Would you vote for Ron Paul if given the opportunity?
Yes
41%
[ 12 ]
Perhaps
27%
[ 8 ]
No
31%
[ 9 ]
Voted : 29
Total Votes : 29
Author
Message
Big Brother
Administrator
Post #41614
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Posts: 3015
Total Words: 1,173,420
Average words per post: 389.19
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Thu 2007-05-03 07:42
Politics: Libertarian-Syndicalist
Country: American Empire
President Ron Paul
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
Here's a few words from the next President of the United States.
Well, ok... he probably has a snowball's chance in hell of getting the Republican nomination. But I can dream, can't I? In any case, since his views are so close to my own, his campaign is of particular interest to me. I intend to follow his campaign closely (for as long as it lasts), so I thought I’d start a new thread to keep track of his progress.
To start the thread off, I've compiled a small collection of video clips. It appears that Ron Paul is a big fan of YouTube, so there are a lot of videos to be found. You can go HERE to see Ron Paul's own personal YouTube page.
To start off, here is an interview he gave in a small college dorm room to a young blogger.
_________________ "The Aim of an Argument ... should not be victory, but progress." - Joseph Joubert (1754-1824)
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful." - Seneca the Younger
"It is often argued that religion is valuable because it makes men good, but even if this were true it would not be a proof that religion is true. That would be an extension of pragmatism beyond endurance. Santa Claus makes children good in precisely the same way, and yet no one would argue seriously that the fact proves his existence. The defense of religion is full of such logical imbecilities." - H. L. Mencken
Last edited by Big Brother on Wed 2007-05-09 15:53; edited 1 time in total
Post #41624
Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Thu 2007-05-03 12:12
Politics: Democratic Socialist
Country: Confederate States of America (C.S.A.)
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
Quote:
And last but not least, a modified version of the "Apple 1984" commercial created by a Ron Paul supporter.
Great parody!
Some information on Ron Paul:
From Wonderful Irrestible Krazy Intellect
Ronald Ernest “Ron” Paul (born 20 August 1935) is a 10-term Congressman, medical doctor (M.D.) and two-time and current presidential candidate from the U.S. state of Texas. As a Republican, he has represented Texas's 14th congressional district in the U.S. House of Representatives since 1997, and had previously served as the representative from Texas's 22nd district in 1976 and from 1979 to 1985.
Congressman Ron Paul advocates individual liberty, limited government, low taxes, free markets, and a return to monetary policies based on commodity-backed currency. He has earned the nickname "Dr. No" for voting against any bill he believes violates the Constitution. In the words of former Treasury Secretary William Simon, Dr. Paul is the "one exception to the Gang of 535" on Capitol Hill. He has never voted to raise taxes or congressional pay, and voted against the Patriot Act and the Iraq war.
In Ron Paul Exposed, the video maker says that he believed 911 conspiracy theories.
But there IS some horrible logic:
"Why do so many of his followers believe in 911 conspiracies? Why? Because HE BELIEVES IT TOO!!!"
In this second video, he says that "Environmentalists follow Al Gore because of their views coincide. So if his supporters like 911 conspiracies, then..."
I found that last one interesting because it shows that it is possible for a libertarian like Ron Paul to get the support of bible-thumping fundies. This is something that make me wonder if Paul might actually have a chance. I haven't heard him describe his personal religious views yet, but I can tell that he definitely is not a fundie. I've heard him describe organized religion as a sort of opiate of the masses (although not in so many words). However, his pro-liberty stance does lead to strong "Freedom of Religion" positions which seem to be strong enough to placate the fundies (without all the messy neocon theocracy).
Even though he is not an evangelical Christian himself, he has somehow managed to get himself elected (and re-elected, and re-re-elected) in a Texan bible-belt district. That takes skill.
The best part of this whole thing is that Ron Paul is a 3rd party candidate running in a major party primary. If he can manage to secure the Republican nomination, he might actually have a fighting chance at the White House (or at least, more of a chance than if he ran as a 3rd party Libertarian).
In Ron Paul Exposed, the video maker says that he believed 911 conspiracy theories.
But there IS some horrible logic:
"Why do so many of his followers believe in 911 conspiracies? Why? Because HE BELIEVES IT TOO!!!"
Nice. He's becoming popular enough to warrant attacks. Sweet. And if the best argument against him is that he doesn't trust the government, I don't think that is going win many people over.
From what I can tell, Ron Paul is just about as much of a conspiracy nut as I am. He is skeptical of many government actions (such as the "Gulf of Tonkin" incident). And while he himself doesn't seem to believe that the Neocons personally masterminded 9/11, he does seem convinced (as many people are) that the Neocons deceptively used the tragedy as an excuse to take actions that they had been planning for years. The Neocons prayed for a "new Pearl Harbor", and got their wish.
In any case, even if he was a conspiracy theory nut, what is the worst thing that could happen if he made it into the White House? If a conspiracy was true, he would expose it. If it wasn't true, he would have enough popularity with the tin-foil hat crowd to convince at least some of them that they are wrong. It sounds like a win-win to me.
Comrade Chairman wrote:
In this second video, he says that "Environmentalists follow Al Gore because of their views coincide. So if his supporters like 911 conspiracies, then..."
Since you brought up "environmental issues", I feel I should mention that Ron Paul is skeptical Global Warming. Another 2 points scored by Paul. _________________ "The Aim of an Argument ... should not be victory, but progress." - Joseph Joubert (1754-1824)
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful." - Seneca the Younger
"It is often argued that religion is valuable because it makes men good, but even if this were true it would not be a proof that religion is true. That would be an extension of pragmatism beyond endurance. Santa Claus makes children good in precisely the same way, and yet no one would argue seriously that the fact proves his existence. The defense of religion is full of such logical imbecilities." - H. L. Mencken
The first debate among the candidates for the Republican nomination for president will take place Thursday, May 3rd, at 8:00 pm EDT. Congressman Ron Paul will be on stage standing between Senator John McCain and Rudy Giuliani. The 90-minute debate will be broadcast live on MSNBC, and streamed live on politico.com. The Ronald Reagan Presidential Library will host the event.
_________________ "The Aim of an Argument ... should not be victory, but progress." - Joseph Joubert (1754-1824)
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful." - Seneca the Younger
"It is often argued that religion is valuable because it makes men good, but even if this were true it would not be a proof that religion is true. That would be an extension of pragmatism beyond endurance. Santa Claus makes children good in precisely the same way, and yet no one would argue seriously that the fact proves his existence. The defense of religion is full of such logical imbecilities." - H. L. Mencken
Post #41686
Joined: 04 Feb 2006
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Fri 2007-05-04 11:34
Politics: Libertarian
Country: American Empire
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
Any one who is 1. anti-murdering foreigners and 2. pro-Constitutional governance has to support Ron Paul regardless of their economic stance.
Ron Paul at the debate laying it down more than any pussy Democrat
Ron Paul leading polls:
____________
Anyone who watched the debate would see that 3 of the Republican candidates DID NOT believe in evoluton, nearly all opposed abortion, all invoked God and made biblical references ("city on the hill" repeated several times), McCain got to tell us how the Grand Canyon and a sunset are a work of God, YET they are beating war drums to attack Iran and kill more Iraqis. We have McCain pounding his fist like Hitler...
Hello, fifth commandment, turn the other cheek, hello? Where does it say, "Thou shalt not believe in evolution?" I mean, even the Bible has a loose stance towards abortion:
Numbers 5:12-31
Quote:
Speak to the Israelites and say to them: If any man's wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him, if a man has had intercourse with her but it is hidden from her husband, so that she is undetected though she has defiled herself, and there is no witness against her since she was not caught in the act; if a spirit of jealousy comes on him, and he is jealous of his wife who has defiled herself; or if a spirit of jealousy comes on him, and he is jealous of his wife, though she has not defiled herself; then the man shall bring his wife to the priest. And he shall bring the offering required for her, one-tenth of an ephah of barley flour. He shall pour no oil on it and put no frankincense on it, for it is a grain offering of jealousy, a grain offering of remembrance, bringing iniquity to remembrance. Then the priest shall bring her near, and set her before Yahweh; the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel, and take some of the dust that is on the floor of the tabernacle and put it into the water. The priest shall set the woman before Yahweh, dishevel the woman's hair, and place in her hands the grain offering of remembrance, which is the grain offering of jealousy. In his own hand the priest shall have the water of bitterness that brings the curse. Then the priest shall make her take an oath, saying, "If no man has lain with you, if you have not turned aside to uncleanness while under your husband's authority, be immune to this water of bitterness that brings the curse. But if you have gone astray while under your husband's authority, if you have defiled yourself and some man other than your husband has had intercourse with you," --let the priest make the woman take the oath of the curse and say to the woman--"Yahweh make you an execration and an oath among your people, when Yaheh makes your uterus drop, your womb discharge; now may this water that brings the curse enter your bowels and make your womb discharge, your uterus drop!" And the woman shall say, "Amen. Amen." Then the priest shall put these curses in writing, and wash them off into the water of bitterness. He shall make the woman drink the water of bitterness that brings the curse, and the water that brings the curse shall enter her and cause bitter pain. The priest shall take the grain offering of jealousy out of the woman's hand, and shall elevate the grain offering before Yahweh and bring it to the altar; and the priest shall take a handful of the grain offering, as its memorial portion, and turn it into smoke on the altar, and afterward shall make the woman drink the water. When he has made her drink the water, then, if she has defiled herself and has been unfaithful to her husband, the water that brings the curse shall enter into her and cause bitter pain, and her womb shall discharge, her uterus drop, and the woman shall become an execration among her people. But if the woman has not defiled herself and is clean, then she shall be immune and be able to conceive children. This is the law in cases of jealousy, when a wife, while under her husband's authority, goes astray and defiles herself, or when a spirit of jealousy comes on a man and he is jealous of his wife; then he shall set the woman before Yaheh, and the priest shall apply this entire law to her. The man shall be free from iniquity, but the woman shall bear her iniquity.
I mean, the Bible is very specific that a fetus is not equivalent to a human:
Exodus 21:22-25
Quote:
And if men struggle and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
See also Leviticus 27:6, Numbers 3:15,
Yet, these politicians care about lower fetuses and nothing about the humans we murder?
But very clearly, the Lord God commands "thou shalt not kill" and Jesus Christ declares "turn the other cheek." These Christians have to wake up, read their Bibles, and find out that their religious party is Godless. The polytheists speak with "vain repetitions." True Christians do not have to wear their faith on their sleeve like a political asset.
____________
Quote:
Here's a clip of Bill Maher beating up a fellow libertarian...
Mahr's a biased as hell liberal. Paul's stupid beliefs concerning the civil war are as unimorpant as what denomination of religion he follows. Mahr totally ignored the issues and did not discuss the war. He wanted to sink Paul's campaign by making him look like a wacko.
____________
Paul wins Polls:
Quote:
Press Release
Ron Paul Wins MSNBC Debate Poll
Ron Paul steps into national spotlight
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 4, 2007
ARLINGTON, VA – Congressman Ron Paul finished first in the MSNBC poll following the GOP primary debate last night held at the Reagan Library in Simi Valley, California. Dr. Paul received 43 percent, beating the second-place finisher by five points, and crushing the rest of the field.
“Last night, Americans met Ron Paul and loved what they heard,” said Ron Paul 2008 campaign chairman Kent Snyder. “Dr. Paul’s message of freedom and limited government resonates with Republicans hungry for a return to their party’s core values.”
“Ron Paul is the only true conservative in the GOP race. Americans saw that last night,” continued Snyder. “The campaign looks forward to further debates and opportunities so even more Americans will discover Dr. Paul’s message of freedom, peace and prosperity.”
He'll be in the May 15th debate, which makes me psyched, because it is hard not to give this guy attention if he keeps winning the polls. Him and Romney are going to be "legit" second tier candidates.
Vote for him here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18421356/ _________________ Luke 6:37:
"Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven."
Post #41699
Joined: 18 Dec 2006
Posts: 151
Total Words: 119,872
Average words per post: 793.85
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Sat 2007-05-05 00:18
Politics: Libertarian
Country: Canada
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
I'm not American, but I'm certain that if I was I would be supptorting Ron Paul. I learned about him via Alex Jones, as he supports Ron Paul's presidential campeign and views. I would have to say that most of his beliefs are closely in line with mine, such as his views on the Federal Reserve, IRS, false-flag terrorism (Gulf of Tonkin, etc.), war in gerneral, the constitution (or his views on liberty/freedom), and probably a lot more.
I saw these clips not so long ago (one I saw maybe last week?), Ron Paul on Lou Dobbs:
Mahr's a biased as hell liberal. Paul's stupid beliefs concerning the civil war are as unimorpant as what denomination of religion he follows. Mahr totally ignored the issues and did not discuss the war. He wanted to sink Paul's campaign by making him look like a wacko.
Yeah, I'll be honest and say I used to find Bill quite funny, hell even now and then when I see him doing stand-up he's pretty funny; the problem is he plays that political game of right versus left and all that other bullshit, and he (like O'Reilly) can't even entertain notions such as the possibility of the government doing false-flag ops. Actually his commentary on the Jesus Camp movie was very good (he had three other people on with him, one from Fox), and a lot of what he has to say on religion appeals to me, but other than that I'd have to agree with sorianofan: Mahr was just being an asshole, keeping the focus off of real issues. Quite sad.
Big Brother wrote:
Comrade Chairman wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUKSXFELOvg&mode=related&search=
(John Paul supporter made video)
I found that last one interesting because it shows that it is possible for a libertarian like Ron Paul to get the support of bible-thumping fundies. This is something that make me wonder if Paul might actually have a chance. I haven't heard him describe his personal religious views yet, but I can tell that he definitely is not a fundie. I've heard him describe organized religion as a sort of opiate of the masses (although not in so many words). However, his pro-liberty stance does lead to strong "Freedom of Religion" positions which seem to be strong enough to placate the fundies (without all the messy neocon theocracy
Althought I too have no clue as to what Ron Paul's religious views are, I would bet that he does follow some form of christianity; which obviously isn't a bad thing once you look at the issues he's running on. I mean, like you said he obviously isn't a fundie, but he does indeed get support from the religiously-inclined such as Alex Jones, who (although he isn't a fundie) does believe in God heavily and is a christian (and has christians who support his work as well). And if some christians see no problem following AJ then I would bet a lot more of them would be willing to follow Ron Paul.
Big Brother wrote:
From what I can tell, Ron Paul is just about as much of a conspiracy nut as I am. He is skeptical of many government actions (such as the "Gulf of Tonkin" incident). And while he himself doesn't seem to believe that the Neocons personally masterminded 9/11, he does seem convinced (as many people are) that the Neocons deceptively used the tragedy as an excuse to take actions that they had been planning for years. The Neocons prayed for a "new Pearl Harbor", and got their wish
I'd have to agree, this seems pretty close to what Ron Paul believes; and that's good enough for me (being a conspiracy nut of course)! We need more skeptical-of-government-actions politicians.
sorianofan wrote:
Anyone who watched the debate would see that 3 of the Republican candidates DID NOT believe in evoluton, nearly all opposed abortion, all invoked God and made biblical references ("city on the hill" repeated several times), McCain got to tell us how the Grand Canyon and a sunset are a work of God, YET they are beating war drums to attack Iran and kill more Iraqis. We have McCain pounding his fist like Hitler...
Shit, I really wish I watched the debate now, it seems like it was not only telling and informative, but amusing as well. I'm sure it's out on the internet somewhere in full form, I'll just have to search. All in all, athough that doesn't seem out-of-the-ordinary, it certainly is frightening.
Paul attended Gettysburg College, where he received his bachelor of arts degree in 1957, and the Duke University School of Medicine, where he received his M.D. in 1961. He did his internship and residency at Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit from 1961 to 1962, and was a flight surgeon in the United States Air Force from 1963 to 1968. In 1968, Paul began his medical practice in Texas. As a specialist in obstetrics/gynecology, Paul has delivered more than four thousand babies.
Something I would like to know is what's Ron Paul's position on drugs and the War On Drugs? Would he support a group like L.E.A.P. (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition)? Anyone have any information on this? _________________
"It is not difficult to avoid death, gentlemen; it is far more difficult to avoid wickedness, for it runs faster than death." - Socrates, in Plato's Apology
Post #41701
Joined: 25 May 2006
Posts: 1142
Total Words: 133,166
Average words per post: 116.61
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Sat 2007-05-05 02:25
Politics: Zionist
Country: American Empire
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
For me, it depends. If Obama wins the primary, then I'm voting for him. If Hillary wins, then I would defenitely vote for Ron Paul. It would be a hell of a lot better than voting for Rudy or (gasp) a third-party candidate. _________________ ಠ_ಠ
Post #41705
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Posts: 3015
Total Words: 1,173,420
Average words per post: 389.19
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Sat 2007-05-05 05:52
Politics: Libertarian-Syndicalist
Country: American Empire
googlefight
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
JOHNNYBEGOOD wrote:
For me, it depends. If Obama wins the primary, then I'm voting for him. If Hillary wins, then I would definitely vote for Ron Paul. It would be a hell of a lot better than voting for Rudy or (gasp) a third-party candidate.
PWNED!!!
Ooooops... forgot to add quotes to the search terms.
Oh well, I 'spose that isn't bad for a guy who was relatively unknown until a few weeks ago. Give it time.
Ron Paul Wins MSNBC Debate Poll
Ron Paul steps into national spotlight
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 4, 2007
ARLINGTON, VA – Congressman Ron Paul finished first in the MSNBC poll following the GOP primary debate last night held at the Reagan Library in Simi Valley, California. Dr. Paul received 43 percent, beating the second-place finisher by five points, and crushing the rest of the field.
“Last night, Americans met Ron Paul and loved what they heard,” said Ron Paul 2008 campaign chairman Kent Snyder. “Dr. Paul’s message of freedom and limited government resonates with Republicans hungry for a return to their party’s core values.”
“Ron Paul is the only true conservative in the GOP race. Americans saw that last night,” continued Snyder. “The campaign looks forward to further debates and opportunities so even more Americans will discover Dr. Paul’s message of freedom, peace and prosperity.”
Holy shit. This guy might actually have a chance.
notable diversity wrote:
Something I would like to know is what's Ron Paul's position on drugs and the War On Drugs? Would he support a group like L.E.A.P. (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition)? Anyone have any information on this?
Paul is a strict constructionist libertarian. Wanna take a guess at what his position on prohibition is? _________________ "The Aim of an Argument ... should not be victory, but progress." - Joseph Joubert (1754-1824)
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful." - Seneca the Younger
"It is often argued that religion is valuable because it makes men good, but even if this were true it would not be a proof that religion is true. That would be an extension of pragmatism beyond endurance. Santa Claus makes children good in precisely the same way, and yet no one would argue seriously that the fact proves his existence. The defense of religion is full of such logical imbecilities." - H. L. Mencken
I figured somebody would compile a video of Paul's responses, but I wasn't able to find it. Thanks for the links.
sorianofan wrote:
Anyone who watched the debate would see that 3 of the Republican candidates DID NOT believe in evolution, nearly all opposed abortion, all invoked God and made biblical references ("city on the hill" repeated several times), McCain got to tell us how the Grand Canyon and a sunset are a work of God, YET they are beating war drums to attack Iran and kill more Iraqis.
I found the evolution question rather interesting. I found the video of the question HERE.
Raise your hand if you'll lie about your beliefs in order to win the fundie vote...
ARLINGTON, VA – Congressman Ron Paul finished first in the MSNBC poll following the GOP primary debate last night held at the Reagan Library in Simi Valley, California. Dr. Paul received 43 percent, beating the second-place finisher by five points, and crushing the rest of the field.
Here's the results as of today, May 6th, with 82,741 people voting...
MSNBC used an interesting method of polling. It allowed you to cast either a positive, negative, or neutral vote for each candidate (I love this kind of Approval Voting method. I wish the elections were conducted this way). Ron Paul lead the pack in both categories, obtaining the highest number of positive votes (38%) and the lowest number of negative votes (26%).
Positive Votes
Ron Paul (38%)
Mitt Romney (27%)
Rudy Giuliani (24%)
John McCain (19%)
Mike Huckabee (13%)
Tom Tancredo (9%)
Tommy Thompson (9%)
Sam Brownback (8%)
Duncan Hunter (8%)
Jim Gilmore (6%)
Negative Votes:
Sam Brownback (46%)
Tom Tancredo (45%)
Tommy Thompson (45%)
John McCain (44%)
Jim Gilmore (43%)
Duncan Hunter (43%)
Rudy Giuliani (42%)
Mike Huckabee (38%)
Mitt Romney (37%)
Ron Paul (26%)
Dr. Paul was the only candidate to get more positive votes than negative votes. If you were to subtract the percentage of negative votes each candidate received from the number of positive votes, the standings would look like this:
Ron Paul (+12%)
Mitt Romney (-10%)
Rudy Giuliani (-18%)
John McCain (-25%)
Mike Huckabee (-25%)
Duncan Hunter (-35%)
Tom Tancredo (-36%)
Tommy Thompson (-36%)
Jim Gilmore (-37%)
Sam Brownback (-38%)
Interestingly, MSNBC decided to ignore this poll and instead focus on the 2nd-highest ranked candidate, Mitt Romney.
"Among Red State Republicans, Romney is the favorite after the first debate"
Huh? Excuse me?
Dr. Paul isn't even mentioned in the article. What a crock. In fact, I've looked at several post-debate articles, and none of them talk about Paul (except for a handful which only mention that he was present). MSNBC also had an article that talked about the candidate's view on Iraq -- and, strangely enough, the article contained no comment about the only candidate at the debate to speak out against the war. How is that even possible? I'm beginning to have flashbacks of Spin - the documentary.
He'll be in the May 15th debate, which makes me psyched, because it is hard not to give this guy attention if he keeps winning the polls. Him and Romney are going to be "legit" second tier candidates.
It will be interesting to see if the other candidates will pay attention to the support Paul is receiving and start acting like civil libertarians. It paid off for the republicans during the Gingrich revolution of the 90's to pay lip-service to the constitution, so I suspect that a few may now (thanks to Paul) be tempted to give it another try. But we won't be fooled again.
BTW... It appears that ABC news recently reset the poll they were running and added Dr. Ron Paul to the list. He currently has 5,599 out of 6,422 votes! Fuckin’ LOL!
UPDATE - Here's the results of ABC's poll as of May 7th 11:30am
Who do you think came out on top at the Republican debate?
Ron Paul - 9,281 (85%)
It doesn't matter who won. I wouldn't put America in another Republican's hands. - 1,008
Rudy Guiliani - 152
None of them. I'm interested in the possibility of new candidates like Fred Thompson. - 139
Mitt Romney - 138
John McCain - 83
Tom Tancredo - 27
Tommy Thompson - 15
Mike Huckabee - 14
Sam Brownback - 12
Duncan Hunter - 9
James Gilmore - 6
Total Vote: 10,884
That'll teach 'em for excluding Dr. Paul on the first poll.
_________________ "The Aim of an Argument ... should not be victory, but progress." - Joseph Joubert (1754-1824)
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful." - Seneca the Younger
"It is often argued that religion is valuable because it makes men good, but even if this were true it would not be a proof that religion is true. That would be an extension of pragmatism beyond endurance. Santa Claus makes children good in precisely the same way, and yet no one would argue seriously that the fact proves his existence. The defense of religion is full of such logical imbecilities." - H. L. Mencken
Last edited by Big Brother on Thu 2007-05-10 01:41; edited 3 times in total
It's amazing how quiet the media has been about Paul's success at the debate. MSNBC had the audacity to ignore Paul's success in their online poll and instead declare the 2nd place candidate (Mormon Mitt Romney) the "winner". The article never says what criteria they used to make such an assertion. I can only imagine that the used the "No True Scotsman" fallacy by saying that Romney was the winner "among Red State Republicans" -- MSNBC decided that Ron Paul isn't a "Red State Republican" (whatever the hell that means), therefore Romney was the “Real Republican” winner of the debate.
And to add insult to injury, the reporter who wrote the story actually penned the following words...
"My peers do a great job of putting their biases in check (myself included, I hope)..."
I still can't get over how MSNBC could write an article about the candidate's views on Iraq without mentioning Paul's anti-war stance. And more than that, they didn’t merely fail to report about Paul, they actually pretended like all the republican candidates made an effort to support Bush’s war:
In the first Republican debate of the 2008 campaign, the 10 most prominent contenders walked a fine line on the war. On one hand, they were reluctant to wholeheartedly back Bush’s strategy, which polls show is unpopular with the public at large; on the other, they could not afford to abandon the president and antagonize conservative Republicans who vote in the party’s presidential primary.
Is this really what all of these 10 guys did? Was the reporter who wrote this watching a different debate? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Paul "walked a fine line" on the war, nor did he have any qualms about "abandoning" the president.
BTW... MSNBC has another poll which rates the candidate's performance at the debate with 6 questions. Here are the results:
Who stood out from the pack? (65, 390 votes)
Ron Paul - 42%
Mitt Romney - 21%
Rudy Giuliani - 15%
John McCain - 9.2%
Who showed the most leadership qualities? (64,552 votes)
Ron Paul - 37%
Mitt Romney - 20%
Rudy Giuliani - 16%
John McCain - 11%
Who was the most convincing candidate? (64,321 votes)
Ron Paul - 40%
Mitt Romney - 20%
Rudy Giuliani - 14%
John McCain - 9.2%
Who had the most rehearsed answers? (63,003 votes)
I searched Foxnews.com to see how bad their spin was. I found one article that mentioned Paul, but only to say that his performance was "interesting". (And actually, this wasn't even a FoxNews article -- it was a transcript of "The Beltway Boys" which FoxNews happened to host).
In this article, FoxNews provided a couple quotes from each of the candidates. Out of all the candidate’s quotes provided by Fox News, Dr. Paul’s quote was the shortest, and only had to do with his comments on a national ID card. I certainly agree with Paul on this issue, but if I were to select a quote which summed up Paul's comments at the debate, that would not be it.
The only article on FoxNews.com that I could find about Paul was a pre-debate report which announced his candidacy. I don't think anybody excepted him to do as well as he apparently has. I bet some people are kicking themselves in the ass for allowing him to attend the debates in the first place.
I finally was able to find an article that talked about Paul's anti-war position on cnn.com.
But Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, who voted in Congress against the war, called his party to return to a "noninterventionist" foreign policy, which he said was "the traditional American foreign policy and the Republican foreign policy."
"Think of how Eisenhower came in to stop the Korean War. Think of how Nixon was elected to stop the mess in Vietnam," Paul said.
But just when I was about to pat CNN on the back for their honest journalism, I viewed the video clip which accompanied the article. It was a clip of the report which appeared on CNN's television news coverage of the debate. The segment included a clip of Paul, but take a look at how the reporter reported the story:
From CNN news
Of the 10 Republican presidential candidates debating at the Ronald Reagan Library, 9 supported the war effort and warned against leaving too soon, and then there was one...
"Go to war, fight it, and win it. But don't get into it for political reasons, or to enforce UN resolutions, or pretend that the Iraqis were a national threat to us".
A couple thoughts:
The reporter never says Paul's name.
The clip makes it sound like Paul wanted to go to war. This is not what he was saying at all. Paul was only saying that if congress really wanted to go to war, they should have acted constitutionally and officially declared war instead of abdicating their war-regulating responsibility to their king. But, you would never be able to guess that this is what Paul was actually saying from CNN’s clip.
Will the spin never end? _________________ "The Aim of an Argument ... should not be victory, but progress." - Joseph Joubert (1754-1824)
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful." - Seneca the Younger
"It is often argued that religion is valuable because it makes men good, but even if this were true it would not be a proof that religion is true. That would be an extension of pragmatism beyond endurance. Santa Claus makes children good in precisely the same way, and yet no one would argue seriously that the fact proves his existence. The defense of religion is full of such logical imbecilities." - H. L. Mencken
Wait, you posted John Paul instead of Ron Paul right? So what if it was actually referring to the deceased pope? _________________ We have buried the putrid corpse of liberty.
-Benito Mussolini
Anyone who is not a socialist before he is 30 has no heart; anyone who is still a socialist after he is 30 has no head.
-European Proverb
Post #41834
Joined: 30 Dec 2005
Posts: 2659
Total Words: 306,608
Average words per post: 115.31
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Tue 2007-05-08 01:55
Politics: Crusader
Country: Russia
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
The question begs to be asked... what can we do to help Ron Paul get noticed? _________________ To knock a thing down, especially if it is cocked at an arrogant angle, is a deep delight of the blood.
George Santayana
The Ron Paul Effect
Congressman Seeks Republican Nomination Backed by Libertarian Faithful
By RICK KLEIN
May 7, 2007
Republican presidential contender Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas., answers a question during the first Republican presidential primary debate of the 2008 election at the Ronald Reagan Library, Thursday, May 3, 2007, in Simi Valley, Calif. (Kevork Djansezian/AP Photo)
Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, who barely registers in public opinion polls of the Republican presidential field, won last Thursday night's debate.
That was the unmistakable conclusion of the online poll posted by debate sponsor MSNBC, which registered Paul with higher positive ratings and lower negative numbers than any of the other nine candidates on the stage.
ABC's post-debate Internet survey showed an even clearer victory for Paul, with the congressman taking more than 9,400 of 11,000 votes as of 12:30 p.m. Monday. (Rudy Giuliani is the next ranked candidate, with barely 150 votes.)
So are the polls missing a Paul boomlet? Is the famously contrarian ob-gyn -- a libertarian nicknamed "Dr. No" because of his propensity to vote against anything he believes contradicts the Constitution's original intent -- poised to surge into contention in the GOP field?
Not likely. What's more likely, based on Web traffic over the past week, is that Paul supporters have mastered the art of "viral marketing," using Internet savvy and blog postings to create at least the perception of momentum for his long-shot presidential bid.
The Ron Paul Effect
Since online polls aren't scientific -- people choose to take them, and many people vote multiple times -- doing well in them doesn't necessarily mean a campaign is on the move.
But Internet buzz can have a carry-over effect, said Peter Greenberger, an online strategist at New Media Strategies and a former Democratic political operative.
"It's evidence of something -- either passionate supporters, active supporters, or just one very savvy supporter who's able to vote several thousand times," Greenberger said. "If it leads to one or two stories in the mainstream media, that could lead to a bounce online, and could lead to some fundraising successes."
With strong support among libertarians who are unhappy with the top-tier Republican contenders, Paul has a robust online presence.
His MySpace profile boasts nearly 12,000 "friends." Today, his name ranks in the Top 10 among blog search terms at Technorati.com, behind Paris Hilton but ahead of Mario Lopez.
After Thursday night's debate, the comment sections of several major news organizations -- including ABC's -- were inundated with pro-Paul messages.
Viewers raved about Paul's commitment to abolishing the IRS, his steadfast opposition to a national ID card, and a forthright tone that bloggers said set him apart from the other candidates onstage.
The Paul campaign did not immediately respond to a phone call and e-mail message seeking comment.
Nice. Recognition.
But I'm still gonna complain.
First of all, what the hell is up with that picture? Is that the best one they could find? He looks like he's trying to kiss somebody... or screech like a monkey.
It that really the best photo they could have used?
Well, it could have been worse...
Through my connections at the Ministry of Truth, I've been able to get my hands on the photo that ABC originally wanted to use in the article:
I think it's a lovely photo of the great apostle Paul. And I think I’ll help out my friends at the media ministry by hosting this image here, and by giving them full permission to use it in any article in the future. It will save them from ever having to waste their time sorting though hundreds of possible video stills in order to find the "best" one again.
Another complaint -- what does he mean that "the Paul campaign did not immediately respond immediately respond" for comment? I doubt that the Paul campaign would turn down an opportunity to gloat over their poll victory, yet the reporter is claiming that they didn't respond. I can only guess that his definition of "immediately" is somewhere under 5 seconds.
And lastly, I fully understand that these online polls are not scientific. But the MSNBC poll had over 80,000 participants. That should probably count for something. Additionally, that poll has a nice feature -- it allows you to look at the rankings both before and after the debates. Before the debates, about 73,000 took the poll. At that time, 44% viewed Paul negatively, and only 9% gave him a positive vote. After the debates, he turned that around to a 25% negative vote, and a 39% positive vote. The large number of participants both before and after the debate shows that this isn’t merely a case of some small rouge cabal of internet fiends repeatedly voting in order to skew the results. It shows that people who watched the debates (and therefore had the rare opportunity to see Dr. Paul speak on national TV) actually liked what he had to say.
If nothing else, it shows that Paul warrants coverage by the national media. I don't think there have been any "scientific" post-debate polls taken yet, but I suspect that if some organization were to conduct a poll of people who watched the debate, Paul would still do fairly well. And I bet if the media gave Dr. Paul as much free publicity as they are handing out to McCain and Giuliani, he would probably do even better still.
As Paul said during the debates, 70% of Americans want us out of Iraq. I can only assume that this 70% includes some republicans as well. Paul's success in the online polls might have something to do with this.
The good news is that I'm not the only person who's tired of the spin. Check out some of the comments left on ABC's website in response to the above article. To make matters worse, somebody has been deleting comments made by Ron Paul supporters. (we all know how much that sucks, right?) People are mad as hell, and they're not gonna take it any more. _________________ "The Aim of an Argument ... should not be victory, but progress." - Joseph Joubert (1754-1824)
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful." - Seneca the Younger
"It is often argued that religion is valuable because it makes men good, but even if this were true it would not be a proof that religion is true. That would be an extension of pragmatism beyond endurance. Santa Claus makes children good in precisely the same way, and yet no one would argue seriously that the fact proves his existence. The defense of religion is full of such logical imbecilities." - H. L. Mencken
Post #41849
Joined: 04 Feb 2006
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Tue 2007-05-08 10:39
Politics: Libertarian
Country: American Empire
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
Quote:
Not likely. What's more likely, based on Web traffic over the past week, is that Paul supporters have mastered the art of "viral marketing," using Internet savvy and blog postings to create at least the perception of momentum for his long-shot presidential bid.
1. As BB pointed out, the Paul camp did not do a very good job throwing the first poll.
2. There was no organized campaign among Paul supporters to vote for him until the morning after, yet Paul was winning right after the debate to pseudo-revolutionary Olbermann's dismay. Which reminds me, Olbermanm bitches and moans like a little cunt about how Bush might rescind habeas corpus using the Military Authorization Act (or whatever) of 2007, and when a REPUBLICAN candidate ends the very debate with the words "I will not take away habeas corpus," he doesn't say a fucking thing. That's why I can't stand liberals. They have no conviction. If a Democratic president is throwing missiles around in Iraq anmd Afghanistan, declaring war on a country in the Balkans without congress, and other crap, it's okay. When a Republican does it, it's all of the sudden bad.
Wake up, it's always bad! I don't give a fuck what party the President is from, extra-legal activities are unacceptable!
3. Lastly, why is Paul winning every last poll meaningless? Doesn't that prove he has a) more supporters than anyone else, b) more enthusiasm behind him, and c) no one hates his guts. The preceding 3 categories are absolutely pivotal to winning elections. Furthermore, enthusiasm explains the influx of Paul votes, what explains the utter lack of votes for McCain and Giulliani? People can't stand these guys.
I hate to say this, because I never really believed it, but the media is apparently handled. So what if Ron Paul is the Sanjaya of the 2008 Republican primaries? Sanjaya=ratings right? They should be hyping up this Republican anti-everything who all of the sudden wins every poll. Get some neo-cons angry, get people talking...hell, there's nothing worth talking about in the news than the failed war in Iraq and Melinda's bid to become the next American Idle. Give Sanjaya, I mean, Ron Paul some love here!
Why would media outlets NOT WANT ratings? Apparently the free press is dead and it's pretty scary. The real fight is to make sure Paul gets into a 3rd debate. We need to build a Sanjaya effect. _________________ Luke 6:37:
"Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven."
Post #41856
Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Tue 2007-05-08 13:26
Politics: Democratic Socialist
Country: Confederate States of America (C.S.A.)
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
Good/Bad News
Ron Paul As President
2,760,000 results Big Brother As President
8,210,000 results
Mitt Romney As President
1,220,000 results
George Bush As President
43,000,000 results
Winston Smith As President
1,110,000 results
Chairman As President
79,000,000 results
My Mom As President
9,180,000 results
Mitt is only a little better than a crimethinker and a lot worse than my mom, and I'm better than George Junior. Hurray!
money
639,000,000 results
the law
566,000,000 results _________________
Post #41866
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Posts: 3015
Total Words: 1,173,420
Average words per post: 389.19
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Tue 2007-05-08 18:36
Politics: Libertarian-Syndicalist
Country: American Empire
Public exposure
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
Zoon wrote:
The question begs to be asked... what can we do to help Ron Paul get noticed?
This YouTube user had a wonderful idea – Get Ron Paul on the John Stewart show! Paul's politics don't align perfectly with that of Stewart's, but they do agree on many of the most important issues -- The Iraqi War, personal privacy, and above all, a strong belief in honest government. There are some areas where these two people strongly disagree, but I think it would serve the voters well to see how Paul responds to the inevitable hardball question from Stewart.
If you want to see Paul's political snowball turn into an avalanche, Stewart could be the one to push him over the edge.
Click on this link to suggest that Paul appear on the The Daily Show with John Stewart.
UPDATE - The original YouTube clip which suggested this idea has over 5,000 views. Not too shabby. However, there is a clip of John Stewart discussing the GOP debates HERE. In the clip, Stewart slams McCain, but doesn't mention Dr. Paul (other than calling him "Mr. Pickles"). I have to wonder if John Stewart will be willing to have Paul on his show.
-----------------------
sorianofan wrote:
External site
Not likely. What's more likely, based on Web traffic over the past week, is that Paul supporters have mastered the art of "viral marketing," using Internet savvy and blog postings to create at least the perception of momentum for his long-shot presidential bid.
1. As BB pointed out, the Paul camp did not do a very good job throwing the first poll.
I think that is an important point. If this was really just a case of clever internet hijinks, you would have to expect the 2nd poll to have far more participants than the first.
That is to say, if the first poll (which only gave Paul a 9% approval rating) only had 10,000 participants, and if the 2nd post-debate poll (which gave him a 40% approval rating) had 80,000 participants, you could make the case that these extra 70,000 votes where somehow "fake" or "contrived". However, this is not what happened. The level of participation in the poll both before and after the debates was about equal. Therefore, it seems reasonable to assume that the reason that these ~80,000 MSNBC.com users rated Dr. Paul so highly after the debate was because they were genuinely impressed by his performance.
I read somewhere that Paul scored around 6% in the most recent national telephone poll (but I haven’t been able to confirm this). I suspect the reason or this relatively low performance is because most proles haven’t really heard of Paul yet (in no small part thanks the media silence I’ve been complaining about). However, I think if you were to take a scientific poll of people who actually watched the debate (and therefore have had the opportunity to hear Paul’s views) he would do every bit as well as he did on MSNBC’s online poll.
In any case, if Paul is really scoring 6% nationally after the debates, this is a major victory for the Paul camp since I’m fairly certain that before the debate (and before the exposure that the debates brought) Paul’s support was probably a LOT lower. More media exposure will only help his poll numbers, which explains why the media has been so dedicated to minimizing the importance of Paul’s online poll victory.
sorianofan wrote:
There was no organized campaign among Paul supporters to vote for him until the morning after, yet Paul was winning right after the debate to pseudo-revolutionary Olbermann's dismay. Which reminds me, Olbermanm bitches and moans like a little cunt about how Bush might rescind habeas corpus using the Military Authorization Act (or whatever) of 2007, and when a REPUBLICAN candidate ends the very debate with the words "I will not take away habeas corpus," he doesn't say a fucking thing. That's why I can't stand liberals. They have no conviction. If a Democratic president is throwing missiles around in Iraq and Afghanistan, declaring war on a country in the Balkans without congress, and other crap, it's okay. When a Republican does it, it's all of the sudden bad.
Wake up, it's always bad! I don't give a fuck what party the President is from, extra-legal activities are unacceptable!
Paul's strong Libertarian stance scares anybody who likes the status quo. You have to realize that the talking heads on TV make their living off of crisis. A small national government that doesn't bomb 3rd world countries (or burn Branch Davidians) would absolutely murder the ratings. And the fact that the Libertarian position gets support from both social liberals and economic conservatives makes it more difficult to pretend that the two parties are really "opposites". Ron Paul shows that it's possible to agree with nobody and everybody at the same time.
The uniqueness of Paul's positions scares some people who have become accustomed to the traditional two-party facade. But even though Paul has some fairly "radical" beliefs, there is no reason for alarm. Dr. Paul is not an idiot. He is fully aware that the changes he advocates cannot occur overnight. For instance, Paul is a strong opponent of the Federal Reserve system. However, Paul has fully acknowledges that to immediately eliminate the Fed on his first day of office would be a horrible catastrophe for the economy. His positions may seem somewhat radial, but he is not a maniac. He has no intention of sinking the ship -- he merely wants to turn the sails in a different direction.
sorianofan wrote:
3. Lastly, why is Paul winning every last poll meaningless? Doesn't that prove he has a) more supporters than anyone else, b) more enthusiasm behind him, and c) no one hates his guts. The preceding 3 categories are absolutely pivotal to winning elections. Furthermore, enthusiasm explains the influx of Paul votes, what explains the utter lack of votes for McCain and Giuliani? People can't stand these guys.
The American voter is simply begging for something different, and has been doing so for some time now. This is the reason that people like Perot and Nader get as much support as they do.
That being said, it is important to examine the reasons that these “popular” 3rd party candidates keep losing elections. One reason, of course, is the fact that the current two parties are deeply entrenched in Washington, and it is difficult for a grassroots campaign to overcome this. But I think another important reason for the lack of 3td-party success has to do with the Plurality Voting method which scares many people into voting for the major party candidate they hate the least, rather than voting for the candidate they actually agree with.
And that is what makes this whole Ron Paul thing so interesting -- He isn't running on a 3rd party ticket. Instead, he's attempting a libertarian coup of the neocon-controlled Republican Party. Whether or not you are a Republican, I think we can all agree that the world would be better off with a Republican party dominated by Jeffersonian libertarians, rather than fascist evangelical Neocons.
sorianofan wrote:
I hate to say this, because I never really believed it, but the media is apparently handled. So what if Ron Paul is the Sanjaya of the 2008 Republican primaries? Sanjaya=ratings right? They should be hyping up this Republican anti-everything who all of the sudden wins every poll. Get some neo-cons angry, get people talking...hell, there's nothing worth talking about in the news than the failed war in Iraq and Melinda's bid to become the next American Idle. Give Sanjaya, I mean, Ron Paul some love here!
Why would media outlets NOT WANT ratings? Apparently the free press is dead and it's pretty scary. The real fight is to make sure Paul gets into a 3rd debate. We need to build a Sanjaya effect.
Seriously ... take a look at the comments left by Paul supporters on ABC.com in response to their biased reporting.
Crap...
I was going to equote a comment from ABC's site here (a comment which eloquently summed up the people's dismay at the Media's handling of Ron Paul), but unfortunately, ABC deleted the post form their comment board. In fact, my Winston-Smith-like memory is telling me that there were over 400 posts just an hour ago. Now there are only 200.
WTF?
Ok.. now I'm really starting to get angry. I created an account on abc.com so I could leave a comment of my own, but every time I actually try to do so it keeps giving me the following error message...
”Login Error - The login process did not complete successfully. Please try your request again in a few minutes.”
I tried again a few minutes later... and a few hours later... and still no luck. I even tried logging in from a different computer (with a different operating system, and a different external IP address), and I’m still getting the same thing. The system is letting me log in without any problem, but when I try to post, it tells me to piss off. Although I can't entirely rule out the possibility of technical difficulties, it seems more likely that ABC is doing something on purpose to keep me from posting. Perhaps they are blocking new users from leaving comments? Or is it even possible that they are blocking people who voted for Paul in the poll?
Please, somebody else try creating an account and try leaving a comment on one of the following pages:
1) 2008 Republicans back war -- This article is similar to the MSNBC article I discussed earlier. It's discusses all of the candidate's positions on Iraq, but somehow manages to miss the elephant in the room -- Ron Paul. I tried leaving a comment on this article similar to my comments on the MSNBC article (ok... i cut-n-pasted it), but to no avail.
2) The Ron Paul Effect – This is the article I just discussed in my last comment. The article dismisses Paul's online success as some sort of internet fluke, and has generated a lot of pissed-off comments. (And even more pissed-off comments about ABC deleting pissed-off comments)
Let me know if you have any luck. _________________ "The Aim of an Argument ... should not be victory, but progress." - Joseph Joubert (1754-1824)
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful." - Seneca the Younger
"It is often argued that religion is valuable because it makes men good, but even if this were true it would not be a proof that religion is true. That would be an extension of pragmatism beyond endurance. Santa Claus makes children good in precisely the same way, and yet no one would argue seriously that the fact proves his existence. The defense of religion is full of such logical imbecilities." - H. L. Mencken
Last edited by Big Brother on Wed 2007-05-09 15:50; edited 3 times in total
Post #41869
Joined: 04 Sep 2004
Posts: 3259
Total Words: 460,056
Average words per post: 141.16
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Tue 2007-05-08 19:15
Politics: Just plain NUTS!
Country: Scotland
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
I'd never heard of him before, but I checked out some of the videos and he's utterly awesome. Pro-free market, rational foreign policy, small government, pro-privacy and pro-freedom? Joygasm. Seems like exactly the kind of President that America needed in 1992, but he's hardly undesirable today. Anyone who compares their foreign policy on that of President Taft can't be all bad.
Anyone who emphasises the power of the internet in achieving unprecedented freedom of speech and information is certainly partially good. I've always thought it's hard to kill someone after having a pleasant liason (written or in person) with them. It's certainly harder to demonise and dehumanise them. Accordingly, I think if the world ever has near-universal access to an internet brimming of personal communication and free transferrance of information, armed conflict will pretty much be obsolete.
Could even a nation as paranoid and aggressive as the USA go to war in Iraq if every citizen had met an Iraqi on an online forum and knew that war would mean that they may well die? I doubt it. Of course, you could say that Americans might want to allieviate the suffering of the Iraqi/Iraqis they knew because of the tyranny of Saddam, but it's would also be pretty much impossible for a dictator like Saddam to exist in such a world. War depends on dehumanisation and obsfuctation, and the internet is a stunningly powerful means of familiarising and enlightening people.
EDIT: John McCain will be the next President of the US, because he's boring, uninteresting and unimaginative. At least I think I will; I can't tell most American politicians apart. If they're not black, female or (shock!) possessed of coherent and original ideas, it's hard to distinguish one grey male fart from another. _________________ If you can't say what you mean then you'll never mean what you say
God holds no fears
Death no worries
And while good is readily attainable
Evil is readily endurable
Last edited by One Of The Few on Tue 2007-05-08 20:18; edited 1 time in total
Post #41870
Joined: 22 Feb 2005
Posts: 556
Total Words: 89,413
Average words per post: 160.81
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Tue 2007-05-08 19:38
Politics: Constitutionalist
Country: Wackyland
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
I'm most encouraged by the fact that he's been in office for quite a while. He can obviously win elections (when he's able to be heard), which is every libertarian's wet dream. As long as he keeps getting invited to debates (and if he doesn't, there are going to be a lot of people crying for blood) and winning them so soundly, he's going to have to be covered more. I'm also quite convinced that a Daily Show appearance would give him a nice shot in the arm. If a Republican with views so different from the party line can get noticed by apathetic youth, that can only help him.
Post #41872
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Posts: 3015
Total Words: 1,173,420
Average words per post: 389.19
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Tue 2007-05-08 20:14
Politics: Libertarian-Syndicalist
Country: American Empire
unperson
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
This is starting to get ridiculous.
I just checked the abc.com comment page, and now there are only 10 comments (there used to be well over 400). What the hell is ABC News thinking? Admittedly, a few of the commenters were a bit rude (and understandably so), but there is absolutely no way to justify the deletion of EVERY comment about Ron Paul. ABC.com is taking censorship to a whole new level.
Due to my dislike of memory holes, here are a few samples of comments that ABC.com has not yet deleted...
From abc.com: 'andie1970'
All comments vanished between 3:17 and 3:42pm MST.....
From abc.com: 'streetsensesurvivor'
Well, I've had enough of this. ABC have revealed to the world their true nature, with their Crazy Conspiracy Theory about Ron Paul, as well as their continuing frantic censorship. I shall henceforth redouble my efforts in promoting Ron Paul for the presidency. Have fun boys.
From abc.com: 'AllButCrap'
As the election season is starting to heat up with both the democrat and republican first debates in the books. American people are starting to see the fact that the main stream media is controlling which candidates we get to learn about. The most notable case for this is the story of Dr. Ron Paul. After the republican debate there were 2 different online polls where he was the decided winner. The mainstream media did not even mention him at all. In fact his name was even left off of many reports of these polls. After savvy Internet users noticed the discrepancies they started to speak out. Eventually ABC news did a small article talking about Ron Paul, yet still made it out to be some fluke. The said that the polls were "Not Scientific" and that it was due to "Viral Marketing". After this article was posted, many users started to voice their disgust in the fact that this article was still bogus and biased. It wasn't long before these comments were removed and deleted by ABC. many people on the Internet take there freedom and censorship very seriously and have started a revolt against ABC by posting hundreds of comments on the article. Now that the comments are coming in faster then ABC can hit delete they seem to have shut down comments. All we want as American people is to hear the fact about ALL of the candidates. We want to be able to have open and free discussion about the elections. We want to be able to Vote with all the fact and not what the corporate mongers want us to hear. I propose that the American people stand up and take back our rights. that we work to learn about OUR candidates. I don't know if ABC will post or Delete this (it wouldn't surprise me) But I will also be posting it to other blogs. the American people will not, and should not be silenced.
From abc.com: 'mwin1'
Someone is deleting posts over on this web page: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/comments?type=story&id=3147940 This is malicious and deceptive. Please look into this at once. I posted a simple, clean and supportive add favoring Ron Paul. It and over a hundred other posts were systematically deleted. Why is this being done. Please respond. Thank You
Someone should be fired for deleting our clean, thoughtful and provocative posts.
From abc.com: 'zbacchus101'
I have screen shots from when there were well over 400 posts. They removed the counter as a last ditch effort to hide the fact that they were on a mass censorship campaign. I am waiting for them to take it to the next step and start banning people to round out my blog article which of course will get dugg/reddit'd/etc and rebirth the cycle.
I would just like to take this opportunity to thank ABC.com for pissing off a lot of people and motivating them to support Ron Paul's campaign. Good work guys!
BTW... I just tried posting a comment again on abc.com's site, but I am still unable to do so. _________________ "The Aim of an Argument ... should not be victory, but progress." - Joseph Joubert (1754-1824)
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful." - Seneca the Younger
"It is often argued that religion is valuable because it makes men good, but even if this were true it would not be a proof that religion is true. That would be an extension of pragmatism beyond endurance. Santa Claus makes children good in precisely the same way, and yet no one would argue seriously that the fact proves his existence. The defense of religion is full of such logical imbecilities." - H. L. Mencken
Post #41884
Joined: 04 Feb 2006
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Wed 2007-05-09 01:04
Politics: Libertarian
Country: American Empire
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
Zoon wrote:
The question begs to be asked... what can we do to help Ron Paul get noticed?
Idea:
How about we start a campaign to get Ron Paul in the 3rd debate/on the Daily Show (if he's invited to the third debate, then focus on daily show.)
What would need to be done is that we would have to find the network's sponsors and amass a list of people who swear to boycott all the sponsors' products until Ron Paul is allowed to atten the 3rd debate/daily show. A list of the boycotters would be sent to the network, and all the sponsors would be notified of the same list.
Hell, a thousand pissed of people would do it. Heck, it might even get media attention if it worked. What do you guys think? If it's a good idea, we should probably start organizing. _________________ Luke 6:37:
"Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven."
Post #41891
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Posts: 3015
Total Words: 1,173,420
Average words per post: 389.19
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Wed 2007-05-09 03:50
Politics: Libertarian-Syndicalist
Country: American Empire
Paul supporters conquer teh internets
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
This story is developing fast. I hope everybody can keep up.
The latest buzz is that MySpace has started blocking comments on their website. (Specifically, they were blocking links to the MSNBC poll that showed Paul won the debate)
In an unrelated bit of trivia, I just learned that MySpace.com is owned by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation (The same company that owns FoxNews). Interesting, eh?
Despite this technical difficulty, word of Paul's candidacy is still spreading throughout the internet. And the attempts my the media conglomerates to reign all this free speech in is only serving to piss people off more.
ARLINGTON, VA – Congressman Ron Paul's support has soared since the first Republican presidential debate. Conservative commentator John McLaughlin, host of “The McLaughlin Group," cited Ron Paul as having given "the best performance of the debate." In fact, the Paul campaign's apparent strength has many other pundits scrambling to explain it. Paul campaign officials offer the following examples of the candidate's rising success.
Since the debate on May 3, Ron Paul:
1. Handily won two post-debate polls posted by event sponsor MSNBC. (#1, #2)
2. Placed a close third (18%) in a post-debate poll on the conservative Drudge Report.
"These figures speak for themselves," said campaign chairman Kent Snyder. "Ron Paul has quickly become a strong contender for the GOP nomination because of his powerful message of freedom and limited government."
This is excellent news comrades. It's always pleasing to see the Ministry of Truth get totally pwned by the free press (teh internets)!
----------------------
One Of The Few wrote:
I'd never heard of him before, but I checked out some of the videos and he's utterly awesome. Pro-free market, rational foreign policy, small government, pro-privacy and pro-freedom? Joygasm. Seems like exactly the kind of President that America needed in 1992, but he's hardly undesirable today. Anyone who compares their foreign policy on that of President Taft can't be all bad.
As you can see from this thread, Dr. Paul has motivated me to get interested in libertarian politics once again. Apart from Paul, I have absolutely no interest in voting for any of the other presidential candidates. If Paul quits this campaign, so will I. I have no interest in wasting my time arguing between the Republicrat's facetious Coke-or-Pepsi candidates. Mainstream colas don't interest me. I want a Dr. Pepper in my glass and a Dr. Paul in the white house.
If the mainstream media forces me to have another Coke, they better put some rum in it. They can at least get me drunk before they try to fuck me again.
[/bad_metaphor]
One Of The Few wrote:
Anyone who emphasises the power of the internet in achieving unprecedented freedom of speech and information is certainly partially good.
I have always viewed the internet as the new printing press. Gutenberg's invention helped bring Europe out of the dark ages, and I have always hoped that [joke]Al Gore's invention[/joke] would do the same. I guarantee that if it weren't for the internet, nobody outside of Galveston, Texas would be aware of Paul’s candidacy.
But there is still cause for concern. The Ministry of Truth is probably not happy about the proles discussing things that they didn't tell them to discuss. The media may have no choice to recognize Dr. Paul, but I am doubtful that this recognition will be favorable. Most proles still have never ever of Dr. Paul, and even with the internet on his side, most of the people in general public will get their first glimpse of Paul through the lens of the mass media. And that lens will undoubtedly be extremely cloudy.
Also, another point of concern is that the 2008 elections are still a year and a half away. There is plenty of time for this momentum to die down on its own, or be superceded by other major events. Perhaps the Neocons will be able to dig up a candidate that can talk the libertarian talk, but still walk the neocon line, and steal some of Paul’s uniqueness. There is no doubt that the Neocons are keeping a close eye on this potential libertarian coup d'état of "their" party, but I doubt that they are panicking yet. There is still plenty of time for them to "fix" this situation (and/or the election).
The battle has only just begun, my dear comrades.
One Of The Few wrote:
Could even a nation as paranoid and aggressive as the USA go to war in Iraq if every citizen had met an Iraqi on an online forum and knew that war would mean that they may well die? I doubt it. Of course, you could say that Americans might want to allieviate the suffering of the Iraqi/Iraqis they knew because of the tyranny of Saddam, but it's would also be pretty much impossible for a dictator like Saddam to exist in such a world. War depends on dehumanisation and obsfuctation, and the internet is a stunningly powerful means of familiarising and enlightening people.
I never really considered that idea, but I see your point. Perhaps somebody should teach Iraqis how to use MySpace and YouTube.
One Of The Few wrote:
EDIT: John McCain will be the next President of the US, because he's boring, uninteresting and unimaginative. At least I think I will; I can't tell most American politicians apart. If they're not black, female or (shock!) possessed of coherent and original ideas, it's hard to distinguish one grey male fart from another.
Out of all the neocon presidential hopefuls, McCain probably has the best shot. But I fear that the public at large has grown weary of the Republican's Coke and will probably be tempted to switch to Hillary's Pepsi (or Obama's Black-Crystal Pepsi). But in my opinion, all of the current media-blessed front-runners are wholly repulsive. Whenever I try to imagine what an administration under Hillary, McCain, or Giuliani would look like, it doesn't look pretty.
----------------------
therapyneeded wrote:
I'm most encouraged by the fact that he's been in office for quite a while. He can obviously win elections (when he's able to be heard), which is every libertarian's wet dream. As long as he keeps getting invited to debates (and if he doesn't, there are going to be a lot of people crying for blood) and winning them so soundly, he's going to have to be covered more. I'm also quite convinced that a Daily Show appearance would give him a nice shot in the arm. If a Republican with views so different from the party line can get noticed by apathetic youth, that can only help him.
Even if Paul doesn't get the party's nomination, Paul's success in the poll should help awaken the libertarians within the party who have been silence these last few years by neocon hysteria. There is still a few closet libertarians left in the party (and a few more who are sympathetic to libertarian issues). Paul's advocacy of these positions (and his success in the polls) may yet help awaken these sleeping libertarians in time to stop the party from completely turning to the neocon dark side.
And if nothing else, the campaign should at least be entertaining. I'm still shocked that all of this fuss has been raised over a Republican politician. I hope that this sudden rush of libertarian love is more than just an internet fad, and I hope it can continue all the way to November 2008.
UPDATE:
I found this recent MSNBC article rather interesting:
I'm not going to bother posting the whole thing here. But I'll tell you that the article basically tries to suggest that the 2008 election schedule could offer an excellent opportunity for a 3rd party candidate to take the White House. The reasoning for this newfound optimism?.... Arnold Schwarzenegger's lack of enthusiasm at the debate and Michael Bloomberg's $5 billion dollar bank account.
Oh joy. I am so happy that an "independent" such as Michael Bloomberg might win the election. I can hardly contain my enthusiasm. Hip, Hip, Hur-fucking-rah.
No, MSNBC's newfound optimism for 3rd party candidates has nothing to do with Ron Paul. The article doesn't even mention Dr. Paul, so what would even give all of you proles that idea? Stop being silly. The article clearly states that a 3rd party candidate is going to win the election. So, if this Dr. Paul fellow (whoever that may be) wants to have any chance at winning the election, he should do so on a 3rd party ticket. Because, as the article clearly states, if he runs on the Republican ticket he is doomed to certain failure and will handily be defeated by a “real” 3rd party candidate like Michael Fucking Bloomberg.
The message is crystal clear. Thank you MSNBC for sorting this matter out for me. Now do me a favor and please, fuck off and die you dirty mass media scumbags.
_________________ "The Aim of an Argument ... should not be victory, but progress." - Joseph Joubert (1754-1824)
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful." - Seneca the Younger
"It is often argued that religion is valuable because it makes men good, but even if this were true it would not be a proof that religion is true. That would be an extension of pragmatism beyond endurance. Santa Claus makes children good in precisely the same way, and yet no one would argue seriously that the fact proves his existence. The defense of religion is full of such logical imbecilities." - H. L. Mencken
Last edited by Big Brother on Wed 2007-05-09 19:10; edited 2 times in total
Post #41893
Joined: 22 Feb 2005
Posts: 556
Total Words: 89,413
Average words per post: 160.81
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Wed 2007-05-09 06:12
Politics: Constitutionalist
Country: Wackyland
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
BB wrote:
Even if Paul doesn't get the party's nomination, Paul's success in the poll should help awaken the libertarians within the party who have been silence these last few years by neocon hysteria. There is still a few closet libertarians left in the party (and a few more who are sympathetic to libertarian issues). Paul's advocacy of these positions (and his success in the polls) may yet help awaken these sleeping libertarians in time to stop the party from completely turning to the neocon dark side.
My biggest hope since Paul announced his bid has been that he could help reintroduce libertarian ideas into the American meme-web (or junkyard, if you're me). He isn't going to win this election, and I can almost guarantee that (believe me, I hope I am severely wrong). However, if he can make a strong show of his effort, and if events work to his favor, a Paul campaign could seriously shift the discourse in this country.
I think the youth of this country is actually quite sympathetic to libertarianism. Unfortunately for everyone, they're proles through and through, and know nothing about politics, sociology, economics, or any social science. I just hope that Ron Paul can help give the nascent ideas in these people some form. That's why I think the Daily Show appearance would have a beautiful effect. That's also why I'm telling everyone I know about Dr. Paul, his campaign, and his beliefs. I guarantee that I can get my mom to vote for him.
It's obvious that Americans are disatisfied with neo-conservatism. That movement has already failed spectacularily in the public's eye. My grandpa, who is a WWII vet with a Purple Heart and all, bashes Bush and the war constantly, as does my grandma. They're both staunchly religious conservative Republicans, but they absolutely hate their own party.
BB wrote:
And if nothing else, the campaign should at least be entertaining. I'm still shocked that all of this fuss has been raised over a Republican politician. I hope that this sudden rush of libertarian love is more than just an internet fad, and I hope it can continue all the way to November 2008.
Those who have been awhile for awhile might remember me talking about H.R. 1462, "The Employee Ownership Act of 1999.". It was a bill which would have rewarded businesses which turned over control of "the means of production" to the workers. If you don't remember what this bill was all about, here is a refresher....
Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), arguably the most conservative member of Congress, has paired with Bernie Saunders (D-VT), the only Socialist member of Congress, to introduce H.R. 1462, "The Employee Ownership Act of 1999." The bill, drafted by Rohrabacher, would provide that a company that is at least 50% owned by an employee ownership trust, allows each employee one vote on all corporate issues, and includes 90% of all full-time employees to participate in the trust would not pay any federal income tax. Moreover, employees or other current owners selling their stock back to the company would not pay tax, estates could receive a tax credit for transfers of stock to the trust, and non-trust owners would not pay tax on the first 25% of dividends they receive.
The bill has 34 cosponsors, but even its strongest advocates do not believe it will actually pass. Rohrabacher instead sees this as a means of generating discussion of how employee ownership can be made a larger part of America's economic agenda....
Well, for some reason I was thinking about this bill today and I became curious as to how Libertarian-Republican Ron Paul voted on it. Here's what I found:
While Rohrabacher’s bill is given little chance of passing in this session, its thirty-four cosponsors span the political spectrum, from very conservative Republicans, such as Ron Paul of Texas, to liberal Democrats like Marcy Kaptur and Dennis Kucinich of Ohio.
Ron Paul supports worker ownership of corporations!!!! And more than that, he even co-sponsored a bill to help make worker-owned (and worker-run) corporations a reality. Comrades, it appears that I may have been mistaken when I called Ron Paul a LibCap. His support for this bill, as far as I'm concerned, puts him squarely in the LibSyn camp… which is good, because it was getting awfully lonely over here.
This Ron Paul guy just keeps looking better and better. And this also might explain why he is so feared by corporate America.
During the last MSNBC debate, the candidates were asked several questions submitted from the internet. I wonder if there would be any possibility of getting Paul to talk about worker-owned businesses on national TV?
therapyneeded wrote:
BB wrote:
Even if Paul doesn't get the party's nomination, Paul's success in the poll should help awaken the libertarians within the party who have been silence these last few years by neocon hysteria.
My biggest hope since Paul announced his bid has been that he could help reintroduce libertarian ideas into the American meme-web (or junkyard, if you're me). He isn't going to win this election, and I can almost guarantee that (believe me, I hope I am severely wrong). However, if he can make a strong show of his effort, and if events work to his favor, a Paul campaign could seriously shift the discourse in this country.
If nothing else, I hope he'll help show Americans that there are other alternatives to the Neocon-Clinton-Gore hegemony.
therapyneeded wrote:
I think the youth of this country is actually quite sympathetic to libertarianism. Unfortunately for everyone, they're proles through and through, and know nothing about politics, sociology, economics, or any social science. I just hope that Ron Paul can help give the nascent ideas in these people some form. That's why I think the Daily Show appearance would have a beautiful effect. That's also why I'm telling everyone I know about Dr. Paul, his campaign, and his beliefs. I guarantee that I can get my mom to vote for him.
I'm going to do everything I possibly can to spread the word.
therapyneeded wrote:
It's obvious that Americans are dissatisfied with neo-conservatism. That movement has already failed spectacularly in the public's eye. My grandpa, who is a WWII vet with a Purple Heart and all, bashes Bush and the war constantly, as does my grandma. They're both staunchly religious conservative Republicans, but they absolutely hate their own party.
That is the story that the mainstream press is trying to avoid. Part of the reason for Ron Paul's success against his neocon rivals is that the other guys totally suck ass. The MSNBC post-debate poll showed that as soon as the Neocons opened their mouth, their support declined. McCain's' positive vote dropped from 31% to 18%, and his negative rating rose from 40% to 45%. Giuliani’s positive vote plummeted from 41% to 22%, and his negative numbers went from 34% to 43%. The numbers for the other candidates barely changed at all after the debates, with most getting a score similar to what Paul had before the debates. The only stand-out was Dr. Paul whose positive rating skyrocketed from 9% to 40%, and whose negative rating was nearly cut in half, down to 25%.
The mass media is trying to dismiss these numbers as some sort of internet fluke, but MSNBC's poll reflects the view of over 80,000 internet denizens. If we can force the media to end their blackout of Paul's campaign, his numbers will only grow. I don't hear anybody screaming for a McCain or Giuliani presidency. Nor do I see any of the neocon candidates rushing forward to ride on Bush's neocon coattails.
(once again Ron Paul stands out as the exception to the neocon rule)
And BTW... you can now embed YouTube movies in your posts.
The Republicans know that Americans have grown weary of the Neocons. So even though they have supported everything the Bush White House has done, they are doing everything they can to show how they are different from Bush. They are still in favor of continuing the occupation of Iraq, but unlike Bush, they are going to WIN! Yeah! Go Team!!
Basically, they are trying to distant themselves from the Neocons by becoming the .... (wait for it)...
Neo-NeoCons!!!
Fucking, lol.
therapyneeded wrote:
BB wrote:
And if nothing else, the campaign should at least be entertaining. I'm still shocked that all of this fuss has been raised over a Republican politician. I hope that this sudden rush of libertarian love is more than just an internet fad, and I hope it can continue all the way to November 2008.
Oh hell's yeah. Contrarians are always amusing.
Indeed. Just imagine what this race would look like without him. It would be dull, boring, and depressing. _________________ "The Aim of an Argument ... should not be victory, but progress." - Joseph Joubert (1754-1824)
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful." - Seneca the Younger
"It is often argued that religion is valuable because it makes men good, but even if this were true it would not be a proof that religion is true. That would be an extension of pragmatism beyond endurance. Santa Claus makes children good in precisely the same way, and yet no one would argue seriously that the fact proves his existence. The defense of religion is full of such logical imbecilities." - H. L. Mencken
Post #41921
Joined: 04 Feb 2006
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Wed 2007-05-09 19:15
Politics: Libertarian
Country: American Empire
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
I repeat the following. I would appreciate feedback:
Zoon wrote:
The question begs to be asked... what can we do to help Ron Paul get noticed?
Idea:
How about we start a campaign to get Ron Paul in the 3rd debate/on the Daily Show (if he's invited to the third debate, then focus on daily show.)
What would need to be done is that we would have to find the network's sponsors and amass a list of people who swear to boycott all the sponsors' products until Ron Paul is allowed to atten the 3rd debate/daily show. A list of the boycotters would be sent to the network, and all the sponsors would be notified of the same list.
Hell, a thousand pissed of people would do it. Heck, it might even get media attention if it worked. What do you guys think? If it's a good idea, we should probably start organizing. _________________ Luke 6:37:
"Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven."
Post #41929
Joined: 30 Dec 2005
Posts: 2659
Total Words: 306,608
Average words per post: 115.31
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Wed 2007-05-09 21:44
Politics: Crusader
Country: Russia
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
I definitely think a petition like that one would be great. Any ideas on how to get started? (I wouldn't know... heh)
BB wrote:
I'm going to do everything I possibly can to spread the word.
Perhaps you should use your Absinthe page to promote Dr. Paul (if you could find some way to make it seem relevant or something... ). _________________ To knock a thing down, especially if it is cocked at an arrogant angle, is a deep delight of the blood.
George Santayana
Post #41951
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Posts: 3015
Total Words: 1,173,420
Average words per post: 389.19
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Thu 2007-05-10 06:26
Politics: Libertarian-Syndicalist
Country: American Empire
Knowing is half the battle...
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
Zoon wrote:
I definitely think a petition like that one would be great. Any ideas on how to get started? (I wouldn't know... heh)
BB wrote:
I'm going to do everything I possibly can to spread the word.
Perhaps you should use your Absinthe page to promote Dr. Paul (if you could find some way to make it seem relevant or something... ).
I doubt Dr. Paul is a big fan of the green fairy. But I've already mentioned Dr. Paul on the main site (which gets a few thousand hits a week) and of course, there's this thread here which I'm sure has reached tens of... er...um... tens of .... um ... a few Europeans.
Beyond that, I recently used my awesome Wikipedia editing powers to add information to the Political positions of Ron Paul page concerning Paul's support of employee-owned corporations. Go LibSyn! Yeah, Team!!
I suppose that if all else fails, we could consider getting a new tattoo...
sorianofan wrote:
Idea:
How about we start a campaign to get Ron Paul in the 3rd debate/on the Daily Show (if he's invited to the third debate, then focus on daily show.)
I've already sent a request on their comment page to get Paul on the show. I'm pretty sure that should do the job. Expect to see Paul on the show by the end of week!
But just in case my single email isn't enough...
sorianofan wrote:
What would need to be done is that we would have to find the network's sponsors and amass a list of people who swear to boycott all the sponsors' products until Ron Paul is allowed to attend the 3rd debate/daily show. A list of the boycotters would be sent to the network, and all the sponsors would be notified of the same list.
I don't think screaming for blood is the way to go. Actually, let me re-phrase.... I don't think that threatening Comedy Central is the way to go. But as for all these soulless mega-media companies (msnbc, cnn, cbsnews, abcnews, etc) they deserve to get the holy living shit kicked out of them for failing to write a single fucking article about Ron Paul's throw-down at the debate ... other than the aforementioned abcnews.com article that dismissed Paul's success in the polls as the work of internet hackers. I already posted the full article back in this post, but just because it pissed me off so much, take a look at this brief excerpt...
So are the polls missing a Paul boomlet? Is the famously contrarian ob-gyn -- a libertarian nicknamed "Dr. No" because of his propensity to vote against anything he believes contradicts the Constitution's original intent -- poised to surge into contention in the GOP field?
Not likely. What's more likely, based on Web traffic over the past week, is that Paul supporters have mastered the art of "viral marketing," using Internet savvy and blog postings to create at least the perception of momentum for his long-shot presidential bid.
[…]
"It's evidence of something -- either passionate supporters, active supporters, or just one very savvy supporter who's able to vote several thousand times," Greenberger said.
It was that last bit which lead to comments such as this...
(Luckily, I happened to copy all these comments to my clipboard before they were purged by ABC)
I'm an left-leaning Independent, and Paul's common sense perspective, clearly uninfluenced by the military/industrial complex seems to me to be the Republican's best opportunity to appeal to the majority of the American electorate. That is to say he has about as much chance of winning the nomination as my dog does. God help us all.
Posted by: charliebro55 2:05 PM
We know the power elites want to control all information especially as relates to the truth about 9-11, but truth cannot be stopped. You cannot delete us , you can NO LONGER lie to us and get away with it. We will call your advertisers. We will e-mail your advertisers. We realize the only language that really matters to the power pigs is $$$$$$$. We will be heard. Go ahead and delete this. Ten more will spring up in its place.
Posted by: Buckfush101 2:05 PM
I don't know that ABC is purposely deleting comments, considering they left SO MANY supportive comments about Ron Paul. However, I too noticed that there were a lot more posts earlier on this article... Very strange.
Posted by: morristmm 2:02 PM
Why does ABCNews delete posts that point out that they are deleting posts? -Digg-
Posted by: bugnome 1:24 AM
abc is garbage
Posted by: Chuckwhiteer 1:23 AM
Thank you for covering Dr. Paul in this story. I think you will find his popularity after the debate is not a fluke; many people want decency and accountability in government. We are frankly scared of the corruption, the police-state laws, the use of torture, and other such symptoms of tyranny in our federal government. Dr. Paul's time may have come. I certainly hope so.
Posted by: RonPaul4Prez 1:22 AM
ABC, I never liked you. Now I can take this moment to tell you that. I think you're an awful company and anything that can be done to devalue your stock should be. Ron Paul/Mike Gravel 2008!
Posted by: chickenomics 1:22 AM
ABC - you will lose ground in our new markets if you fight the democratizing tide.
Posted by: FreedomAintJustAWord 1:21 AM
ABC sounds afraid.... they should be afraid! How dare Ron Paul say the interenet should be trusted more than the main stream media. ABC is afraid that it along with its other 8 conglomerate organizations might actually have to start talking about scary things like liberty, justice, and money backed by something.... They can't understand how a just man could be so popular in todays society of losers.
Posted by: zikafus 1:21 AM
ABC censors Ron Paul supporters? damn, that sucks
Posted by:Chuckwhiteer 1:21 AM
Abcnews is one of the reasons why our country is sinking.
Posted by: stalepie 1:20 AM
Why does ABCNews delete posts that point out that they are deleting posts?
Posted by: bugnome 1:20 AM
Ron Paul for President. We are waking up and it FEELS GREAT! Posted by: positron31 1:19 AM
I support Ron Paul and I am upset at this article, but don't get upset about what the mainstream media is doing. They are absolutely paniced. LOL. Go Ron Paul!!!! The internet is one area they can't control.
Posted by: woodydidit1913 1:19 AM
WHAT THE HECK?! Amazing, ABC, amazing. I love the #### spin. You don't know what to make of a candidate who truly inspires the grass roots, so you chalk it up to some internet scam or ponzi scheme. John Naisbitt said the computer would destroy the pyramid. I can't wait till Ron Paul and his revolution put an end to your ridiculous heirarchical propaganda machine.
Posted by: KennethNeal 1:18 AM
ABC says, "Can't we just BUY the internet?"
Posted by: JSawmiller 1:17 AM
If one of your polls fits your preconceived notions, you're happy to mention it during a newscast without calling into question its accuracy. If you don't like the poll's results, it obviously is because of vote tampering. If you really feel your polls are inaccurate, do something about it. I'm sure your webmaster could look at the logs and see how many votes are coming from the same IP addresses. There are many things that can be done to increase the accuracy of your polls. From limiting the number of votes allowed from an IP address, to requiring a valid email address, to using a "captcha" image that requires a unique code be retyped to confirm that it is a live person submitting their vote.
Posted by: bsmall80 1:13 AM
ABC, who do you think you are? The entire purpose of these comment boxes is so that our voices are to be heard. You've already censored the coverage of Ron Paul's victory at the debate, and now you are deleting our comments that criticize your actions. Well here's one more for you to delete.
Posted by: jefffm 1:12 AM
ABC is choking on the sweet air of freedom and must stifle any opposition to authoritarian rule! not really...sounds cool though...
Posted by: loker269 1:12 AM
If Ron Paul solves all the problems, e.g., Fiat Dollar, No War, Secure Borders, Smaller Government... Then what will the BIG NEWS companies report? The weather? ABC and their ilk will never allow for a downsizing provided by problem solving politics. Their advertisers like BIG BANKS, DRUG COMPANIES, and SCARE BASED SERVICES will loose too much control. They require fear; more war, more pain, more terror, more shame, more scandal. Even if it means manufacturing it. ABC and their ilk have a vested interest to defeat Dr. Ron Paul now, before he gets to popular and his stand well known. If they fail early on then it will require a more direct assault that only a company that controls weapons will be able to solve. Ron Paul has entered into the most dangerous position he has ever seen. The people love him and the elite hate him. He needs the secret service protection, not Obama. He must be nominated. It is the most important nomination in our history. We can not fail.
Posted by: JSawmiller 1:09 AM
Why are you lying ABC? Ron Paul has a VERY LARGE following online and in the polls and until you decide to post all sides this site is nothing more than propaganda. Unless something is done here to fix what you are doing, I hope the Digg effect brings this filth down!
Posted by: Franey97 1:09 AM
I think we should calm the discussion. Yes, the article is outrageous; yes, it decreases the credibility of ABC; yes, we may be mad that the only man who sticks up for the constitution is getting the worst rap... but we should remember that merely posting comments with exclamation points and angry tones isnt going to make him any more popular. Digg all the articles you want, and make all the blogs that you feel are necessary, because I think this media bias is very strong; but we cant win it over by making a riot. simply say you disagree and feel they are not credible... it will be enough and if Ron Paul has the numbers that I think he does then that, in itself, should speak for him and for our cause.
Posted by: RonPaulfor08 1:09 AM
I heard that ABC was censoring it's posters. Is this really true? I really like Ron Paul and would like to see more content about him on ABCs website. Thank you
Posted by: ucberkeley07 1:09 AM
Mr. Klein, I would like to refer you to the NY Times' analysis of what each candidate has received in campaign contributions to date. Although Dr. Paul has received a "paltry" $650,000 in contributions since his decision to run in March, when you look at the geographical breakdown of those contributions you will find his supporters in almost every US state! This is with almost ZERO media coverage. Once again, hats off to that "one very savvy supporter" you mention in your article. Apparently that person has managed to donate to Mr. Paul's campaign in almost every state in the union! Wow! You're pathetic.
Posted by: dagnytaggart04 1:08 AM
I only wish I could have saved all 216 comments, but alas, I was too late. And actually, I think more than that were deleted by ABC. There were over 400 comments just an hour or two before these comments were made, and at that time people were already complaining about prior deletions.
But as you can clearly see from these posts, every single one of them violated abcnews.com's Terms of Service, and therefore deserved to become un-comments.
Ron Paul's campaign is apparently aware of abc's minitrue-like actions, and has released the following press release:
"Technorati spokesman Aaron Krane confirmed that, to the best of the company's knowledge, the online support for Paul is genuine. (Tech-savvy devotees occasionally attempt to enlist programs called "bots" to artificially boost their candidate on search engines, but Krane said Technorati is usually able to detect and delete the cheaters.)"
To those who say the Internet arcs toward the trivial, try this on for size: Currently, the most searched-for phrase on the blog aggregate site Technorati.com is Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul.
Paris Hilton is No. 5.
Commentators often refer to the Internet as the great equalizer, but when it comes to the 2008 election, it appears that the murky economy of Web traction may even give an edge to the long shots. And Paul, a Republican congressman from Texas and an avowed Libertarian known around D.C. as "Dr. No" for his persistent opposition to just about everything, is a long shot if there ever was one. He has yet to break 2 percent in a poll of GOP candidates and raised just under $640,000 in the first fundraising quarter of the year, pocket change compared with the three GOP candidates who topped $10 million.
But his supporters have flocked to the Internet with such enthusiasm that Paul is now showing up among the much richer candidates in various measures of Internet traffic. Using sites like Digg.com, which allow users to vote on their favorite items to vault them to more prominence on the site, they keep a steady diet of Ron Paul material coming through the pipelines.
Technorati spokesman Aaron Krane confirmed that, to the best of the company's knowledge, the online support for Paul is genuine. (Tech-savvy devotees occasionally attempt to enlist programs called "bots" to artificially boost their candidate on search engines, but Krane said Technorati is usually able to detect and delete the cheaters.)
So how are a comparatively small number of supporters able to keep up--and in some cases outpace--with the publicity machines of opponents with much more money and support?
"Necessity is the mother of invention," Krane suggests, arguing that, while coverage in big-media circuits requires a lot of spending on campaign appearances and TV spots, supporters of the fringe candidates have better reason to resort to this kind of guerrilla warfare in cyberspace.
Let the "guerrilla warfare in cyberspace" begin!!!
Now for another unrelated bit of trivia... U.S. News and World Report is not owned by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation (unlike MySpace, and the rest of the media world). It's owned by some billionaire who also owns one other newspaper. No mega-media conglomerate here. Interesting, eh?
Quote:
Hell, a thousand pissed of people would do it. Heck, it might even get media attention if it worked. What do you guys think? If it's a good idea, we should probably start organizing.
I think Dr. Paul already has an organization running his campaign. But, I think nobody has been more surprised by all this recent fame than the Paul campaign themselves. I really don't think they know what to do with themselves, or the proper way to handle all this fame.
I mean... has Dr. Paul made any television appearances since the debate? I sure haven't heard of any. But then again, this might not be Paul's fault. For some reason I doubt that major media news shows have been exactly knocking down his door to get an interview.
Perhaps we'll just have to wait and see what happens after the next debate. The media knows he's a threat, and since they’re the one's asking the questions at the debate, I'm sure we'll get a chance to see a few hardballs thrown Paul's way. And if he can stand the barrage, I'm sure his popularity will grow... and then the television appearances will start to come.
Remember, we're still 9 months away from the primary elections. We don't want to Paul to burn out and fade away too soon.
And now, just because I love my new YouTube embedding feature...
_________________ "The Aim of an Argument ... should not be victory, but progress." - Joseph Joubert (1754-1824)
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful." - Seneca the Younger
"It is often argued that religion is valuable because it makes men good, but even if this were true it would not be a proof that religion is true. That would be an extension of pragmatism beyond endurance. Santa Claus makes children good in precisely the same way, and yet no one would argue seriously that the fact proves his existence. The defense of religion is full of such logical imbecilities." - H. L. Mencken
Last edited by Big Brother on Thu 2007-05-10 21:51; edited 1 time in total
Post #41956
Joined: 04 Feb 2006
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Thu 2007-05-10 10:04
Politics: Libertarian
Country: American Empire
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
Quote:
Perhaps we'll just have to wait and see what happens after the next debate. The media knows he's a threat, and since they’re the one's asking the questions at the debate, I'm sure we'll get a chance to see a few hardballs thrown Paul's way. And if he can stand the barrage, I'm sure his popularity will grow... and then the television appearances will start to come.
And if he doesn't get invited to a 3rd debate? Paul supporters have to be prepared to flex some muscle and do more than send a few emails and post deleted messages on a forum at abc.com. Jesse Jackson was able to get Imus fired through such tactics. If Paul is clearly blackballed by the media after the second debate, it may be adviseable that we up our tactics from "weer gonna annoy yoo wit' emails" to something more serious and tangible.
Check out Ron Paul sout out on McLaughlin Group: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BHKtXyIzn0 _________________ Luke 6:37:
"Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven."
Post #42005
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Posts: 3015
Total Words: 1,173,420
Average words per post: 389.19
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Fri 2007-05-11 00:57
Politics: Libertarian-Syndicalist
Country: American Empire
Blog ops
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
Here's my latest contribution to the Ron Paul cause...
I run an ISAPI filter on my webserver to block hotlinking. This stops people from using my bandwidth to host images on their websites. What this filter does is that it alters all requests for images from externals sites -- it changes the image filename from the name that was requested, to this small 2k image...
If some MySpace user or blogger tries to add an image from my website on to their page, the above image is all they'll see. However, that isn't the whole story. The owner of the blog will probably see the image that he intended to post since the image will still be in his browser cache, but all other visitors to his site will see the Red-n-Black colors of glory.
I know.... it's evil. But so is hotlinking. My bandwidth is limited, so I simply don't have resources to host images for hundreds of various websites (which was what was happening before I put a stop to it). The above image is a highly compressed 2k GIF, which saves be a load of bandwidth every month (and discourages people from hotlinking in the first place).
So for my first act of dirty politics, I changed my script to redirect to the following image instead of my old anarcho-syndicalist flag....
Now, anybody who attempts to steal my bandwidth will inadvertently end up advertising for Paul.
Oooooh.... Evil, evil, evil.
Anything to spread the word, right?
sorianofan wrote:
Quote:
Perhaps we'll just have to wait and see what happens after the next debate. The media knows he's a threat, and since they’re the one's asking the questions at the debate, I'm sure we'll get a chance to see a few hardballs thrown Paul's way. And if he can stand the barrage, I'm sure his popularity will grow... and then the television appearances will start to come.
And if he doesn't get invited to a 3rd debate?
That's a very good question. As things currently stand, I don't think they would be able to get away with it. The only way I could see this happening is if they go out of their way to make Paul look bad at the 2nd debate, then fake some polls to make it look like his "internet fad" support is dwindling, and then try to justify his exclusion at the 3rd debate by claiming that he was never a "real" candidate.
At this point, nothing would surprise me. The media might be pretending that Ron Paul isn't a serious candidate, but I guarantee that the other candidates have taken notice. The neocon leadership in the Party has undoubtedly taken notice as well, and I'm sure their already trying to figure out ways to get Paul out of the race.
If media exclusion doesn't work, there are still other tricks they can pull out of their hat. My guess is that they'll give up on the current crop of candidates and bring someone new into the race -- somebody who can steal at least a few of Paul's issues. But I doubt tht this tactic will work since they are going to have an awfully hard time finding anybody who even comes close to Paul.
The thing that makes Paul so popular is that he is picking up support from both sides of the aisle. Democrats like him because of his staunch anti-war policies, and conservatives like him for his strong economic policies. The fundies like him because he is (somewhat) pro-life, and the Libertarian-Syndicalists (Carldie and me) like him because he supports worker-owned businesses. There really isn't a whole lot not to like about the guy.
I've seen a couple of feeble attempts by one YouTube user construct anti-Paul arguments, but his arguments have been largely pathetic. The only places he might run into trouble are with:
Staunch pro-choicers - But Paul's opposition to Roe v Wade is somewhat mitigated by the fact that he wants to turn the issue over to the states. I'm fairly pro-choice, but IMHO a candidate that wants the federal government to ignore the issue is better than one who wants to either prohibit or mandate it. I'm tired of this minor issue being a factor in major federal elections, so I'm all for Paul trying to eliminate it from the equation.
War hawks - There aren't too many of these left in the country, so this probably won't hurt him all that much. And in any case, most hawks are Republicans. And if Paul gets the Republican nomination, who are these people going to vote for?.... Hillary? LOL. This does however open up the possibility for the neocons to introduce a 3rd party "spoiler" candidate to steal Paul's votes. That could be a problem. But if conservatives realize that supporting a neocon spoiler means putting Hillary in the White House, this could make many change their minds (Just like they got Nader voters to vote for Gore.
The Republicratic Party and their cabal of media hacks - Fuck 'em.
Other than these potential hang-ups, there really isn't much of a reason for people to oppose Paul's presidency. Some people might not like his opposition to federal social programs, but once again, this is somewhat mitigated by the fact that he opposes these things on the federal level and is occasionally supportive of some state and local assistance programs (but not many).
It's that last point which will probably upset the left-leaning voters the most. But Paul's opposition to the war will undoubtedly win over many current Democrats. It would be very interesting to see how a Paul-Hillary-(maybe Bloomberg) presidential election would pan out. Hopefully, we'll get a chance to see it.
But to get back to the original point as to what do if Paul gets excluded from the 3rd debate, I think we should cross that bridge when we come to it. The May 15th debate will give us some indication of what the Neocons tactic for dealing with Paul is. So until the 15th comes, I think we just have to sit back and wait to see what happens.
Ok... perhaps not "sit back"... we should keep spreading the word. But I will say that if the media attempts to exclude him from the debates like they are excluding him in all of their news coverage, I'm sure all hell will break loose.
sorianofan wrote:
Paul supporters have to be prepared to flex some muscle and do more than send a few emails and post deleted messages on a forum at abc.com. Jesse Jackson was able to get Imus fired through such tactics. If Paul is clearly blackballed by the media after the second debate, it may be adviseable that we up our tactics from "weer gonna annoy yoo wit' emails" to something more serious and tangible.
The reason Jackson's tactics work is because the media fears him. Civil rights leaders can make any insane argument they wish, and the media will just sit back and unquestionably support them since they can't afford to loose their African-American market share. That kind of groupthink can be easily developed based on racial or religious criteria, but I’m not so sure if libertarianism can motivate that sort of mass dedication (That’s why I’m somewhat surprised by the level of support Paul is currently receiving). _________________ "The Aim of an Argument ... should not be victory, but progress." - Joseph Joubert (1754-1824)
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful." - Seneca the Younger
"It is often argued that religion is valuable because it makes men good, but even if this were true it would not be a proof that religion is true. That would be an extension of pragmatism beyond endurance. Santa Claus makes children good in precisely the same way, and yet no one would argue seriously that the fact proves his existence. The defense of religion is full of such logical imbecilities." - H. L. Mencken
Post #42007
Joined: 30 Dec 2005
Posts: 2659
Total Words: 306,608
Average words per post: 115.31
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Fri 2007-05-11 02:03
Politics: Crusader
Country: Russia
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
I'm curious what some of the forum's prominent lefterners think of Ron Paul (Ingsoc Officer, JD-sama).
I'm less optimistic about Ron Paul getting democrats to swing for him. I'm afraid that another problem he might face in garnering liberal support is his tremendous support of gun rights.
Face it, in American most people vote on button issues - a lot of people I know say they would be democrats except they could never vote for someone who was pro-choice/pro-gun control/etc. Democrats are probably more likely to dismiss the so-called button issues than Republicans, but the concept is still there. Sure, Democrats want to get out of Iraq, but will that alone be enough to get them to send their votes to a pro-gun, pro-life Republican if they think Hillary or Obama would get us out too?
(In other Paul news, I wrote a short article on Ron Paul for Newsvine, but I mostly just forwarded what I've read in this thread, but in case you want to look at it here it is.) _________________ To knock a thing down, especially if it is cocked at an arrogant angle, is a deep delight of the blood.
George Santayana
Post #42016
Joined: 16 Jun 2004
Posts: 2117
Total Words: 631,269
Average words per post: 298.19
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Fri 2007-05-11 03:16
Politics: Communist
Country: United Kingdom
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
Zoon wrote:
I'm curious what some of the forum's prominent lefterners think of Ron Paul (Ingsoc Officer, JD-sama).
I'm mainly somewhat surprised that the LibCap element on this board is so quick to cheerlead. The Chances of Ron Paul getting elected as the republican candidate, even given the best campaign he could reasonably expect are pretty slim. The posters have already recognised the bias inherent in the selection system, were he to become a real possibility for the candidacy his opposition would bring out the suicidally big guns, polarising and angering the republican support base making him near unelectable as the republican candidate even if given the chance. If he got to the presidential election it would be the same story on a bigger scale, the party lines are drawn such that where he should get support party allegiance would cost him, and where party allegiance would get him votes his atypical stance will cost him there too. Looking at some of the popular "liberal" pundits and comedians (who drive much of "liberal"(that's such a bad usage of the word) mainstream politics) who should theoretically support Paul but don't, I somewhat doubt there will be any mainstream swing. As for getting Paul on the daily show that could be a mixed blessing, Jon Stewart is far more politically savvy than he makes out, and is insanely popular; if one examines how he handles politicians on his show, he moulds their position and audience acceptance with ease. Politicians just aren't equipped to deal with comedians that know what they are doing.
Even if triumphing over all of this Paul was elected president, and assuming against all my intuitions he isn't just an opportunist looking at a niche, and is in fact the saint of Libertarianism he makes out; assuming all this he still lacks the power as executive to make real changes from his position. It is unlikely, even given two terms that Paul could deliver a genuine political shift away from the play ground hot button politics we see today and after his presidential term he's gone and replaced by one of the flock. Ultimately realism forces even the best executive working within a traditional model to bend to the traditional role of a president; all you're left with is flourishes of whimsy in unimportant but provocative areas.
Ultimately I find it hard to get excited about the prospect of putting a new rich guy on some pedestal; however morally and politically respectable that rich guy's sales pitch may be. Maybe I'm wrong, I hope I am, whilst Ron's political stance is a rather simplistic take on Libertarian capitalism with a few unsavoury nuances, I'm sure I'm vastly closer to his public positions on non-economic issues than the other candidates. I guess I'll wait and see, but really I stand by my appraisal that it's the system that's broke and it is broke in such a way it can't be significantly bettered from within. When you stand by a guy like this and he ends up being just like all the other jerks, or an entity so easily cast aside he may as well have been, all it does is wreck your morale, and a socialist should know^^. _________________ "I wanted to know the world that was outside of the well.
So I tried hard to get out from the bottom of the well.
I wanted to know the world that was outside of the well.
So I climbed up numerous of times despite falling down over and over again.
But then I realized it.
The higher and higher I climb, the pain increases when I fall down again.
When my interest in the world outside of the well began to equal the amount of pain,
That was when I finally realized the meaning of the story to Der Froschkönig."
Post #42020
Joined: 30 Dec 2005
Posts: 2659
Total Words: 306,608
Average words per post: 115.31
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Fri 2007-05-11 03:36
Politics: Crusader
Country: Russia
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
Well I guess the thing that gets me really excited about Ron Paul is that, from what I see, he doesn't seem like other politicians. He is consistent and votes on principle instead of simply doing what he thinks will get him a better footing. And though even two terms wouldn't be long enough to accomplish as many things as I'm sure he would hope to do, I believe he could set America in the right direction, i.e., moving away from the two-party system and bipartisan tendencies, becoming less aggressive, and giving libertarians a helpful boost in future elections (all this of course assuming his presidency was a popular one... if not he could set this all years back). _________________ To knock a thing down, especially if it is cocked at an arrogant angle, is a deep delight of the blood.
George Santayana
Bush told war is harming the GOP
A warning on the eve of vote on new Iraq spending bill
By Shailagh Murray and Jonathan Weisman
Updated: 8:42 a.m. CT May 10, 2007
WASHINGTON - House Republican moderates, in a remarkably blunt White House meeting, warned President Bush this week that his pursuit of the war in Iraq is risking the future of the Republican Party and that he cannot count on GOP support for many more months.
The meeting, which ran for an hour and a half Tuesday afternoon, was disclosed by participants yesterday as the House prepared to vote this evening on a spending bill that could cut funding for the Iraq war as early as July. GOP moderates told Bush they would stay united against the latest effort by House Democrats to end U.S. involvement in the war. Even Senate Democrats called the House measure unrealistic.
But the meeting between 11 House Republicans, Bush, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, White House political adviser Karl Rove and presidential press secretary Tony Snow was perhaps the clearest sign yet that patience in the party is running out. The meeting, organized by Rep. Charlie Dent (Pa.), one of the co-chairs of the moderate "Tuesday Group," included Reps. Thomas M. Davis III (Va.), Michael N. Castle (Del.), Todd R. Platts (Pa.), Jim Ramstad (Minn.) and Jo Ann Emerson (Mo.).
"It was a very remarkable, candid conversation," Davis said. "People are always saying President Bush is in a bubble. Well, this was our chance, and we took it."
Even with pressure mounting, Congress and the White House are making little progress as they try to find a bipartisan option to fund the war through the summer. Senate leaders met with White House officials yesterday and produced no agreement, as Gates warned lawmakers that the debate is beginning to delay Pentagon operations.
[...]
Davis, a former chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, also presented Bush dismal polling figures to dramatize just how perilous the party's position is, participants said. Davis would not disclose details, saying the exchange was private. Others warned Bush that his personal credibility on the war is all but gone.
Snow, who sat in on the meeting in the president's private quarters, said it should not be overdramatized or seen as another "marching up to Nixon," a reference to the critical moment during Watergate in 1974 when key congressional Republicans went to the White House to tell President Richard M. Nixon that it was time to resign.
Interesting development. And I'm sure that it had nothing to do with Ron Paul's anti-war slam dunk of the Republican presidential debate.
It's apparent that the Republicans are shaking in their boots at the prospect of a libertarian coup of their grand old party. They are realizing that they have zero chance of winning the next election if they continue to spew forth their 9/11 rhetoric. The primary issue that is motivating most of Paul's supporters is the war in Iraq. And this recent move by the GOP shows how desperate they are to take that issue away from him. They say it themselves in the article -- they realize that "the future of the Republican Party" is at risk (in other words, they're worried about the next election). And it is clear that this concern comes from some "dismal polling figures".
I wonder what polls the are talking about? Hmmmmm. We'll never know for sure, since they wouldn't comment on that part of the conversation. But I haven't really heard of any new polls, other than the ones Ron Paul's supporters are screaming about. They refused to comment on this part of their conversation which is a bit of an odd omission, considering how forthcoming they were about every other part of the meeting.
Of course, I realize that this is mostly a PR move. News of this discussion was "leaked" by the Republican Party themselves. And the timing of this stunt cannot simply be a co-incidence. The war has been going on for years now, but a mere 6 days after the debate, Republicans are suddenly worried about "the future of the Republican Party".
I have one other interesting observation --- Ron Paul has been one of the staunchest Republican critics of war in Iraq. He was one of the few Republicans to vote against going to war in the first place. Yet for some reason, he was not among the 11 Republican congressmen who paid George W a visit. Why do you think that is? Do you think his invitation got lost in the mail?
Zoon wrote:
Face it, in American most people vote on button issues - a lot of people I know say they would be democrats except they could never vote for someone who was pro-choice/pro-gun control/etc.
I'm afraid you are correct. You have to know something is up when sorianofan and myself are passionately supporting the same candidate. I mean, I don't think we've agreed on much else here on the board (Particularly Paul of Tarsus). Yet for some reason, we both agree on Ron Paul. Such is the awesome power of Ron Paul! Everybody seems to be willing to overlook these traditional "minor" hot-button issues and look at the bigger picture -- particularly the war in Iraq. And this goes a long way in explaining the GOP's sudden attempt to pretend that they want out of Iraq.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't every single Republican at the debate dead-set against leaving Iraq? Has anybody ever heard a Republican politician or political hack talk about withdrawing from Iraq? How is it that all of a sudden, all of these anti-war Republicans are crawling out of the woodwork? Did anybody ever expect to see Bush get bitch-slapped like he just did for threatening the party's future?
Nope. It has nothing to do with Ron Paul.
I knew that the neocons would do whatever it takes to keep Paul from the White House, but I had no idea they would take this route. Even though I know it's just a stunt and will probably have no real effect on the neocon's belief in perpetual war, I'm concerned that it might fool a lot of people into thinking that Ron Paul is no longer necessary. And if the neocons do actually pull out of Iraq before the election, it would absolutely end Paul's chances at the white house. The American public has an extremely short memory, and will soon forget that the media-approved politicians they are electing to office are exactly the same kind of fuckheads that got us into Iraq in the first place.
Zoon wrote:
(In other Paul news, I wrote a short article on Ron Paul for Newsvine, but I mostly just forwarded what I've read in this thread, but in case you want to look at it here it is.)
Excellent work comrade. Keep up the good fight!
JD-sama wrote:
The Chances of Ron Paul getting elected as the republican candidate, even given the best campaign he could reasonably expect are pretty slim.
This is true, for all of the reasons you outlined. They will do whatever it takes to keep him out of the White House. But even if he doesn't win, his candidacy will undoubtedly alter this election. Just imagine what the debates would have looked like without him? In truth, I doubt we would even be talking about the GOP debates. There would have been nothing to talk about. And I doubt that the Republicans would now be considering (or pretending to consider) pulling our troops out of Iraq.
JD-sama wrote:
Even if triumphing over all of this Paul was elected president, and assuming against all my intuitions he isn't just an opportunist looking at a niche, and is in fact the saint of Libertarianism he makes out; assuming all this he still lacks the power as executive to make real changes from his position.
Again, you are absolutely correct. Nobody in congress agrees with of all of Paul's positions, and he would have almost zero chance of getting congress to support some of his more radical ideas. However, Paul would be able to undo most of the damaged caused by the neocons, and most importantly, he would prevent some other neocon from entering the white house.
Even though most people will claim that they want “change”, the truth is that change scares the hell out of them. The only way they would support real change in Washington is if the current occupants scare the hell out of them enough for them to overcome this fear of change. Ron Paul wouldn’t be getting the kind of support he is if our current leadership in Washington wasn’t fucking up as badly as they are.
But don't forget the most important thing that a Ron Paul presidency would do – it would completely unravel the current 2 party-duopoly which dominates our political system. And that would be a reward in itself.
JD-sama wrote:
When you stand by a guy like this and he ends up being just like all the other jerks, or an entity so easily cast aside he may as well have been, all it does is wreck your morale, and a socialist should know^^.
I don't think I've ever had this level of confidence in any politician. But when you look at Paul's record in the US congress, it becomes immediately obvious that Paul is different from most politicians. As Zoon said...
Zoon wrote:
Well I guess the thing that gets me really excited about Ron Paul is that, from what I see, he doesn't seem like other politicians. He is consistent and votes on principle instead of simply doing what he thinks will get him a better footing. And though even two terms wouldn't be long enough to accomplish as many things as I'm sure he would hope to do, I believe he could set America in the right direction, i.e., moving away from the two-party system and bipartisan tendencies, becoming less aggressive, and giving libertarians a helpful boost in future elections (all this of course assuming his presidency was a popular one... if not he could set this all years back).
I don’t think the libertarians could be set back any more than they where under neocon rule. _________________ "The Aim of an Argument ... should not be victory, but progress." - Joseph Joubert (1754-1824)
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful." - Seneca the Younger
"It is often argued that religion is valuable because it makes men good, but even if this were true it would not be a proof that religion is true. That would be an extension of pragmatism beyond endurance. Santa Claus makes children good in precisely the same way, and yet no one would argue seriously that the fact proves his existence. The defense of religion is full of such logical imbecilities." - H. L. Mencken
Post #42035
Joined: 04 Feb 2006
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Fri 2007-05-11 17:06
Politics: Libertarian
Country: American Empire
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
Quote:
You have to know something is up when sorianofan and myself are passionately supporting the same candidate. I mean, I don't think we've agreed on much else here on the board (Particularly Paul of Tarsus). Yet for some reason, we both agree on Ron Paul. Such is the awesome power of Ron Paul!
Well, I was reading James today and I was thinking how I liked him more than Paul...
I honestly think we agree on almost everything but religion (which is nearly all I write about.) I'm a Libertarian like you. I voted for Badnarik in '04. I'm not a 100% extreme libertarian, and I'm actually quite cognizant of the need not to be self-serving and hedonist, which sadly draws most people to the ideology. We believe in a live and let live policy.
But yes, behold the power of Mr. Pickles!
_________
Is JD Sama so hateful of capitalism that he thinks the statist staus quo in America is preferable to a moderate Libertarian as the chief executive?
I agree with Sama's points, as do Zoon/Gold Rust and BB, but let me put some things into perspective.
1. Yes, Ron Paul is a long shot...but who cares?
-It's worth a shot. I mean, should we not vote for the guy we like and try to enlist support and just vote for the mafiosi or Adolf McCain instead? This early in the game, we should always support the guy we want.
-Let's say that by some act of God Ron Paul wins the 2nd debate, gets popular, and wins the early primaries. Hell, his ardent and uncompromised immigration stance (which I vehemently oppose) is definitely going to be attractive to the xenophobic californian Republicans that are being invaded by Mexico as we speak. This will force the American election to focus on issues other than how awesome social security and education are while we sit on our hands and do nothing. It's a breath of fresh air, good for leftists and rightists drowned out by this moderate status quo crowd.
-Can Paul win the election? Probably not, but it would help put the Iraq War issue on the front burner. Hillary risks losing the election by not taking a clear Iraq War stance if she were opposed by Paul. In all liklihood, she would pull a Lieberman and try to grab neo-con votes (the other option is pretending that she agrees with Paul, which no one will buy and it concedes him the war issue). Any liberals with a soul seeing Hillary pandering to their sworn enemies (neo-cons) would jump onto Ron Paul's lifeboat, even if it is not as big and nice as they would like it to be. The big boat is headed towards fascism and people know it. If you care at all, you can hate libertarianism but would have to choose Paul over the neo-con candidate. How's that for a metaphor?
It is exactly the preceding that makes me lick my lips. Paul's candidacy helps expose the truth behind the political paradigm in this country. To be honest, I see very little difference between the right and left here. Most people here claim the same. Conservatives with any backbone and man enough to admit that Bush is not the ideal President would support Paul over a Democrat. Democrats with any ideals whatsoever would support an anti-war Paul over a pro-war Hillary. And the independent vote? That's Hillary's. However, a Paul candidacy would mean that we would be seeing one of the largest election turn outs in a hundred years in America, and I doubt that the new voters are status quo fans willing to vote Hillary.
Lastly, I'm not some Alex Jones fan who believes his drivel. There's no NWO (sorry guys.) However, there is definitely a dangerous elite in this country (and eco-politically in the world,) and a Paul victory would be a triumph against it.
2. Sama says that Paul will not be able to do enough as President. For whatever reason, BB and Zoon have conceded this to him.
As the Geico caveman one say, "Uh...WHAT?!?"
If anything, if Paul were President, I would be afraid he would do too much. You know how much power a President has?
I hope if he were elected, he would be more pragmatic and not rock the boat by Constitutionally using his executive authority to the fullest. Paul can easily and Constitutionally withdraw every soldier from overseas back to America, withdraw the navy, send armies to our borders, deport all the nation's illegal aliens, end the drug war and stop all enforcement of anti-drug laws, end the Federal welfare state by simply refusing to allocate funds and vetoing budgets, end the Federal Reserve by issuing and executive order akin to JFK's E.O. 11110, drop out of the UN and even evict them, stop all federal grants to local schools (and end no child left behind), be Dr. No and King Veto, declassify all the awful shit this country has done so that no one would have any faith in trusting this government to be sizable for generations, drop out of trade agreements not signed by treaty (all of them at this point)...
He could single handedly change the face of American governance and the world. That's the power the President has (none of the preceding would be outside of his scope.) It scares the shit out of me to be frank. I would not want Paul doing many of the preceding, but it is certainly possible. I mean, airing out past politician's dirty laundry using declassification would outdo anything the corporate media would throw at him. America reverting instantaneously back to a isolationist stance may wreak international havoc on the economy. If Paul were to win, we would have to hope he would be sensible!
So, Sama, you couldn't be more wrong about "Paul wouldn't make a difference anyway, so why even dream about voting for someone who is not a total scum bag like everyone else?" If anything, the most negative thing about Paul is that it is within the realm of possibility he can raise all Hell.
__________
I don't wish to end this post on such a note. I fully support Paul's bid to stage a conservative coup on the neo-conservative Republican party. I believe he's sensible enough not to pull an Alex Jones and ignore testing the waters and doing a cannon ball into the swimming pool. Anyone, ABSOLUTELY ANYONE, who has a twinkle in their eye and would like to see some worthwhile political discussion so that the status quo may be already in any direction should at least support Paul's bid as the Republican candidate. To be brutally honest, one of the main reasons I'm not a statist is because they lack all conviction. They oppose war only when it is politically expedient and when a guy like Paul comes around, they find every reason to hate him. I believe that statists are much less concerned with charity and the greater good than they are with power.
And power is dangerous. It kills millions. It is killing in Iraq right now. And that power must be refrained, and if you're against murder and you are for honesty, you have to support Ron Paul. Everyone here, do your loyalties lie with state power are do they lie with humanity itself? Will you compromise on the altar of and for the sake of the state or will you just once realize that regardless of what you think the state is good for (and bad for) is secondary to the conservation of human life and accountability in government?
I wouldn't care if Ron Paul was a Communist if that meant the return to the rule of law [Constitution] and a distancing from the elites who have compromised humanity too long for profit and power. The war must cease, the lies must stop, and we have to take back this Republic. Absolutely everything else is secondary. _________________ Luke 6:37:
"Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven."
Post #42038
Joined: 16 Jun 2004
Posts: 2117
Total Words: 631,269
Average words per post: 298.19
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Fri 2007-05-11 18:09
Politics: Communist
Country: United Kingdom
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
sorianofan wrote:
Is JD Sama so hateful of capitalism that he thinks the statist staus quo in America is preferable to a moderate Libertarian as the chief executive?
No ... but I sure hate how capitalists hijack the word libertarian. ^^
If America became the ideological libcap state I would be happy. I am a libertarian, so I agree with about half of what libertarian capitalists stand for. Furthermore I'm fairly confident canonical libertarian capitalism would collapse if instituted in America and then we would finally stop hearing stupid USSR arguments in debates ^^.
What I do think is that the LibCap element on this board is being over optimistic and cheerleading, both things which are, in my opinion, dangerous for ones intellectual strength. Ron Paul is a man, and a man who seeks power at that; when I see socialists of the same description trumpeting my exact ideology, I tend to be more critical.
Quote:
I agree with Sama's points, as do Zoon/Gold Rust and BB, but let me put some things into perspective.
1. Yes, Ron Paul is a long shot...but who cares?
-It's worth a shot. I mean, should we not vote for the guy we like and try to enlist support and just vote for the mafiosi or Adolf McCain instead? This early in the game, we should always support the guy we want.
I'm certainly not saying you shouldn't vote for him. I'm saying that getting all buzzed up over a politician running in a flawed electoral system is not the best investment of one's time, nor one's loyalties. I'm all for popular movements supporting your ideology, popular movements supporting a man are doomed to be limited and most likely amount to nothing but a sense of spent optimism.
Quote:
-Let's say that by some act of God Ron Paul wins the 2nd debate, gets popular, and wins the early primaries. Hell, his ardent and uncompromised immigration stance (which I vehemently oppose) is definitely going to be attractive to the xenophobic californian Republicans that are being invaded by Mexico as we speak. This will force the American election to focus on issues other than how awesome social security and education are while we sit on our hands and do nothing. It's a breath of fresh air, good for leftists and rightists drowned out by this moderate status quo crowd.
-Can Paul win the election? Probably not, but it would help put the Iraq War issue on the front burner. Hillary risks losing the election by not taking a clear Iraq War stance if she were opposed by Paul. In all liklihood, she would pull a Lieberman and try to grab neo-con votes (the other option is pretending that she agrees with Paul, which no one will buy and it concedes him the war issue). Any liberals with a soul seeing Hillary pandering to their sworn enemies (neo-cons) would jump onto Ron Paul's lifeboat, even if it is not as big and nice as they would like it to be. The big boat is headed towards fascism and people know it. If you care at all, you can hate libertarianism but would have to choose Paul over the neo-con candidate. How's that for a metaphor?
I'm not talking about whether Ron Paul should win, I'm not even talking about whether he theoretically could win. The question is whether he would win, without selling his soul(if he hasn't already), given the unpopularity of his proposition within the political classes, and given their inevitable offensive were he to pose a threat. Discord within a party primary can almost unfailingly sink an election campaign, there are enough high level republicans who care less about the republican candidate winning than they do about Ron Paul losing to destroy party unity.
Quote:
It is exactly the preceding that makes me lick my lips. Paul's candidacy helps expose the truth behind the political paradigm in this country. To be honest, I see very little difference between the right and left here. Most people here claim the same. Conservatives with any backbone and man enough to admit that Bush is not the ideal President would support Paul over a Democrat. Democrats with any ideals whatsoever would support an anti-war Paul over a pro-war Hillary. And the independent vote? That's Hillary's. However, a Paul candidacy would mean that we would be seeing one of the largest election turn outs in a hundred years in America, and I doubt that the new voters are status quo fans willing to vote Hillary.
This is perhaps the best argument for a movement like this. That somehow the campaign itself can change the landscape of political thought, I rather think this is unrealistic though. Most people simply aren't willing to interact with the political process through this medium beyond sound bites, simplifications and hot button issues. So far I've seen the choir singing extra loud, but a real shift in republican thought? Even if republicans start to like Ron Paul that have to do more than that, they have to like and understand his lines of argumentation or his effect on the political zeitgeist is limited to 8 years at best. Political change has to occur from the bottom up, not through aspirations of support focused on some distant figurehead.
A Clinton-Paul election should be a great fight over political opposites, realistically I suspect it would be apathyfest 2008 with neither party supporters really happy with their parties position but not willing to switch sides either. If it was a vibrant election it would be because of the irrelevancies like immigration and gun control not the real underlying political conflict between the two parties.
Quote:
Lastly, I'm not some Alex Jones fan who believes his drivel. There's no NWO (sorry guys.) However, there is definitely a dangerous elite in this country (and eco-politically in the world,) and a Paul victory would be a triumph against it.
I'm sure noone is suggesting you are. What I find surprising is that you believe this dangerous elite is so timid that it can be restrained by something as easily manipulated as a general election and a lone element within the political class.
Quote:
2. Sama says that Paul will not be able to do enough as President. For whatever reason, BB and Zoon have conceded this to him.
As the Geico caveman one say, "Uh...WHAT?!?"
If anything, if Paul were President, I would be afraid he would do too much. You know how much power a President has?
I hope if he were elected, he would be more pragmatic and not rock the boat by Constitutionally using his executive authority to the fullest. Paul can easily and Constitutionally withdraw every soldier from overseas back to America, withdraw the navy, send armies to our borders, deport all the nation's illegal aliens, end the drug war and stop all enforcement of anti-drug laws, end the Federal welfare state by simply refusing to allocate funds and vetoing budgets, end the Federal Reserve by issuing and executive order akin to JFK's E.O. 11110, drop out of the UN and even evict them, stop all federal grants to local schools (and end no child left behind), be Dr. No and King Veto, declassify all the awful shit this country has done so that no one would have any faith in trusting this government to be sizable for generations, drop out of trade agreements not signed by treaty (all of them at this point)...
He could single handedly change the face of American governance and the world. That's the power the President has (none of the preceding would be outside of his scope.) It scares the shit out of me to be frank. I would not want Paul doing many of the preceding, but it is certainly possible. I mean, airing out past politician's dirty laundry using declassification would outdo anything the corporate media would throw at him. America reverting instantaneously back to a isolationist stance may wreak international havoc on the economy. If Paul were to win, we would have to hope he would be sensible!
So, Sama, you couldn't be more wrong about "Paul wouldn't make a difference anyway, so why even dream about voting for someone who is not a total scum bag like everyone else?" If anything, the most negative thing about Paul is that it is within the realm of possibility he can raise all Hell.
It doesn't matter how much power the executive has in theory, in theory the Queen of England can dissolve parliament, in practice neither of these roles are as powerful, in the face of opposition, as they make out. Practically without media, legislative, bureaucratic or plutocratic support the executive's power can be practically curtailed. Sure he can pull the troops out of Iraq, that was arguably on the cards anyway. He can somewhat dismantle the welfare state, that's an economic slippery slope you've been on for a while and it feeds in to the traditional party divide he supposedly needs to bridge. The rest of what you place in the realm of possibility is pure fantasy, a president cannot function with too many enemies at his throat. If he went to tackle drugs, or public schooling in the current political climate he would be committing suicide; he's not a super hero, he's a politician, and above all else he wants to be rich, powerful, popular and in a job. In a position of power any elected official will bend to the wills with the most power over them, this is almost never the will of the people, and even if it was the people are idiots.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not on some great anti-Ron Paul tirade. You guys probably should vote for him, I just think of all the times I've seen people cheer lead for politicians and bourgeoisie elections and end up feeling like fools, or worse lying to themselves so as not ot admit they were overly-optimistic. Pom-poms and politics don't mix. _________________ "I wanted to know the world that was outside of the well.
So I tried hard to get out from the bottom of the well.
I wanted to know the world that was outside of the well.
So I climbed up numerous of times despite falling down over and over again.
But then I realized it.
The higher and higher I climb, the pain increases when I fall down again.
When my interest in the world outside of the well began to equal the amount of pain,
That was when I finally realized the meaning of the story to Der Froschkönig."
Post #42044
Joined: 22 Feb 2005
Posts: 556
Total Words: 89,413
Average words per post: 160.81
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Fri 2007-05-11 19:06
Politics: Constitutionalist
Country: Wackyland
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
My God, I largely agree with JD! This happens once in a great, great while...
Here's my assessment of the whole issue:
1. Ron Paul has, at this point, close to zero chance of winning. I think most everyone here understands that. The shift in the MSNBC poll was interesting, but the internet is traditionally less traditional than mainstream culture
2. The best thing that Paul can do with his campaign, in my eyes, is to reintroduce libertarian (Sorry to hijack the word, but that is the common definition on this side of the ocean. Regardless of who's right, I think we can all just accept how everyone uses that damn word on this forum.) ideas to the American public. He can't do that on his own, obviously, so his supporters need to talk about him. I agree that only a grassroots campaign can truly change the direction of the nation, but Ron Paul is concrete, ideas about social, economic, and political structures are not. As a good (hardly perfect, but still)representative of libertarian beliefs, people who listen to what he has to say might rethink their Republican and Democrat only mindset.
Also, while the majority of American voters do vote on things like hot button issues (and more importantly, how good the candidate looks), most Americans who can vote simply don't. A fresh face with fresh ideas might be able to move some of this mass out of its apathetic inertia.
It's a long shot, but hell, isn't everything during the nascent stages?
3. If Paul somehow gets elected, it's really a toss in the air how much impact he will have, although I think it's most likely he would be neutered by the legislature a good deal. Note, however, on spending bills and such, he would definitely be able to out-wait the legislature if it came to a veto/reintroduction war, as he would have little problem with letting government atrophy during such a conflict. The legislature would probably have to override the veto, which generally would imply importance, or a series of revisions which have made it more appealing to the legislature.
One important factor is Iraq, and indeed, if all that a Paul presidency accomplished was the end of that war (and the lack of future wars), I would consider it a roaring success.
Another important factor which I believe you are forgetting, JD, is the importance of the President in shaping the Supreme Court. My high school government teacher (who's a pretty smart guy) once said that, in his opinion, this was probably the most influential and long-reaching power of the President (Obviously, this is hardly a fact, but it is a rather important role, nonetheless, and one which is difficult to neutralize). Although Congress can hamper this process to an extent, they can hardly stall it forever.
Those two factors aside, have little hope that a Paul presidency would substantially change the country's direction in other areas. His ideas are simply too alien and threatening to the power structure.
4. The attempts to censor Paul are disgusting, and could be fatal to his campaign. However, there is a chance that they could backfire, especially if people like Zoon, who aren't those wacky libertarians, are helping to get the word out about what is happening.
5. I do disagree that Paul is simply a power-monger, JD, by virtue of his voting record. I understand your cynicism regarding politicians, and certainly would not get excited about Paul if he showed the traits of a typical politician. There have been some people in government, throughout history, who actually believe what they say, and I can't really find a good reason to doubt Paul's sincerity.
Basically, my views come down to this: change in this country most certainly has to come from the bottom up. However, a Paul campaign could catalyze a real libertarian movement in America. Is it likely? No. Is it worth doing a little cheerleading with family and friends in order to try? Hell's yeah.
Post #42045
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 1741
Total Words: 306,554
Average words per post: 176.08
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Fri 2007-05-11 19:37
Politics: Anarcho-communist
Country: United States of Oppression
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
Quote:
And last but not least, a modified version of the "Apple 1984" commercial created by a Ron Paul supporter.
That was a Barack Obama campaign official, unless this is a different vid (dammit I can't find the thread where I posted the news article concerning that) _________________
Post #42047
Joined: 04 Feb 2006
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Fri 2007-05-11 21:34
Politics: Libertarian
Country: American Empire
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
Quote:
The rest of what you place in the realm of possibility is pure fantasy, a president cannot function with too many enemies at his throat. If he went to tackle drugs, or public schooling in the current political climate he would be committing suicide; he's not a super hero, he's a politician, and above all else he wants to be rich, powerful, popular and in a job. In a position of power any elected official will bend to the wills with the most power over them, this is almost never the will of the people, and even if it was the people are idiots.
Unlike English Royalty, who if they attempted abolish parliament the mendable uncodified English Constitution would be adjusted to protect parliament, Americans have a relatively stable vision of what the Constitution states. No one can force Paul to support the Federal Reserve, to sign spending bills, to not put soldiers on the borders, not allocate funds to executive agencies...these things are with little debate under executive authority, because congress has ceded authority. What you are missing here is if Congress got pissed off at Paul and used a 2/3s majority to override him and place the agencies under Legislative juristiction, that would be an outstanding success to Paul's camp--executive bureaucracies never go away. Those under the gun from representatives elected every 2 years get changed much more quickly.
So, the worst case scnerio is if Paul were to be elected (again, not going to happen but work with me here), the real danger would be that he'd do too much. It is not within the realm of fantasy whether he CAN do it, would is a different story, but he certainly can do all those things. I am a history teacher (I know something about it), I have read and reread the Constitution and have taken relevant courses on the subject. The reason no Peresident has done the stuff I fear is possible is because no President would cede that much authority...besides possibly Ron Paul.
Furthermore, a mainstream libertarian candidate definitely changes discourse just like a mainstream socialist would. You are already backing up from your original argument (that it would somehow send the tiny little libcap movement in America backwards.) Thus, like Ross Perot did in the 90s (and the Republicans moved further to the right to respond to this), Paul theoretically can do the same for whatever fucking decade this one is now.
Quote:
If America became the ideological libcap state I would be happy. I am a libertarian, so I agree with about half of what libertarian capitalists stand for. Furthermore I'm fairly confident canonical libertarian capitalism would collapse if instituted in America and then we would finally stop hearing stupid USSR arguments in debates ^^.
Sir, it is you who is hijacking the word libertarian.
For example, I would love if everyone did the following:
James 1:27
Quote:
Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.
People in my mind should help their fellow humans and avoid immoderate behaviors. However, that does not mean the government should force people to help the widows and orphans, or uphold moral standards regarding drug use, sodomy, or anything else. Libertarianism in my mind is the willingness to not use government to compell people to act in any fashion. Libertarian socialism (or Communism!?!?) is a rhetorical fallacy as much as a Libertarian Theocracy.
Quote:
What I do think is that the LibCap element on this board is being over optimistic and cheerleading, both things which are, in my opinion, dangerous for ones intellectual strength. Ron Paul is a man, and a man who seeks power at that; when I see socialists of the same description trumpeting my exact ideology, I tend to be more critical.
Alex Jones and Paul Joseph Watson are pretending that Paul is a household name. No one here is saying that. What we are saying is that the Republican pool is so incredibly lackluster and similar, that Ron Paul is raising heads. Everyone I talked to about the debate has heard of him "sort of." He's "the guy who doesn't like the federal reserve." No one knew that before. So, I think we have cause to be excited that the man is actually being mentioned on television, is actually delibrately being censored...it means that something is actually happening, and that's a VERY rare thing in libertarianism.
Furthermore, though I hold a very negative view as humanity as a whole (they all suck), I do think that there are relatively few good guys in politics out there as compared to the absolutely zero you posit. For example, a friend of my father's is an elected judge, and guess what? He's actually a good guy. Ron Paul, as far as humans go, strikes me as this. If he were an opportunist, he could have easily sold out on several issues and avoided a costly and career ending campaign for the Presidency, which he may actually be nuts enough to believe threatens his life. I honestly think he's a guy who means what he says. Is he perfect? No one is. But as Zoon points out, most people who have looked into the man's background can say with confidence that at least he's not a terrible human being. And at this point, I'll take a guy who's not totally evil. It's what makes him attractive. To be honest, I was sort of dismayed by Howard Dean's failure for the same reason.
And do all political movements begin the bottom up? No, neo-conservatism definitely didn't. Neither did Communism in the nations where it took hold. I agree, bad things usually happen top-down. Luckily, I don't believe the Ron Paul gambit is of the sort. It is very much a grassroots movement, not directed by him. Libertarians are notoriously hard to organize (unlike statists, go figure.) No he's not the messiah. The messiah will only return after then end of days, riding a cloud.
Figure 1: An artist's rendition of what the Second Coming may look like.
To be honest with you Sama, please correct me if I am wrong because I often am and when I am I retract what I say, it seems to me you are being sophistic here. You are part of a youth communist organization and you try to organize Communists. Is the political change you are looking for going to happen when 50.1% of Britain becomes Communist? I honestly do not think that you believe that grassroots bottom up organizing is the way one should seek political change. You seem to be claiming such in order to use it as an arguing point in order to make us look bad for supporting Ron Paul in an election which would actually rely upon majority rule (let's not get into the electoral college!)
I'm not quite so pragmatic. If the majority of the country wants neo-conservatism to rule, then I accept it. I wouldn't want some militant takeover for the sake of libertarianism. That is more than one can say for any Communist (correct me if I'm wrong here, how else do you word a workers revolution?)
Now, I apologize for the ad hominem, because I am obviopusly not trying to be disrespectful. I am questioning your motivations however. _________________ Luke 6:37:
"Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven."
Post #42051
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 1741
Total Words: 306,554
Average words per post: 176.08
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Sat 2007-05-12 01:31
Politics: Anarcho-communist
Country: United States of Oppression
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
Quote:
Sir, it is you who is hijacking the word libertarian.
Just so JD doesn't have to bother with this rather ignorant statement, I will. Libertarianism was first used by french anarcho-communists in the 19th century, and was hijacked by breakaway right-wingers in America in the 20th century. Nowadays many americans think Libertarian socialism is a contradiction in terms, because they believe that a free market is necessary for freedom, however why does this have to be the case? Historically speaking the freer the market the more impoverished the people (see industrial revolution, circa late 1800s, early 1900s), and, as JD has stated many times previously, communism and socialism haven't really been tried under proper circumstances.
Post #42052
Joined: 04 Feb 2006
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Sat 2007-05-12 01:54
Politics: Libertarian
Country: American Empire
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
AceBrock wrote:
Quote:
Sir, it is you who is hijacking the word libertarian.
Just so JD doesn't have to bother with this rather ignorant statement, I will. Libertarianism was first used by french anarcho-communists in the 19th century, and was hijacked by breakaway right-wingers in America in the 20th century. Nowadays many americans think Libertarian socialism is a contradiction in terms, because they believe that a free market is necessary for freedom, however why does this have to be the case? Historically speaking the freer the market the more impoverished the people (see industrial revolution, circa late 1800s, early 1900s), and, as JD has stated many times previously, communism and socialism haven't really been tried under proper circumstances.
And remember, a little research can go a long way in keeping you from looking like an idiot.
I was not aware of the history of the term, so I apologize for the mistake.
Now, for the sake of precision, if American libertarians are not libertarian, then what are they? Regardless of when the term was initially coined, in America, it is defined as in line with the theory of government conceived by John Locke. No one calls it Lockeans. I believe at this point, now that libertarian no longer holds its original meaning as you define it (neither does "marxist," most marxists are actually "marxian"...), so isn't it a little hyper-critical to accuse someone in the year of 2007 hijacking the term libertarian, when its definition has changed 100 years ago? That's like me resenting leftists here calling themselves liberal, when the term initially concerned 1700s political thought which is essentially considered libertarian now.
Now it might be an ocean thing (that pesky Atlantic has created a long list of misunderstandings), but I do not know the answer to that, so I concede my ignorance on that issue. _________________ Luke 6:37:
"Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven."
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Search
Log in
FAQ
Usergroups
Memberlist
World War V
Medals
PoliMatch
Stats
