Flutterby™! : wRONg Paul 2008-01-22 19:18:37.431957+00

wRONg Paul

2008-01-22 19:18:37.431957+00 by ebradway 67 comments

Wired's Jason Tanz has a little piece about Ron Paul's success using the Internet for fund raising. Great quote:

There's just one problem with the Ron Paul story: Ron Paul. Sure he seems like a decent guy, forthright and honest. Unfortunately, his paleo-libertarian policies make Ayn Rand look like Mother Teresa.

Why not post something of substance? There is not a single shred of it in this article. The guy says he agrees with Paul on several key points and then goes on to dis him because he, apparently, is so successful at connecting with people. Really a pathetic effort on this guys part.

#Comment Re: made: 2008-01-22 20:53:57.801307+00 by: jeff [edit history]

I'd like to better understand how many individual (non-business) campaign contibutors there have been for each candidate. Is that data available in aggregate form somewhere on the Internet?

"Little piece" is an understatement. I have to admit I only found 74 words (barely four sentences) of substance in this article as it relates to Ron Paul's stands on issues. Great quote, but no beef.

If Ron Paul

was actually a libertarian I think we'd see the lines between his supporters and detractors drawn very differently. I think it's great that some of his platform issues are getting media play and discussion, but I'm very very afraid that his candidacy is going to undercut libertarian ideas by further associating some of those ideas with the inbred southern racist culture where "states rights" is a code word for "the Confederacy still lives".

Jeff, might be something worth applying some Perl and the Federal Election Commission campaign contribution data to, although that'd probably dramatically undervalue "issues advertising" which, despite Paul's record setting abilities with fundraising, probably undervalues what's gotten raised for Ron Paul

's campaign because there's so much grassroots activity for him.

As for individual states rights, they're being usurped at the federal level on a daily basis.

#Comment Re: made: 2008-01-23 01:57:13.732125+00 by: ziffle [edit history]

In Mayberry, I and the 273 other members of the local Ron Paul meetup group are working very hard toward his election. We have about 400 signs out around town with another 1100 coming next week. We have established a public relations team and are canvassing all the neighbourhoods. We wil be watching the election process for fraud.

It appears the blimp may come here, and Ron Paul himself may hold a rally here - according to rumors. The ideal of return of the government to the limits of the constitution, sound money , return of our rights, peace, and an end to warfare and welfare as a state priority, are all endearing goals for us.

We have a half hour video on the local public access channel 46 every morning at 6:00 AM and other times on the weekends.

Mother Teresa is no standard to uphold; quite the opposite. Ayn Rand was much better than that.

Ron Paul continues; his message is resonating. He will be at the convention and that is a lifetime away in politics.

#Comment Re: Great post, Ziffle! made: 2008-01-23 02:29:32.491167+00 by: BC

To some of the other posts, why do people feel the necessity of "defining" a candidate. Paul ran on the Libertarian ticket before but many of his ideas fall outside of the libertarian scope. He has been the first to admit this. He is more accurately defined as a Constitutionalist.

As to the states rights issue and racism, this is the most contorted, ridiculous assertion I have almost ever read. Yeah, support a Jeffersonian States Rights agenda and you are by some peoples' definition a racist. That message is for the sheeples' consumption because what they are attempting to do is force everyone to vote for a big government Hamiltonian/Lincolnian approach. If you don't, you are a racist, so the "logic" goes.

It gets old how so many go after Paul and yet look at the alternatives. Giuliani, McCain, Obama, Clinton, Huckabee. Now that's a scary lot. Giuliani and McCain will keep us in perpetual war supporting the Neocon agenda. Obama would make a great mayor somewhere. Good looking, has the gift of gab, but President? Give me a break. Clinton would literally say and do ANYTHING to get elected. Has no moral compass. Huckabee would rewrite the Constitution wrapping it in the Bible. So, you critics of Paul, who are YOU backing?

#Comment Re: made: 2008-01-23 02:57:04.368868+00 by: jeff [edit history]

Eric--not to digress, but you cited (3) reasons? And the third reason happened to be the best of the group. Just trying to lighten things up a little. <grin>

I would suggest, however, the idea that "Ron Paul is screwing up the Libertarian message," is getting old and weaker as a point of argument every single day. Be a little more creative? Let's talk real issues, not arbitrary political classifications. Vote for the best candidate, period. If you don't align with Ron Paul on substantive issues, that's fine. Ziffle--you make some great points on what Ron Paul really stands for.

I'd posit that every GOP candidate (other than Ron Paul) is "screwing up the Republican message." They're all going to keep us in Iraq for a very long time, and SPEND the treasury to oblivion just like GW. And, IMHO, there are no ABLE Democratic candidates capable of leading America for the next four years or more. Hillary will cave-in to all special interest groups for reasons of pure self-aggrandizement, Obama does not have the necessary experience, and Edwards will likely be quitting the race soon.

So, Ron Paul detractors, please do speak out and tell us WHO you support, and WHY? Silence might be considered apathy, or implicit acceptance?

Eric Dondero, a former senior aide to Ron Paul, has some interesting and realistic thoughts on where Paul's previous campaigns have gone and where his current campaign will likely go after February 5th.

Paul was widely quoted on Meet the Press (12/23/07) saying that he was 99.9% sure he wouldn't run as an independent, but the Libertarians are ready and waiting for him again. Perhaps Paul's percentile was accidentally shifted a decimal place or two.... perhaps he was 9.99% sure he won't go independent or, even more likely, .999% sure is closer to the truth.

On a more positive note, any serious 3rd party challenge by Paul translates into the "second coming of Ross Perot" for the Democrats..... which even prompts me to sing "Run Ron Run!"

#Comment Re: made: 2008-01-23 18:11:20.757216+00 by: ziffle [edit history]

But in general, yeah, the formatter works on a paragraph by paragraph level, it closes out all tags at the end of a paragraph.

Topspin, did you catch the interview with Russert? Did you see how Russert asked once, then twice, then three times, whether Paul would NOT run as an independent? Each time Paul said that he had no plans to run as an independent. Russert kept asking him and Paul kept saying the same thing and then Paul said, do you ask each of your candidates this question. And Russert then said he would. But Russert lied, of course, because he did not ask Clinton whether she would run as an independent if she did not get the nomination. It is truly idiotic when people like Russert run around run around saying, "see, Paul said he wouldn't run as an independent and now he is, so Paul is a liar." The old gotcha politics. I don't give a hoot who someone else is rooting for. I only care about the candidate I believe will make a difference. It is pathetic when people choose to denigrate a viable candidate and yet have no alternative solution.

#Comment Re: made: 2008-01-23 21:32:24.873317+00 by: crasch [edit history]

Just wanted to point out that Eric Dondero was fired by Paul, and was at one time running against Paul for his Congressional seat. He also supports Giuliani for President. So he has pretty strong motives to paint Paul in the worst possible light.

My problem with Ron Paul (and it follows for Libertarians and Constitutionalists in general) is that I think the direction the country has taken since 1787 isn't all that bad. I think most of what the Libertarians point to as problems are part-and-parcel of the shift in consciousness (and conscience) that resulted in womens' suffrage and racial desegregation.

I personally support Barack Obama - not because of any politcal stance he claims - but because he is an inspiring leader. My personal view of the Presidency is that it's more a cheerleader position than a quarterback (or coach).

I'm also interested in seeing someone other than a rich white guy in the Whitehouse - and that includes that drag queen, Hillary.

Russert's question to Paul about running as an independent was germane and intense. Ron Paul has TWICE run for president as an independent. Obviously, to everyone except those who've drank the Paul Kool-Aid, the question is VALID to Ron Paul and not to any of the other candidates.

Russert recently interviewed Hillary and asked her about "gender politics" but she didn't get flustered and say "Why aren't you asking the men?" She KNOWS the question is germane to HER, not the others. Russert asked her intense questions about "double teaming" with Bill. Again, intense and germane.

Russert asked Obama about his experience and asked him about 3 times to pin him down about raising taxes. Germane and intense questioning.

Was Russert denigrating Obama to pin him down about taxes or his ties to a shady Chicago developer? Was he asking unfair questions of Hillary to pin her down about Bill?

Each candidate brings political and personal history to the table. Part of Ron Paul's history is LEAVING the Republican Party and running twice for president with another party. If questioning him about that history repeating itself again is unfair, why is it unfair?

I think it's inevitable that Ron Paul will run as an independent, and I actually prefer that he does so. There isn't a single candidate in either party that I resonate more with than Ron Paul.

And I don't believe I've seen similar passion for any other candidate here. Or passion, period.

Funny how some people discuss everything but the issues: warfare, welfare, individual rights, limiting the government, warrantless searches, the 70 Trillion unfunded liability we face which was created by the criminals in office the last 40 years, and the like. Funny issues like 'is he a Republican' are used to cloud the real issue, which is collectivism versus the right to live without compulsion from others.

When I see people promoting any of the other candidates, I see them working to keep and maintain an unfair theft of one group to another.

That is they are getting what they want and to hell with those who create the wealth or want to left alone.

And I wonder how they became so twisted emotionally, intellectually and ethically. I am so glad I am not like that and it makes me want to take a shower when I attempt to reason with them.

Can they not see how unfair they are asking us to be? How shallow and pushy they are. It is only a respect for the rights of the individual that gives you a free and fair and honest culture.

We must learn to ask not tell each other what we want. In a country where the government is limited by a constitution to the protection of individual rights, all it takes is a smile to get along; otherwise we need guns as not everyone will agree to be told how to live. And that is all Ron Paul is asking for. That we 'ask not tell' each other what we want.

Unless you happen to be a woman who is unwillingly impregnated - then Ron Paul is all about telling you what you should and shouldn't do. No individual rights there... Well, I guess he's trying to make a stance for the fetus' rights.

Ron Paul also seems to have a problem with people who don't like prayer imposed upon them in school or teachers who think evolution is more than just a theory...

#Comment Re: made: 2008-01-24 05:52:41.318833+00 by: crasch [edit history]

Unless you happen to be a woman who is unwillingly impregnated - then Ron Paul is all about telling you what you should and shouldn't do. No individual rights there...

That's because Paul believes that the fetus is a human being too, and the woman's right to do with her uterus as she pleases doesn't trump the right of the fetus to live. (Just as a woman's right to control who enters and leaves her home doesn't give her the right to kill her children if she doesn't want them any more.) Absent the fetus, Paul doesn't care what women do with their bodies.

I think Paul's wrong about the moral status of fetuses, but I would note that historically, whenever the question of who is deserving of full human rights has come up before -- with respect to Jews, blacks, and women -- history has not looked kindly on those who took the opposing side.

I would also note the curiously narrow concern for a woman's control over her uterus. Suggest that woman not be allowed to kill her fetus, and people huff with outrage.

Yet what about a woman's right to choose which medicines she's allowed to take? What about her right to choose who provides her medical care? Her right take recreational drugs? Where is the outrage against the FDA, the DEA, and the AMA?

Paul is alone among the candidates in supporting the right of women (and men!) right to make those choices about their bodies.

#Comment Re: made: 2008-01-24 11:31:17.410969+00 by: topspin [edit history]

Sure, ziffle, let's talk about sexual harassment and Ron Paul. From his book, Freedom under Siege on page 17 where he says:

Now, Ron Paul's notion SEEMS to be that the person being harassed shares the blame for the situation because.... they didn't quit on the spot. Certainly a wonderfully "ask each other, not tell" attitude. A single Mom trying to support her kids should CERTAINLY be able to just quit her job and not worry because jobs are everywhere, eh?

Now there's a great and ideal society..... where an employer can do whatever he or she wishes and the employees can either take it or quit. Pay no attention to their need to make money, support their family, eat, etc...... just quit and move to the NEXT lousy employer and start the cycle again.

In utopia, perhaps employers are benevolent and moral, but in America employers are neither.

#Comment Re: made: 2008-01-24 11:39:31.359027+00 by: jeff [edit history]

Topsin, that's an interesting quotation (circa 1988), but what has Ron said about sexuality in the workplace lately? By extension, what was the workplace like in the 1950's? I'd suggest that workplace dynamics have changed since the 1950's, and even since the late 1980's, including the ratio of single mothers.

And on the topic of fairness, which candidate are YOU supporting? WHO are you passionate about in this election year, and WHY?

#Comment Re: made: 2008-01-24 11:50:19.723651+00 by: jeff [edit history]

Eric--I take it from your earlier post that you don't view the presidency as a position which can effect real change in our country? That it's more of a cheerleader position and part of your dislike of Ron Paul is rooted in your belief that he is not as charismatic as Barack Obama? If so, that's a very, very interesting perspective. It is certainly legitimate. How much weight do you place on charisma vs. substance?

On the whole, I don't disagree with your asssessment of our history from 1787 forward. However, just as Topsin is referring to positions taken in 1988, I'd respectfully suggest that we start getting current and look at the real problems facing our nation TODAY.

Jeff, I really liked Richardson and hope he gets the nod for VP from either Hillary or Obama..... either of whom I'll be supporting for reasons I stated in the legendary "big Ron Paul thread."

As for Paul's attitude toward workers and employers, I have seen nothing from Paul to repudiate his book, that quote, nor to suggest his attitude toward worker's rights has changed in any way. If you have such info about your candidate, please enlighten us.

My main problem is NOT with the sexual harassment issue but with Paul's apparent feeling that workers and employers operate on equal footing, ie., that workers aren't to some extent at the mercy of an employer who could easily offer good benefits, salary, etc..... until an employee is in such a position that they can't just walk away easily and thus the employer can then exploit the worker.

Morally, Paul agrees, this is terrible but it is socially naive to believe employers don't attempt to exploit workers in this fashion.

#Comment Re: made: 2008-01-24 12:46:51.123558+00 by: jeff [edit history]

Topsin, thanks for the heads-up on your presidential preferences. I'll need to search, find, and re-read that long Ron Paul thread.

We may have to politely agree to disagree on the 20-year-old quote you cite. Has sexual harrassment captured much attention in the media in this 2008 election year? Is this something that Tim Russert challenged Ron Paul about? I am sure that Ziffle and BC can offer much more recent quotations from Ron Paul regarding this topic, as they are apparently much closer to Ron Paul's campaign than any of us. And once again, I would politely challenge you to bring quotes from at least the most recent decade (and preferably the last couple of years) to this thread. They'll get more attention.

Oh, and one could easily turn this around, and look much more closely at the character of Hillary, who apparently "turned a blind eye" to Bill's many sexual indiscretions in Arkansas, and even in the White House. But I digress, as those events occurred many years ago and aren't germane today? Should we dig deeper into Barack's past?

As for differentiating between worker qualifications, I'm all for it. I'm dead against the "quota system," based on race, sex, etc. There are certain basic parameters which come with every job, and if we continue to dilute the qualifications, then we can't compete globally (for example, Eric will be meeting certain criteria when he obtains his PhD). To me, the biggest issues of this election year are the overall economy, the war in Iraq, illegal immigration, our continued reliance on fossil fuels, and the ongoing massive trade and budget deficits. Long-term, you can throw much of everything else out the window if some of these massive negative trends continue. Sexual harrassment? It's not even on the radar screen to most Americans, many of whom are in foreclosure.

As individuals, we often "train" our employers how to treat us, much the same as we do in simple interpersonal relationships. To a very large degree, we often DO get what we reap. And if an employee moves from "one bad job to another," (similar to moving from one bad relationship to another) then I'd suggest the problem lies somewhere else. It has been said that the only constant in dysfunctional relationships (whatever they happen to be) is YOU, the individual.

And if we move from "one bad president and administration to another," then much of the fault is ours.

In the bigger context, if the few issues discussed above were treated differently by Paul would you vote for him? Doubtful.

The issue of abortion is that he has his opinion but per the constitution he feels it should be decided locally, not in Wash D.C. I am sure CA would have their own take on it. Personally I think its a womans right up until the 3rd month but it is a small issue. If you don;t like it leave for another state.

Well an employer should be penalized because he hires people? Why would the fact that the employer creates the job make him subordinate to the employee? If you don't like it then quit. That's life. Quit whining. The employer has the same rights as an employee. Period. Any other view requires guns to implement. Put your guns away.

I do not understand why anyone would feel they had the right to force others to do as they want. Guns it is eh? Well all the constitution allows is for you to ask not tell what you want. I read the Ron Paul section you quoted and it seems just right to me. I was surprised you would quote such a well written coherent passage and attempt to refute such unassailable reasoning.

This reflects the mind of a collectivist. If they won't act the way I think they should we will FORCE them to act right. If they are the people who create the jobs and the wealth then we will FORCE them to subordinate their actions to our whims. You need to read Atlas Shrugged buster, and get out of the way.

As to the single Mother: maybe she should not have those children in the first place. Certainly her inability to control her self is not a mortgage on the rest of us.

So lets see: the ones who can not control themselves like single Mothers, we should allow to act without reason and be a burdon on the rest of us.

The ones who think long range, create jobs and wealth and are the backbone of the economic system we should control and tell how to act. This is what I am saying - how distorted is your thinking when you hate the good and encourage the bad?

#Comment Re: Germane? made: 2008-01-24 17:21:03.587+00 by: jeff [edit history]

I believe that this short video is germane and represents more of a core issue with most Americans, TODAY. The GOP has permuted into spenders every bit the equal of traditional Democrats. I don't really see a sound fiscal plan being put forth by any candidate except Ron Paul, who favors a smaller government with FAR LESS government spending.

Maybe if the government sets a good example with sound fiscal polices and "saving," its citizens will follow suit? Saving? What a concept!

I hate to Godwinate the thread, but it seems like the Ron Paul issue always kind of devolves into a Hitler vs Stalin sort of level, with Paul as Stalin. He has cultural and political goals that I find absolutely abhorrent and wrong, he's said that he's for states rights so that on a local level he can work against freedom, but he happens to be an ally in the immediate battle against the current levels of Federal power.

I'm happy to be an anti-federalist, I may agree with Paul on aspects of the role of the federal government, I may even ally myself with him, but the enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend.

I can't call out Churchill and Roosevelt for allying with Stalin, the tactic worked and solved the immediate problem facing the U.S. and Britain, however looked at in the macro sense with a few decades of perspective it's hard to call out Stalin as less evil than Hitler.

Similarly, there may be immediate reasons to loathe Clinton, McCain and Obama, but every time I bring up my fears about Paul, I get a reiteration of why the others are so bad (and in some cases they border on the absurd: BC, who cares what specifics of the Clinton's relationships are? I know plenty of good people who wouldn't raise an eyebrow at one or the other getting a little extracurricular head from a 20something), not an addressing of why my fears about Paul are unfounded.

I'm not for any of the candidates. I support various issues, and I hope to educate my fellow voters towards making candidates adopt those issues because they'll find that stance useful in the election. I find it difficult to believe that supporting someone with as convoluted a political stance as Ron Paul will make changing my fellow voters' minds any easier.

Oh, and I think So What's This "Paleo" Biz? is useful reading to understand some of us who cringe at Paul's unwillingness to completely distance himself from the writing Lew Rockwell did in Paul's name.

Ziffle, Lyke and topspin clearly view the world through a different prism. There are basically two people out there in the world. One, like our Founding Fathers, who said work hard, follow the law, and don't impose on others. Then you have the other people who want to tell other people how to live their lives. I suspect that the vast majority of these people are not self-sufficient and doubt their own abilities, which is why they want to make sure everyone conforms. No wealth nor poverty. These people will always reach for utopia at the expense of everyone else. Orwell became famous on this theme. These people remind me of Napoleon, the lead pig.

BC, it is precisely Ron Paul's desire to impose his morality on others that makes me unwilling to support him personally. Were he willing to, across the board, call for more limited government, I'd be more positive on him, but his actions and words concerning local matters indicate that he's not for more limited government, just for more limited federal government. In fact he's called for stronger interventions in the personal lives of citizens at a local level.

Dan, you couldn't be further from the truth. You have his ideology completely bassackwards.

Look, ziffle, a society requires guns. The world isn't always an "ask them nicely and they will behave" place. You are a landlord. You ask for rent monthly. Those who are timely with payment are thanked, I'm sure. Those who must be pestered for rent are probably asked more harshly. But what is your recourse if they simply squat and don't pay? I know what it is..... you show up with the sheriff to evict them. Guns. Perhaps you've never done it, but you KNOW it is an option you might have to use. Yes or no?

You may say these people are trying to steal from you and force is justified, but I'd submit that NOTHING forces an employer to pay an employee at the end of the week in your world without guns. The work is done and the employee, without the threat of force from the government, has no recourse. I know that a moral employer would never not pay an employee who performed work for them, but I have heard it happens..... haven't you? What is the employee's recourse in your world without guns?

As for Rand, I read Atlas Shrugged at 15 and again at 35. It didn't change my life either time. It's fiction, m'boy, based upon a society Rand imagined and created. Orwell conjured up some interesting parallels to society too, but Oceania isn't real either. Shrug. <grin>

#Comment Re: made: 2008-01-24 22:22:33.331125+00 by: ziffle [edit history]

He states that it is not a federal right to tell a state what it can do. It is up to the states citizens to determine what they want. Now we can have a philosophical discussion on what a state should want, and a proper state constitution based upon the national one might be a good start but regardless it is the state that should decide. He has stated the more serious the problem the more local the solution.

For example California is being run over by the Feds for allowing pot smoking by cancer patients. Surely you do not favor the feds controlling the state for that do you?

Paul even mentions how silly the law against sodomy (there is that word I do not understand again) is.

But lets say I don't agree with you. Should all of us in flyover country be able to tell CA how to live? Should we veto the Do Daa parade? No.

So no he does not ask for more local intervention, he is against that. But it is the decision locally what to have, not some people far away telling me how to live.

topspin: you are confusing something that seems so basic to me. It has to do with contracts. When we make a contract then we do need an objective third party to enforce the contract. That form of force must remain with the government. But to confuse force used to force people to do what they do not want and have not agreed to do is a very different thing.

The different is voluntary agreement. If you force me to do that which I do not agree then you are an aggressor and must be stopped with force.

If an employer voluntarily agrees to pay you then you have a right to enforce that, assuming you did the work. To confuse the right to collect on a contract voluntarily agreed to with forcing people to live as you want them is the opposite.

As far as the issue of employement, maybe the employee should require a contract wherein there would be a penalty to pay if thre was any sexual harassment. But many people would not want that. In the past the workplace was alive with friendly sex from time to time and all liked it. It was a way to meet a spouse for example. Women only call it harassment when he is not datable as the joke goes.

#Comment Re: made: 2008-01-25 11:08:19.343955+00 by: topspin [edit history]

As far as the issue of employement, maybe the employee should require a contract wherein there would be a penalty to pay if thre was any sexual harassment. But many people would not want that.

Or, of course, a state might legislate a blanket protection for workers as it does with labor laws relating child labor, wages, etc. My guess is, however, that folks like you would argue that even those laws are repressive and unneeded because each individual employer/employee relationship should be a personal contract between individuals without government intervention.

Sorry.... that's pablum, uptopian thinking which works in novels, not in reality. The world IS run by violence meted out sometimes with Rwandan obviousness and sometimes with IRS subtlety, but violence is behind society and has been since the first groups banded together. Join us or fight us has been and still is the mantra of groups.

Your vote about what is and isn't acceptable behavior by the group is a luxury agreed upon and defended by the implicit threat of group/vigilante violence, not by reason. Man isn't a remarkably reasonable beast in practice and our governmental alliances, laws, etc. reflect man's nature.

Yes, yes, appeal to reason, by all means, before violence, but if you are going to split hairs that society is being violent with employers by applying labor laws, then you break it down to this level.

Yes, being part of a group means you will be forced to behave a certain way by the group for what is perceived to be the good of the group, not your own good. It isn't reason.... it's force.... it's violence. Get over it.

And to be perfectly honest, I think the race for the presidency is much like my friends' experiences as contestants on Jeopardy. They consistently say that everyone who gets on the show pretty much knows all the answers to all the questions and it really comes down to a match of button-pushing speed rather than intelligence.

I think it can be fairly argued that every one of the candidates, Democratic, Republican, Libertarian or otherwise, are all extremely qualified to attempt to understand the issues. They are all people of substance. Sure, they have differing opinions, but in the end they are all very capable people. And from what I've seen, all more capable than the idiot we've put up with these last eight years.

So I support the guy who stirs my heart - the guy who I'd be proud to have represent me in talks with other countries. The guy who could probably make other countries feel better about the US than George Bush has made them feel.

What I don't understand is that if Ron Paul wants to change the legislation that drives our nation, why does he want to be head of the executive? He's already a very effective Congressman.

I actually feel bad for a lot of politicians. They tend to suffer from the Peter Principle worse than most. When they reach their level of incompetence, it becomes a public spectacle. So many politicians effect the world more strongly even when they leave politics. Look at Jimmy Carter or Al Gore. An even better example is Jesse Jackson. Jesse was a lousy person to run as President but he's able to affect real change by working outside of the system.

If I had the time, I'd get into Dan's code and work up some ways to visualize posting activity by topic - kind of like that graph I did the last time Ron Paul came up on Flutterby.

#Comment Re: made: 2008-01-26 23:57:20.405956+00 by: ziffle [edit history]

There is an organization, separate from any government, dedicated to one world government. All the candidates are members except Ron Paul. That is why he is not given the same media exposure chance as the other candidates.

Boy - I should have put on my tin foil hat before I clicked on that link for thought-criminal.org... Now my brain is infected with paranoid viruses!

#Comment Re: made: 2008-01-27 13:19:53.101234+00 by: jeff [edit history]

There can be little doubt that organizations such as the Council on Foreign Relations exert an incredible amount of influence on our government. Often times, "conspiracy theories" find their roots in these organizations as part of a "shadow government" which purports to set domestic and foreign policy for the United States. And much of this is merited.

"They must find it difficult... those who have taken authority as the truth, rather than truth as the authority."

Jeff - glad you are not the one wanting the towel. And to top it all off: "The Plunge Protection Team" exists too. They try and fix short term what the money printers do long term.

The CFR is why Bush Jr said the constitution was only a piece of paper! He could get away with that thinking in todays environment.

#Comment Re: made: 2008-01-27 20:28:54.61988+00 by: jeff [edit history]

This is a bit off-topic (it's related in some ways), but after exhaustive research over many weeks, I've also come to the conclusion with about 99% personal certainty that the 9/11 incident (much like the Gulf of Tonkin incident) WAS an "inside job," orchestrated and covered-up to promote the agendas of organizations like the Carlyle Group and the Council on Foreign Relations.

The body of multi-dimensional proof is incredibly overwhelming, when one considers all of the available facts, and extrapolating from evidence which has been deliberately suppressed, repressed, or overtly or covertly destroyed.

The 9/11 orchestration was/is a blue-print which closely follows similar "events" used to previously galvanize public opinion. For example, the overt sailing of the Lusitania into a war zone (WWI), the U.S. policies towards Japan leading to Pearl Harbor (WWII), the contrived Gulf of Tonkin incident (expanding Vietnam), and others, all for the purpose of advancing a war-time agenda (now Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran).

The 9/11 events were NOT orchestrated by a single man living in a cave. It was orchestrated by small numbers of rich men who, need not money, but who's lust for power and world control is without human bound.

Here I put my tin hat on - I do not agree. I met Atta personally and I think he died there.

Since I don't have the rights to create threads at Flutterby, could you start one on this topic? I don't want to hi-jack this thread, but I have a lot of information I'd like to share on this topic.

Well I dont have anything to say on the subject. I saw the planes go in and all the rest is just conjecture and not of much interest to me.

You saw the plane crash into the Pentagon? You saw the plane hit the Earth in PA? That's also pretty profound, Zif.

#Comment Re: made: 2008-01-28 15:52:27.203663+00 by: ziffle [edit history]

Around February of 2001 (the exact month escapes me) three guys walked into the office and asked for "internet" they were all a little short, very healthy, and spoke little english. I asked them where they were from they did not say. I asked later, again one said France

. But they were not french.

The one started staring at me; I stared back. I felt he was going to whip my ass so I looked away, being a lot older and having dropped fist fighting a long time ago, and I told them they should go to the library and said wait here while I get you directions and went into my office. There was an intensity about the leader.

I came back out and saw them all running fast down the hallway and out the door. I ran outside but did not see their car. Later I saw his picture on TV. His hair was slightly different but it was him.

There is an old chemical plant in Ducktown [EDIT Copper Hill and Ducktown are maybe two miles apart] Tennessee (it makes Mayberry look large) which closed years ago but the structures where still there. He flew over and saw them. At the same time we have numerous reports of the dams and TVA being video taped by strangers - it is presumed it was not tourists :)

As far as seeing

the crash I saw the live TV show that morning and the tapes later.

I must point out that there are no videos in public circulation which show a plane (or derivative) crashing into the ground in PA. And unless I am mistaken, only 5 video "frames" have been leaked to the public regarding a plane (or derivative) which may have struck the Pentagon.

Dan--can we start a separate thread on this topic? I have no rights to create threads.

#Comment Re: made: 2008-01-28 20:16:37.292578+00 by: jeff [edit history]

Not to worry. An alternative 9/11 thread has been started Ziffle. This Ron Paul thread (and campaign) has not been hijacked, and NORAD is now "standing down" with respect to that threat. :^)

#Comment Re: made: 2008-01-30 13:02:12.469959+00 by: jeff [edit history]

Ziffle--what is the alternative plan going forward if Ron Paul doesn't get the GOP nomination?

Despite Ron's great intentions, I do not believe he will get the GOP nomination (if he does, that will be fantastic). When will Ron realize this, throw in the towel and, for the better good, decide to put all of the campaign money to better use and run as an independent?

Does "Super Tuesday" represent the point of decision for Ron and his followers? If not, when do you believe the tipping point will occur?

#Comment Re: made: 2008-01-30 22:21:10.062172+00 by: ziffle [edit history]

We are not just electing Ron Paul. We are changing the country - it is a revolution of ideas. He will not stop, nor should we until it goes all the way to the convention and he gives a speech accepting a nomination to be president.

And the fact is, a lot of people are listening; his understanding and explanation of fiat money, the out of control spending, the empire building, destruction of rights and liberties of the citizenry, and the increasing control of the people by the government are becoming part of our conversation. I hear Huckleberry talking about borrowing from China to fight a war. I see where our local Senator today decried the stimulus bill because it simply borrows from our children to finance a short term economic splash today. I hear many others talk in the same terms Ron Paul has introduced to the nation during the last year. In that regard we are winning.

Money is created in a Personal Computer using a Mouse. They increment the dial and now they have more money to loan out. This is done by a private company , called the Federal Reserve. They earn interest on this money they created from nothing.

If Ron Paul is not listened to the end result will be the destruction of the country. If he is elected he will guide us out of the morass, carefully.

After the convention I do not see him doing anything except I do feel we will see Ron Paul Republicans running for office; that is dedicated to the Constitution as its written, limiting government. Finally some sanity in the country. I have waited my whole life for this.

The tipping point will not be Feb 5 it will go on - we will send money as long as he needs it. In fact he just revamped his staff and they are changing the whole campaign, becoming more aggressive. Finally.

He will be remembered as a Jefferson. He has been consistent and ostracized from congress for 30 years because he followed the constitution. In the end it will be he who is praised by history and all the others who were in congress during those years will be looked at as criminals. They spent Trillions of dollars without regard for tomorrow in effect stealing from future generations. I can;t wait to read the future history books where they talk about Robert Dole and McCain as the crooks they are, establishing McCain Feingold restricting the first amendment. And of course the idiots on the supreme court who allowed all this stuff.

For the record there are now 1600 Ron Paul meetup groups with 105,000 members. Around 100 groups are overseas! Its a movement.

#Comment Re: made: 2008-01-30 23:08:52.591804+00 by: jeff [edit history]

I'm donating an additional $102 to the movement on February 1st, and I'm also attending my first Ron Paul meetup on Saturday at the Ohio campaign HQ in Columbus.

#Comment Re: made: 2008-02-01 04:54:17.523923+00 by: jeff [edit history]

As luck would have it, my name came up as a donor I was watching Ron's campaign site. I thought I'd give it one or two minutes, and then I struck gold with a quick Shift-PrintScr! I had contribued just moments before.

51 years multiplied by 2 beautiful people and a wonderful cause is how I determined my $102 contribution for this special day.

Super Tuesday has now passed us, but the Ohio primary is still about a month off. This fundraising site was passed along to me. I'm not sure how often it's updated or how accurate it is, but it's interesting to look at some of the neighborhood demographics across the country in terms of campaign contributions to the various candidates.

#Comment Re: made: 2008-02-06 16:55:37.944139+00 by: jeff [edit history]

If given a chance, I think Ron would have done better than this. But we may never know.

At this point he's focusing on keeping his Congressional seat, it seems, and downsizing his national campaign. He realistically notes that the convention won't be "brokered" or split and seems to realize his supporter's role, if any, will be very marginal in Minneapolis.

What is more interesting is that Ron Paul, who says "I am a Republican, and I will remain a Republican," will not endorse John McCain, the likely Republican candidate. One can bet that Ted Kennedy will embrace and get behind Hillary if she's nominated or Feinstein will get behind Obama if he's nominated because those folks are Democrats who support their party. One can likely bet Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo will at least give a token endorsement to McCain for the sake of party unity.

That is EXACTLY why Paul would be a terrible president. Politics is about compromise, not rigidity. Forming coalitions and "give and take" is what gets things done in government, not "my way or the highway" thinking. Paul cannot seem to grasp that by turning his back on his party's nominee he assures the party will turn its back on him and those who follow in his footsteps. The result: while Paul may appear noble, the success of his ideas is thwarted. Using compromise he and his supporters might inject some of their ideas into the GOP, but boldly stating he's not going to support McCain insures the party will have little use for him at the convention.

#Comment Re: made: 2008-02-12 13:39:35.897252+00 by: jeff [edit history]

We all knew Ron that had very little chance at winning the Republican nomination. While I stand behind many of his ideas (and will continue to do so), I've lost a lot of faith in his approach. I personally don't think he can effect real change for the remainder of this campaign, nor at the GOP convention. In my mind, both the Dems and the Repugs are morally and fiscally bankrupt, and I've long posted that our two-party system is now dysfunctional.

The only way to effect real and tangible political and economic change in our country is outside of the controlling interests of the two parties. That's why I originally and passionately supported Ron, in the hope that he eventually would not only think outside the box, but work outside it as well, with an independent run. It doesn't look like that will happen, and that's sad news for America.