they would consult advisors, think tanks, military commanders, etc...at least one would hope. im sure ron would do the same.

if your voting is deciding on the issue of iraq, solely on the issue of iraq, you should open your eyes, theres much more going on that you might not be aware of. dont trust the CFR we know what they want, and we know its members.

You and many like have sadly underestimated the intelligence of millions of Americans. I would fucking love to see you just answer one simple question, "this one I keep asking you over and over (http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/showpost.php?p=1543195&postcount=8)". All I get is how his ideals are the "elixir" for the masses of US citizens. I get answers that Ron Paul is the great white hope who magically is going to restore a country of 303,646,411 people to the Jefferson era.

He has no written policy on Iraq. That is the most pressing issue currently on our plate....all of his other plans are to send over 300 million US citizens a breath of fresh air through constitutional law. Fuck me running, that may be the corniest if not completely most dangerous uninformed group of pissed off people I've ever known of. All style, no policy.

Grow up. I do not particularly love Obama, but compared to Paul his grasp of how things work and people think (really I mean thinking people) is light years ahead of Paul. Kucinich makes them both look ridiculous, he actually is entering house bills to impeach the current administration.

Schmeltz is correct, the CFR does not overwhelm anyone but themselves and nutcases that agree that they overwhelm themselves. They ain't shit, just another in a long line of organizations trying to influence profit. WTF, what else is new?

[yeahwho]

where does obamas plan come from? probably from his buddies at the cfr, they are definately not his ideas, because he is no military expert. if they are his ideas, and you really think that obama is going to enter iraq and withdraw our troops perfectly according to his own plan that he devised himself, you're mistaken.

BTW, Obama is not a member of the very scary CFR (http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/cfrall3.htm#Initial%20List%20of%20Council%20on%20F oreign%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%2 0%20Relations%20Members) you are so frightened of.

[drizl]

both obamas are members!
michelle (wife) via the chicago council on global affairs where she presides as a director. the chicago council on global affairs is a research wing of the CFR, as seen here (http://www.cfr.org/publication/11692/chicago_council_on_global_affairs.html), and report directly to the council on foreign relations. in fact, when you look at their website (http://www.thechicagocouncil.org/), you read their history and it is verbatim the history of the CFR:

..."The Chicago Council on Global Affairs, founded in 1922 as The Chicago Council on Foreign Relations, is a leading independent, nonpartisan organization committed to influencing the discourse on global issues through contributions to opinion and policy formation, leadership dialogue, and public learning."

obama regularly holds speeches at the CFR, you can find them on the CFR websites, and through a google search.

heres a little video which shows the attitudes members have within their very own council on foreign relations, heres once director, dick cheney giving a short speech. video (http://infowars.com/articles/nwo/video_cheney_talks_to_cfr.htm)

he says, "its good to be back at the council as pete mentinoed i have been a member for a long time and was actually a director for a long time, i never mentioned that when i was campaigning for re-election back home in wyoming" (laughter in the crowd of other CFR members)

their members dont admit to being on it, dont want it to become public knowledge because they know it is at its very core, un-american and unconstitutional.

obama has written several articles (http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070701faessay86401/barack-obama/renewing-american-leadership.html) in foreign affairs magazine, which is published by the CFR.

if you read more into the candidates and their memberships with the CFR, you see many times, that candidates do not advertise their memberships, and in fact, hide it. the media rarely talks about it, to make it difficult to understand its role in american politics. from the very onset, the CFR was meant to control american public opinion and shape american foreign policy. they now have almost 4000 members, all of which are compliant in wanting to dismantle america and rebuild it as a globalised north american union.


do some serious research, rather than looking to biblebelievers.org.au, a bible banger website from australia. bravo.

[drizl]

you think that iraq is the most pressing issue, but its not. its american foeign policy that is the issue. you exit iraq, you still have iran on the table, which obama has stated he "leaves all military options towards iran on the table".
you still have american bases all over the world enforcing a globalist agenda to control resources, money and people. congrats. you go nowhere.

if you stop the direction of american foreign policy, as such can only be done through mass awareness and an intelligent patriotic president, then you wont have any more iraq's.

think about it.

[yeahwho]

Your links provide nothing, my list provides all current members, funniest goddamn thing about it, my list has no Obamas, the thing that is even funnier than that....who would give a shit if it did? Barack Obama has written literally thousands of articles for hundreds of publishing agencys, in fact he has published two best selling books. Thats what writers do.

Really, your grasping. Let's go ahead and pretend voters are not concerned with Iraq (duuurrrrrr) and why don't we have a shot at Ron Paul's written policy on the USofA's policy on "Global Warming" just because. Or how about Ron Paul's universal health program or let's say Ron Paul's policy on anything.

Dr. No has a history of "Just Saying No" to everything. He talks shit. Kucinch kicks his ass.

[drizl]

ms. obama is director of chicago council on global affairs, which was originally named council on foreign relations, which remains the chicago chapter of the CFR. mr. obama is regularly published in cfr's publication foreign affairs, as well as speaker at many of their private meetings.

heres a visual aid:

obama at podium at cfr meeting (http://obama.senate.gov/img/051101_cfr_non_proliferation.jpg)

[yeahwho]

ms. obama is director of chicago council on global affairs, which was originally named council on foreign relations, which remains the chicago chapter of the CFR. mr. obama is regularly published in cfr's publication foreign affairs, as well as speaker at many of their private meetings.

heres a visual aid:

obama at podium at cfr meeting (http://obama.senate.gov/img/051101_cfr_non_proliferation.jpg)

Nice picture, he is not a member, he has spoken there (http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/fpccga), so what? You know it's just must drive you nuts, I have posted a list on here of all members to CFR, he is not on it. Weird isn't it. You are wrong. How long do you want to be wrong, 3, 6, perhaps a dozen posts?

And if he was? So what.... he is miles ahead of Ron Paul on Global Affairs (http://www.allamericanpatriots.com/48739838_over-60-foreign-policy-experts-endorse-barack-obama-president).

Here are some committees Obama is presently a member of,

Senate Foreign Relations Committee (http://foreign.senate.gov/)

Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs (http://www.senate.gov/~veterans/public/)

Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (http://help.senate.gov/)

Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs (http://hsgac.senate.gov/)

I'm sure there is some dirt under Obama's fingernails, least I hope so, he's no schoolboy. The man is a political fucking machine.

Your just barking up an absurd tree.

[yeahwho]

ms. obama is director of chicago council on global affairs, which was originally named council on foreign relations, which remains the chicago chapter of the CFR. mr. obama is regularly published in cfr's publication foreign affairs, as well as speaker at many of their private meetings.

heres a visual aid:

obama at podium at cfr meeting (http://obama.senate.gov/img/051101_cfr_non_proliferation.jpg)


Just to slow down this dead end your pursuing, (insanely w/o any facts) here is a list of who is in charge at the CFR, oddly enough I'm using your own link your trying to prove to me that the Obamas are in charge of this CFR (which BTW nobody is frightened of except Ron Paul maybe and a few of his kooky followers)

your link (http://www.cfr.org/publication/11692/chicago_council_on_global_affairs.html)
goes nowhere, just absolutely nowhere, pretty powerful and influential organization that Chicago CFR.

Your other link (http://www.cfr.org/about/faqs.html) actually does name the people who chair and preside over the "Evil CFR".

It's amazing, your not even bothering to look at your own research.

Face it, smearing and trying to downplay a presidential candidate with outright fabricated bullshit is what your doing here, I actually cannot believe it, except it's true. It also tells me the caliber of many a Ron Paul follower.

[Schmeltz]

Schmeltz, would you share your perspective on the CFR and what you think its agenda is? I think your ideas will educate others and might even help curb the fear mongering around here. Thanks.

Yeah, I don't know about any of that, sounds like the kind of doubletalk crap you see all over the internet from Ron Paul supporters. But if you want to know what I think of the CFR - from what I gather it's just one of many organizations of educated professionals and top-tier corporations that serve American federal administrations as sources of advice and expertise in many diverse fields, though its own history and membership make it somewhat more prominent than other such associations. It's a collective resource of connected and (theoretically) competent individuals, as well as influential and resourceful corporate entities, capable of providing the American government with recommended courses of action regarding the nation's interests abroad. Whether those courses of action are followed or not, or whether they are indeed advisable, appears to depend on many different things; and from the quick research I've done it seems that the council's ideas have sometimes been adopted to productive ends, occasionally adopted to destructive ends, and sometimes completely ignored.

I don't believe the CFR has any kind of direct manipulative or coercive ability, nor do I think they have a collective "agenda" being secretively implemented toward the goal of some kind of transglobal governing entity. I think that's completely ridiculous - the CFR has over four thousand members representing a diverse body of competing interests and associations, it isn't a monolithic priesthood devoted to perpetuating some singular goal of world domination. The very idea is laughable. But of course if you completely remove some CFR talking points (like more substantial North American economic or security integration) from their proper context and locate them in an imaginary, paranoiac discourse of shadow governments and false flag terrorism, every question takes on Orwellian dimensions. I need hardly tell you what that does to the prospects for a sober, realistic discussion of politics or anything else.

[drizl]

i thought since you were in denial, i would gather some quotes directly from the mouths of CFR members past and present. you can see from the very on-set (see: paul warburgs quote, who was a member at the very beginning, and the other quotes from more recent times) its goals were to etablish world domination through military, financial and social control. the north american union is real, you can find all kinds of information, as well as see it on tv. lou dobbs frequently brings it up in his show.





"The sovereignty fetish is still so strong in the public mind, that there would appear to be little chance of winning popular assent to American membership in anything approaching a super-state organization. Much will depend on the kind of approach which is used in further popular education."
- 1944 Council on Foreign Relations Report
"Let us face reality. The framers (of the Constitution) have simply been too shrewd for us. They have outwitted us. They designed separate institutions that cannot be unified by mechanical linkages, frail bridges, (or) tinkering. If we are to turn the founders upside down… we must directly confront the Constitutional structure they erected."
- James MacGregor Burns, Council on Foreign Relations member, 1984

"The powers of financial capitalism has another far reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole....


"The apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Bale, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank... sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards...."
- Carroll Quigley, member of Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), mentor to Bill Clinton

"The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is the American Branch of a society which originated in England... (and) ...believes national boundaries should be obliterated and one-world rule established."
- Carroll Quigley, member of Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), mentor to Bill Clinton

"The powers of financial capitalism had (a) far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."
- Carroll Quigley, member of Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), mentor to Bill Clinton, quote from “Tragedy and Hope”, 1966

"Once the ruling members of the CFR shadow government have decided that the U.S. Government should adopt a particular policy, the very substantial research facilities of (the) CFR are put to work to develop arguments, intellectual and emotional, to support the new policy, and to confound and discredit, intellectually and politically, any opposition."
- Admiral Chester Ward, former CFR member and Judge Advocate General of the U.S. Navy

"The main purpose of the Council on Foreign Relations is promoting the disarmament of U.S. sovereignty and national independence and submergence into an all powerful, one world government."
- Admiral Chester Ward, former CFR member and Judge Advocate General of the U.S. Navy

“The New World Order will have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down…but in the end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece will accomplish much more than the old fashioned frontal assault.”
—CFR member Richard Gardner, 1974

We shall have World Government, whether or not we like it. The only question is whether World Government will be achieved by conquest or consent.”
—Paul Warburg, CFR member, and architect of the Federal Reserve

“We are grateful to the Washington Post, the NY Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promise of discretion for almost 40 years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.”
—David Rockefeller, Bilderberger, Trilateral Commission, and CFR member/founder





CFR director haass was until 2003 the director of policy planning for the us department of state if that gives you any idea of how central this institution is to american policy.

its simple they design american foreign policy. they come up with the ideas before they are put into action. do you want to defend foreign policy now??

[Schmeltz]

Ahh, the legacy of ericg: a hackneyed, repetitive cut-and-paste job substituted for some kind of insight or real commentary. Just one example will suffice: simply type "Admiral Chester Ward" into Google, to be presented in turn with a toxic slew of extremist reactionary right-wing propaganda, in many cases dating from the peak of nationalist frenzy during the Cold War, and oddly few references to any kind of military career by anyone of the purported name or rank, along with boundless speculation on the Illuminati and the Jesuits, at which point the material enters the realm of jaw-droppingly bizarre fantasy.

drizl, this is laughable. Anybody with any kind of familiarity with research, or grounding in critical discernment, can see that this is nothing but fringe material! I'm not wasting my time with it anymore. I mean I am sitting here LAUGHING IN MY CHAIR. This cannot be taken seriously.

:D

[yeahwho]

drizl, I'm about to put you on ignore. That seems to work for me. You would only be the second person I've put on ignore, but I feel as if your just incapable of answering a direct question with facts.

You send me a picture of Barack Obama giving a speech to the ultra dreaded spooky CFR and from this photo I should jump to the conclusion that he is a book member and his wife is the president of the Chicago chapter....which for some reason I cannot find any links to.

This Ron Paul thread is basically a who's who of goofy people hoping we close the borders, stockpile our weapons and make big cars in the USA or some shit. The cultural void is so very evident.

Lighten up and enjoy your life, I think you would be much happier goofin' off over in the BBMB general discussion.

BTW I see news broadcaster Tom Brokaw is a member of that CFR. Pretty, pretty intimidating organization.

[drizl]

just goes to show how ignorant and naive you both are to the CFR and the inner workings of american politics.

yeahwho, do a google search on michelle obama and the chicago council on foreign affairs, then look at the history of the chicago council on global affairs. you will see that she is a board member, and that the chicago council on global affairs began as a branch of the CFR, under the name council on foreign relations. you're clueless as to the power of the CFR, and its direction and function in international politics. if there is one thing i could say to you, before you throw me on ignore, its that when you get older and hit puberty, that i hope you take the little bits and peices of life's experience and put them together to form some sort of coherent picture of reality. life is not cookies and cream, and politics is more like shit and piss. you might live comfortably under your own illusions, but millions have died across the globe because people like you buy into the lies and misconceptions. im sure you were all for the invasion of iraq at the time. step back and take a look at the bigger picture.

schmeltz, at least you can put a sentence together. however, you cant seem to comprehend or research objectively anything out of the realm of acceptance in todays society. support the cfr agenda. keep the ransacking of america, the destruction of american society, and the exploitation of "third world countries" a priority for american politics. that is what it is all about. the cfr has nothing to do with you and me, and innocent people who deserve freedom and human rights. it has to do with death and deception. death by deception. death of freedoms, death of people, death of countries...enjoy the prosperity and bask in it. one day it will be taken from you, and you'll wonder what happened. the cfr happened about a hundred years ago, our country was sold by the federal reserve bank, and since then it has only been lies and war.

[yeahwho]

just goes to show how ignorant and naive you both are to the CFR and the inner workings of american politics.

yeahwho, do a google search on michelle obama and the chicago council on foreign affairs, then look at the history of the chicago council on global affairs. you will see that she is a board member, and that the chicago council on global affairs began as a branch of the CFR, under the name council on foreign relations. you're clueless as to the power of the CFR, and its direction and function in international politics. if there is one thing i could say to you, before you throw me on ignore, its that when you get older and hit puberty, that i hope you take the little bits and peices of life's experience and put them together to form some sort of coherent picture of reality. life is not cookies and cream, and politics is more like shit and piss. you might live comfortably under your own illusions, but millions have died across the globe because people like you buy into the lies and misconceptions. im sure you were all for the invasion of iraq at the time. step back and take a look at the bigger picture.

schmeltz, at least you can put a sentence together. however, you cant seem to comprehend or research objectively anything out of the realm of acceptance in todays society. support the cfr agenda. keep the ransacking of america, the destruction of american society, and the exploitation of "third world countries" a priority for american politics. that is what it is all about. the cfr has nothing to do with you and me, and innocent people who deserve freedom and human rights. it has to do with death and deception. death by deception. death of freedoms, death of people, death of countries...enjoy the prosperity and bask in it. one day it will be taken from you, and you'll wonder what happened. the cfr happened about a hundred years ago, our country was sold by the federal reserve bank, and since then it has only been lies and war.

Show me a link that says this, I know you would if you could. You have gone so far off the deep end on the original question I'm convinced your almost at 70 on the IQ scale, remember this (http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/showpost.php?p=1543195&postcount=8)? Focus.

Paul has no plan, I've scoured all the candidates sites, I know Paul has no written Policy, he says we shouldn't be there. durrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

[yeahwho]

drizl, your not an American citizen are you? It is the only explanation I can come up with.

[Bob]

just a friendly reminder that drizl is the guy who favorably referenced david duke without realizing who david duke was (http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=75030&highlight=david+duke)

when did you first learn about the CFR drizl? maybe i'm just zoning you out more than i realize but i don't recall you ever talking about them until a few days ago; now suddenly you can't stop.

[drizl]

cannonfodder
i "favourably referenced david duke" because he talked some serious shit to wolf blitzer on national television regarding AIPAC. if you're not aware of AIPAC, its the israeli lobby that basically buys american politicians (as any other lobby does) and in return, our politicians protect, arm, fund and maintain israel in its brutal genocide against palestinian peoples. obama just recently gave a speech to AIPAC if im not mistaken...in the direction that if he were elected america would continue its funding of the israeli occupation machine. great.

but in regards to the cannonfodder, i dont support david duke, i dont support racists, KKK members, etc... i do support freedom of speech, and i understand how deeply connected wolf blitzer is in the AIPAC political machine, and i admit, it was refreshing to here someone, anyone, call him out on it on national tv. i admit, i havent looked into who david duke is, and i havent given him money or any support whatsoever than for what he said about blitzer. i just got a kick out of the clip.

i am back at home for the holidays, and so i have some time to waste. i havent been around because after my computer burned up on me, i decided not to buy another. now that i have access, i'll be around for a little while.

CFR
I first heard about the CFR several years ago, i think it was in the conspiracy theory classic Behold A Pale Horse. i read the whole book, and afterwards gathered that much of it was a little too far fetched for me, so i didnt really think much about it until i watched freedom to fascism about a year ago. since then, i keep coming across documents on the net, and news stories, video clips etc... about the CFR, its members and their involvement in global politics.
ANYONE who looks at the information- direct quotations from its members/founders, the lineage of the rockefellers and their political history, its current members, former directors (dick cheney at one point), their magazine foreign affairs , its branch organizations, and the way they handle their business can see, openly, that this isnt a group of geezers sitting around in washington having tea candidly talking about politics. they are a superorganized group of professionals who are literally directing the global affairs of america. everything. from media (many many members are of the media empires i have spoke of before), to ambassadors, presidents, congress people, cia, fbi etc.... many of the most powerful people in the world are members of this organization. and it exists as an extension of other organizations with similar intentions, working together from england and with delegates from other countries as well. it is literally a group of elitist fucks hellbent on controlling the world. they do so by getting together and jerking eachother off, scheming and dreaming up the next move. you might have heard of the bilderberg summits.

the CFR has a goal.

maybe they are right, that we cannot escape a global government in the age of globalization. and if so, as corpo-political investors, of course they want to be in a position to profit and control it, thats what they have been doing for hundreds of years in america, just as rome had done, and the british empire, the french, spanish etc...this is the american empire at work. i dont know, i personally see what they are talking about on many levels. HOWEVER, i do not agree with their going behind our backs and using tax payer money to literally erode the constitution and our freedoms. i think the only thing good about america is our ideals at this point. our actions are nothing to be proud of. the heart of our ideals is our constitution and love for freedom, our pride. i dont want to see my country, our ideals destroyed, behind our backs, by our own government. obama might not be the devil of the group. but he is willing to suck their dicks and play into their agenda. otherwise, he would be with ron paul and his feelings about the constitution. because ultimately, ron paul is right. america is supposed to be backed by the gold standard, the federal reserve is illegal and unconstitutional, and so are income taxes. and our foreign poicy is totally unamerican.

maybe their is a more humane way we can come together and form world government. maybe we dont have to go around destroying everything.

yahoo
i am an american citizen yahoo. probably a much more active and informed one that yourself. i was born here, and i approach my citizenship as something serious. i dont put up with the bullshit, and i wish to see my country change for the better, rather than head further down the toilet. im not playing their games. we have a choice: continue on as we have been, or serious change. i opt for the latter.

[yeahwho]

yahoo
i am an american citizen yahoo. probably a much more active and informed one that yourself. i was born here, and i approach my citizenship as something serious. i dont put up with the bullshit, and i wish to see my country change for the better, rather than head further down the toilet. im not playing their games. we have a choice: continue on as we have been, or serious change. i opt for the latter.

You must be really smart and stuff.

Real change for you doesn't entail an impeachment process of the current administration, or let's say immediate withdrawal from NAFTA....or perhaps securing constitutional democracy, even Iraq seems to be OK, you do not need a written plan to get out. How about Universal Health care? Dennis Kucinich not only is presenting these issues as a written policy, he has also presented a bill to impeach Cheney to the 109th congress.

I am pretty intimidated by your brilliance, I know now that yes, your a voter and an USof A citizen.

The only very visible problem you have is an insulting, belittling behavior doubled with an uncanny ability to not present any facts to back up anything you write. The original question four days ago was this (http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/showpost.php?p=1543195&postcount=8), you have made an ass out of yourself trying to answer that one question. You have also been completely off the wall on Obama Barack's involvement with the Council on Foreign Relations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_on_Foreign_Relations#Board_of_directors). The really ridiculous thing is nobody and I mean NOBODY cares about CFR.

Oh yeah, BTW with almost Almost 4,000 U.S. soldiers killed and more than 60,000 wounded, 700,000 Iraqis killed, 4 million refugees and insane amounts (http://nationalpriorities.org/cms/costofwar)of our money being spent my family and circle of friends have made the Iraq war a priority on how to select the next president, us small picture morons are not as really smart and stuff as you are.

Plus this "Ron Paul for President 2008" thread sucks ass. I'm out of this thread and am embarrassed I ever came here.

[drizl]

you're right, you're kind of an idiot. and stuff.

maybe you should be concerned about the cfr. you have a tendency to isolate and put blinders on in your own research. you dont know my concept of real change, obviously, because i have stated my opinions many times before.

if you understood CFR, and werent so willfully ignorant of their purpose, you would understand that NAFTA was created out of the CFR. but you cant see that, you have your blinders on.

impeachment? if the powers that be wanted to impeach bush, dont you think they would have done it already?

securing constitutional democracy? oh you mean like how ron paul wants to do:)

iraq is ok? what? i am proud to be one of the few americans who protested against that war before it happened...not those like yourself who remain uninformed and so jump on the bandwagon when the media has agreed its time for you.

sure i love the idea of universal healthcare...even sounds flashy. would it work? i dont know. probably not given the current state of things.

thats good that kucinich wants to impeach cheney. thats a good first step. where is that bill, are we going to see it come to fruition before the end of the presidency? probably not. maybe its just good timing.

you are a small picture moron. are you turning this into a "drizl supports the iraq war because he wont answer my question that i have asked (and i have answered) over and over again? whimsy.

[yeahwho]

Hey hater, your officially on ignore. Love & Kisses (http://www.tanmonkey.com/fun/puppies/puppies-in-a-wagon.jpg)

[drizl]

beeyatch!

[drizl]

link from usa daily (http://www.usadaily.com/article.cfm?articleID=207908)


Paul will win by a landslide Larry Fester
Published 12/23/2007 - 8:35 p.m. EST




Analysis/Opinion-Republican presidential candidate and Texas Congressman, Ron Paul, can win the presidency. Contrary to the pundits and media propaganda, Ron Paul is best positioned to win the GOP nomination.

Ron Paul has more money than his opponents and is just starting to gain momentum. As a result of massive popular support Paul’s donor base is huge and donors are not close to reaching contribution limits. Paul’s opponents are going broke and their donors are maxed out. Ron Paul may raise 20 million this quarter and chances are he’ll raise more the next quarter.




To get an idea of how strong Paul’s support is consider this. Ron Paul received donations from over 123,000 people this quarter. If one out of 100 voters donate to a presidential candidate that means Paul has the support of over 12 million primary voters. My guess is that less than 1 out of 100 voters donate in a primary.

Of Paul’s opponents, John McCain and Mike Huckabee are broke and don’t have the funds to compete on Super Tuesday. Both candidates appear to be media creations in this election and don’t have that much popular support. If it weren’t for undeserved free media they wouldn’t be on the radar screens.

Giuliani was forced to go with his big state strategy because he ran the risk of getting creamed in early primaries. He appears to be a lead balloon and runs the risk of losing some of those big states to Paul. Thompson just hasn’t taken off. There is a chance he could get revived in South Carolina but he may not make it that far.

Romney is self financing his campaign and can go the distance, but how much of his personal wealth is he willing to squander?

Recent commentaries and political talk have mentioned the possibility of a brokered convention. This is an early admission by pundits that Ron Paul can’t be stopped, and a hope that he won’t have 50% of the delegates allowing his opponents to broker a deal to deny him the nomination.

Paul is unique among GOP candidates because his support is national. He can compete in every state.

The primary calendar has been frontloaded which was deliberate to keep second tier candidates (candidates not bought and paid for) from having a shot at winning the nomination. It is doubtful that when planning the schedules anybody had a clue that Ron Paul would be one of the only candidate that could be competitive on February 5th

Iowa, Wyoming, New Hampshire, Michigan, Nevada, South Carolina, Florida, Maine are all up for grabs prior to Super Tuesday which is on February 5th. Given the low expectations Paul only needs to win one of these to show that he can win prior to Super Tuesday.

The Iowa caucus on January 3rd will be a tough start for Paul. He hasn’t spent that much time in Iowa and may not have the organization that Romney does to win the caucus. Placing in the top five is all that is needed there. A third place would be huge.

Two days later on January 5th is the Wyoming Caucus. This state is a neighbor of Utah and Romney may have a strong organization here as well. Paul may do well here though.

January 8th in New Hampshire is where the campaign really starts for Ron Paul. He doesn’t need to win it but he probably will. Buchanan won this state in 1996 running on similar campaign themes with 27% of the vote. Paul’s support is much broader.

Paul’s odds look good for Michigan on January 15th. The state is a foreclosure war zone and Paul’s blaming of the Federal Reserve for creating a housing crash may resonate well.

January 19th Nevada and South Carolina are up for elections. Paul should win Nevada and has an outside shot at South Carolina.

On January 29th Florida is up. This is the state where Giuliani has circled his wagons. If he’s still in the race it will be an uphill battle for him especially if Paul has momentum generated by a couple victories. There is evidence of Paul support in Florida on the ground just by observing bumper stickers and yard signs on residences but Giuliani also has some visible support.

Of course, if Paul wins New Hampshire the momentum generated from that victory is likely to steam roll his campaign through all of the above mentioned states setting him up for the knock out punch on Super Tuesday.

If Ron Paul doesn’t have the nomination sewed up on Super Tuesday, Paul’s delegate rich home state of Texas will be the final nail in the coffin come March.

The point is it is already too late to stop Paul. He’s going to win the Republican nomination.

As a general election candidate Ron Paul will win a 50 state landslide against any Democratic nominee.

Ron Paul’s opposition to the war in Iraq, and defense of the Bill of Rights, and Civil Liberties, may actually dig deeply into the Democratic vote and overwhelmingly attract independents to his campaign.

His support for secure borders as an integral part of national defense is also a very popular issue that transcends parties.

If Ron Paul is the GOP nominee it won’t matter if Bloomberg or anybody else runs as a third party candidate. Once people go to Paul’s website and review his issues and record they either reject Paul’s ideas or they are sold. Paul will not lose any supporters to another candidate once they are in his camp.

Unlike media propaganda, the ideals of peace, freedom, and prosperity, are very mainstream. To the aging baby boomer population now on fixed incomes, Ron Paul’s challenging of the Federal Reserve’s ‘Inflation Tax’ is most welcomed. To the rest of America feeling the double whammy of an ‘Inflation Tax’ and progressive federal income taxes, Paul’s calls to end the income tax are a cause for celebration.

In fact, Paul’s calls for reforming the monetary system, the income tax, foreign policy, and protecting the Constitution, are a lot more mainstream than pre-emptive nuclear war, no borders, and a police state are.

Those media generated polls are as valuable as the media propaganda that pushed the nation to war in Iraq. People should have as much faith in polls as they do the Easter Bunny and computerized voting. Ron Paul is going to win by a landslide

[drizl]

while i dont share the same enthusiasm and think this guy is a little premature and sure of himself...i hope he's right!

[Schmeltz]

Yeah... sorry drizl, but it really just isn't worth it dealing with this silly crap anymore. Your perspective is too disjointed and irrealistic for any kind of genuine conversation. Good luck yo.

[drizl]

awww man.

[Jasonik]

I wanted to hear the word fringe tossed around a bit more...

It really is such a more sophisticated way of saying kook, or nut, or crank. Though the preferred term these days is undoubtedly crackpot (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rduigENzHo).
*ahem* (http://www.newamericancentury.org/iran-20040720.htm)

More unwashed masses sounding off:
Rise, Consise, Krookid for Ron Paul (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVrszyW9dPE)

[drizl]

i really hope the media war against ron paul isnt as successful as the selling of the iraq war. obviously kristol is on fox to pick apart ron paul. i think he was totally justified in what he said about the civil war. there was definately more to the civil war than freeing slaves. it was the government flexing its muscle on the rights of states to secede. just as terrorism, 9-11, and WMDs were used to sell iraq, i imagine slavery was a big selling point to the civil war. of course 600,000 lives were wasted in that war! citing other countries "buying of slaves from their owners" to end the slave population is a good idea, obviously it worked in those parts of the world it was implemented in. and if ron is right, that america was one of the last "western" countries to accept slavery, i wouldnt be suprised.


kristol btw, is an evil twisted fucknot wack job hell bent on destroying the earth. he was probably rolling on the floor smiling tears of joy when the towers fell. hes a fucking traitor like the rest of the PNAC gang

[Schmeltz]

I wanted to hear the word fringe tossed around a bit more...

It really is such a more sophisticated way of saying kook, or nut, or crank. Though the preferred term these days is undoubtedly crackpot (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rduigENzHo).
*ahem* (http://www.newamericancentury.org/iran-20040720.htm)


Oh, well I'll still talk to you. I was rather enjoying our conversation, actually. What do you think of the points I raised about the security threat posed by the ever-growing body of terrorist combat veterans vs. the ability of Middle Eastern security organizations to deal with them without direct American support? Or the questions I had about the viability of an American gold-based currency to function in a global context? Or perhaps we could focus again on the much larger question: why is turning back the clock, which seems to be the foundation of Ron Paul's foreign policy platform, a better option than moving forward?

PS - Yes, you have seen through my clever use of the word "fringe." But if you have a better way of describing drizl's material I'd like to hear it. Because kook, nut, crank, and crackpot are perfectly apt words to use in characterizing anybody who would devote their time to such worthless bullshit.

[Jasonik]

I don't know if I'd characterize exposing the propaganda of "Opinion Leaders" as worthless...

Sorry to leave you hanging re. your last response (http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/showpost.php?p=1540310&postcount=152).

When I first read your seeming delegitimization of Paul's foreign policy theories I realized that implicit in your argument is the view that policy is a menu of discrete options where each course stands alone. To the contrary, Paul presents foreign policy as more of a recipe where ingredients properly handled, measured and combined - commingle, and create a whole greater than their parts.

By your reasoning, bread is an impossibility - as flour is flammable, or that a tender cheese omelette is a fiction because eggshells are crunchy. I think what is truly backward is to say that a flame grilled steak will be rancid, maggot filled and poisonous simply because a steak left in the sun becomes so.

Your thoughtful and practical concerns are but half-measures amounting to nothing more than trying to wash down burnt flour, pick shells from your teeth or recover from a bad case of food poisoning. Ron Paul says, follow the recipe, stop feeding me this crap and trying to pass it off as food, and by God I demand to have my stomach pumped now to save me the agony of days in bed and on the can.

[Schmeltz]

Sorry to leave you hanging re. your last response (http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/showpost.php?p=1540310&postcount=152).

When I first read your seeming delegitimization of Paul's foreign policy theories I realized that implicit in your argument is the view that policy is a menu of discrete options where each course stands alone.

You'll have to give me an example because I'm really not sure what you mean.

[ericg]

desperate times call for desperate measures, and though he offers radical, long overdue changes... i don't know how structured his vision is. still, i couldn't put it past this regime to have a reserve candidate made to look absolutely good to the point of calling them out.. then have it all fail somehow or get ultimately diluted and/ or played all wrong. fucking corrupt elite have too much money and have proved too many times that they can wag the dog any which way they want, cultivating any virtual reality, false denominators, and bullshit static fronts that have surrounded things for too long and at this point is just given circumstance to ask, can anyone really ever even tell/ recognize now?

ron paul, though seemingly the only one to promote and consummate the 'radical' and desperate measures necessary in light of these overwhelmingly desperate and pivitol times ie eradicating the root of all problems such as big government/ plutocracy and bureaucratical scams that, throughout history, have 'culminated' from bad seeds into our current socio-economics, politics etc, seems to want to go from a dictatorship, to no government - setting the 'contract' as the new base of democracy, where corporations/ employers may retain more of a foothold on our way of life than they have now, if that's possible. i haven't heard any complete/ concrete or determined idea of what he has in place of our current system in this respect, except that he feels it's obvious that it will be better and just fine, as if we should be confident that he or it will simply work itself out - which i want to lend great hope and conviction to. however, does he have a circumspection that supports and validates this? does he have an absolute concept of his own idea? is he all-too 'liberal' in his thinking? or could he ultimately be served up by the men behind the curtains who would in fact love nothing more than for there to be 'no government', but instead more corporate boards/ control 'by proxy' - a 'governmentless breeding ground' to start the all too currently overt processes all over again. a wolf in sheep's clothing? does the government need disemboweling or just an extensive overhaul? i fear that giving the power back to the people could very easily all fall through as the people have proven to not be accountable by any stretch of the imagination in any way shape or form, but severely handicapped/ degenerated and trapped in their own half baked maraudering as governed by this faux regime's wrought course/ intents and purposes.

but then again, he could be on point and have things rounded out - meaning he could have a good and regulated system re public contracts as a cornerstone of america that doesn't continue to give corporations excessive power in ultimately creating the rule of law (even though his statements re hiring and firing practices seem too at liberty/ 'free' to racism and more 'miliued' democratic problems where, oops, no government to blame now) where the people may just prove worthy of this land. like a few of the candidates (those not puppets of the cfr), though they seem to advocate change, they do not seem to call out/ hold those responsible for the crimes ie abolish irs and fr but not call out the perpetrators that have been scamming us for so damn long. does that come later? is he at risk for assassination as was reported and doesn't want to go 'all' the way at this point for america's lost and confounded state? though this regime is obviously and ultimately inept - and certainly would rather you think so.. they've still been as 'smart' as the devil. there's a certain timing to it all ... though we're all terminally late in so many ways. it's extremely rare and just about impossible to find really substantiated these days besides the contrast... anyone should be able to descry reality and common sense - though, par for the wrought course, are again, ultimately too late and not even remotely close to enough. i tend to support his industrial hemp farming acts, orientation of the iraq war, and tax reforms, but again don't know how far they'll go or in what capacity. another hesitation is his marginalizing global warming. ultimately, it's not whether global warming is man-made or not - though saying that centuries of rape and pollution doesn't affect the world is utterly preposterous - it's the socio-economics, politics and ecology of it all that matters. this should not be underrated in any way, shape or form. at this point, it's gonna take e-v-e-r-y-t-h-i-n-g!!! in fact, i don't know anyone to date that hasn't 'sold me out' for nothing. a-n-y-o-n-e. never-the-less, though there's a few things that seem to rub be the wrong way about him, he's 'posed' to look like the best chance we've got so far, if that's any constellation or consoling thought. i like kucinich but i don't think he'll handle it 'all'. gravel's great but 'in the wind'. mckinnley is veracious but haven't heard much about her as far as the election goes. still, a black ops group needs to get busy... re hr 333 - impeachment alone doesn't justify anything, not to mention that the charges aren't even a percentage of what he's guilty of. what do you really think impeachment alone will do anyway, if that is what happens - like resigning - powell, rumsfeld, gonzales, rove... leaving office effectually only puts them out of sight out of mind. nothing really changes unless everything is done, and is done properly. conyers and the judiciary committee has, for all intents and purposes, been congress's/ this administration's laundery mat where nothing ever gets resolved or clean, it just gets aired out where people are either so sick of it they have seemingly no choice but to take cover in their immediate lives (of which the rich seem to do all too easily), or get so use to hearing it it gets to be status quo and all too easily validated or covered up like, oh well, shit happens. though it's been a vicious circle of dilution and factioned off confusion, americans have to find their role and do their part in order for anything to get done. hell i bet only 50% even knows about the resolution. and again - not even a mention as to pelosi being vp...? the board is set to where we'd lose much more than we gained by simply impeaching him. on the other hand, if people do consummate some remote measure of a role they've been completely remissive in, perhaps bush's impeachment and the whole enchilada will be brought. that's a slim jim many obviously haven't had the 'balls' to snap into in any comprehensive/ consummative, concerted or functional fashion/ application.

some of this was rhetoric but i'm sure you won't hold it against me.

[ericg]

thanx for holdin' this place down drizl!

[drizl]

word eric.

i agree that history and politics are unmistakingly hopeless 99% of the time. but i think there are moments of novelty- of genious, creativity, revolution, unity, love, the celebration of freedom, and ultimately, anarchy.

i think electing dr. paul would be a step towards that. i dont think he would bring it anarchy in its highest expression, but he would be a good first step.

[Randetica]

i want a black guy or a woman to win , i dont care about the rest cause it aint my country

[drizl]

exactly

[saz]

• molly ivins covered paul's '96 congressional campaign and was warning people about him then:

"Dallas' 5th District, East Texas' 2nd District and the amazing 14th District,which runs all over everywhere, are also in play. In the amazing 14th, Democrat Lefty Morris (his slogan is ''Lefty is Right!'') faces the Republican/Libertarian Ron Paul, who is himself so far right that he's sometimes left, as happens with your Libertarians. I think my favorite issue here is Paul's 1993 newsletter advising ''Frightened Americans'' on how to get their money out of the country. He advised that Peruvian citizenship could be purchased for a mere 25 grand. That we should all become Peruvians is one of the more innovative suggestions of this festive campaign season. But what will the Peruvians think of it?"



• ron paul is anti-war, anti-torture, anti-drug war, and anti-corporation - not bad, not bad at all. but pauls is also anti-choice, anti-gay, anti-environment, anti-sane immigration policy, and apparently, anti-separation of church and state as well:

"The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life."

-from a "War on Religion" article paul wrote in december 2003 (found at lew rockwell.com: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html)



• clay robison, also covered paul in '96 in the houston chronicle:

"[Democratic candidate] Morris recently distributed copies of political newsletters written by Paul in 1992 in which the Surfside physician endorsed the concept of secession, defended cross burning as an act of free speech and expressed sympathy for a man sentenced to prison for bombing an IRS building."

cross-burning as free speech? and sympathy for domestic terrorist bombers?

then the austin american-statesman let paul share his views in his own words:

"Not all officials express alarm when discussing cross burnings. U.S. Rep.-elect Ron Paul, a Texas Republican from Surfside, described such activity as a form of free speech in some situations.

"Cross burning could be a crime if they were violating somebody's property rights,'' he said during his campaign. But if you go out on your farm some place and it's on your property and you put two sticks together and you burn it, I am not going to send in the federal police.""

when paul explained it, it sounded all nice and reasonable. what you do on your property absolutely should be your business, and nobody should be able to tell you what you can and can't put on your saturday night bonfire. however, texas was having a huge upswing in cross-burnings that year, which were part of an (all-too-successful) effort to terrorize its african-american community. there's plenty of legal precedent that one person's right to free speech ends when it begins to terrorize others into silence - and, because of this, cross-burning is recognized as a hate crime in many jurisdictions across the country.

but ron paul, for all his libertarian talk, apparently doesn't believe in putting any restrictions on speech, even when it damages other individuals and the overall level of civil behavior in society.



• paul may be loudly anti-corporate and anti-gop establishment; but that didn't stop him from taking $6,000 from tom delay's ARMPAC. according to the democratic congressional campaign committee, paul returned the favor by voting to weaken house ethics rules when delay proposed doing so as gop majority leader; and to allow delay to continue to serve after an indictment. since delay is easily the biggest corporate whore washington has seen since mark hanna, it's not wrong to wonder about paul's true enthusiasm for curbing corporate excess.



• paul received 100% rankings from both the christian coalition and the john birch society - two entities which actively wish ill on progressives, social democrats/socialists, liberals, moderates, environmentalists, women's groups, gays and gay-right groups, immigrants, etc. christian coalition founder pat robertson actively helped midwife paul's budding political career: according to the new york times, his political teams were circulating campaign letters promoting paul over bush sr. as a presidential candidate in 1988.



• more serious are the friends on the farthest right edges - the tax patriots, "sovereign citizens," and proto-fascists who have supported him from the beginning and are still supporting paul. to summarize on these groups paul is either affiliated or associates with:

"Many commentators have portrayed the Patriot and militia movements as fascist. We believe it is more accurate to describe them as right-wing populist movements with important fascistic tendencies-thus they are quasifascist or protofascist. Like the America First movement of the early 1940s, the Patriot movement and the militias represented a large-scale convergence of committed fascists with nonfascist activists. Such coalitions enable fascists to gain new recruits, increase their legitimacy among millions of people, and repackage their doctrines for mass consumption.

Mary Rupert dubbed the Patriot movement "A Seedbed for Fascism" and suggested that the "major missing piece in looking at the Patriot Movement in relation to fascism is that it does not overtly advance an authoritarian scheme of government. In fact, its emphasis seems to be on protecting individual rights." According to Rupert, there are two "portents of possibility" that could shift this situation: "First is the below-the-surface disposition of the Patriot Movement towards authoritarianism, and second is the way in which Patrick Buchanan...picked up and played out the Patriots’ grievances." We would add that "individual rights," like states’ rights, can also be a cover for the sort of decentralized social totalitarianism promoted by the neofascists of the Posse Comitatus and Christian Reconstructionism -- both of which helped lay the groundwork for the Patriot movement itself."

http://www.publiceye.org/tooclose/chapter-excerpt.html

that puts a new context around paul's relationship with the patriot network - a south carolina-based group that's part of the "tax resistance" movement, and they held a 2004 banquet in ron paul's honor

groups like "the patriot network" aren't just a bunch of howard jarvis-type disgruntled taxpayers. the patriot network, like others going all the way back to the posse comitatus of the 1970s, coaches members on how to avoid taxes, bilking them of thousands of dollars by selling them "untax" packages that will enable them - under their own bizarre theory of government - to exempt themselves from taxation. these "untax" theories have been repeatedly refuted by the courts across the country over the past couple decades. and several leaders of previous organizations offering similar services have been convicted and jailed for tax fraud. and, the patriot movement overlaps strongly with a variety of christian identity, militia, "sovereign citizen," and other ideologies dear to the heart of the far-right domestic terrorist agenda.



• another site that's endorsed paul is the dixie daily news (http://www.southerncaucus.org/), a neo-confederate website full of articles on states' rights, gold-backed currency, and how the south was right all along. paul writes for this site frequently, as does his friend and former legislative aide gary north, who is also a leading light of the christian reconstructionist movement. the site recently promoted ron paul's appearance at the group's "freedomfest" in las vegas.



• white nationalist charles couglin also endorsed (http://www.whitecivilrights.com/...he-%20one_818.html) ron paul, and his endorsement appeared on david duke's website. here's an anonymous comment on paul from stormfront, an extremist site:

"Anyone who doesn't vote for Paul on this site is an assclown. Sure he doesn't come right out and say he is a WN [white nationalist], who cares! He promotes agendas and ideas that allow Nationalism to flourish. If we "get there" without having to raise hell, who cares; aslong as we finally get what we want. I don't understand why some people do not support this man, Hitler is dead, and we shall probably never see another man like him.

Pat Buchanan's book "Where the Right Went Wrong" is a prime example of getting the point across without having the book banned for anti semitism. The chapters about the war in Iraq sound like a BarMitzvah, but he doesn't have to put the Star of David next to each name for us to know what he means. We are running out of options at this point, and I will take someone is 90% with us versus any of the other choices.

Not to mention if Paul makes a serious run, he legitimizes White Nationalism and Stormfront, for God's sake David Duke is behind this guy!"

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/06/trouble-with-ron.html



• very recently on the new york times corrections page, it was pointed out that don black, the founder of a white nationalist website, "stormfront", donated $500 to ron paul's campaign. the donation should have been rejected immediately, and if it wasn't then the paul campaign seems to be staffed with lowlifes:

"Editor's Note

A post in The Medium blog that appeared on Monday about the Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul and his purported adoption by white supremacist and neo-Nazi groups contained several errors. Stormfront, which describes itself as a “white nationalist” Internet community, did not give money to Ron Paul’s presidential campaign; according to Jesse Benton, a spokesman for Paul’s campaign, it was Don Black, the founder of Stormfront, who donated $500 to Paul. The original post also repeated a string of assertions by Bill White, the commander of the American National Socialist Workers Party, including the allegation that Paul meets regularly “with members of the Stormfront set, American Renaissance, the Institute for Historic Review and others” at a restaurant in Arlington, Va. Paul never attended these dinners, according to Benton, who also says that Paul has never knowingly met Bill White. Norman Singleton, a congressional aide in Paul’s office, says that he met Bill White at a dinner gathering of conservatives several years ago, after which Singleton expressed his indignation at the views espoused by White to the organizer of the dinner. The original post should not have been published with these unverified assertions and without any response from Paul."


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/27/pageoneplus/27correx.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

[drizl]

be afraid, BE VERY AFRAID!!!

PRESERVE THE REPUBLIC!!!!! RON IS LUCIFER 666 XXX ^^^ 666 MARK OF THE BEAST

[yeahwho]

This is a cool video, man that is one snappy production job! I bet the guy who made this video is still living off his Y2K rations.

get ready, hold on to something (not that) here we go Ron Paul Rising (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRTDynbHVYQ&eurl=http://www.avclub.com/content/videocracy/3539), God Bless You.

[cookiepuss]

um...he recently said he doesn't beleive in the theory of evolution.

so he's out for me. cause it don't think evolution is a arguable thing..we have a lot of evidence to support it. tons. In fact i think it's kinda illogical NOT to beleive in evolution.

I'm also very wary of his abortion platform. I think he'll try to undermine Roe Vs. Wade, but he'll do it in a sneaky way.

it's great that he's anti-war and all..but this guy is a wolf in sheep's clothing.

[ericg]

'it's tricky'

essentially, at this point in the harliquinade where everything's been set up for failure, more than anything else, i think he's saying, 'foolish people, don't put all your eggs in one man's basket ... i'm simply gonna keep this sh** open, as opposed to biased/ exploited - it's time you/ we get our own bearing and find our own way..'

is that a flaw? is it too open? does it dismiss too much and not take responsibility? or will it ultimately serve as an unfettered medium that will warrant such accountable progression.. by the people...? though i think comprehensive conviction in all and sundry belongs on center stage right now - really, what the fuck do people expect at this 'point' - meaning, look at yourself. not to mention that the people who created the 'political game/ system' have a history of creating history - meaning they don't allow people who consummate straight up character to prevail, in-as-much as possible - but ron paul may just be our best shot at this point. i'm not saying anything conclusively per se.. but i'll tell ya - with what is.. it ain't easy changing/ rectifying it all, but he seems the only one up there even remotely 'prepared'...

at times i think he's almost dangerously playing perameters of the bs system/ corrupt game, which only tends to 'confirm the game', getting him played... but he may just play the game right the hell out.

i gotta ask - why hasn't he co-sponsored impeachment?
ultimately, it's gotta be all in, all the way.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDdokE1rAMw
( : it's got its time - sorry i couldn't help it.

science, of course, is what it's all about - but asked like 'that'.. only surmounts to a blatently stupid question.. he's almost mocking people for asking it.

evolution vs creationism? ok. yes, now move on.

[yeahwho]

um...he recently said he doesn't beleive in the theory of evolution.

so he's out for me. cause it don't think evolution is a arguable thing..we have a lot of evidence to support it. tons. In fact i think it's kinda illogical NOT to beleive in evolution.

I'm also very wary of his abortion platform. I think he'll try to undermine Roe Vs. Wade, but he'll do it in a sneaky way.

it's great that he's anti-war and all..but this guy is a wolf in sheep's clothing.

So I'm guessing the blimp isn't going to do it for you?

[yeahwho]

Seriously, as much as I believe Ron Paul's political message is unworkable with 350 million people in the USA, I also am just expressing my opinion.

This is just bullshit what FOXNews (http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2007/12/ron_paul_indeed_outfoxed_for_n.html) and ABC (http://www.digg.com/2008_us_elections/ABC_Now_Removes_ALL_Posts_From_Ron_Paul_Story) are doing, blatant censorship (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3165894&page=1) of a very popular candidate.

The excuse is lame (http://cnn.site.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=TV+cuts+candidates+from+debates%2C+angering+ Paul+backers+-+CNN.com&expire=&urlID=25634389&fb=Y&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2007%2FPOLITICS%2F1 2%2F31%2Fdebate.limits.ap%2F&partnerID=211911).

Not likely. What's more likely, based on Web traffic over the past week, is that Paul supporters have mastered the art of "viral marketing," using Internet savvy and blog postings to create at least the perception of momentum for his long-shot presidential bid.

The Ron Paul Effect

Since online polls aren't scientific -- people choose to take them, and many people vote multiple times -- doing well in them doesn't necessarily mean a campaign is on the move.

But Internet buzz can have a carry-over effect, said Peter Greenberger, an online strategist at New Media Strategies and a former Democratic political operative.

"It's evidence of something -- either passionate supporters, active supporters, or just one very savvy supporter who's able to vote several thousand times," Greenberger said. "If it leads to one or two stories in the mainstream media, that could lead to a bounce online, and could lead to some fundraising successes."

Or......perhaps the complete shutdown of an antiwar republican candidate. As I believe.

[drizl]

schmeltz you're a fucking pussy.



something i think many who dont support ron paul are missing is that his platform rests upon the constitution, and he has said over and over again that he would not go off and make any decisions without the support of congress. thats what it is supposed to be like right?

so, the idea that we could have a leader that would take down the IRS, which does absolutely nothing for america anyway, and reassess our foreign policy, which has gone severely awry over the last 100 years or so (since the advent of the CFR)...is very appealing. the main sticking point being is that above all else, he believes in the constitution. many candidates would also decalre they are patriots and also believe in the constitution, however there are none that are as serious as ron.

[ericg]

petition to RNC- let Ron Paul debate, please repost to your friends

http://www.petitiononline.com/r0npau1/petition.html

[Randetica]

I'm also very wary of his abortion platform.


what does that mean?

[saz]

not only has paul kept a donation from a white supremacist (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22331091/), but he also posed with the same biggot, and signed an autograph for his hate-mongering son:




Ron Paul's Photo-Op with Stormfront
Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at 3:53:50 pm PST

An LGF reader emailed this photograph, showing Ron Paul at the Values Voters Presidential Debate in Fort Lauderdale on September 17, 2007. Immediately to Paul’s left: Don Black, the owner of neo-Nazi hate site Stormfront. If anyone knows who the creepy guy in the hat is, please post a comment.

Update: it’s Derek Black, Don’s son.

Ron Paul, with Don and Derek Black (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/pictures/20071220RonPaulDonBlack.jpg)


UPDATE at 12/20/07 5:17:22 pm:

Here’s another picture from the same event, showing Ron Paul signing an autograph for Derek Black:

Paul with Derek Black (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/pictures/20071220RonPaulStormfront02.jpg)




http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=28353_Ron_Pauls_Photo-Op_with_Stormfront&only

[Documad]

R.I.P. Mr. Paul.

[yeahwho]

R.I.P. Mr. Paul.

I always liked Mrs. Paul's fish sticks.

[Documad]

I always liked Mrs. Paul's fish sticks.

:p

I'm being mean, but I can't call him "dr."

[drizl]

not only has paul kept a donation from a white supremacist (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22331091/), but he also posed with the same biggot, and signed an autograph for his hate-mongering son:




Ron Paul's Photo-Op with Stormfront
Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at 3:53:50 pm PST

An LGF reader emailed this photograph, showing Ron Paul at the Values Voters Presidential Debate in Fort Lauderdale on September 17, 2007. Immediately to Paul’s left: Don Black, the owner of neo-Nazi hate site Stormfront. If anyone knows who the creepy guy in the hat is, please post a comment.

Update: it’s Derek Black, Don’s son.

Ron Paul, with Don and Derek Black (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/pictures/20071220RonPaulDonBlack.jpg)


UPDATE at 12/20/07 5:17:22 pm:

Here’s another picture from the same event, showing Ron Paul signing an autograph for Derek Black:

Paul with Derek Black (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/pictures/20071220RonPaulStormfront02.jpg)




http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=28353_Ron_Pauls_Photo-Op_with_Stormfront&only

haha what a bunch of bullshit. and you support fucking fascists who want to rule the world. who's more dangerous?

[ericg]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qfx0mCW494

how much does bad publicity cost?
nothing with shortsighted, bitch ass fools..

it was not a donation to help his campaign - it was a stunt to put a bad spin on it - which only the aforementioned flew into. paul has no time for bs.

i'll take your money. here's a lesson.

[drizl]

i did some reading on stormfront, and theres quite a few articles about what happened with the donation. obviously, by the way the media ran with it, it is being used to discredit ron. it seems to all stem from airhead michael medved, whos a fucking dipshit asshole right wing neo con who not only took part in selling us iraq, but continues to advocate intervention in iran, and the actions of the administration. he is instrumental in the right wing media machine to take advantage of americans and free thought. fuck him. how do i know? my ex-boss contributed to his radio show, donated money and had commercials on his time slot. the asshole would never shut up about how smart the guy was, and i had to listen to his insane banter for hours each day. needless to say, i quit after dropping a copy of press for truth and sharing a peice of my mind on how he runs his business and treats his employees. fuck that asshole.



regardless, a story like this is so blatantly one-sided and lacking of any real substance that it is suprising to see anyone run with it. leave it to sazi the right wing media nazi- posting sources related to medved in an attempt to descredit a man who fights for freedom and liberty. i think eric's post puts it quite well, the youtube video.

a photo of ron signing an autograph? how does he know who that person is?
and when you read about stormfront and their support of ron paul, you find this (http://lonestartimes.com/2007/10/30/rpb2/):


"We hadn't thought of these options but I'll bring up these ideas with the campaign director. Blocking the IP address sounds like a simple and practical step that could be taken. I doubt there is anything we can do legally. Tracking donations that came from Stormfront's site sounds more complicated. I'm concerned about setting a precedent for the campaign having to screen and vet everyone who makes a donation. It is important to keep in mind is (sic) that we didn't solicit this support, and we aren't interested in spending al of our time and resources focused on this issue. We want to focus on Dr. Paul's positive agenda for freedom."


because ron paul has taken campaign contributions from black people does that make him black, or a racist? if he really was a white supremecist wouldnt he not accept donations from anyone with color?

you give a campaign contribution because you (the individual) want to, not because someone (the candidate) is forcing you. how can you even keep track of where all the money comes from, and who is sending it, and why would you even waste time with it? seems to me like it was either a set up, or medved and his right wing assholes are running with it.

[saz]

haha what a bunch of bullshit. and you support fucking fascists who want to rule the world. who's more dangerous?

yes, ron paul posing with neo-Nazis simply didn't happen, it's not real. right, as a socialist and populist, i support "facists" who want to rule the world, like dennis kucinich and john edwards.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qfx0mCW494

how much does bad publicity cost?
nothing with shortsighted, bitch ass fools..

it was not a donation to help his campaign - it was a stunt to put a bad spin on it - which only the aforementioned flew into. paul has no time for bs.

i'll take your money. here's a lesson.


so, ron paul "has no time for bs.", but he does have the time to accept money from neo-Nazis and pose with them for photos.

obviously, by the way the media ran with it, it is being used to discredit ron.

and rightfully so. accepting money from neo-nazis, and posing with them for a photograph is inexcusable and despicable. it is a clear example of ron paul demonstrating outright terrible judgement.


it seems to all stem from airhead michael medved, whos a fucking dipshit asshole right wing neo con who not only took part in selling us iraq, but continues to advocate intervention in iran, and the actions of the administration. he is instrumental in the right wing media machine to take advantage of americans and free thought. fuck him. how do i know? my ex-boss contributed to his radio show, donated money and had commercials on his time slot. the asshole would never shut up about how smart the guy was, and i had to listen to his insane banter for hours each day. needless to say, i quit after dropping a copy of press for truth and sharing a peice of my mind on how he runs his business and treats his employees. fuck that asshole.

what does any of that have to do with ron paul's campaign accepting money from a neo-nazi, and paul allowing his picture to be taken with that same neo-nazi?


regardless, a story like this is so blatantly one-sided and lacking of any real substance that it is suprising to see anyone run with it.

you can spin this anyway you like, but the bottom line is that ron paul has used incredibly pathetic judgement. there is simply no excuse for this.


leave it to sazi the right wing media nazi- posting sources related to medved in an attempt to descredit a man who fights for freedom and liberty. i think eric's post puts it quite well, the youtube video.

so, i'm a "right-wing media nazi" (who supports kucinich and edwards) because i pointed out that ron paul's campaign accepted a donation from a neo-nazi, and allowed his picture to be taken with the same biggot?


a photo of ron signing an autograph? how does he know who that person is?

he is running to be the president of the united states. as a candidate for that high office, he should be exerting the utmost and finest judgement. paul could have very easily asked who the individuals in question were, where they were from, and why they were supporting him - you know, very generic questions that candidates always ask their supporters when they are greeted or approached by them. again, this is a clear demonstration of brutal judgement on behalf of paul.


and when you read about stormfront and their support of ron paul, you find this (http://lonestartimes.com/2007/10/30/rpb2/):


"We hadn't thought of these options but I'll bring up these ideas with the campaign director. Blocking the IP address sounds like a simple and practical step that could be taken. I doubt there is anything we can do legally. Tracking donations that came from Stormfront's site sounds more complicated. I'm concerned about setting a precedent for the campaign having to screen and vet everyone who makes a donation. It is important to keep in mind is (sic) that we didn't solicit this support, and we aren't interested in spending al of our time and resources focused on this issue. We want to focus on Dr. Paul's positive agenda for freedom."

that's fine. but why did they accept the donation in the first place? and why don't they return the donation? the inaction speaks for itself.


because ron paul has taken campaign contributions from black people does that make him black, or a racist?

that's such an absurd question and implication, something i'd expect from a twelve year-old.


if he really was a white supremecist wouldnt he not accept donations from anyone with color?

did i accuse of ron paul of being a white supremacist? no. i pointed out that ron paul's campaign accepted a donation from a white supremacist, and chose to have his picture taken with that same white supremacist.


you give a campaign contribution because you (the individual) want to, not because someone (the candidate) is forcing you.

right, but it was the paul campaign's decision to accept the donation from don black.


how can you even keep track of where all the money comes from, and who is sending it, and why would you even waste time with it?

because first of all, it was an individual contribution, made by an individual. election campaign's keep track of donations. and election campaigns "waste time with it" so they know who is donating to their campaign. it's a matter of proper vetting. it's a matter of responsibility and ethics.


seems to me like it was either a set up, or medved and his right wing assholes are running with it.

right, ron paul's campaign chose to accept the donation from neo-nazi don black, but he was "set-up". right, ron paul chose to have his picture taken with don and dereck black, but he was again "set up". it seems to me that you're having a rather difficult time accepting the fact that ron paul has used extremely poor judgement.

[drizl]

you dont even know what happened sazi. were you there? how was the donation handled? how are donations typically handled? maybe ron's campaign didnt know that the money was coming from, i cant believe that ron approached the guy, asked him his name, his organization, his history, and then asked if he could take a picture with him. thats how you are treating this, and michael medved, who brought this to your attention.

you have to understand the sources of your information, and their motivations. do a search on medved and read some other shit by him. or listen to his radio program. this guy is more of a fucking nazi than this other dipshit who gave ron paul 500 bucks because he is for lesser government. that doesnt mean that ron is a member of his organization, or supports this guy. ron isnt donating money to this dipshit, its the other way around. but see it however you want, its your own uneducated opinion.

isnt it just as bad, if not worse, to accept money from blackwater and halliburton and other illegitamate unethical killing machines who murder far more innocent people for rich politicians?

[saz]

you dont even know what happened sazi. were you there? how was the donation handled? how are donations typically handled? maybe ron's campaign didnt know that the money was coming from, i cant believe that ron approached the guy, asked him his name, his organization, his history, and then asked if he could take a picture with him. thats how you are treating this, and michael medved, who brought this to your attention.

no, i'm afraid that it wasn't michael medved who brought this to my attention. it was msnbc (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22331091/) and other news organizations that brought this to my attention. i've read up on this, and i'm also afraid that i do know what happened. jesse benton, a ron paul spokesman, acknowledged that they accepted the $500 donation from don black. you previously quoted a post of mine in this thread, and if you actually read the link to the news story about the donation to paul (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22331091/), you would have seen for yourself that the paul campaign were well aware of who (a white supremacist) was making the donation to them.


you have to understand the sources of your information, and their motivations.

i perfectly understand the sources of my information: usa today (http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/12/ron-paul-will-u.html), the associated press (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hp_7eNYJJfvcUXW2po0M40ePbMeQD8TKRLCG0), and again, msnbc (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22331091/).


that doesnt mean that ron is a member of his organization, or supports this guy. ron isnt donating money to this dipshit, its the other way around.

no, of course it doesn't mean that ron paul is a member of his organization, or supports don black. but as i have previously stated, it is a clear demonstration of brutal judgement by ron paul, for his campaign to not only keep a donation from him, but to also allow himself to be photographed with him. someone who is running to be the president of the united states should not have his or her campaign accepting campaign contributions from a white supremacist, and then posing for photographs with white supremacists. it's abhorrent.


but see it however you want, its your own uneducated opinion.

right, i'm the one with the uneducated opinion (http://beastieboys.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=75030&highlight=david+duke).


isnt it just as bad, if not worse, to accept money from blackwater and halliburton and other illegitamate unethical killing machines who murder far more innocent people for rich politicians?

sure, accepting money from blackwater and halliburton is a sure sign of corruption and just morally wrong. accepting money from a white supremacist, and posing for a photograph with a white supremacist is flat-out despicable.

[yeahwho]

Wow man, sazi I think some of these Paul supporters are sour, perhaps bitter about that 5th place showing in Iowa. According to the campaign trail it's "Mull Time (http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/01/supporters-mull.html)".

[yeahwho]

After watching the debates on ABC last night it became obvious the other Republican candidates wanted to dismiss and limit Paul's anti-war stance to sound bites and make him sound moronic and weak.

I'm amazed at how pro-war the Republican candidates are, also how much they have co-opted Bush's patriot act and fucked up war in Iraq. But what really amazes me even more is Paul is the only one who really came across as concerned about the direction our country is heading, while the rest of the candidates had a Bush lovefest. Ron Paul has more political contributions from active and retired military personnel (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/channel-08/2008/01/new_spot_troops_support_ron_pa.html)than any other candidate, that is a major statement many of the other Republican candidates do not want us to know.

Sen. Ron Paul Served in Air Force (1963-65), Served in Air National Guard (1965-68)

Arizona Sen. John McCain: Served in the Navy (1958-81); prisoner of war in Vietnam (1967-73).

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani: None. Received student and occupational deferments. Draft number was never called.

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee: None. Came of age as draft was ending.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney: None. Received a deferment as a Mormon missionary in France. Was eligible for the draft upon his return to the states but was never selected.

[Documad]

While I don't agree with McCain, I find his stance understandable. He criticized the way the war was handled from day one, but once we went in, we can't just leave without ramifications. There aren't any good easy choices now.

I also understand where Paul is coming from, even though I disagree with him on nearly all of his issues and I think he's a dangerous egomaniac. But unless he gets a huge percentage of the vote in NH, he's toast and this internet bombardment can finally stop.

The other guys are the worst kind of blow hards.

[Schmeltz]

once we went in, we can't just leave without ramifications. There aren't any good easy choices now.

That's on point. Iraq is way past being an issue of pro- or anti-war sympathies; the war (and its mismanagement) has been a fait accompli for nearly five years now. It isn't being "pro-war" to acknowledge that any solution to the conflict will necessarily be prolonged and arduous, and will involve more bloodshed and sacrifice, it's being realistic. Conversely, people like Ron Paul - who figure they can snap their fingers and have the troops home in a jiffy - are being irrealistic.

[yeahwho]

While I don't agree with McCain, I find his stance understandable. He criticized the way the war was handled from day one, but once we went in, we can't just leave without ramifications. There aren't any good easy choices now.

That's on point. Iraq is way past being an issue of pro- or anti-war sympathies; the war (and its mismanagement) has been a fait accompli for nearly five years now. It isn't being "pro-war" to acknowledge that any solution to the conflict will necessarily be prolonged and arduous, and will involve more bloodshed and sacrifice, it's being realistic. Conversely, people like Ron Paul - who figure they can snap their fingers and have the troops home in a jiffy - are being irrealistic.

Which is an interesting dilemma, Ron Paul is really not saying troops will be home in a jiffy, nor is he saying anything, he's only saying he is against it.

He is being marginalized when he speaks about the US occupation, nation building and military bases in Saudi Arabia. Our support of Israel and the subsequent damage done in the middle east due to our foreign policy. He mentioned how would we feel if China built a military base in the US, he was marginalized. Like today Putin is doing military flights over Alaska, we don't like it and Putin's excuse is it's just military exercises. Did Russia suddenly not have enough land to do military flights over? Paul has his moments, he is bringing up legitimate political points. He also is the #1 candidate when it comes to military contributions.

I'm sure that this question (http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/showpost.php?p=1543195&postcount=8) though has not been answered yet, this is where he fails miserably. He has no answers to make his ideology work in the 21st century.

[drizl]

none of the candidates have answers, they only have guesses at how to deal with the pull out of american troops. it takes a lot more than a president saying "lets do this" before anything gets done. of course all candidates would act with think tanks, pentagon specialists, defense department, state department and just about every other department to pull out troops. a real president listens to them, wieghs decisions and picks the most favourable option. presidents dont act alone. especially presidents who believe in the constitution. like ron paul. i cant trust anyone else with the decision because no one else faces the reality of failed diplomacy, of war mongering, of totalitarianism as ron paul does.

[Documad]

Paul has his moments, he is bringing up legitimate political points. He also is the #1 candidate when it comes to military contributions.
Have you noticed how many stone cold crazy people are in the military? :D

Just kidding. I've got nothing against them. But they tend to want to cut federal taxes while living off of them.

Anyhow, he's far right wing on a lot of issues I care about, and he doesn't have a chance so I ruled him out ages ago.

[QueenAdrock]

My question to drizl is, if this same donation taking from white supremicists and then taking photos with them happened with Bush, Obama, Clinton, any of those that you don't like, would you be questioning it the way you are now? Because you really should try to have a clear mind and not jump to conclusions for ALL candidates, not just ones you like.

[drizl]

absolutely not. i wouldnt say that hilary believes in killing babies because she is standing next to someone who had an abortion. i am sure that if ron knew who he was standing next to was a white supremecist he'd rather not have his picture taken if for nothing else, bad publicity.
what i want to know is, why you're a bulldike:P

[QueenAdrock]

Shut the fuck up? Jesus Christ, what is your PROBLEM?
Edit: Okay, I just saw you changed it to "bulldyke." Real mature. No wonder no one takes you seriously. I try and make a valid point, and you go throwing around insults.

I'm just saying that you hear things about other candidates, never give them the benefit of the doubt or look into what THEIR intentions may be, you assume things and attack them, based on hearsay or whatever else.

There's no need to be an asshole, by the way.

[yeahwho]

Anyhow, he's far right wing on a lot of issues I care about, and he doesn't have a chance so I ruled him out ages ago.

I would never vote for Paul either. It is now quickly becoming put up or shut up time for the candidates and Ron Paul has no real answers, he very good at pointing out how things should not go or what he could of done or would of done. Fuck I do that all the time and I know better than trying to run other peoples lives, look at his issues page (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/), specifically his Iraq war section (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/war-and-foreign-policy), what the hell is that? That isn't a plan, it's should of, could of would of. Dude is seriously trippin'

Shut the fuck up? Jesus Christ, what is your PROBLEM?
Edit: Okay, I just saw you changed it to "bulldyke." Real mature. No wonder no one takes you seriously. I try and make a valid point, and you go throwing around insults.

I'm just saying that you hear things about other candidates, never give them the benefit of the doubt or look into what THEIR intentions may be, you assume things and attack them, based on hearsay or whatever else.

There's no need to be an asshole, by the way.

Well I came in here trying to be open about what I felt was a slight to Ron Paul from the other Republican candidates on our current foreign policy in the middle east. An open mind and perhaps some political levity, sometimes I wonder how much damage a person (drizl) can do to there own validity when it's the internet. For chrissake's it's the fucking internet.....balance and knowledge at your fingertips and some people haven't a clue how to understand it.

What is the problem? This is an easy going informal sight. Insults and fringe thinking will pretty much isolate anything productive around here. Like the banner says,

All of the Beastie Boys and BeastieBoys.com forums under one grand unifying banner, giving the people what they want, Guaranteed Every Time.

[wrongwayandugg]

R.I.P. Mr. Paul.

lol! Documad for pres!!:D

[Documad]

lol! Documad for pres!!:D

Thanks for that!

The NH results were even more embarrassing for Paul.

[SugarInTheRaw]

The NH results were even more embarrassing for Paul.

idk, Documad. Iowa hasn't issued its final results.

Also, Jennifer Call, the town clerk of the town of Sutton, confirmed that Ron Paul got 31 votes and not zero. This is more votes than he got, or was reported to have gotten, in almost every place.

[drizl]

so what are the results that we have been hearing?

i saw a youtube video the other day about the new hampshire voting machines- check this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiiaBqwqkXs) out.

[drizl]

we cannot trust these fucking voting machines! ron needs to request a vote recount (by hand) at every stage in the election process.

[ericg]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8xgWjFe1cE


New Hampshire District Admits Ron Paul Votes Not Counted
Sutton township reported Congressman had zero votes, actual number was 31
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Wednesday, January 9, 2008

The head clerk of the New Hampshire town of Sutton has been forced to admit that Ron Paul received 31 votes yet when the final amount was transferred to a summary sheet and sent out to the media, the total was listed as zero. The fiasco throws the entire primary into doubt and could lead to a re-count.

As we reported earlier today, an entire family voted for Ron Paul in Sutton, yet when the voting map on the Politico website was posted, the total votes for Ron Paul were zero.

Vote fraud expert Bev Harris contacted the head clerk in Sutton, Jennifer Call, who was forced to admit that the 31 votes Ron Paul received were completely omitted from the final report sheet, claiming "human error" was responsible for the mistake.

Two or three votes not counted could be a plausible mistake - but 31 votes for one candidate?

"The classic method for rigging a hand count is to write the wrong number on the form," Harris told the Alex Jones Show.

"They are counting everything in public real nice, they fill out a form in public real nice and then they transfer it to another form and they call that a summary sheet and then that is the one they send in," explained Harris.

"What happened is she said they did not transfer the number correctly and put zero instead of 31 - that is unacceptable as an answer."

With 100% of precincts now reporting, the map originally listed zero votes for Ron Paul as you can see below. It has now been updated to reflect the 31 votes Paul actually received.

The remainder of the 31 people in Sutton who voted for Ron Paul need to go public immediately with the charge of vote fraud and make it known that they were cheated out of their right to vote..


can you count on voting machines? (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/magazine/06Vote-t.html)

www.ronpaulvotecount.com

[drizl]

i checked the boston link via the youtube vid you psoted, it appears they changed their tallies, and declaring typo. they also now have sutton registering with 31 votes.

my concern is this, as it always has been this:

we know we cannot trust these machines. this election must be counted by hand, not trusted in the hands of a few individual corporate executives with access to the memory cards. WAKE THE FUCK UP PEOPLE!

how do we request a hand vote count? can only the candidates request this? can they even do so in a primary?

[Bob]

we cannot trust these fucking voting machines! ron needs to request a vote recount (by hand) at every stage in the election process.

oh my god drizl

do you really think that that's why ron paul is losing so horribly? because of rigged voting machines? and not because he's a nutjob and everyone but you seems to realize it? look around you! he's lucky to be doing as well as he is! he's losing because he sucks, not because of rigged voting machines jesus christ i can't read your posts they're not even funny anymore

[ericg]

why fix the voting machines when there's people like you, bob.
despite and because americans are so dumbed down, however, it's inevitable that they will - again.
why? because it is embedded in the system, and has already prevailed twice - in the face of the world.

'ironically', it's all too evident at this point with go along to get along *&%@ like bob there who would sell out truth for some 'self esteem'/ sense of security, again, 'ironically'.

there's advocacy groups and petitions, but a day late and a dollar/ person short...
hell, i bet 50% of america wouldn't even care if bush was elected again.

it's always been up to people with wherewithal in the know to adhere to, invest in, and change a little something.
life has universal rules. it would be easy once ...

but as 'remission' prevails, it remains - for all intents and purposes of the con artists - a matter of putting the fate of the world in one candidate, of which the majority of whom are obviously backed by the century old con artists who, again, obviously own and run the media.
shit couldn't really be more obvious, and yet.. there's bob.

ultimately people always have to take an initiative greater than that of corruption. people go, government follows. that's how it works. the pyramaid scheme was put in place as a scam. why people still buy into it and seek to condemn the truth when so much is at stake..

[Bob]

there's just too many stupid people. 'ironically', it's all too evident at this point with go along to get along fucks like bob there who would sell truth for some self esteem, again, 'ironically'.

this sentence does not communicate an idea

[ericg]

case and point.

[SugarInTheRaw]

For the sake of those who financially support Ron Paul, let alone any American who believes in the integrity of his or her government, I hope the Ron Paul campaign challenges the New Hampshire vote count.

It is admitted by state officials that votes for Ron Paul have been withheld from the official count. No matter who your candidate is for 2008, I think we can agree that the situation at hand is pretty serious.(!)

[ericg]

R.I.P. Mr. Paul.


Ghandi, MLK, JFK ... and now a premeditated assassination has leaked re paul if he gets too big ...

"RIP Mr. Paul, I don't even respect you enough to call you a doctor" springs up here?

Who the hell are you people?

[Documad]

Ghandi, MLK, JFK ... and now a premeditated assassination has leaked re paul if he gets too big ...

"RIP Mr. Paul, I don't even respect you enough to call you a doctor" springs up here?

Who the hell are you people?
I thought that you folks were pretty nuts to think of him as some kind of savior for the GOP, but now you're comparing him to those folks. I hate JFK so that's okay, but stop with the MLK and Ghandi comparisons already. Why not compare him to Jesus Christ now.

[Bob]

I thought that you folks were pretty nuts to think of him as some kind of savior for the GOP, but now you're comparing him to those folks. I hate JFK so that's okay, but stop with the MLK and Ghandi comparisons already. Why not compare him to Jesus Christ now.

is this how bad american politics have become? that fucking ron paul is the new MLK? oh boy

yesterday, in one of my classes, one of my professors was saying something about politics (my school is incredibly leftist and the thing he was saying was accordingly leftist), and i forget exactly what the speech was about, but at some point he sort of sarcastically said "hey, for all i know, you guys are gonna vote for ron paul" and some idiot in the front row did a not at all ironic fist pump because he didn't realize he was being made fun of because that's how bamboozled ron paul supporters are i can't believe this guy

[Bob]

also

case and point.

i really hope you're a troll or on drugs every time you post because if you aren't...jesus

[Documad]

I feel bad for them because they don't get it. Nader's supporters were making a statement, but they knew their guy was going to get 5% of the vote. Paul's people thought he had a chance at getting the nomination and becoming president. They thought he was actually going to outlaw taxes, dismantle the federal courts and shut down the federal reserve.

[Bob]

I feel bad for them because they don't get it. Nader's supporters were making a statement, but they knew their guy was going to get 5% of the vote. Paul's people thought he had a chance at getting the nomination and becoming president. They thought he was actually going to outlaw taxes, dismantle the federal courts and shut down the federal reserve.

you don't get it, the vote was rigged, that's why he only got 10% of the vote. it's not because he wants to implement the gold standard, emasculate the FDA, and return to state government and laissez-faire economics after half a fucking century of history demonstrated why that kind of thing is a horrible horrible idea, no, that's not why 90% of the population didn't vote for him, it's because the elections were rigged

you fucking...

[Bob]

i mean i feel like such a hypocrite using this kind of language, because i've made many a post in this forum (in the minority) in the past pleading for some kind of civility in the discussion (this was back in the Ace42x and bilbo days), and here i am resorting to insults, but jesus, i just can't think of a more appropriate way to approach this

[drizl]

bob you're a little peckerhead. you're all worked up because ron paul is out and being cheated out of votes. dont you understand what democracy is about? i wouldnt say that ron paul is mlk, or anyone else, but he is taking a stand for what he believes and i truly believe he is an honest man. thats more than almost all other politicians can say for themselves. its rare that someone takes a bold stand in what the believe in these days in politics.

i may not agree with all his views. BUT, he stands for a real change that america needs in order to turn this bullshit around. He's the only candidate willing to touch the topics because the rest are just a bunch of pussies. and hilary crying because she "sees where the country is headed"??????? what a dumb bitch. she knows where the country is headed because she helps head it.