Thanks for this explanation CY.

I didn’t know this, (about the 5%) and it helps explain my earlier question.

You’re right about them making exceptions for others though, and I we know that seems to be standard in just about everything.

Pisses me off as well. What can I say?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-epeXDBLXsA

Great interview.  Dennis Kucinich was on after him…

This is interesting:

Manchester – UnionLeader.com has learned that the New Hampshire Republican Party has quit as a co-sponsor of tomorrow night’s nationally televised GOP forum on FOX News.

The 8 p.m. event at Saint Anselm College—the last debate before Tuesday’s primary—had become controversial when FOX refused to include Ron Paul.

So the New Hampshire GOP dropped out in protest of Fox excluding Ron Paul.. By the way, he just polled at 14% in the latest NH poll… that is 3rd place behind McCain and Romney.

Interesting huh?

Just watched the Bill Moyers interview of Ron Paul, and must say he makes more sense than every other person except for Gravel and Kucinich.  Sure I disagree with some of his points, but his ideas promote change away from the status quo and he seems to be gathering steam, so my point is, I will be watching his progress.

I don’t want Ron Paul to be President, but the guy speaks no lies.  If I had my way, the US would stop being so arrogant as to meddle in other countries affairs on the pretense of altruism.  We are selfish, self-serving, and, often, malicious in foreign policy, and we have been this way since “manifest destiny”.  I’m not saying it’s wrong.  I live a very comfortable life.  Morality, on the other hand, philosophical “right”, says that I earned that through others suffering.  Paul merely represents a humanitarian viewpoint, and I respect his willingness to say on Colbert that, ultimately, the government should allow children to starve because that is society’s ill, for us citizens to deal with.  I vehemently agree with that tenet of his ideology.

Missy - It is frustrating… But in my view, it is just the powerful, money establishment trying to keep a voice of REAL change out of the way.  By the way, the big change (and the only big change) that Ron Paul can actually unilaterally enact is bringing the troops home from around the world which is precisely why the big establishment are trying to stifle him.  Boeing, Lockheed Martin, General Electric, Media, AIPAC, etc etc etc.  They most certainly don’t want this war to end.  John McCain just said he wants US troops permanently in the middle east! Son in reality, all other changes and philosophical concepts will/would require a CONSENSUS to come even close to achieving and there is a Democratic majority in Congress now that is only going to get bigger over the next year (lots of GOP people retiring, not running for re-election).  I point this out because there are a lot of unfounded fears about what a Ron Paul Presidency would mean, and the vast majority of them are totally irrational and have no basis in fact nor procedure.

I personally view a Ron Paul Presidency as a needed step back from the terrifying trend of ever bigger, ever more intrusive, ever more powerful government, particularly when it comes to the executive branch.  No other candidate is going to return the balance to our government the way Ron Paul will.  That is just a fact.

Good luck!

What a disingenuous argument! No way we can disassociate ourselves from Pakistan. The Taliban is refueled there. To let them roam free, defeats NATO efforts in Afghanistan. Al Qaeda has strength there and is continuing to win the minds and hearts of the Pakistan people, including the nuclear scientists there. The extremely unstable government has nuclear weapons. Al Qaeda believes it is entitled to Islamic nuclear weapons.

Intelligent diplomacy has been entirely missing from Bush foreign policy. Ideology and gut instinct needs to be replaced with intelligent analysis. Get rid of Bush and Cheney and the intelligent quotient increases tremendously. That is what we need from our next leader.

By whose polls do they go by?

All polls I know of are privately owned, therefore subject to manipulation.

In many ways polls are another tentacle of a “controlled press”.  The poll results however juked justify’s the beholders course of action.

You would THINK the networks, who thrive on advertising dollars would WANT to have someone that raised $20MM in the 4Q alone sitting on their stage, advertising to the viewers.

You would think that to be the case. It defies logic which is why it is so troubling.

I agree that it is VERY strange it is not being discussed by the MSM.  In the whole sea of Bhutto’s murder coverage nothing about her comment that the whole reason we are engaged with the world this way (OBL) was murdered???

Ahh look no further than John McCain for the answers:

McCain in NH: Would Be “Fine” To Keep Troops in Iraq for “A Hundred Years”

The United States military could stay in Iraq for “maybe a hundred years” and that “would be fine with me,” John McCain told two hundred or so people at a town hall meeting in Derry, New Hampshire, on Thursday evening. Toward the end of this session, which was being held shortly before the Iowa caucuses were to start, McCain was confronted by Dave Tiffany, who calls himself a “full-time antiwar activist.” In a heated exchange, Tiffany told McCain that he had looked at McCain’s campaign website and had found no indication of how long McCain was willing to keep U.S. troops in Iraq. Arguing that George W. Bush’s escalation of troops has led to a decline in U.S. casualties, McCain noted that the United States still maintains troops in South Korea and Japan. He said he had no objection to U.S. soldiers staying in Iraq for decades, “as long as Americans are not being injured, harmed or killed.”

After the event ended, I asked McCain about his “hundred years” comment, and he reaffirmed the remark, excitedly declaring that U.S. troops could be in Iraq for “a thousand years” or “a million years,” as far as he was concerned. The key matter, he explained, was whether they were being killed or not: “It’s not American presence; it’s American casualties.” U.S. troops, he continued, are stationed in South Korea, Japan, Europe, Bosnia, and elsewhere as part of a “generally accepted policy of America’s multilateralism.” There’s nothing wrong with Iraq being part of that policy, providing the government in Baghdad does not object.

In other words, McCain does not equate victory in Iraq--which he passionately urges at campaign events--with the removal of U.S. troops from that nation. After McCain told Tiffany that he could see troops remaining in Iraq for a hundred years, a reporter sitting next to me quipped, “There’s the general election campaign ad.” He meant the Democratic ad: John McCain thinks it would be okay if U.S. troops stayed in Iraq for another hundred years.....

http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2008/01/6 735_mccain_in_nh_wo.html

Ron Paul on Larry King 1-3-08 (UNAIRED VIDEO)

NOT WHAT CNN’S ZIONIST/AIPAC CONTROLLED MEDIA WANT THE AMERICAN LISTENERS TO HEAR.

RON PAUL IS NOT GOOD FOR ISRAEL, AIPAC, AND THE ZIONIST NEOCONS GOALS AND THEIR SCHEMES! 

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/20050

OK you guys, (PH or anybody)

I’m still inclined to agree that RP should have just as much an opportunity to participate in whatever the networks are preparing for the next political shindig, and from the Iowa polls posted here, RP did even better than Giuliani. (not sure what that means). So, it just seems like the public should be able to hear what he has to say, (or doesn’t say).

BUT, can somebody please help me understand how that connects to the fundraising? I’m still trying to figure that out, and it’s come up a couple of times at least, in the complaints about him not being included. So, I’m really trying to make that connection, between the fundraising, and the inclusion in the discussions. Is it the networks who decide this? And, what do they base it on?

10:10 PM EST
Precincts Reporting: 76%
Huckabee: 34%
Romney: 25%
Thompson: 14%
McCain: 13%
Paul: 10%
Giuliani: 4%
Hunter: 0%

http://www.truthout.org/Election2008.shtml

Missy,

It had my head spinning as well. We were hashing it over a couple of days ago, although admittedly, it didn’t seem to get a rise out of that many people.

And, amazingly enough, I haven’t seen it anywhere else, (including here) and DEFINITELY not on MSM.

Here’s my take. I’ve believed Osama bin Laden to be dead for a long time. Although Benazir doesn’t say or indicate, WHEN, she seems certain enough to me, of what she is saying.

The fact that NO OTHER MEDIA has picked-up on this, or chosen to run it, is the head spinning part.

Still, it’s been two days, so I’m going to check again, now..to see if it may have made it’s way to MSM by now.

Ron Paul excluded? 

Why is Ron Paul being excluded from Fox and ABC debates prior to any Primary results?  Usually the primaries serve as the vetting process which will sort out the peoples choices for candidates.  I would understand if Paul or any of the other candidates were excluded after super Tuesday when all could see the writing on the wall, but to be excluded prior to any demonstrated public appeal smacks of censorship plain and simple.

Ron Paul has a right to be in those discussions based on his record breaking fund raising and his placement in GOP straw polls around the country.

If Fox and ABC deny him air time they should have their broadcasting licenses suspended for the remainder of the election process.

I’m curious and troubled about this video on youtube. I pasted the link below. I’m interested in knowing some of your opinions about B. Bhutto stating that O. Bin Laden was murdered.  This video was posted on youtube shortly after the first attempt on her life a couple of months ago. Notice what she says beginning aroun 6:10 concerning Bin Laden.  It has my head spinning....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIO8B6fpFSQ

Throw this video into your “due diligence” routine:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaxdUPNYj2s

This describes very nicely Ron Paul’s economic viewpoint on monetary policy which is CRUCIAL to understanding his campaign particularly when compared to every other single candidate who has run in modern history.

Anyone else notice a contradiction in what is being said here?

Cyrena just wrote:

“So, that would allow him more ‘volunteers’ and maybe better supplies, so that when the ‘volunteers’ come though communities like mine, they don’t have to trash us with all of that crap, and they might even be able to request some real time, instead of sneaking in under cover of night, and plastering the place with white typing paper and duct tape, which is really hard to get off. Maybe they could even afford a ‘clean up team’ so we wouldn’t have to do it ourselves.”

Vs.

What she wrote earlier:

“ BUT, I WILL say, only because I can in fact provide my own eye witness testimony to this, that the student group that was in my own community, and on OUR CAMPUS here in November, (2 days before Thanksgiving) WAS predominantly male, and they WERE scruffy looking, (I have no idea whether or not they bathed in the public restrooms) and most of all...they DID trash our campus.”

How can both be true?

• Paul is still leading in fundraising, so why exclude him?

Robert, I’m curious about this thing with leading in fundraising. I agree that none of the candidates should be excluded, and I would note (again) that Dennis Kucinich has also been excluded (most recently from the New Hampshire caucus) but I’m not clear on what the ‘fund raising’ has to do with it.

If I understand it correctly, the ‘fundraising’ doesn’t benefit the GOP, but simply Ron Paul. It allows him to do a little bit more with his campaign, if my understanding is correct. So, that would allow him more ‘volunteers’ and maybe better supplies, so that when the ‘volunteers’ come though communities like mine, they don’t have to trash us with all of that crap, and they might even be able to request some real time, instead of sneaking in under cover of night, and plastering the place with white typing paper and duct tape, which is really hard to get off. Maybe they could even afford a ‘clean up team’ so we wouldn’t have to do it ourselves.

But, I still don’t see what that has to do with him being able to participate on ABC, (which I’ve never found to be much better than Faux Fox anyway). So, can you clue me in on how the whole ‘fundraising’ thing is connected?

I’m thinking that there could be a bit of ‘poetic justice’ in this, since despite any ‘fundraising’ Ron Paul has apparently NOT been willing or able to BUY any space or time on what we KNOW (and he has acknowledged) is a ‘private’ conglomerate. And so, while it may not seem the least bit fair, it’s also a question of how they do things, and always have. If he wants the air time, maybe he should consider paying for it. That, of course, is NOT what he wants to do, and doesn’t think he should have to. And, I see a point there, except of course, that’s how the game is played, since we’ve only ever ‘talked about’ campaign reform, and never really DONE anything about it.

So, while I have no love for the MSM, and while I certainly have problems digesting anything from Faux news, and never watch ABC either, I can’t help but think that rather than blame the corporate media, (knowing full well that’s the way they do business) why not blame the GOP, since the ‘fundraising’ should be recognized by THEM, and they should be supporting him. Since they are NOT, (and obviously WON’T) then maybe Ron Paul, (if he really DOES have a ‘different message’) should have had the guts to separate from that party that doesn’t support his bid, and run as an independent.

Surely that would be an exercise of some sort of loyalty to those who so adamantly support him. Doesn’t seem to me that he’s willing to do that. I also don’t think he’s particularly interested in restoring the same civil liberties that would be advantageous to us ALL, so that could be another reason he’s not getting the ‘play’ that you’re hoping for.

Just some thoughts, and of course I’m curious about the fund raising connection as well.

I think it is absolutely hysterical that you think that you are above any of what you just accused me of.  You have directly called me more names and thrown more insults at me than I can count.  I hate to tell you, but objectively you are not on the moral high ground here.  Anyone can go and look at the record.  I wish someone would just to bring you back to reality!

Furthermore, you haven’t done your homework and you seem to base your entire opinion of Ron Paul on the fact that folks in the JBS support him (and some lunatic white supremacy individuals who NOBODY cares about) and those horrible years you spent living in Texas. 

Meanwhile, Ron Paul is NOT even a member of the JBS! Now obviously he will speak to them and accept their support because they share common ground like following the Constitution and national sovereignty but Ron Paul will speak to anyone (Alex Jones - who you seem to like quite a bit - included). Now I am not defending the JBS because they do have a history of attracting some real freaks and back in the 60’s the KKK did use them as a front in the south, but I am also not going to PROJECT the actions and beliefs of free, independent (although misguided) individuals onto Ron Paul as you choose to do. How can you do that with any honesty???

Ron Paul has a LONG record of speeches, books, votes and stances to look at.  The sad thing is, you claim you know and understand them, but you don’t.  By the way, how is that mission you gave yourself to find where Ron Paul wants to institute “forced prayer” in schools?  Not so good huh?

You haven’t read ANY of the intellectual underpinnings of Ron Paul’s political philosophy, by your own admission.  Yet you throw out wild theories, gut feelings, intuitions, and hearsay arguments that paint him to be something he is not.  I supply his speeches. I supply third party articles. I supply books by Nobel prize winning economists.  You supply Naomi Klein!  I’m sorry, regarding The Shock Doctrine, you need to seriously rethink that thesis entirely if you want it to stick.

Explain to me how your story about Ron Paul supporters ‘invading your campus under the cover of night’ magically transformed itself into you seeing these young, white, scruffy men on campus during the day plastering stuff all over the place.  Frankly, it just looks like you are lying!  What else are we to think??

And regarding Outraged’s comments. I DID respond to it and certainly didn’t hide under a rock about it.  It is just hard to have a conversation with someone who is missing SO MUCH of the picture.  This is a case in point.

January 2, 2008 at 14:41:13

ABC Now Considering Banning Ron Paul from Debates

by Anthony Wade

http://www.opednews.com

January 2, 2008

“The last article I did produced some stir, as it dealt with the decision by Faux News to ban Ron Paul from the upcoming presidential debate in New Hampshire. Most of the responses were supportive as this is a travesty. That any news agency, let alone a fake one, would purposefully try and influence the outcome of a presidential election has to be unacceptable for all Americans.

But toward the end of the comments I was attacked for “sloppy reporting” by a Mr. Westmiller, who claimed that Paul was not being excluded from the debates at all! Well, all is fair in propaganda I guess. Not only is Paul being excluded, as I correctly reported, but ABC may also be blacklisting him as well. Here is a link for those who ought to check their sources before accusing anyone of sloppy reporting:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/31/debate.limits.a p/index.html?section=cnn_latest

ABC seems to be applying fairer standards but why can’t the American people hear all the opinions? Paul is still leading in fundraising, so why exclude him? Fox’s lame excuse is they do not have enough room in their trailer...I kid you not. An alleged media giant can only afford a trailer that fits five candidates comfortably. They have enough room for Fred “I don’t really want to be here” Thompson, who has been in for a month and has done NOTHING, but not for the top fundraiser in the pack.

We all know why there is such bias against Dr. Paul. It is because he represents something other than the script the other guys will be reading off of. He would have been the only GOP hopeful talking about NOT blowing up the world, true fiscal discipline, and restoring civil liberties. Can’t have that on Fox where they pretend to report, but they have already decided. Instead now we will be regaled with tales from the five would be tyrants who all believe they can more efficiently bomb Iran. They will spin yarns about how we need them to protect us and how the democrats are all spineless wimps because they do not lockstep to the war drumbeats and thrashing of our civil liberties. Most important to Fox News of course, is that they get to present their view of the Republican Party unblemished. They get to present the neocon vision as the only articulated platform for the GOP. No more uncomfortable post-debate polls showing how Ron Paul handily defeated their host of war-mongering candidates. Sean Hannity will not have to exclaim how Paul backers somehow rigged a poll. Fox gets to draw the sharp delineation they have been seeking. It is either the big brave republicans or the wimpy ole democrats. Nothing in the middle folks, nope, nothing to see here. Move along and cast your vote for one of our pre-selected candidates. 

I guess some might be confused as to why ABC has hopped along the un-American express? I mean, everyone knows Fox is biased but ABC is “mainstream”, right? WRONG. The corporate media is the corporate media. The true damage Fox does is to make other corporate media appear more central, when they are in fact just as in bed with the machine as Fox. ABC might cave quicker to pressure though.”

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_anthony__08010 2_abc_now_considering_.htm

Thanks Nom, for pointing that out for me.  However, I read yesterday that abc and Fox will not have Ron Paul and several other candidates for televised debates.  What’s up?

Nomascerdo,

I am responding to this ONLY because it provides such an excellent example of your perfidy and consistent reliance on negative and combative ATTACK politics. In simple language, what you are selling is SO bad, that you have to consistently attempt to make anything or anyone else LOOK BAD, in order to make yourself or whatever it is that you’re trying to sell – LOOK GOOD! It’s a tactic that is older than god, and it NEVER works…at least not for long. It also requires an assumption that your audience is as petty and shallow as you are yourself, and equally willing to sign-on to negative and combative bullshit, to hide the dirt underneath. In short, if you can attack someone else, on anything at all, regardless of its significance to the real issues, then that (you assume) will distract from the fundamental weaknesses of your own petty arguments.

The most recent example of this is your comment here, about ‘somebody’ saying that they “LIKED” McCain. Well guess what? I’ve read through this entire blog –again- (knowing full well what your snide reference was to) and I couldn’t find ANY mention here or elsewhere, of ANYONE claiming to ‘like’ McCain.

In REALITY, I myself suggested him as being THE LEAST OF THE EVILS, in respect to the current repuglican candidates for the 2008 Presidential election. In saying that, my reference was CLEARLY framed and stated in terms of the least of what I’ve already said, (on numerous occasions) to be a really sorry bunch, and that’s putting it mildly, and as diplomatically as I can. I FURTHER clarified that it was a response to those who simply couldn’t see their way to voting for a democratic candidate, where there is at least a semi-decent choice.

Furthermore, I did not base my statement on any extensive review of McCain’s positions, because I don’t LIKE him better than anybody else in that gang. I said it based on what I have known of his PAST, and some of the behavior in his long ago past political life. And here again, based on that, I explained that he would probably be the least DESTRUCTIVE among the sorry choices.

Now of course doing that is not much different than attempting to prove a negative, which can’t be done. So, I could just as well haven’t bothered at all. And SINCE then, (based on an article on McCain that I DID read – yesterday) I can no longer even make a guess at who –among the repugs- who be the ‘least of the evils’ because McCain has now proven himself, (and he may have long ago, except that I haven’t kept up with him) to be as much of a whack job as Ron Paul. I was amazed to discover that he actually believes in the mythical NAFTA Superhighway. That said, he belongs in the same facility for the insane as the rest of you do.

However, my point here was to address your heinous tactics in twisting/turning and obfuscating the words of others into whatever suits your own diabolical agenda. And, it’s always only a matter of time, before you self-destruct, because at some point, intelligent people see through it.

It doesn’t go unnoted that you attempted a snide swipe at ME, on this very petty issue, while TOTALLY ignoring the very reasoned response from Outraged, to some of your previous nonsense. That’s because ultimately, you run and hide whenever you’re called out on so much of the crap that you put forth, because NONE of it stands up to any in-depth examination. You just throw shit out there, and hope some of it will stick.

It’s pathetic, and so are you.

GW=MCHammered
• And if you’re going to call into question Ron Paul’s sincerity, please be an equal candidate-sincerity-doubter and question all others too.

McHammered,
I think this is a fair enough request. Indeed, I am highly critical of Ron Paul’s sincerity, and I think he’s lying through all sides of his mouth. (intentionally or otherwise) STILL, we should all be equally critical of the sincerity of all other candidates. And, most specifically, HOW THEY INTEND to achieve their agenda’s.

It’s one thing to post and postulate on these ‘principles’ and ideals of ‘less’ government, but what does it really mean, and how does he intend to achieve it, and to what REALISTIC end? And yes, the same should be directed to all candidates.
So, I’m going to read MORE of the Ron Paul stuff, just to satisfy myself, that he is as much at the end of that Yellow Brick Road as the OTHER FICTIOUS OZ in the story as I’ve always known, having already ‘lived’ the nightmare’ that he proposes.
So, I KNOW what he proposes, and I KNOW how easy it would be to buy into, until one looks below the surface of it, and considers the HOW, and what the repercussions would be.

To that end, I will check the site that you’ve posted. I’ve been through his campaign site, and it was not impressive. This one may be more forthcoming.

You also wrote this:
• Frankly, I’m sick of living in this lying foreign country under dictator rule embarrassingly of the same title as our forefathers, The United States of America.

In all honesty and sincerity, don’t you suspect that MOST of us – here on this site, as well as the majority of the American population – DON’T FEEL THIS VERY SAME WAY?

I would argue that we DO! I would argue that we are nearly ALL pretty desperately fed up with what this nation has fallen to, and how ‘we the people’ have been collective tossed over the proverbial cliff, and into an abyss that has already consumed us, and threatens to destroy us entirely. I don’t believe you’ll get much of an argument on that, from the average person, who can think and/or reason, even with a mind that doesn’t operate at full capacity.
I would ALSO argue that BECAUSE of our overwhelming desperation (and the Shock Doctrine that Naomi Klein articulates so well in her work http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/122807J.shtml) far too many of us have becoming willing to grasp at straws, in a very myopic sort of way, based on what we somehow perceive will be ‘the answer to it all’. In doing that, we fail to look at, or consider the damage that can (and will) occur in the process. For instance, you stick your finger in the broken –whatever- to stop or plug THAT leak, and the pressure creates ANOTHER leak, which could become even larger than the one preceding it. This is what I see happening to us, and it has been, for a long time now.

It is fine to drag out concepts such as Libertarianism, (I’ve studied it, along with the others) because…ON IT’S FACE, it may seem as acceptable as anything else, especially when we see that whatever we’ve been using, (or claiming to use) has produced such a disaster. Looking below the surface, which is critical, can and idealistically SHOULD, force us to visualize the inherent problems/drawbacks, to any ‘solutions’ that might be considered.

Sometimes, (most times) it will involve recognizing that nearly ALL ‘solutions’ have these drawbacks, and at that point, it requires some prioritization, for determining whether or not these are surmountable issues, or if they are likely to inevitably crush the entire project.

In principle, I generally agree that LESS is better. However, that can (and should be) conceived from a multiple of perspectives. The dichotomy that I personally see in the Ron Paul agenda, is that it requires BREAKING DOWN the entire system, (Constitution included) far more than it is focused on getting back to those same fundamentals.

I don’t believe that we need to re-create the wheel. We need only repair it.

By GW=MCHammered,
• And if you’re going to call into question Ron Paul’s sincerity, please be an equal candidate-sincerity-doubter and question all others too.

McHammered,
I think this is a fair enough request. Indeed, I am highly critical of Ron Paul’s sincerity, and I think he’s lying through all sides of his mouth. (intentionally or otherwise) STILL, we should all be equally critical of the sincerity of all other candidates. And, most specifically, HOW THEY INTEND to achieve their agenda’s.

It’s one thing to post and postulate on these ‘principles’ and ideals of ‘less’ government, but what does it really mean, and how does he intend to achieve it, and to what REALISTIC end? And yes, the same should be directed to all candidates.
So, I’m going to read MORE of the Ron Paul stuff, just to satisfy myself, that he is as much at the end of that Yellow Brick Road as the OTHER FICTIOUS OZ in the story as I’ve always known, having already ‘lived’ the nightmare’ that he proposes.
So, I KNOW what he proposes, and I KNOW how easy it would be to buy into, until one looks below the surface of it, and considers the HOW, and what the repercussions would be.

To that end, I will check the site that you’ve posted. I’ve been through his campaign site, and it was not impressive. This one may be more forthcoming.

You also wrote this:
• Frankly, I’m sick of living in this lying foreign country under dictator rule embarrassingly of the same title as our forefathers, The United States of America.

In all honesty and sincerity, don’t you suspect that MOST of us – here on this site, as well as the majority of the American population – DON’T FEEL THIS VERY SAME WAY?

I would argue that we DO! I would argue that we are nearly ALL pretty desperately fed up with what this nation has fallen to, and how ‘we the people’ have been collective tossed over the proverbial cliff, and into an abyss that has already consumed us, and threatens to destroy us entirely. I don’t believe you’ll get much of an argument on that, from the average person, who can think and/or reason, even with a mind that doesn’t operate at full capacity.
I would ALSO argue that BECAUSE of our overwhelming desperation (and the Shock Doctrine that Naomi Klein articulates so well in her work http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/122807J.shtml) far too many of us have becoming willing to grasp

I agree.

The Israeli Factor: Ranking the Presidential Candidates

Rudy Giuliani
The former New York mayor returned a $10 million donation from a Saudi prince after 9/11 following his comments on Israel. LAST MONTH’S SCORE: 8.75

Democrat
Hillary Clinton
The Senator for New York and former First Lady supports moving the American embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. LAST MONTH’S SCORE: 7.375

Independent
Michael Bloomberg
Backed Israel in the war; said it ‘continues to defend itself from unprovoked attacks on innocent civilians.’ LAST MONTH’ S SCORE: 7.625

Republican
John McCain
The Arizona Senator believes America must give Israel whatever equipment and technology it needs for defense. LAST MONTH’S SCORE: 7.5

Democrat
Bill Richardson
The Governor of New Mexico maintains that U.S. commitment to the security of Israel is not a negotiable issue. LAST MONTH’S SCORE: 6.875

Republican
Fred Thompson
Condemned Hamas for children’s website of ‘hateful fanaticism’, favors aiding Iranians overthrow their government. LAST MONTH’S SCORE: 6.875

Republican
Mitt Romney
Opposed Khatami’s recent U.S. trip, saying taxpayers shouldn’t fund a man ‘who supports the destruction of Israel.’ LAST MONTH’S SCORE: 6.5

Republican
Mike Huckabee
The Governor of Arkansas has made nine visits to Israel, including a trip to the Yad Vashem Holocaust Museum. LAST MONTH’S SCORE: 6.75

Democrat
John Edwards
The former senator for North Carolina has said that Iran poses an enormous threat to Israel and to the Israeli people. LAST MONTH’S SCORE: 6

Democrat
Joseph Biden
The Delaware Senator says cannot expect Israel to negotiate with Hamas, which calls for its destruction. LAST MONTH’S SCORE: 6

Democrat
Christopher Dodd
The Senator for Connecticut addressed AIPAC in March 2006 on a nuclear Iran and the Hamas government. LAST MONTH’S SCORE: 5.75

Democrat
Barack Obama
The Senator for Illinois made his first visit to Israel in January 2006, where he visited the north and toured the fence. LAST MONTH’S SCORE: 5.25

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/rosnerPage.jhtml

While all the while making up some ludicrous argument that Ron Paul is a ‘religious nut’?

What a JOKE!

This ‘somebody’ has clearly never seen McCain giving speeches to his friends over at John Hagee’s mega-church (the same one Huckabee gave a sermon at last weekend). 

Do some research on McCain and Lieberman’s support for the nice folks over at Cornerstone Church.  Pay particular attention to the “Christians United For Israel” movement that springs from that well.

Bill Moyers did a couple of stories on Hagee and CUFI and McCain and Lieberman’s involvement therein on his show on Bill Moyers’ Journal.

Watch videos of these people and listen to what they say.  Then go watch a video of Ron Paul

Then wake the F up!

I don’t disagree with what you are saying. I DO disagree with the Federal government getting involved in it.  These are local issues that can and should adequately be handled locally.

Kids tease and taunt each other, period. If it wasn’t you and prayer, it would have been someone else for some other reason.  Your teacher, principle, parents, or whomever was the authority should have dealt with the situation.  It is a shame that they didn’t or couldn’t.  That said, their having shortcomings does not mean the FEDERAL government should be getting involved where it has no authority.

Anyhow, look on the brightside… the experience made you an atheist and you seem to be very happy about it. Imagine if you were still trapped in medieval times!?

Back to the subject. 

RP says we should not stick our nose in Pakistans internal affairs and by the same token, get out of Iraq and Afghanistan...right away!

Who here does not agree with this theory and why?

Seriously, start by reading Hayek’s ‘Road to Serfdom’ and you will have a much more informed understanding of the history of socialism and capitalism and human achievement.  It was written in 1944 when all of these movements were more clearly understood.

How you consistently disconnect WE THE PEOPLE from business is mind-numbing.  We the people ARE the economy. We ARE business.

Small businesses account for the LARGEST source of employment in this country.

Guess who is next?  The Federal government!

Now explain to me why you would rather have more Federal government and less small business owners in this country because that is exactly what you are asking for?

By the way, I have an economics degree from a 4 year liberal university and was NEVER taught Austrian economics while in college all those years ago.  That said, I have studied most of the dominant schools of thought.  My focus was on developmental economics. 

How much have you studied / read?

Worth a read:

http://www.counterpunch.org/taylor01022008.html

Jeff Taylor is a political scientist. His book Where Did the Party Go?: William Jennings Bryan, Hubert Humphrey, and the Jeffersonian Legacy was published last year by University of Missouri Press. He contributed a chapter to the book A Dime’s Worth of Difference (Cockburn and St. Clair, eds.).

Outraged, if I was still Catholic, I’d say that you have the patience of a saint. Maybe I should say it anyway.

Seriously, I can’t even read the stuff any more. I just whiz right by it till I get to a new name.  But, a few things caught my eye in your response.

• You also claim that there is “unnecessary testing and procedures”, can you give an example?

My experience, (in TX) is that it’s really the EXACT OPPOSITE. Even WITH insurance, one must literally BEG (the patient that is) for a diagnostic test or procedure, to determine why you might be bleeding from the nose or ears on a regular basis, or why you’ve become paralyzed from the hips down, or why that extra $5.00 for the blood test that can check for ovarian tumors, is such a huge problem.  (It’s a CA 125, I found that out the hard way). Would common sense dictate that these EARLY DECTION tests would save considerable money, (not to mention lives) down the road. Well yeah, common sense would. Did you see “Sicko” by the way?

Trust me…this is standard operating procedure for most TX health care facilities. Ya gotta be a doctor or know one, to know what tests to beg for. Even then, your chances are only about 50/50 of successfully begging one’s case for such a test or procedure to be administered.

Did I mention, that’s if you HAVE insurance?

• Really....because if you look at what medicare and medicaid ACTUALLY PAY OUT for each service, you will see that it’s LESS than what the doctor’s usual fee is.

BINGO!! Matter-of-fact, it’s less, and less, and less, every single year in the past 10. If medicare paid 350$ on a colonoscopy (recommended by all…er…most physicians, for everyone over the age of 50) say 8 years ago, they now pay about $75.00 TOPS, (and that depends on what State it is). The docs absorb the rest, or leave the patient without the necessary medical care, if they don’t have another 1 or 2 payers.

I have medicare plus another one, and I still have an out of pocket balance, and that’s AFTER premiums on both. When I had NO insurance, I had NO medical care. Employers have provided less and less over the past 15 or so years. Forced retirement before age 67? SOL. At least that was the case with me. Now of course, the court has backed up that ruling recently. At 65, (right when you’re inclined to need them MORE) benefits evaporate. (if they hadn’t already).

BUT, I don’t think that’s why RP is against it, because it’s highly unlikely that he does anything more than deliver babies, and it’s probably been 20 years for that. Then again, I could be wrong. Maybe he has an office in the basement of the Capitol Bldg.

• So there again, RP is misleading the masses with your help.  You must be proud.

Humm, I’m just wondering if this is another one of those questionable sorts of things like the masses being duped, because the messenger might be doped..er..I mean, duped.

Anyway, you definitely deserve your sainthood. I’ll try to follow your role-model. No promises though.

Nomascerdo Dec 31, part 1

Of course most people would have understood that I was not linking “the fever epidemic” to laisse-faire capitalism.  (How stupid is that?) Did you follow the link and read any of the autobiography?  It would have been readily apparent that it was the conditions it created FOR THE PEOPLE whose rights and needs were consistently undermined by the strong arm tactics of business and police (who mainly protected business interests).

In your whole explanation of laisse-faire capitalism you conveniently disregard the citizens of America.  You seem to have this notion that if we protect business all the citizens will be fine.  There is very little logic in your argument.  A well thought out socio-economic system should benefit both business and citizens.  You never seem to address the citizen side of the argument.  It’s as if you have this supposed “enlightened” view of Austrian Economics and complete disregard for any other system.  Have you investigated many economic systems or just this one?  You claim this great enamour for the Austrian Economic of Hayek..etc. but I’ve yet to read how you’ve included the citizenry in the “benefits”.  Don’t they count as well?  The facts are that laisse-faire capitalism hurts the citizens short and long term, makes a few rich and powerful and leads to corruption in government.  That has already been PROVEN by our history as well as England’s as regards laisse-faire capitalism.

Since GW’s time in office he has, along with the his supporters in congress, consistently relaxed regulation in favor of business interests.  This has not made us stronger as a nation, in fact it has made us weaker.  In the world we are already one of the least regulated countries for business interests.  If I remember correctly we are in the top five.  Your inordinate concern for MORE deregulation of business just doesn’t hold water.

You statement concerning health care: “The third party payer system is anti-competition because it has the perverse effect of driving prices up in the marketplace.  The maximum is always charged and due to fear of litigation, unnecessary testing and procedures are always needlessly deployed to avoid liability.  Getting the government involved further will only distort the system more. If the government is paying, there is NO incentive to keep costs low and therefore they will simply go higher.”

What you are endorsing is what we already have today with exception of tax credits.  RP on health-care:
“The lesson is clear: when government and other third parties get involved, health care costs spiral. The answer is not a system of outright socialized medicine, but rather a system that encourages everyone – doctors, hospitals, patients, and drug companies – to keep costs down. As long as “somebody else” is paying the bill, the bill will be too high.”

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul339.html

In our current system you are ALREADY responsible for the bill, every time you go to a new clinic, doctor or hospital you are ultimately RESPONSIBLE for the bill.  Obviously this “strategy” doesn’t work.  In addition, having your own private insurance IS a third party payer system, what makes you think it’s not?

Nomascerdo Dec 31, part 2

RP’s HR3075 says: “With many families now spending close to $1000 or even more for their monthly premiums, they need real tax relief – including a dollar-for-dollar credit for every cent they spend on health care premiums – to make medical care more affordable.”

How will this help those WHO CAN’T AFFORD HEALTH CARE?  This in fact will help only those who CAN afford health-care, with a dollar for dollar REIMBURSEMENT.  The translation is, if you can’t afford it in the first place, this will do nothing to help you.

You also claim that there is “unnecessary testing and procedures”, can you give an example?

Your claim: “Getting the government involved further will only distort the system more.” Really....because if you look at what medicare and medicaid ACTUALLY PAY OUT for each service, you will see that it’s LESS than what the doctor’s usual fee is.  Maybe that’s why RP doesn’t like it.  Your claim is inaccurate.

As far as your seriously flawed “facts” regarding education I believe we’ve already “hashed over” that point.  As it is, DISTRICTS AND STATES decide upon curricula, NOT the fed.  So there again, RP is misleading the masses with your help.  You must be proud.

Correction,

It wasn’t final exams week here, it was the week of the Thanksgiving break. It was final exams week at UCLA, (at least according to my nephew)

Somehow, I thought you might say that PH.

I was even expecting it. Thing is, I SAW THEM MYSELF, (later, as they did the ‘rally’ outside the campus, and they were NOT our students.

Our students were the ones who ended up cleaning up the mess on campus. So no, it wasn’t them.

Actually, the same thing occured at the UCLA campus, though I didn’t witness it. My nephew told me about it, and I’m extra paranoid these days, about making absolutely certain, that all of the kids are diligent in reporting ONLY what they witness themselves, WITHOUT EMBELLISHMENT. (actually, we’ve been training them to think that way for a long time).

We don’t like to hear the he said, she said stuff, and we don’t like to make ‘assumptions’ like...’well, it was “probably” blah, blah, blah. “Probably” just doesn’t cut it on most things these days, so we require facts based on observations.

And, when we use ‘hearsay’ information, we make sure that it is designated as such.

I’ll agree that you’re correct that a considerable amount of the funds for his campaign MAY have come from California, at least the initial seed stuff, prior to his internet haul. (it’s kind of difficult to know WHERE that part came from). But of course that brings us back to that favorite group of the JBS here, that you don’t like to talk about. Now, THEY -do- have a lot of money.

But no, this particular group didn’t include our students, and these individuals didn’t even ‘look’ like the standard, ‘scuffy’ students, which is why they were so noticeable. The incident here occurred during final exam week, so that’s yet another reason why they pretty much stood out.

So on this one, we can’t really call it anything different than it was.

With the article in the Des Moines newspaper, we can try to throw it off on the journalist. (I can’t remember if that was a ‘local’ journalist or not). But, the deal here was what it was.

You said in a prior post that the Ron Paul supporters came ‘under the cover of night’ and plastered Ron Paul posters all over campus while all the decent people were sleeping.  The campus awoke in the morning to seeing Ron Paul stuff everywhere.  You even said, the Ron Paul supporters didn’t have the decency to do their activity in the daylight.

So if they came in the middle of the night, as you have said in a prior post, how do you now that they were “predominantly male, and they WERE scruffy looking”?

I mean read this line from the article and think about what it means and think about the fact that this is what Time chose to publish:

“When told about the dispute, a top strategist for a rival GOP campaign said of the scruffy Paul forces: “They probably bathe in there.”

A) When “TOLD” about the dispute - so now this is at least a second hand, but most likely a fourth or fifth hand account of this “dispute”.

B) They asked a ‘top strategist for a RIVAL GOP campaign’ - Nice unbiased source Time.  What do we think this person would say?  “Paul supporters are nice and clean shaven. If I wasn’t working for Mitt Romney I would go bowling with them on Friday nights.”

C) “...said of the SCRUFFY Paul FORCES” Ahh just more of the same.

Anyone that read this magazine and actually lets it influence the way that they think and look at the world, besides recognizing it for the packaged agenda that it is should step away from the voting booth.

It was likely caused by students of that same campus (besides you), as most of the money and support for the RP campaign come from California.

Ahh yes, Time magazine who for Person of the Year has had such wonderful human beings such as Hitler, Stalin (twice), and this year chose Vladimir Putin.

This article is a joke and the hypocrisy is insane. Hasn’t the “establishment” said the same petty and highly subjective things about ALL protest groups over history (anti-war, civil rights, etc)? 

The transparent attempt is to make folks who agree with his positions second guess because they don’t want to be “associated” with “those types of people”.  It is a tactic cleverly employed by the media to keep those too lazy or unable to find out for themselves (most of us) from taking the next step.  It is a fear tactic, without a doubt.

Ask yourself why doesn’t Time supply some photographs of these ‘dirty Ron Paul’ supporters (who are all volunteers and probably have nothing to do with the official campaign).  If there are so many of them and they are so repugnant it should be easy to document them no?

All of the pictures I have seen of Paul supporters online show regular looking folks to me, of all colors, shapes and sizes, styles of dress, etc.

Missy,

If you expect to agree 100% with a Presidential candidate then you are bound to be disappointed. Further, if you listen to the full answer that Ron Paul gave, instead of the edited video Truthdig supplied, the answer he gave might be more acceptable to your sensibilities.

The video below is only 20-30 seconds longer, but at least you will get to see what he actually said and not only what the folks at The Largest Minority and Truthdig decide you should see: 

http://youtube.com/watch?v=42n42J-gB_Y

I personally don’t see any conflict between the incredibly positive and unique aspects of Ron Paul’s worldview, as you put it, and his personal belief regarding evolution, especially since it will literally have nothing to do with his role as President of the United States.

Ron Paul’s desire is to pare back and LIMIT the influence of the Federal Government in all matters, religious, scientific, education, overseas etc.  He most certainly is not interested in using the power of the White House to further his religious agenda. Read his speeches on the subject and it is very clear.  Get the feds OUT of interfering with issues where it has no authority to do so.

The anti-Ron Paul people, who by the way are the very money powerful interests that you are upset about, are trying to find anything they can to discredit him.  On the neo-con side, they literally laugh at his sensible foreign policy.  On the neo-liberal side, they try to paint him as a religious nut who is a nazi racist that hates women and wants to bring back segregation and force prayer in school etc.  It is all complete b.s.

I found this site yesterday and it is filled with info you might find useful:  http://thereconstitutionrevolution.blogspot.com/2007/0 7/defense-of-ron-pauls-voting-record-in.html

Whether you agree with me or not, one has to know that the elections are definately rigged....and like a child, I got excited when I heard Ron Paul speaking about his worldview.  I could hardly believe my ears!  wishful thinking.  But when I recently heard his stance on evolution, I came back down to earth.  Democracy is a farce in our country.  Our presidents are put in place by the big money holders, and are political zeitgeist of “believe in god” is not going away.  How sad.

You may have a point there PH. That’s why I didn’t add anything to it. It was from Time Magazine on line.

BUT, I WILL say, only because I can in fact provide my own eye witness testimony to this, that the student group that was in my own community, and on OUR CAMPUS here in November, (2 days before Thanksgiving) WAS predominantly male, and they WERE scruffy looking, (I have no idea whether or not they bathed in the public restrooms) and most of all...they DID trash our campus.

Now, that part is just fact, and I will admit, that it left a very unfavorable impression on me. Granted, I didn’t much like him before that, (as we know) and I’m not denying that. BUT, their ‘appearance’ here, definitely put the dimmest of lights on them, not just for me, but for most anyone else, who might have been as yet undecided, or not even AWARE, (at least at the time) of who Ron Paul even was.

Here again, I’m just passing along a set of circumstances. I wasn’t in Iowa, so I can’t speak to that.

- Their article while embellishing Huckabees campaign workers “ polite young women with southern accents” and cordial, describes the Ron Paul supporters as edgy, predomintly male, scruffy who gaggle, heckle and bathe in public restrooms.

Read between the lines.

I wouldn’t call this an article as much as an anti-Ron Paul editorial by a corporate hack.  I guess the much larger campaign staff with out of state student volenteers (266, whose number they pulled out of their ass) has got the MSM and powers that be nervous, first they ignore you, then they try to discredit you......

I’m sure we would have heard about it on TV but Huckabee was too busy smearing Mitt and vice versa, even negative press keeps your name in the spotlight.

This from Time Mag. Had to leave out a few passages to stay within the 4000 word limit. The link is included though.  Sponsored by the Religious Pages section.

The Article:

The corner of Sixth and Locust is probably the tensest spot in downtown Des Moines. And the frostiness has little to do with the subfreezing Midwestern winter and everything to do with presidential politics. For housed alongside each other on the bottom floor of a 73-year-old office building at 405 Sixth Avenue-and sharing the bathrooms in the basement— are the Iowa headquarters of former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee and Texas Congressman Ron Paul.

Both Republican candidates — one the most socially conservative in the race; the other, a Libertarian — moved in around the same time last summer.

• (* I would argue this description – vehemently, as RP is as ‘socially conservation as Huckabee – Libertarianism aside)

“…I could sense the different metabolisms of the two operations. The Huckabee headquarters,.. is populated mostly by polite young women with southern accents who rushed to greet me at the door and addressed me as “ma’am.” The Paul office is an edgier place, an all-male operation by appearances, and much bigger. Indeed, thanks to the millions that have poured in over the internet, it has expanded to quadruple its original size, practically swallowing Huckabee’s headquarters —"We’ve got them surrounded,” says Paul’s Iowa communications director, John Zambenini.

The two insurgent operations generally try to have as little to do with each other as possible. Paul’s people go in and out on Sixth; Huckabee’s, on Locust. “I don’t think we’ve exchanged many words at all,” says Huckabee’s Iowa campaign manager Eric Woolson. You might have thought the holidays would have brought some occasion for communal cheer, or at least an exchange of cookies. “You’re looking for the Silent Night 1914 story, with the Germans and the British playing soccer?” Zambenini told me when I suggested as much. “Nope.”

That much was clear on New Year’s Eve. After Huckabee was forced to abruptly end his press conference at which he announced that he would not air a negative ad attacking Mitt Romney but showed it to the assembled media, he left the room in the Des Moines Marriott to do a drop-by visit of his campaign headquarters across the street. He was met there by a gaggle of Paul supporters and peace protesters who surrounded the office and heckled the candidate for his support for the war in Iraq. MSNBC reported that three were arrested.

It hasn’t helped matters that earlier this month the Paul campaign paid for two former Republican legislators from Huckabee’s home state of Arkansas to come to Iowa and give radio interviews attacking his record on such issues as taxes and immigration…

Then again, there are times when they can’t help but run into each other. Just about everyone from both offices eats lunch at Coney Island, a second-floor diner known for its pork loin. And there’s the men’s room, of course. A Paul volunteer recently ran into Huckabee himself there, and found him to be cordial. But there is some quiet grumbling from Huckabee’s team about Paul’s people using up all the paper towels. When told about the dispute, a top strategist for a rival GOP campaign said of the scruffy Paul forces: “They probably bathe in there.”

And there was one other violation of the generally accepted protocol of peaceful if uneasy coexistence — possibly as a consequence of the recent influx of 266 student volunteers for Paul from 39 states, in what the campaign calls “Ron Paul’s Christmas Vacation.” As can happen with students on break, they sometimes go overboard in their exuberance. One of them came into the Huckabee offices the other day and started haranguing a worker there about Huckabee’s support for a national sales tax. He was asked to leave.

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,16991 47,00.html?xid=rss-topstories

May 28, 2001 The Federal Education Morass

After more than 40 years of massive fed education spending, the inescapable conclusion is that federal control is failing. By any objective standards, our public schools are worse than ever. Policies regarding curricula and discipline, once set by local teachers and principals working closely with parents, are now established in WashDC.
Politically correct sensitivity training substitutes for rigorous coursework in liberal arts or practical vocations. Children learn phony self-esteem, rather than the importance of productive achievement. Teachers are prohibited from maintaining discipline. As a