Ron Paul Revolution!!!!

[thecoldmidwest]

http://i201.photobucket.com/albums/aa224/rustingfreight/100_3946.jpg?t=1189468922

[lord_casek]

nice stamp. i've just been writing it.

[yumone]

am i a conspiracy nut or is this little faggot so cowardly that hes pretending to be for Ron while mocking and besmirching both him and what he stands for?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPfPnF4Mbog

[lord_casek]

tucker carlson is a bastard. fake conservative.


i don't know how he could keep a straight face
and act like he is a supporter. when dr. paul was
on his show he said "you can't win"

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

i think ron should roll out into the next debate with some strippers, dj clue and rip taylor.

that's so made of win. who wouldn't vote for him.

[MnTC]

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

[angelofdeath]

i dont know, i have a soft spot in my heart for tucker. he is one of the only friendly journalists towards paul. i think he is truly a supporter but doesnt want to ruin his credibility. who knows he might get booted off the air if he goes over the top and pledges his undying support for paul.
he said in his first interview with paul that he voted for him in 88, and basically supports him now. he always says he wins the debates. but i dont think he is a plumb line paul supporter.

[lord_casek]

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/09/bush-speech-has.html
is this surprising?

[Juan Fuentes]

haha!
he probably also had pictures and certain coloured sentences to speak in different emotional tones...maybe even body language direction? (blink twice, look up)

[dailycrunch]

he wants another 911 investigation?

sounds like a douche

[yumone]

he wants another 911 investigation?

sounds like a douche

i think it's more about the intelligence and warnings surrounding 9/11, he has already stated that he doesnt think the government was involved in a conspiracy.

but hey you already admitted you didn't know anything about him and were just talking out yo arse anyway :D

[lord_casek]

i think a new investigation, without cronies of the bush administration, would be in order.

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

It's almost a universal belief that the 9/11 commissions report is full of inaccuracies. Based off this alone, the fact that the "official story" from our government was released, and is full of inaccuracies, how could you not say that there was at least some involvement, or why lie?

Oh wait, why make the mistake to cause the inaccuracy? Because we all know that they have no idea that they were being inaccurate. :rolleyes:

I just don't see how if you were completely unbiased, and had nothing to hide why these inaccuracies would even exist, after all, this is one of the worst disasters in American history, not to mention lead us into two wars and thousands more American lives, and innocent civilians around the world. If they did exist, why those people involved wouldn't be investigated, and further studies should be conducted to fix those inaccuracies. You would think concerning a event of this importance that those problems would be ironed out. At any cost. After all, we are pursuing the people that supposedly orchestrated this attack with such vigor.

To me when you have information that is being hidden, it means that people are trying to keep information that can hurt them or people they know, thus keeping it away from the public. So I don't understand how anyone can honestly sit back and say that what we are being told happened on 9/11 is exactly how it went down. Because if that were so why are so many people dropping the ball?

[vanfullofretards]

First off, no one ever said it was the official story, it was just a report. Second, wrong thread.

[Juan Fuentes]

too many people would be involved if they really make a serious investigation.
it hasnt happened because of all the guilty ones preventing it.
starting with the media, those liars do anything to ridiculize 911 truth, but they dont censor it completly because that would cause people to be really curious about it.

yeah wrong thread

[UPS!]

Ron Paul is the only man runnin id put in office

[lord_casek]

yep.

if everyone who believes in his message votes for him, i think it will send a clear message.

right now it's looking like billary clinton is being pushed. a repeat of 2000/2004 elections?

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

why is what i said in the wrong thread? what i said was based off the comment of a new investigation into 9/11 which is what Ron Paul is deffinatly for. i may have gone on a little rant, but all of it is relevant.

as far as the commisons report not being the official story.

"The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the 9-11 Commission), an independent, bipartisan commission created by congressional legislation and the signature of President George W. Bush in late 2002, is chartered to prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, including preparedness for and the immediate response to the attacks."

ron paul is the only man/women i'd vote for as well. if hillary gets in what is that a guaranteed 40 years at least under bush/clinton? pretty scurry if you ask me.

[Juan Fuentes]

ron paul had a 114% increase in donations this month.
the other republicans has 40s% decrease.

everyday people find out about ron paul.


there some that just WAIT until they have the two major candidates in tv and 2 weeks to vote, how lazy, that explains why has america turned into nazi germany.
lazyness.


spread ron paul's message.


there is a CHANCE.

[thinksmall]

^^ I NOES...

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/03/paul-raises-more-than-5-million/

DUUUDE. RON PAUL = PRESIDENT 2008.

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

If anyone wants to vote for Ron Paul in the primaries, and isn't registered as a Republican, you can switch that up right quick.

Download this pdf: http://ronpaulnation.com/register/

Mail that in, unfortunatly if you're from New York it's too late.

[Ferris Bueller]

It's amazing how far one logically-thinking and rational individual can go. It's also nice that most of us young folk (who care) give a shit.

[Juan Fuentes]

its not about ron paul the person, it is what he stands for what people like about all this.
he just had the balls to get into politics and after studying whos the bad guys he ran for president offering what people(deep in their minds) really want. freedom.

young people have less responsabilities and thats why they seem more revolutionary.
also, young mean less old, and old means long time on earth, so the older you get the more conditioned by the nwo you get. the ones who denied conditioning got killed. those are called martyrs by the good and everything evil you can name by the bad.

[Ferris Bueller]

That's a little in left field, but whatever.

[lord_casek]

It's amazing how far one logically-thinking and rational individual can go. It's also nice that most of us young folk (who care) give a shit.


i think it is something special right now that is happening. all the young who care will be xolder one day. they will hopefully teach their children what freedom is.

[lord_casek]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FG2PUZoukfA&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Ejonesreport%2Ecom%2Farticl es%2F121007%5Fron%5Fpaul%5Fdigg%2Ehtml

number one fora month

[+WAR+]

Ron Paul is truly awesome.

[Dawood]

I can't believe you all are so excited about a politician.

America is not even 300 years old. Life existed before American politics.

So did freedom.

[lord_casek]

because this one is different. this one means what he says and his actions/voting record prove that.

dr. paul is our only hope to pull this country back into some sort of respectable positionhtat it once held.

[Juan Fuentes]

dawood if you love your children you should be supporting ron paul too.
play the game, dont try to implement your own rules, solving methods vary depending on certain problems.


.....

this is really positive from the media... it is even weird!
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/John_Harwood_After_poll_removal_CNBC_1016.html
some little video in there, check it out

[Juan Fuentes]

tv ad from ron paul...
listen!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ay4vXZWxeuU

[Juan Fuentes]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZNlXSn_vC8

the media censoring ron paul...
doing what they always do, create their show by showing what they think it would be good.
caught!

[lord_casek]

you beat me to it

[MY ROTTING LIVER]

dawood if you love your children you should be supporting ron paul too.


LMAO - This thread is so pink dolphins.

[yumone]

why dont you start posting all your high brow intellectual discourse instead of just waltzing around being pretentious?

[lord_casek]

an interesting article about rton paul and botnets.
http://www.wired.com/politics/security/news/2007/10/paul_bot

they seem to try and spin it as ron pauls people doing something bad.

[MY ROTTING LIVER]

why dont you start posting all your high brow intellectual discourse instead of just waltzing around being pretentious?

Don't be mad - If you loved your children you wouldn't be.

[Juan Fuentes]

the IRS shakes :shook:

they have said that before, that ron paul internet support is spambot work....it's either you want to lie or you cant believe it

[lord_casek]

the IRS shakes :shook:

they have said that before, that ron paul internet support is spambot work....it's either you want to lie or you cant believe it

oh, i don't believe it at all.

[Juan Fuentes]

i think you thought the believing part was for you....
i talked as talking to those who think ron paul's web fame is spambot

[lord_casek]

ahh, yeah, i did. good deal.

[El Mamerro]

Wired has been very supportive of Ron Paul since his his popularity started making waves online. It is certainly VERY easy for me to believe that some moron supporter(s) actually thought it was a positive thing to do for Ron, or some opponent trying to fuck things up for him (which the article also mentions). I don't see anything in that article that spins it towards being Ron Paul's fault, it just tells it like it is.

[vanfullofretards]

Ron Paul on the Tonight Show (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1EFHgUXZaU)


last night

[angelofdeath]

the best part is the sex pistols playing anarchy in the UK and johnny rotten yells 'hello mr paul!' after the second chorus.

[lord_casek]

Wired has been very supportive of Ron Paul since his his popularity started making waves online. It is certainly VERY easy for me to believe that some moron supporter(s) actually thought it was a positive thing to do for Ron, or some opponent trying to fuck things up for him (which the article also mentions). I don't see anything in that article that spins it towards being Ron Paul's fault, it just tells it like it is.

yeah, real fair. here's the author of the article's blog

http://stirfry.vox.com/library/post/reader-feedback.html

[angelofdeath]

holy crap casek, your signature is f'ing scary.

[lord_casek]

good thing someone noticed.

[lord_casek]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kd1kLATVljY

the mark is now a lot higher.

go ron, go!

[El Mamerro]

How exactly is that blog anti-Ron Paul? Because she finds jokes about Ron Paul funny?

[lord_casek]

How exactly is that blog anti-Ron Paul? Because she finds jokes about Ron Paul funny?


i had found some more stories by her, but had a serious crash a few days ago.
if you do some digging, you can find them.

and yeah, she's the author of the article in wired and the author of the blog. seems pretty anti-ron paul to me.

[Juan Fuentes]

6.5 M now...... i dont know how much it was this morning when everything started...but there is a 3.1 M goal to beat romney's record....i know it is very close....

[lord_casek]

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=3822989&page=1

w00t! abc news

p.s.: he beat mittwit.

[lord_casek]

4 million before midnight......only 20 minutes left

[Juan Fuentes]

est 12:04
7,114,000
so how much he got for today casek? any info on that?

[Juan Fuentes]

they are saying 3.8 in one day....the thing dont stop! look at it go!

[lord_casek]

yeah,i think close to 4.

over 7 for the quarter.

fuck yeah!


he's making news all over!

edit: 4.12 million today, juan.

[Juan Fuentes]

4.12 for today!!!!!
its not saying that in their site, they better update
thats greater news!!!
the thing still going 1000 DPM(dollars per minute)

[lord_casek]

http://www.ronpaulgraphs.com

[Some1]

Thats awesome! Fucking media really isnt giving it alot of credit just kinda mentioning it and passing it off.

[table scraps]

vote ron paul 08

[Juan Fuentes]

this video is about Ron Paul
signs, on purpose or coincidence depending in your awareness

http://www.vloggingtheapocalypse.com/viewVideo.php?video_id=370&title=Ron_Paul_Subliminal_Messages

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

www.teaparty07.com

:cool::cool::cool:

[After School Special]

Is there any chance of dude winning?

I'm a little late to the table regarding Ron Paul.

[vanfullofretards]

Is there any chance of dude winning?

That shouldn't matter one iota.

[After School Special]

Of course it does.

In reality land anyways.

[iloveboxcars]

i will be voting for ron paul.

[lord_casek]

i will be voting for ron paul.

out of curiosity,
what made you want to?

[+WAR+]

out of curiosity,
what made you want to?

his platform of awesomeness.

[Some1]

Dude faces start posting bulletins on your myspace/facebook/whatever shit let people know who he is. There is a great e-magazine outlining what he stands for that you can copy and paste in your bulletins!

http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=158537123

remember to promote the Dec 16th Tea Party!

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

YEAH BOYYYY!

Everybody let's go, on the bandwagon!

[vanfullofretards]

Of course it does.

In reality land anyways.

Well what I was referring to was if you firmly believe in what a certain politician stands for your opinion shouldn't be swayed by how popular he is.

[After School Special]

Well it's not swayed so much on popularity.

I don't really care if he played dungeons and dragons and got picked on in highschool.

But if it turns out to be a close race could this guy be a spoiler?

I know it's a heated debate, and in a real democracy there would be no such thing.

Unfortunately in America this is not the case.

So I was legitimately interested if there was a real opportunity to gain enough support to make this guy an option.

Or is it a pipedream.

[vanfullofretards]

???

I wasn't talking about how popular he was in high school and I don't know exactly what you mean by spoiler..

America was not founded as a democracy, but a republic. "..and to the Republic for which it stands"

But there's tons of opportunity for to gain support. Hundreds if not thousands of people every day are turned on to Ron Paul. It falls on the supporter to spread the message.

[After School Special]

I was just messing with you about the popularity semantics.

spoil·er (spoi'lər)
n.

A candidate for office whose chances of winning are slight but who may get enough votes to prevent one of the leading candidates from winning.

[lord_casek]

AFS: yes, there is a real chance Dr. Paul could get the nod.
yes, vote for him.

[russell jones]

Although I wish that Paul would get the nod on the Republican side, I don't see it happening. Government is a business, and Paul wants to change that. The party will do everything in its power to stop Paul from canceling the money wagon.

[Juan Fuentes]

they are calling ron paul supporters a threat already, this is how desperate they are.
http://www.truthnews.us/?p=824


hope is the last thing we lose

[lord_casek]

Although I wish that Paul would get the nod on the Republican side, I don't see it happening. Government is a business, and Paul wants to change that. The party will do everything in its power to stop Paul from canceling the money wagon.

i agree completely. they don't want paul to step in and change the way this business is run, but it's not a matter of what they want or don't want, it's up to us. it's our power. sometimes i think we should remind them of this, as well as ourselves.

[russell jones]

If only if that were the case. When it comes to the convention, if Ron Paul is in the lead, the delegates will not do their job and someone else will be nominated.

[lord_casek]

If only if that were the case. When it comes to the convention, if Ron Paul is in the lead, the delegates will not do their job and someone else will be nominated.

that sir, is when we start the fertilizing of the tree of liberty. viva la liberte'

[lord_casek]

Ron Paul Spammer FINALLY caught!
here's a picture of the offender
http://flickr.com/photos/10763279@N00/1957558327

[Petey Pablo]

Ron Paul is a fucking racist! Have you read his immagration and foreign policies?!

Get the fuck outta here. The ONLY thing he is right on i the War in Iraq, after that, what else is there for him to accomplish?
Fuck him.

[Some1]

Ron Paul is a fucking racist! Have you read his immagration and foreign policies?!

Get the fuck outta here. The ONLY thing he is right on i the War in Iraq, after that, what else is there for him to accomplish?
Fuck him.
Where is your proof of this because I dont see it. Also our country is in ruins financially if you haven't noticed. Our gov. in Washington is running wild doing whatever suits them. Iraq is not the only thing for him to accomplish...


You must be young and dumb...
Just want to give you an FYI...


The recent immigration protests in Los Angeles have brought the issue to the forefront, provoking strong reactions from millions of Americans. The protesters’ cause of open borders is not well served when they drape themselves in Mexican flags and chant slogans in Spanish. If anything, their protests underscore the Balkanization of America caused by widespread illegal immigration. How much longer can we maintain huge unassimilated subgroups within America, filled with millions of people who don’t speak English or participate fully in American life? Americans finally have decided the status quo is unacceptable, and immigration may be the issue that decides the 2008 presidential election.
We’re often reminded that America is a nation of immigrants, implying that we’re coldhearted to restrict immigration in any way. But the new Americans reaching our shores in the late 1800s and early 1900s were legal immigrants. In many cases they had no chance of returning home again. They maintained their various ethnic and cultural identities, but they also learned English and embraced their new nationality.
Today, the overwhelming majority of Americans – including immigrants – want immigration reduced, not expanded. The economic, cultural, and political situation was very different 100 years ago.
We’re often told that immigrants do the jobs Americans won’t do, and sometimes this is true. But in many instances illegal immigrants simply increase the supply of labor in a community, which lowers wages. And while cheap labor certainly benefits the economy as a whole, when calculating the true cost of illegal immigration we must include the cost of social services that many new immigrants consume – especially medical care.
We must reject amnesty for illegal immigrants in any form. We cannot continue to reward lawbreakers and expect things to get better. If we reward millions who came here illegally, surely millions more will follow suit. Ten years from now we will be in the same position, with a whole new generation of lawbreakers seeking amnesty.
Amnesty also insults legal immigrants, who face years of paperwork and long waits to earn precious American citizenship.
Birthright citizenship similarly rewards lawbreaking, and must be stopped. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the perverse incentive to sneak into this country remains strong. Citizenship involves more than the mere location of one’s birth. True citizenship requires cultural connections and an allegiance to the United States. Americans are happy to welcome those who wish to come here and build a better life for themselves, but we rightfully expect immigrants to show loyalty and attempt to assimilate themselves culturally. Birthright citizenship sometimes confers the benefits of being American on people who do not truly embrace America.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul2.jpgWe need to allocate far more resources, both in terms of money and manpower, to securing our borders and coastlines here at home. This is the most critical task before us, both in terms of immigration problems and the threat of foreign terrorists. Unless and until we secure our borders, illegal immigration and the problems associated with it will only increase.

April 4, 2006
Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.


http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul314.html


Doesnt sound to bad to me...

[lord_casek]

Ron Paul is a fucking racist! Have you read his immagration and foreign policies?!

Get the fuck outta here. The ONLY thing he is right on i the War in Iraq, after that, what else is there for him to accomplish?
Fuck him.


he's anti ILLEGAL immigration. not anti immigrant.

what else is there? the fucking CONSTITUTION of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA you fascist bastard.

[Juan Fuentes]

the biggest thing about Ron Paul is the IRS abolishment. that funds all the wars.

with immigration i kind of agree, that amnesty is unfair, but there are some people in the US who dont send money to their countries, pay taxes, have social securities, are illegal though, but want to be part of this nation.
a good testing would do.

petey pablo, haha dont tell me you are one of those black dudes that believe the white man is the devil, gotta kill them all, and jesus was black. those people are like the black kkk.

[lord_casek]

the people who are illegally here and pay their taxes, work hard for what they have,
and try to contribute to our country should probably get help getting a foot in the door
and on the right track to becoming legal, but there should be no fucking handouts.
we don't need assholes who come here and get 7 social security cards for themselves and withdraw money form our SS system (which is already in peril as it is).

petey, if you don't think our country is worth a shit, and if you think our constitution is trash, then i'd be the first to invite you to get the fuck out. i'll pay for the plane ticket.

[angelofdeath]

"Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist.



The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity. "

-Ron Paul


a damn racist.
fuck him.

[thinksmall]

I change my mind on ron paul. thumbs down. He's sounds cool, but it ends there. Ron paul's gonna pull another reagan.

Free markets will allow sweatshops, lead in toy.. which will make the economy worse - also not fair trade. Regulating media is terrible. Smaller government.. is actually a bad thing. Its kinda like making less teachers. (his do it yourself argument is unsocial and will never work.) And it is extremely important that u.s. does not leave and is in iraq, because u.s. need the oil - until china finishes up that fusion generator thingmabob (energy crisis incoming). The iraq situation is getting better too, from what ive read.

Ron paul also supports israel amiright? so hes cool with the apartheid on palestinians. desmond tutu ftw.

Politicians dont do things in spite of people. They all try to do what they believe is good. Some just dont know whats up.

vote hilary, hombres!

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

talk about thinkingsmall.

[lord_casek]

wow. hillary will put you in those special FEMA camps, too. she's gonna eat you alive.
and one more terrorist attack is all that needs to happen for the sitting president to call martial law and our lives are forever changed. no more mp3's, no more xbox 360's. you will be fighting to survive and not be locked down for opposing some shit.

[thinksmall]

lawlercakes. i probably dont understand. fuck this politic shit!!

...,hombre!

[angelofdeath]

i thought that thinksmall post was a joke, but i realized it wasnt.

for what its worth, ron paul isnt 'anti' or 'pro' any country. most people say he is anti israel because he doesnt want to send any country foreign aid. but for what its worth, hillary is about as pro israel as it gets. she'd tongue shuck anyone in the israeli govt's corn cob any day of the week.

[thinksmall]

shes tiptoein on it now. but the bias shits been thrustin my mind lately.

[Juan Fuentes]

hillary is a hombre, thinksmall

with limited government the people have the chance to become the government.

[lord_casek]

ron paul wins blind zogby poll
http://infowars.com/articles/us/ron_paul_zogby_poll_wins_nationwide.htm

[WorldBench]

RON PAUL 2008

[vytaL]

hahaha I was not expecting to see this here, Hes dominated everyone in the debates. I'll be voting for Paul in my states primaries in January and donating a few hundred for the tea party

[yumone]

I change my mind on ron paul. thumbs down. He's sounds cool, but it ends there. Ron paul's gonna pull another reagan.

Free markets will allow sweatshops, lead in toy.. which will make the economy worse - also not fair trade. Regulating media is terrible. Smaller government.. is actually a bad thing. Its kinda like making less teachers. (his do it yourself argument is unsocial and will never work.) And it is extremely important that u.s. does not leave and is in iraq, because u.s. need the oil - until china finishes up that fusion generator thingmabob (energy crisis incoming). The iraq situation is getting better too, from what ive read.

Ron paul also supports israel amiright? so hes cool with the apartheid on palestinians. desmond tutu ftw.

Politicians dont do things in spite of people. They all try to do what they believe is good. Some just dont know whats up.

vote hilary, hombres!

the exact kind of little herb that will make some whore like Hilary win

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

seriously, how excited is everyone for december 16th?

i personally am donating $200. i've been browsing digg, some ron paul forums. and a few other places just to check out comments and stuff relevant to the day. alot of people are talking about donating a lot more money then me so i am seriously prepared to sit in all day and just watch his website until the day is over.

i dont think the man will raise 10 million like some people are suggesting. but i wouldn't be surprised if he got close. like..7-8 million. regardless i think history is going to be made...again.

[Petey Pablo]

the biggest thing about Ron Paul is the IRS abolishment. that funds all the wars.

with immigration i kind of agree, that amnesty is unfair, but there are some people in the US who dont send money to their countries, pay taxes, have social securities, are illegal though, but want to be part of this nation.
a good testing would do.

petey pablo, haha dont tell me you are one of those black dudes that believe the white man is the devil, gotta kill them all, and jesus was black. those people are like the black kkk.

Don't tell me you're a white straight male with all the privileges that come along with being that in this country. You don't know shit.

Honestly, how can anyone be a graff writer (if any of you really are) and buy into this democratic mumo jumbo that you recited time after time in grade school.

Oh shit, I can copy and paste too!

With damn near every white supremacist in the country swearing by Rep. Ron Paul during his presidential run and a few anti-war activists on our side too stupid to pay closer attention to the guy as they blindly ignore everything but his anti-war stance, it was only a matter of time before we got to him. Thing is, we had to do more than just complain about the usual suspects at Stormfront suppoting him. Sure it is something to note, but if Paul isn't being receptive, anything they have to say is pretty much irrelevant anyway. He just became receptive, and just in time for him to come to our stomping grounds this weekend in Philly. Stormfront webmaster Don Black donated $500 to his campaign - and Rep. Paul isn't giving it back.

Well, Ronnie, you just killed your run. Stormfront is bad news for any politician who is supposed to represent people of all races, and if you can't see that or even try to keep these people at a distance, the rest of us will most certainly keep you there. For the record, this is not the only thing of note about Rep. Paul that suggests he is a little too comfy with America's fascists. Norm Singleton, Rep. Paul's legislative director, has been known to hang with well-known anti-Semite and Washington insider Joseph Sobran, a guy who, among other things, once complained of "a more or less official national obsession with a tiny, faraway socialist ethnocracy." – a line that helped get him canned from National Review. We doubt that we are going to spend too much time on Ron Paul, because he won't be in the race long, but it is good to take note of this clown. Mad Props to LoneStarTimes.com for finding this.
ronpaulhicontrast150sq.gif
LoneStarTimes.com

A LoneStarTimes.com investigation has conclusively established that a leading figure in the American neo-Nazi/White-Supremacist movement has provided financial support to Ron Paul’s 2008 Presidential campaign.

The individual in question is Don Black, the founder, owner and operator of Stormfront, a “white power” website that both professional journalists and watch-dog groups have identified as the premier English-language racist/hate-site on the Internet.

Previous LST posts have focused on banner “widgets” appearing on the front-page of Stormfront. It is important to emphasize that these are NOT “advertisements” placed on Stormfront BY the Paul campaign, but rather publicly-available graphics that Stormfront’s owner has chosen to place himself, with links directly to Paul’s donation page.

Nevertheless, LST has in the past several weeks raised a series of questions for the Paul campaign; specifically–

Can Paul confirm that the donation widgets appearing on Stormfront are the result of the site owner’s actions, not the campaign’s?
Will Paul take measures to block Stormfront as a referring URL to his own website, so that no future donations can possibly flow into his campaign from a site that serves as the on-line nexus of neo-Nazism?

Will Paul ask his own web-staff to trace past donations that were made by anyone arriving at his campaign’s webpage from Stormfront, so that these contributions can be rejected?

Will Paul explore if there are any legal actions available to try to remove his donation widget from Stormfront, and if so pursue them?
At the very least, will Paul personally state publicly, vigorously and unmistakably that he rejects the support of white supremacists, and that he will not knowingly tolerate their involvement with his campaign in any form or to any degree?

LoneStarTimes.com’s managing editor Matt Bramanti left multiple messages last week for officials in Paul’s national campaign press office seeking comment. None were returned.

In the interim, a number of grassroots supporters of Paul’s campaign – including many honorable and regular readers of LST – have argued that:

It is unfair to hold Paul responsible for receiving political support from racists/neo-Nazis if that support was unsolicited by Paul;
Paul hasn’t, in fact, solicited white-supremacist support; AND…

Paul’s campaign has no practical way of knowing whether or not a specific financial contribution made has come from a neo-Nazi.
These abstract debates are now moot– a contribution to the Paul campaign by a known white-supremacist has been identified.

The evidence is as follows:

Black proudly and openly identifies himself as Stormfront’s guiding hand, and publishes a contact address on the Internet– PO Box 6637, West Palm Beach, FL, 33405.

A search by LST of public databases indicates that there is only one “Don Black” residing in West Palm Beach, Florida, zip code 33405
A 7/16/01 USA Today article identifies Black’s wife as being named “Chloe”

That same article identifies Chloe as being the ex-wife of close Black associate and former “Grand Wizard” of the Ku Klux Klan, David Duke
Minutes of a 9/7/07 City of West Palm Beach code-compliance hearing identify “Chloe H. Duke” as owning a residential property located at 203 Lakeland Drive.

According to Federal Election Commission records, on 9/30/07 the Ron Paul presidential campaign received a $500 contribution from a Mr. Don Black, who lists his address as 203 Lakeland Drive and identifies his occupation as “self-employed/website manager”

In light of these facts, we believe our previously asked questions continue to have merit.

A final note: it is traditional in political campaigns for candidates to return contributions from “toxic” donors once sufficient public scrutiny and outcry has been generated.

The difficulty in this instance is that if Ron Paul returns these funds to Mr. Black, all he will have done is given a neo-Nazi $500 more dollars with which to spread his psychotic bile.

We would therefore like to suggest that the Ron Paul campaign donate Black’s $500 to any of the following worthy recipients:

United States Holocaust Memorial Museum ($500 would make Dr. Paul a “sustaining member”)

One Family Fund (which works to rebuild the shattered lives of Israeli victims of Arab terror; $500 would make Dr. Paul a “healer”)

Aish Ha’Torah (dynamic Jewish educational foundation; Aish donations are set according to funky Kabbalah-based giving levels–$18, $36, $180, etc.–but for $500 Dr. Paul could simultaneously become a “Friend of the Wall” and a “Gate of Wisdom,” which would entitle him to both a Sterling Silver Menorah bookmark with certificate of authenticity from the Israel Museum in Jerusalem, and a Western Wall Images CD with over 500 unique photos of life at the Western Wall– perfect “re-gifting” items for the fast-approaching Hanukkah season(we try to be helpful).

Matt Bramanti, Managing Editor (Gentile Stooge),
David Benzion, Publisher (Z.O.G. Chapter #1948 President) LoneStarTimes.com

[Petey Pablo]

the people who are illegally here and pay their taxes, work hard for what they have,
and try to contribute to our country should probably get help getting a foot in the door
and on the right track to becoming legal, but there should be no fucking handouts.
we don't need assholes who come here and get 7 social security cards for themselves and withdraw money form our SS system (which is already in peril as it is).

petey, if you don't think our country is worth a shit, and if you think our constitution is trash, then i'd be the first to invite you to get the fuck out. i'll pay for the plane ticket.

Hell Yea!

Fuck America
Fuck America
Fuck America

does that give me two plane tickets to bring a buddy along with me!?

[Petey Pablo]

"Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist.



The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity. "

-Ron Paul


a damn racist.
fuck him.
Free Market Capitalism? Are you joking me?! Okay, so what that basiccally says that every human who works for a goddamn corporation to earn money to get food which is viewed as a luxury in this and many other countires, not a neccessity as it supposed to be is a rightuoues human being. While every human who falls in a hole whatever the situation may be is deemed worthless and a waste of space?
rigggght.

[yumone]

what a fuckign heap of shit you jsut posted petey pablo, good to see the media has geared up to sabotage and frame the Ron Paul campaign with cheap smear crap, wow soem fuckwit racist donated to his campaign it MUST be that Ron Paul agrees with his racist views, fucking dumbshit

[Petey Pablo]

I change my mind on ron paul. thumbs down. He's sounds cool, but it ends there. Ron paul's gonna pull another reagan.

Free markets will allow sweatshops, lead in toy.. which will make the economy worse - also not fair trade. Regulating media is terrible. Smaller government.. is actually a bad thing. Its kinda like making less teachers. (his do it yourself argument is unsocial and will never work.) And it is extremely important that u.s. does not leave and is in iraq, because u.s. need the oil - until china finishes up that fusion generator thingmabob (energy crisis incoming). The iraq situation is getting better too, from what ive read.

Ron paul also supports israel amiright? so hes cool with the apartheid on palestinians. desmond tutu ftw.

Politicians dont do things in spite of people. They all try to do what they believe is good. Some just dont know whats up.

vote hilary, hombres!
I agree with you on the fair trade not free trade shit but fuck that woman. Does anyone remotly remember the invetion of the "tipper sticker" or the parental advisory sticker that stripped free speech rights to many artist in the 80's? Hillary was responsible for that ish.

[Petey Pablo]

wow. hillary will put you in those special FEMA camps, too. she's gonna eat you alive.
and one more terrorist attack is all that needs to happen for the sitting president to call martial law and our lives are forever changed. no more mp3's, no more xbox 360's. you will be fighting to survive and not be locked down for opposing some shit.

Arn't the majority of American fighting for their lives every day living paycheck to paycheck?

[lord_casek]

Arn't the majority of American fighting for their lives every day living paycheck to paycheck?


yeah, that's almost like running from feds and the military.

as for your plane ticket, i've got a better idea, how about a steel toe in the ass?
dirty fucking fascist.

[Cracked Ass]

You people make me tired.

[angelofdeath]

Free Market Capitalism? Are you joking me?! Okay, so what that basiccally says that every human who works for a goddamn corporation to earn money to get food which is viewed as a luxury in this and many other countires, not a neccessity as it supposed to be is a rightuoues human being. While every human who falls in a hole whatever the situation may be is deemed worthless and a waste of space?
rigggght.

Workers of the world, Unite. Comrade!!!

[Juan Fuentes]

http://kscakes.com.nyud.net:8080/LolCats/Uploads/Saved/im-donating-this-chain-to-ron-paul.jpg

[xrebelheartsx]

so a question about ol' Ron, since i'm far too lazy right now to actually research it myself. i know dude is big time pro-life, where does eh stand on roe v. wade? would he let it stay as it is, or would he try to overturn it?

also, he's very anti-environment, which honestly, everyone should be concerned about. and supporting a constitutional amendment on school prayer? what about separation of church and state? banning gay adoptions in DC? there's jsut a few things that seem kinda suspect to me.

Kucinich is the way to go, unfortunately neither he or Ron Paul really stand enough of a chance.

[angelofdeath]

he would over turn roe v wade as per the 10th amendment. or as jefferson called it the cornerstone of the constitution. before someone pulls up the amendment about making it law that life begins at conception, please note that he also brought up a war resolution against iraq. he voted against both bills. it is merely to demostrate the proper constitutional procedure for making something law.

he is not anti environment. he is a private property rights absolutist. he is for separation of church and state as per its original meaning. as for school prayer... people who are against the amendment of which you speak are the ones that are acting unconstitutionally. prayer is not compulsory under this bill, but it allows people to pray if they want. there is a right to practice religion freely but there is no such right to take away someone's right to pray because you dont like it.

kucinich is a commie with a decent foreign policy.

[xrebelheartsx]

he is not anti environment.

here's some shit he voted NO on:

-starting implementation of Kyoto Protocol
-raising CAFE standards; incentives for alternative fuels
-prohibiting oil drilling & development in ANWR
-keeping moratorium on drilling for oil offshore
-removing oil & gas exploration subsidies
-criminalizing oil cartels like OPEC

voted YES on scheduling permitting for new oil refinieries.

Rated 5% by the League of Conservation Voters, indicating anti-environment votes.

[lord_casek]

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Ron_Paul_Environment.htm

[Edward Orenthal Norton]

dude Ron has my vote as soon i heard his interviews on NORML...

[Porcelain]

correct me if im wrong.
but what i heard ron paul lost some of his chances because he quoted some british dude and didnt give him credit. now everyone thinks he tried to steal his words and use them as his own.

[lord_casek]

never heard that

[angelofdeath]

yeah i guess he is 'anti environment' if you base being 'environmental' on being a watermelon. that is green on the outside and red on the inside.

[Purple Mushroom]

At 15 pages I'm a bit late but here are two things

1. Does anyone else see the stupidity in the coined term of 'ron paul revolution' when it is nothing more than a perpetuation of the system
&
2. Ron Paul seems to receive large support from nationalists, racists, conspiracy nuts and all round fucking hillbillys

[angelofdeath]

yeah, i guess because he isnt a commie, that he is supporting the same system. nothing could be further from the truth. if he could he would dismantle the empire, including dismantling the federal government. how is that supporting the same system?

[Purple Mushroom]

yeah, i guess because he isnt a commie, that he is supporting the same system.

By participating in the system he perpetuates it regardless


nothing could be further from the truth. if he could he would dismantle the empire, including dismantling the federal government. how is that supporting the same system?

If he could he would but he can't and it will be a cold day in hell before the oligarchy of the US political system ever see him in power even if every single man and woman in the country voted for him.

[ohefdubs]

ron paul is cool but some of you folks dont know shit about politics and his platform ....please read more about all canidates
i still dont know who on the republican side im voting for right now im leaning with paul but there are some interresting things about huckabee... i like conservatives in general

[Petey Pablo]

yeah i guess he is 'anti environment' if you base being 'environmental' on being a watermelon. that is green on the outside and red on the inside.
Red and BLACK on the inside, recognize kid.

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

he isn't anti-enviorment.

he's just hasn't jumped on the whole people are causing the end of the world bandwagon.

his main premise is limited government at the federal level. so he's basically againt any governmental regulation of the enviorment.

also you can't help who supports you my man. he just speaks his views, and the people rally around him as soon as they hear how he thinks.

[vanfullofretards]

but there are some interresting things about huckabee

DUDE DOESN'T BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION. That on it's face shows how misguided this candidate is, that's like not believing in gravity.

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xKDKq_PPbk

evolution is the devil!

[Juan Fuentes]

about mike huckabee....he is a friend of chuck norris lol!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDUQW8LUMs8
come onnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

...dont believes in evolution, damn...
that is something serious on a candidate...

[Purple Mushroom]

I don't care how badly Chuck Norris could do a roundhouse kick and cause a tornado he is a fucking fascist right wing fuckwit and that Huckabee guy probably is to.

President Huckabee? "HUCKABEE"? fuck wouldn't that be iceing on the cake for the last 8 years

[theme from the bottom]

this dude is a wolf in sheep's clothing, perfect for the sheep.

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

you talking about ron paul?

[lord_casek]

this dude is a wolf in sheep's clothing, perfect for the sheep.


what do you know about him?

or is it a baseless claim?

[Juan Fuentes]

ive even heard some people saying ron paul is nwo.

[lord_casek]

ive even heard some people saying ron paul is nwo.

well, it's obvious. he's pro-constitution, pro-states choice on marijuana legalization and abortion, anti-federal reserve......his voting record for the almost 20 years he's been in congress is pro constitution.....there must be something wrong with him....

i've got it! he's a nazi robot alien lizard from niburu here to smack us down with the
laser weapon he fashioned out of rudy guiliani's left testicle.

[Juan Fuentes]

could it be because he is too good? too good to believe? that people think it's a trap?

maybe that's what they think...

[lord_casek]

could it be because he is too good? too good to believe? that people think it's a trap?

maybe that's what they think...

probably. look at our history of presidential candidates.
i can understand it, up until you read his congressional voting record.
then you begin to see that this guy is for real.

[xrebelheartsx]

yeah i guess he is 'anti environment' if you base being 'environmental' on being a watermelon. that is green on the outside and red on the inside.

standing up for the environment, being for banning drilling in alaska, being for holding big oil co mpanies accountable for the crimes they commited... how are you gonna claim that's in any way "red"?

because i care about the earth, and i support people that do, that makes me and them communist?

what kind of fucking sense does that make?

[xrebelheartsx]

this dude is a wolf in sheep's clothing, perfect for the sheep.

my thoughts exactly.

[lord_casek]

greenpeace has communist ties

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1380895/posts

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_n38_v13/ai_19969858

[lord_casek]

my thoughts exactly.

you are both fucking nuts...and who would you have run our country?
schillary? obama? ghouliani?

[yumone]

hildog ftw :rolleyes:

althouhg i do think these environmental issues about Ron Paul need to be answered? does he just expect state governments to ban these destructive ventures or what? Surely there needs to be some umbrella organisation that looks after these kind of things that actually do need unilateral cooperation rather than being simply state run

[lord_casek]

he does a good job answering some of your questions:
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Ron_Paul_Environment.htm

[angelofdeath]

"standing up for the environment, being for banning drilling in alaska, being for holding big oil co mpanies accountable for the crimes they commited... how are you gonna claim that's in any way "red"?

because i care about the earth, and i support people that do, that makes me and them communist?"

pretty much. nearly all greens are outright socialists, hate private property and hate human beings. they say things about how things 'start to look up' when all the humans disappear. big oil could be held accountable if we actually enforced property rights. and banning drilling in alaska? lets see 2% less area for caribou, and vastly decreased reliance on foreign oil and lower gas prices. seems like a no brainer. what possible harm would come from drilling in the alaskan tundra? one thing i have noticed about most so called 'environmentalists.' they all live in the city, dont really like the outdoors other than going to the state parks, have never really been to the country, and they think all people who live out of the city to be inbred hicks.

most people in the country take far better care of thier acres than do most environmentalists in the city. let me give you a for instance about what the federal government did to my family. during the depression. they took nearly 500 acres. paid them 19$ an acre to create a national forest in appalachia. what did they do after that? they created a 'rattle snake' santuary about 1/2 mile from thier remaining 300 acres and their property was swarming with rattle snakes, biting horses, cows, kids, etc. then a couple years later, they created the coyote santuary. now their farm animals were being destroyed by coyotes and it was illegal to protect your property.

so lets see, taking land with hardly just compensation and turning it into public government owned land, then not allowing property owners to protect their own property. sounds pretty communistic to me.

i care about the earth much more than most so called environmentalists. the only way to protect the earth is through property rights and courts and laws that allow property rights to be enforced.

[lord_casek]

libertarian
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/23/AR2007112301299.html


become a delegate
http://www3.webng.com/ronpaul/becomedelegate.html

[Juan Fuentes]

i just now heard this...
the title says it all.
here's the link

Elizabeth Kucinich: My Husband Would "Absolutely" Consider Running With Ron Paul (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/11/23/elizabeth-kucinich-my-hu_n_73905.html)

lets push for this option, because alone we will not get anything. lets take the example of our enemies that because of their unity are strong.

[lord_casek]

i just now heard this...
the title says it all.
here's the link

Elizabeth Kucinich: My Husband Would "Absolutely" Consider Running With Ron Paul (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/11/23/elizabeth-kucinich-my-hu_n_73905.html)

lets push for this option, because alone we will not get anything. lets take the example of our enemies that because of their unity are strong.

i don't know about kucinich. their views are almost polar opposite. he even says it in that interview, right?

[ohefdubs]

so a question about ol' Ron, since i'm far too lazy right now to actually research it myself. i know dude is big time pro-life, where does eh stand on roe v. wade? would he let it stay as it is, or would he try to overturn it?

also, he's very anti-environment, which honestly, everyone should be concerned about. and supporting a constitutional amendment on school prayer? what about separation of church and state? banning gay adoptions in DC? there's jsut a few things that seem kinda suspect to me.

Kucinich is the way to go, unfortunately neither he or Ron Paul really stand enough of a chance.

kucinich is a friggggen clown

i think he think roe v wade is a states issue ???
whats seperate of church and state ?????
how does that effect you???

[xrebelheartsx]

"standing up for the environment, being for banning drilling in alaska, being for holding big oil co mpanies accountable for the crimes they commited... how are you gonna claim that's in any way "red"?

because i care about the earth, and i support people that do, that makes me and them communist?"

pretty much. nearly all greens are outright socialists, hate private property and hate human beings. they say things about how things 'start to look up' when all the humans disappear. big oil could be held accountable if we actually enforced property rights. and banning drilling in alaska? lets see 2% less area for caribou, and vastly decreased reliance on foreign oil and lower gas prices. seems like a no brainer. what possible harm would come from drilling in the alaskan tundra? one thing i have noticed about most so called 'environmentalists.' they all live in the city, dont really like the outdoors other than going to the state parks, have never really been to the country, and they think all people who live out of the city to be inbred hicks.

most people in the country take far better care of thier acres than do most environmentalists in the city. let me give you a for instance about what the federal government did to my family. during the depression. they took nearly 500 acres. paid them 19$ an acre to create a national forest in appalachia. what did they do after that? they created a 'rattle snake' santuary about 1/2 mile from thier remaining 300 acres and their property was swarming with rattle snakes, biting horses, cows, kids, etc. then a couple years later, they created the coyote santuary. now their farm animals were being destroyed by coyotes and it was illegal to protect your property.

so lets see, taking land with hardly just compensation and turning it into public government owned land, then not allowing property owners to protect their own property. sounds pretty communistic to me.

i care about the earth much more than most so called environmentalists. the only way to protect the earth is through property rights and courts and laws that allow property rights to be enforced.

here's an idea, how about rather than simply decreasing our reliance on foreign oil, we decrease our reliance on oil completely? why not look further into alternative methods rather than promoting drilling for more oil? and there's far more potential damage than just "2% less area for caribou", take for instance the recent oil spill in the SF bay (yes, i'm aware that has nothing to do with the alaskan drilling, but the oil would have to be transported from there, which automatically creates risk). It would take 10 years for any Arctic Refuge oil to reach the market, and even when production peaks 9in 2027), the refuge would produce only 1 or 2 percent of Americans' daily consumption.

and let me at least partially debunk your belief about "most environmentalists" and where they live, what they do, and what they know: i live in a rural area, surrounded by people that have all lived there for generations upon generations, and the overwhelming majority of them have pro-environmental views. that's quite a few people that don't live in a city, and do enjoy the outdoors a great deal.

i'm failing to see how the banning of drilling in alaska and holding oil companies responsible for their actions in any way relates to what happened to your family's land. i understand your point about property rights, which i agree with, but i also believe in protecting as much of our existing wildlife as possible. and remember, it was the US government that took the land, and the US government that set up the sanctuaries during the depression. how exactly does that make people that are currently concerned with protecting the world we live in communists? you obviously believe that people should be able to protect their property, so why shouldn't we protect the entire planet? and what about the inupiaq village of kaktovik, which is right in the middle of the proposed drilling area?

the only way to protect the earth is NOT through property rights alone, and i'd hope that you realize that.

[Seffiks]

come on people ron paul is not going anywhere quit supporting his ass. good day

[lord_casek]

come on people ron paul is not going anywhere quit supporting his ass. good day




won almost every straw poll, raised a ton of money, supporters all over.....he is going somewhere.

[lord_casek]

here's an idea, how about rather than simply decreasing our reliance on foreign oil, we decrease our reliance on oil completely? why not look further into alternative methods rather than promoting drilling for more oil? and there's far more potential damage than just "2% less area for caribou", take for instance the recent oil spill in the SF bay (yes, i'm aware that has nothing to do with the alaskan drilling, but the oil would have to be transported from there, which automatically creates risk). It would take 10 years for any Arctic Refuge oil to reach the market, and even when production peaks 9in 2027), the refuge would produce only 1 or 2 percent of Americans' daily consumption.

and let me at least partially debunk your belief about "most environmentalists" and where they live, what they do, and what they know: i live in a rural area, surrounded by people that have all lived there for generations upon generations, and the overwhelming majority of them have pro-environmental views. that's quite a few people that don't live in a city, and do enjoy the outdoors a great deal.

i'm failing to see how the banning of drilling in alaska and holding oil companies responsible for their actions in any way relates to what happened to your family's land. i understand your point about property rights, which i agree with, but i also believe in protecting as much of our existing wildlife as possible. and remember, it was the US government that took the land, and the US government that set up the sanctuaries during the depression. how exactly does that make people that are currently concerned with protecting the world we live in communists? you obviously believe that people should be able to protect their property, so why shouldn't we protect the entire planet? and what about the inupiaq village of kaktovik, which is right in the middle of the proposed drilling area?

the only way to protect the earth is NOT through property rights alone, and i'd hope that you realize that.


those sanctuaries are just a way to steal land. you need to do some more research.

[xrebelheartsx]

kucinich is a friggggen clown

i think he think roe v wade is a states issue ???
whats seperate of church and state ?????
how does that effect you???

he believes that abortions should always be legal, and that supreme court nominees must agree to uphold roe v wade. my one issue with kucinich is that he was pro-life up until right before the 2004 election, then changed his stance on it entirely.

separation of church and state is just what it sounds like: keep religion and government (and government run/funded programs like public school) away from each other. it effects me because it's written in the first amendment of the constitution. basically, ron paul is in support of teaching values in public schools, which in itself is not bad at all, but he's amongst the group of people that think the more children are exposed to prayer, the ten commandments, and other traditional values, the better off they are. now, i'm not saying this is wrong, but keep it out of the schools. that's why we have the 1st amendment.

again, it doesn't necessarily have a direct effect on me, other than the fact that it goes against the constitution.


and for the record casek, i don't think anyone in the current field is particularly qualified to run the country. not a single fucking one of them.

[xrebelheartsx]

those sanctuaries are just a way to steal land. you need to do some more research.


maybe i didn't make myself entirely clear, or maybe you misread what i wrote. in either case, i agree on that part. what i'm saying is the land that we currently have set aside as reserves, refuges, sanctuaries, etc. needs to be protected. i'm not in support of stealing peoples land, under any circumstances, but rather, i fully support protecting all land, public and private.

[lord_casek]

ron paul is the most pro constitution candidate out there. he doesn't want church to interfere with school, you are wrong, but he does hold strong moral values.

Q: Academic freedom is threatened when questioning the theory of evolution. An Iowa State astronomer was denied tenure because of his work in intelligent design in May 2007. Censoring alternative theories--dogmatic indoctrination--has replaced scientific inquiry. Will you encourage a more open approach to the presentation of scientific facts that contradict the theory of evolution?

* HUCKABEE: Yes.
* TANCREDO: Yes.
* COX: Yes.
* BROWNBACK: Yes.
* PAUL: Yes.
* HUNTER: Yes.
* KEYES: Yes.



Q: I'm 17, and I'm the product of school choice. In the public schools I repeated the 7th grade three times, because of my deficiency in math & English. My mother then sent me to New Generation, a Christian school. After one year, my math improved 5 grade levels, and my English improved 3. Will you support school choice for other students like me with similar tax-credit programs?

* HUCKABEE: Yes.
* TANCREDO: Yes.
* COX: Yes.
* BROWNBACK: Yes.
* PAUL: Yes.
* HUNTER: Yes.
* KEYES: Yes.

[lord_casek]

The first amendment is about complete and total federal non-intervention in any religious topic whatsoever. That means if a school wants to pray, Congress can say nothing. If they want to ban it, Congress can say nothing.

[xrebelheartsx]

casek, seems to me based on the info listed on the ontheissues page, that he's in favor of prayer in public schools. if i'm wrong about that, i'm wrong.

[lord_casek]

The War On religion
by Dr. Ron Paul


As we celebrate another Yuletide season, it’s hard not to notice that Christmas in America simply doesn’t feel the same anymore. Although an overwhelming majority of Americans celebrate Christmas, and those who don’t celebrate it overwhelmingly accept and respect our nation’s Christmas traditions, a certain shared public sentiment slowly has disappeared. The Christmas spirit, marked by a wonderful feeling of goodwill among men, is in danger of being lost in the ongoing war against religion.

Through perverse court decisions and years of cultural indoctrination, the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven from public view. The justification is always that someone, somewhere, might possibly be offended or feel uncomfortable living in the midst of a largely Christian society, so all must yield to the fragile sensibilities of the few. The ultimate goal of the anti-religious elites is to transform America into a completely secular nation, a nation that is legally and culturally biased against Christianity.

This growing bias explains why many of our wonderful Christmas traditions have been lost. Christmas pageants and plays, including Handel’s Messiah, have been banned from schools and community halls. Nativity scenes have been ordered removed from town squares, and even criticized as offensive when placed on private church lawns. Office Christmas parties have become taboo, replaced by colorless seasonal parties to ensure no employees feel threatened by a “hostile environment.” Even wholly non-religious decorations featuring Santa Claus, snowmen, and the like have been called into question as Christmas symbols that might cause discomfort. Earlier this month, firemen near Chicago reluctantly removed Christmas decorations from their firehouse after a complaint by some embittered busybody. Most noticeably, however, the once commonplace refrain of “Merry Christmas” has been replaced by the vague, ubiquitous “Happy Holidays.” But what holiday? Is Christmas some kind of secret, a word that cannot be uttered in public? Why have we allowed the secularists to intimidate us into downplaying our most cherished and meaningful Christian celebration?

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

The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war.





btw: you do know that government and religion were not seperate in the beginning of our country, right?
revolutionary war threatening the flow of 20,000 bibles from england, etc....govt paid for chaplains to convert the native americans,
no fewer than six of the 13 original states had official, state-supported churches...etc...etc

[xrebelheartsx]

^ yeah, i'm fully aware of how intertwined religion and government were at the beginning of the US, and they still are to a degree.

[lord_casek]

^ yeah, i'm fully aware of how intertwined religion and government were at the beginning of the US, and they still are to a degree.

and do you not think it's a bad thing that religion is being stripped from our schools?
students not allowed to pray before football games, no more christmas plays, etc?
i'm not even a christian and i think it's a bad thing.

look at the pledge of allegiance...God is gone from it if the liberal assfaces have their way.
that is our pledge of allegiance to our country. "god" is not defined as "christian god",




"In consequence of some conversation with Dr. Rush, in the year 1798-99, I had promised some day to write him a letter giving him my view of the Christian system. I have reflected often on it since, & even sketched the outlines in my own mind. I should first take a general view of the moral doctrines of the most remarkable of the antient [ancient] philosophers, of whose ethics we have sufficient information to make an estimate, . . . . I should then take a view of the deism and ethics of the Jews, and show in what a degraded state they were, and the necessity they presented of a reformation. I should proceed to a view of the life, character, & doctrines of Jesus, who sensible of incorrectness of their ideas of the Deity, and of morality, endeavored to bring them to the principles of a pure deism, and juster notions of the attributes of God, to reform their moral doctrines to the standard of reason, justice & philanthropy, and to inculcate the belief of a future state. This view would purposely omit the question of his divinity, & even his inspiration. To do him justice, it would be necessary to remark . . . that his system of morality was the most benevolent & sublime probably that has been ever taught, and consequently more perfect than those of any of the antient philosophers." (Ltr. to Joseph Priestly, Apr. 9, 1803.)

Thomas Jefferson

[xrebelheartsx]

i don't necessarily think that religion being entirely removed from schools is a bad thing. there's a time and place for everything, and i just don't think that the time for religion is when kids are in school, i also don't think the place for it is said school.

it's a touchy subject. i don't think praying before football games should be banned, but by the same token, i don't agree with teacher-led prayer.

as far as the pledge, it's also a pledge of allegiance to the US government, which is something i know you're not exactly in favor of(don't misread that as me calling you anarchistic in any way, i simply know you're not in favor of the way the government is being run right now).

religion and school is a very slippery slope. it's hard to say "ok, you can do this but not this", so it's almost like you have to be completely for it, or completely against it. does that make any sense? i'm a little out of it today, so sorry if it's not coming out clearly.

[lord_casek]

sure, it makes sense. to rebut, i ask if it also makes sense to teach both sides instead of just evolution? i don't see it as hurting anything. i do agree with you that teacher led prayer might not be a good thing. in fact, i think it's a bad thing. but if a group of students wants to pray together at some free time during school, fine. freedom of speech is great. it should extend into the school in that manner.

i don't agree with taking away christmas plays. this is a christian country. i'm ok with that, even though it's not my religion. it's the way it's supposed to be. but it was founded and still is a christian country predominately.

edit:
i notice firefox wants me to capitalize "chrisitan"

[angelofdeath]

here's an idea, how about rather than simply decreasing our reliance on foreign oil, we decrease our reliance on oil completely? why not look further into alternative methods rather than promoting drilling for more oil? and there's far more potential damage than just "2% less area for caribou", take for instance the recent oil spill in the SF bay (yes, i'm aware that has nothing to do with the alaskan drilling, but the oil would have to be transported from there, which automatically creates risk). It would take 10 years for any Arctic Refuge oil to reach the market, and even when production peaks 9in 2027), the refuge would produce only 1 or 2 percent of Americans' daily consumption.

and let me at least partially debunk your belief about "most environmentalists" and where they live, what they do, and what they know: i live in a rural area, surrounded by people that have all lived there for generations upon generations, and the overwhelming majority of them have pro-environmental views. that's quite a few people that don't live in a city, and do enjoy the outdoors a great deal.

i'm failing to see how the banning of drilling in alaska and holding oil companies responsible for their actions in any way relates to what happened to your family's land. i understand your point about property rights, which i agree with, but i also believe in protecting as much of our existing wildlife as possible. and remember, it was the US government that took the land, and the US government that set up the sanctuaries during the depression. how exactly does that make people that are currently concerned with protecting the world we live in communists? you obviously believe that people should be able to protect their property, so why shouldn't we protect the entire planet? and what about the inupiaq village of kaktovik, which is right in the middle of the proposed drilling area?

the only way to protect the earth is NOT through property rights alone, and i'd hope that you realize that.


i hold extreme pro environmental views. and i know that there is no better way to protect the land than through private ownership. i cannot force anyone to do something they don't want to with their own property. and neither should anyone else. i know that there is no better stewards of land than the rural people of this nation. that is where environmentalists get it wrong. they want to run the country from DC. DC wants to own more and more land and not allow human beings to use it. i mean a simple analysis of market economics shows that there isn't going to be a smoke belching factory built in the wind river range or on plains that are 90 miles from the nearest grocery store. but what is wrong with allowing western farmers to use BLM lands for cattle grazing? the feds stamp all that out.

look, i dont understand why all the environmentalists just dont stop running other peoples lives, and just all get together and literally buy land and prohibit anyone from building on it or setting foot on it. or allow green backpackers to go on it, i dont care what they do. but it is not moral to tell other people what to do with their land.

it is not the job of the government sector to determine what is proper in reguards to energy. the market will easily fix this problem. restrictions need to be lifted to allow the market to work. right now it is my understanding that it takes 10 barrels of oil to produce 9 barrels of ethanol. it is simply not the job of DC to run the energy market and make decisions based on political mood swings and not for market reasons.

that is what makes most greens, really red. they want to run peoples lives. they want to control other peoples property. public ownership of the means of production is the main tenet of socialism. the greens work for nothing more than socialism.

allow individuals and local communities to decide who to use their own land.

that is what ron paul supports. responsibility. freedom.

[angelofdeath]

he believes that abortions should always be legal, and that supreme court nominees must agree to uphold roe v wade. my one issue with kucinich is that he was pro-life up until right before the 2004 election, then changed his stance on it entirely.

separation of church and state is just what it sounds like: keep religion and government (and government run/funded programs like public school) away from each other. it effects me because it's written in the first amendment of the constitution. basically, ron paul is in support of teaching values in public schools, which in itself is not bad at all, but he's amongst the group of people that think the more children are exposed to prayer, the ten commandments, and other traditional values, the better off they are. now, i'm not saying this is wrong, but keep it out of the schools. that's why we have the 1st amendment.

again, it doesn't necessarily have a direct effect on me, other than the fact that it goes against the constitution.


and for the record casek, i don't think anyone in the current field is particularly qualified to run the country. not a single fucking one of them.

voluntary prayer in school without coercing another soul IS TOTALLY CONSTITUTIONAL! in fact it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL TO DENY ANY ONE THE RIGHT TO PRACTICE THIER RELIGION. i'm not a fan of the youth propaganda camps, but since they exist, local communities and parents should run their schools the way the damn well please. moscow on the potomac as absolutely no right to intervene in the affairs of what used to be totally locally funded community oriented schools.

a simple statement like 'congress shall write no laws reguarding an establishment of religion' means in no way denial of religious freedom. it means that congress shall write no law abridging freedom of religion.

if you want to get constitutional about separation of church and state, it isnt even mentioned in the constitution. the only mentions of religion is about not having any religious tests to hold office and about congress not writing laws abridging free exercise of religion. this was written so that a national church could not be created, not to tell american citizens they cannot practice religion.

ron paul is not 'in support of enforcing morals in school.' he is in support of allowing people their constitutional right to voluntarily practice religion. he is for allowing communities to decide if they want to allow kids to voluntarily say a prayer before they eat.

all your arguments would hold perfect weight IF schools were REQUIRING kids to practice a certain religion. in that case, their freedom of religion would be violated and it should be dealt with accordingly.

ron paul is 100% qualified to run the country. because he would really not be doing much except dismantling the federal bureaucracy to the best of his ability. anyone that moves toward freedom, is my friend.

[angelofdeath]

"i'm not in support of stealing peoples land, under any circumstances, but rather, i fully support protecting all land, public and private."

that is literally supporting theft of land. zoning and regulation of someone else's land is theft of their land.

[angelofdeath]

"btw: you do know that government and religion were not seperate in the beginning of our country, right?
revolutionary war threatening the flow of 20,000 bibles from england, etc....govt paid for chaplains to convert the native americans,
no fewer than six of the 13 original states had official, state-supported churches...etc...etc"

right you are casek. the people were much more religious and it showed in everything they did. in fact the radical patrick henry who was an OPPONENT of the constitution because he feared it consolidated power to much supported a state church for virginia.

[angelofdeath]

"as far as the pledge, it's also a pledge of allegiance to the US government,"

yup. i quit saying it years ago when i learned it was written by a socialist and was said by kids with hands in the military salute that later adolf hitler adopted. even when i go to my SCV meetings now, i stand for the pledge and along with about 10% of the camp, i refuse to pledge allegiance to the central government of the united STATE.

[El Mamerro]

The amount of faith AOD has in individuals never ceases to astonish me. I wish I were so optimistic to believe that individuals would take care of their private land in the best interest of the environment, or that somehow a more expensive but environmentally sustainable energy source would flourish on its own in a free market.

What a wonderful world that would be.

[lord_casek]

"btw: you do know that government and religion were not seperate in the beginning of our country, right?
revolutionary war threatening the flow of 20,000 bibles from england, etc....govt paid for chaplains to convert the native americans,
no fewer than six of the 13 original states had official, state-supported churches...etc...etc"

right you are casek. the people were much more religious and it showed in everything they did. in fact the radical patrick henry who was an OPPONENT of the constitution because he feared it consolidated power to much supported a state church for virginia.

well, i never meant that religion and state should be whole, i was just pointing out that
it was once acceptable for christians to be christians and people weren't trying to be so pc and everything was fine. no neo-cons, no neo-liberals.

[angelofdeath]

^^^^
amen.

[lord_casek]

The amount of faith AOD has in individuals never ceases to astonish me. I wish I were so optimistic to believe that individuals would take care of their private land in the best interest of the environment, or that somehow a more expensive but environmentally sustainable energy source would flourish on its own in a free market.

What a wonderful world that would be.


solar is getting way cheaper. when i am able to afford it, i want to go off-grid.

[angelofdeath]

"or that somehow a more expensive but environmentally sustainable energy source would flourish on its own in a free market."

i never said that. i said that the market will handle things. i know of a few places that sell bio-diesel in various cities in the southeast. i hardly ever see anyone buying it. in fact it is so expensive one of my good friends was in the market for a car and she was asking me about bio diesel. i told her the expense involved and she completely forgot about that idea. the enviro's have it in thier capacity to run their cars on bio diesel, walk, ride bikes, and very few actually walk the talk.

most people dont really want to do anything. they just want to cry about the environment, live in a shit hole city, and tell other people what to do with their land, tell farmers they cant own their property they have had for generations because it is a federally protected 'wetland.' they still drive cars. they still use spray paint which kills the Ozone. and dammit, earth crisis still prints cd's on paper, and uses mass produced cd's made by evil corporations.

[lord_casek]

watch ron field some b/s from fox and friends this morning
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noyTu_Wgse0

the man is untouchable.

[xrebelheartsx]

"i'm not in support of stealing peoples land, under any circumstances, but rather, i fully support protecting all land, public and private."

that is literally supporting theft of land. zoning and regulation of someone else's land is theft of their land.


same situation that i had with casek... maybe i'm not making myself clear enough, or maybe you're not understanding what i'm saying. how the fuck is my belief in protecting ALL land, private and public, supporting the theft of land?? i believe that people have the right to protect the land that belongs to them (regardless of the fact that i have a hard time with the idea of anyone "owning" a portion of the earth), and at the same time, i believe that we have a responsibility to protect what undeveloped lands we currently have.

obviously, i'd like to see no more development whatsoever, but that's absolutely impossible. now, if someone owns a huge tract of land, their private land, and they want to build a bunch of shit on it, go for it. it's your land, it's your right. my point is the open, undeveloped land should be protected as much as possible.

if this didn't clear up my view on this for you, i don't know what the fuck else i can do to clear it up more.


as far as some of my statements on ron paul, and his stances on "seperation of church and state" (which i'm fully aware is never actually said in the constitution, i was simply using it as a terminology most people are familiar with), see my little exchange with casek. i said i may be wrong, i was only getting my info from a site casek himself referred people to several times.

[xrebelheartsx]

sure, it makes sense. to rebut, i ask if it also makes sense to teach both sides instead of just evolution? i don't see it as hurting anything. i do agree with you that teacher led prayer might not be a good thing. in fact, i think it's a bad thing. but if a group of students wants to pray together at some free time during school, fine. freedom of speech is great. it should extend into the school in that manner.

i don't agree with taking away christmas plays. this is a christian country. i'm ok with that, even though it's not my religion. it's the way it's supposed to be. but it was founded and still is a christian country predominately.

edit:
i notice firefox wants me to capitalize "chrisitan"


yeah i'm absolutely fine with teaching both sides of evolution. but again, that's kind of a slippery slope, since you know damn well there will be teachers leaning heavily on one side or the other. and that's where the problem comes in.

i agree with you on the christmas plays, at least as far as a "removing religion from school" standpoint. i understand, perhaps, that there may be some issues of "well, we don't want to offend the non-christians blah blah blah", but as far as completely removing the plays, i don't agree with it.


i've been at work all day, my brain is jelly.

[Juan Fuentes]

the christmas plays are suggested by the school's staff not the kids.
kids should chose what they want to act out on a play, after all they are up there doing the job.

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

I am not a fan of religion. I do respect the fact that people do hold these belief's though.

In my eye's there should be absolutely no religion involved in anything, outside of your church, mosque, synagogue, or whatever you call it, and house.

If you are at school, unless it is a Catholic school, or a Muslim school, or a Hebrew school, etc or etc you should not be forced to partake in events that do not agree with your religious practice. That also goes for everything else.

If I were a Coach of some sort, I would set a few moments aside before each game, and have a moment of silence just like teams do normally, and just let people pray or do whatever they would like to motivate themselves. I believe in the seperation of Church and State to it's highest degree.

As far as not teaching evolution that's crazy. In my eye's that falls into the Catholic belief on what happened, so that is to basically be ignored. If you are Catholic and a devote Catholic wouldn't you take your beliefs as superior anyway, regardless of the place of you're education.

Or to make people happy, you could just include during that period of study, the way each religion puts the way we were created, just for general knowledge purposes. However the first way I explained it would probably be best.

[yumone]

a recent Oreilly - Ron Paul appearance

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7JPvbVsDdY

its so frustrating the way Oreilly just never allows anyone to finish a fucking sentence if it seems to be going against fox news policy

[angelofdeath]

"same situation that i had with casek... maybe i'm not making myself clear enough, or maybe you're not understanding what i'm saying. how the fuck is my belief in protecting ALL land, private and public, supporting the theft of land?? i believe that people have the right to protect the land that belongs to them (regardless of the fact that i have a hard time with the idea of anyone "owning" a portion of the earth), and at the same time, i believe that we have a responsibility to protect what undeveloped lands we currently have.

obviously, i'd like to see no more development whatsoever, but that's absolutely impossible. now, if someone owns a huge tract of land, their private land, and they want to build a bunch of shit on it, go for it. it's your land, it's your right. my point is the open, undeveloped land should be protected as much as possible.

if this didn't clear up my view on this for you, i don't know what the fuck else i can do to clear it up more."

sorry bro, but i rest my case. you openly said that you support regulating ALL land to 'protect' it. that is telling landowners what they can and cannot do. supporting regulation or land (i.e. zoning) is essentially theft, because you are not allowing someone to use their own property how they see fit. you are essentially running their lives. and you said you have a 'problem' with anyone 'owning' a portion of the earth, which if that is not commie, i dont know what is.

how can you say that you support allowing people who own land to 'go for' what they want, but yet say that you support forcible regulation of people's property and that they have a responsibility to use their land in the way that you see fit?

[Suds_McDuff_Oner]

I like what he has to say, but I'm torn between Ron Paul or Obama....

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

Any sane person should love Ron's message. That is if you're way of living has nothing to do with big buisness or the military industrial complex.

[Seffiks]

The Ron Paul Song (Shelby with Friends)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6A7Iggebm4&NR=1

[lord_casek]

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

[El Mamerro]

"or that somehow a more expensive but environmentally sustainable energy source would flourish on its own in a free market."

i never said that. i said that the market will handle things. i know of a few places that sell bio-diesel in various cities in the southeast. i hardly ever see anyone buying it. in fact it is so expensive one of my good friends was in the market for a car and she was asking me about bio diesel. i told her the expense involved and she completely forgot about that idea. the enviro's have it in thier capacity to run their cars on bio diesel, walk, ride bikes, and very few actually walk the talk.

True, you didn't say that. But you seem to be implying that it would be perfectly OK for the market to settle on a cheap but environmentally destructive energy source, and that's fine you know, cause that's the market for ya.

That's not right, period.

You're headed for some serious problems when you believe that abstract political ideas of freedom and private property should take priority over the responsibility of keeping the Earth healthy enough for us to stay alive in it.

It's like a bunch of people moving into an old house, each taking a room, and then proceeding to do whatever they want with it, including knocking down structural walls and pillars, cause you know, hey it's your fucking room and you want to be more comfortable in it and that's your right. Sorry, but I'm not gonna let you bring down our house just cause you felt you needed some extra room to lay your feet on. You either think this is fine, or believe that individuals will be responsible and educated enough to avoid doing such things. Both mindsets are completely bewildering to me.

[xrebelheartsx]

sorry bro, but i rest my case. you openly said that you support regulating ALL land to 'protect' it. that is telling landowners what they can and cannot do. supporting regulation or land (i.e. zoning) is essentially theft, because you are not allowing someone to use their own property how they see fit. you are essentially running their lives. and you said you have a 'problem' with anyone 'owning' a portion of the earth, which if that is not commie, i dont know what is.

how can you say that you support allowing people who own land to 'go for' what they want, but yet say that you support forcible regulation of people's property and that they have a responsibility to use their land in the way that you see fit?

dude seriously, where the fuck are you seeing in my words that i support regulation of people's private land???

let me break it down for you as simple as i possibly fucking can:

private land - it's yours, do what you want, protect your shit.

public land (existing parks, reserves, etc.) - should be COMMON FUCKING SENSE to protect these lands. i'm NOT saying to take land away from people, tell them what to do with their land, or ANY of that shit. i really don't know where the fuck you're coming up with this shit.

and as far as my having a problem with anyone "owning" a portion of the earth, how is that "commie"? that makes no fucking sense to me. my problem is that land that already existed, was essentially claimed by people, and then in turn those people made profit off of it. that's much more of a native american type of view than a fucking communist one.

jesus christ.

[xrebelheartsx]

You're headed for some serious problems when you believe that abstract political ideas of freedom and private property should take priority over the responsibility of keeping the Earth healthy enough for us to stay alive in it.


exactly what i was trying to get at, but was evidently failing to make clear enough. while i support people's right to do what they want with their land, their should be a (common sense) higher responsibility to take care of ALL land.

what is your private land gonna matter if the entire world is fucked?

[the.crooked]

at least it will be yours...

[lord_casek]

exactly what i was trying to get at, but was evidently failing to make clear enough. while i support people's right to do what they want with their land, their should be a (common sense) higher responsibility to take care of ALL land.

what is your private land gonna matter if the entire world is fucked?


so, am i getting you right in saying that you would rather governments step in and manage your land for you? to save the environment?

[angelofdeath]

you act as if it is in peoples interest to destroy property. if you pollute the air and/or some one else's property inadvertantly, the guy who polluted the property MUST be held responsible. this includes the air. a free society does not entail destroying the earth. if a farmer dumps massive amounts of shit into a river and destroy's the next farmers drinking water or his cattle lot from the runoff, the guy who destroyed the property should be held accountable and would be held accountable if property rights were strictly enforced. now a person who's land is destroyed by the 'corporation' cannot sue the violators property. thanks uncle sam.

"private land - it's yours, do what you want, protect your shit."

ok, so if i want to strip mine my own private land and i guarantee that nothing will hurt you in any way what so ever, you dont have a problem with that? your previous posts make it clear that you dont want this to happen. but isnt that 'fucking up the earth.?' all the land that is so called 'destroyed' is just about privately owned.

"But you seem to be implying that it would be perfectly OK for the market to settle on a cheap but environmentally destructive energy source, and that's fine you know, cause that's the market for ya.

That's not right, period.

You're headed for some serious problems when you believe that abstract political ideas of freedom and private property should take priority over the responsibility of keeping the Earth healthy enough for us to stay alive in it."

sure its right. who exactly determines that something is 'environmentally destructive?' its sort of like 'who is a terrorist?' one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. it must be that people want cheap gas instead of bio diesel. it must be that people want cheap chinese goods at walmart instead of expensive american goods. all environmentalists have it within their capacity to walk the walk. hardly none do.

it is in the peoples BEST interest to care for the earth. corporations run wild because they are not held accountable for their actions. that is not the fault of regulation, it is the fault of not allowing property rights to be totally defended in courts of law.

freedom isnt perfect. with it comes responsibility. you cant force people to live the proper life. it is not morally right to do so either. but freedom is far better than fascism or communism.

[lord_casek]

world elects ron paul
http://www.whowouldtheworldelect.com/

[the.crooked]

you act as if it is in peoples interest to destroy property. if you pollute the air and/or some one else's property inadvertantly, the guy who polluted the property MUST be held responsible. this includes the air. a free society does not entail destroying the earth. if a farmer dumps massive amounts of shit into a river and destroy's the next farmers drinking water or his cattle lot from the runoff, the guy who destroyed the property should be held accountable and would be held accountable if property rights were strictly enforced. now a person who's land is destroyed by the 'corporation' cannot sue the violators property. thanks uncle sam.

"private land - it's yours, do what you want, protect your shit."

ok, so if i want to strip mine my own private land and i guarantee that nothing will hurt you in any way what so ever, you dont have a problem with that? your previous posts make it clear that you dont want this to happen. but isnt that 'fucking up the earth.?' all the land that is so called 'destroyed' is just about privately owned.

"But you seem to be implying that it would be perfectly OK for the market to settle on a cheap but environmentally destructive energy source, and that's fine you know, cause that's the market for ya.

That's not right, period.

You're headed for some serious problems when you believe that abstract political ideas of freedom and private property should take priority over the responsibility of keeping the Earth healthy enough for us to stay alive in it."

sure its right. who exactly determines that something is 'environmentally destructive?' its sort of like 'who is a terrorist?' one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. it must be that people want cheap gas instead of bio diesel. it must be that people want cheap chinese goods at walmart instead of expensive american goods. all environmentalists have it within their capacity to walk the walk. hardly none do.

it is in the peoples BEST interest to care for the earth. corporations run wild because they are not held accountable for their actions. that is not the fault of regulation, it is the fault of not allowing property rights to be totally defended in courts of law.

freedom isnt perfect. with it comes responsibility. you cant force people to live the proper life. it is not morally right to do so either. but freedom is far better than fascism or communism.

freedom under the auspice of social contract is not freedom.


regardless, I think Mam's point is that people are fuckin retarded. Putting your faith in the commons is what he seems to be questioning.

Personal "responsibility" is a hard thing to even pin down. Responsible to what set of confines.

The notion of social responsibility is dependent upon some sort of laid down and agreed upon rules, which ends up translating into governmental procedure and legislative precedent.

I agree with mam's, I do not have enough belief in the ability of people in general to see past what small differences they have to come together on the issues that matter to all.

Tragedy of the Commons. Fuck everyone.

[xrebelheartsx]

so, am i getting you right in saying that you would rather governments step in and manage your land for you? to save the environment?


no, i think people (i'm talking private individuals, not companies/corporations) generally would take care of their own land. this may be putting too much faith in people, but regardless, it's what i think.

what i'm saying is more of a (perhaps foolish) belief in people in general. not in government. obviously, most members of the US government could give a flying fuck about the environment.

what i'm saying is, you look after your land, take care of what's yours, but keep in mind the world as a whole. realize there's more than what's outside of your property boundaries at stake. know what i mean?

[El Mamerro]

sure its right. who exactly determines that something is 'environmentally destructive?' its sort of like 'who is a terrorist?' one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. it must be that people want cheap gas instead of bio diesel. it must be that people want cheap chinese goods at walmart instead of expensive american goods. all environmentalists have it within their capacity to walk the walk. hardly none do.

Who determines? I dunno maybe the scientific community, the people who for centuries have been dedicating their lives to researching this? I dunno if your plan is to go on some "They're not necessarily 100% right" tirade, I'm not interested in hearing that cause that is the biggest cop-out you could possibly pull off. The recent devaluing of the scientific community in the political and economic spheres is absolutely disgusting, and resting on arguments like that to propose continued "do whatever you want" attitudes is shameful.

Again, your argument rests on people being educated and responsible enough to know what not to do with their property. This is not only improbable, it is bordering on the impossible. How the hell is one guy supposed to know that eliminating the bothersome beehives in his backyard can have a drastic effect in the pollination of a farmer's crops a few miles down the road? Now I'm not suggesting to make a law forbidding exterminating pests in your property, but that's just to point out an example of how exceedingly complex and intertwined relationships are in nature to leave things completely at the mercy of landowners (most of who will be much more prone to make decisions for their own comfort and wellbeing as opposed to keeping the big picture in mind), and how being a landowner entails WAY more than just staking claim to an area within a boundary.

I'd really love for people and society to work the way you envision, but it's pretty obvious that we are not conditioned to think about our effects on the world in that capacity, and the more the scientific community gets shunned, the less we're gonna listen to what they've been saying for years.

And I don't understand why you keep bringing environmentalists into this. What I am arguing doesn't have to do with them in any way.

[xrebelheartsx]

you act as if it is in peoples interest to destroy property. if you pollute the air and/or some one else's property inadvertantly, the guy who polluted the property MUST be held responsible. this includes the air. a free society does not entail destroying the earth. if a farmer dumps massive amounts of shit into a river and destroy's the next farmers drinking water or his cattle lot from the runoff, the guy who destroyed the property should be held accountable and would be held accountable if property rights were strictly enforced. now a person who's land is destroyed by the 'corporation' cannot sue the violators property. thanks uncle sam.

"private land - it's yours, do what you want, protect your shit."

ok, so if i want to strip mine my own private land and i guarantee that nothing will hurt you in any way what so ever, you dont have a problem with that? your previous posts make it clear that you dont want this to happen. but isnt that 'fucking up the earth.?' all the land that is so called 'destroyed' is just about privately owned.



i think you and i agree more on this than you (or i, for that matter) initially realized. i never once acted like or implied it was in people's best interest to destroy property. if that somehow came across in what i've said, it wasn't intended at all. i fully agree that anyone that pollutes any property, private or public, must be held accountable, be it an individual or a corporation.

as for the second part... seriously, look at what i said, "protect your shit". how in the world would that make you think i'd be ok with strip mining? again, this goes back to my stupid belief that most people would take care of their property, and their earth. i know that's sort of a utopian viewpoint, but whatever. i do not believe that most corporations have this viewpoint, and unfortunately, that means we have to rely more on individuals who may or may not care.



it is in the peoples BEST interest to care for the earth. corporations run wild because they are not held accountable for their actions.

EXACTLY. are we finally starting to see eye to eye on this shit?

i could never be on the debate team, i tend ot have problems expressing myself as clearly as i should.

[El Mamerro]

I got stuck on the bottom post of the last page. Moved here:

sure its right. who exactly determines that something is 'environmentally destructive?' its sort of like 'who is a terrorist?' one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. it must be that people want cheap gas instead of bio diesel. it must be that people want cheap chinese goods at walmart instead of expensive american goods. all environmentalists have it within their capacity to walk the walk. hardly none do.

Who determines? I dunno maybe the scientific community, the people who for centuries have been dedicating their lives to researching this? I dunno if your plan is to go on some "They're not necessarily 100% right" tirade, I'm not interested in hearing that cause that is the biggest cop-out you could possibly pull off. The recent devaluing of the scientific community in the political and economic spheres is absolutely disgusting, and resting on arguments like that to propose continued "do whatever you want" attitudes is shameful.

Again, your argument rests on people being educated and responsible enough to know what not to do with their property. This is not only improbable, it is bordering on the impossible. How the hell is one guy supposed to know that eliminating the bothersome beehives in his backyard can have a drastic effect in the pollination of a farmer's crops a few miles down the road? Now I'm not suggesting to make a law forbidding exterminating pests in your property, but that's just to point out an example of how exceedingly complex and intertwined relationships are in nature to leave things completely at the mercy of landowners (most of who will be much more prone to make decisions for their own comfort and wellbeing as opposed to keeping the big picture in mind), and how being a landowner entails WAY more than just staking claim to an area within a boundary.

I'd really love for people and society to work the way you envision, but it's pretty obvious that we are not conditioned to think about our effects on the world in that capacity, and the more the scientific community gets shunned, the less we're gonna listen to what they've been saying for years.

And I don't understand why you keep bringing environmentalists into this. I am talking about everyone in general, not a specific group.

[lord_casek]

mamerro's world
http://www.metro.co.uk/weird/article.html?in_article_id=3424&in_page_id=2

[El Mamerro]

Haha

I set about 4 anthills on fire to secure our campground this past weekend.

[lord_casek]

he's official
http://www.abcnews4.com/news/stories/1107/475839.html

[angelofdeath]

"Who determines? I dunno maybe the scientific community, the people who for centuries have been dedicating their lives to researching this? I dunno if your plan is to go on some "They're not necessarily 100% right" tirade, I'm not interested in hearing that cause that is the biggest cop-out you could possibly pull off. The recent devaluing of the scientific community in the political and economic spheres is absolutely disgusting, and resting on arguments like that to propose continued "do whatever you want" attitudes is shameful."

what it boils down to is that you have any utter disdain for property rights. as long as someone doesnt hurt you or your property in any way, they should be free to do what they want, when the want with their property. im not against science. but the problem with using government power to try to 'correct' things, you almost always make things worse and the solutions are always ridden with unintended consequences. not only are some of these 'expert scientists' totally inhumane (some actually wish that the planet should be rid of all humans)all the decisions for the 'environmentalist' agenda are literally determined by popular votes for things like determining which animals look more cuddly. they destroy property rights and freedom to pursue vague government goals.

i always liked this case since it sort of pertains to the predicament my family found themselves in decades ago. in fishkill new york in 1999 a guy put up a wire mesh fence around his concrete business to keep out rattle snakes. the state took him to court for violating the endangered species act. the fence could have the effect of (and i quote) 'disturbing, harrying, and worrying' the 'threatened' timber rattlers according to state biologist theordore kerpez. he also said the fence could cause 'physiological stress.' the state said they have to protect all species reguardless if they are lethal or disgusting or whatever. which is pretty hilarious to me because governments according to the constitution and the new york constitution are only supposed uphold property rights.
i mean what is next? those poor little harmless small pox germs all cooped up in jars in moscow and atlanta need to be set free?

but lets talk more about this evil free market that everyone hates. it is nothing more than a way of describing the results of insane amounts of voluntary transactions that are mutually beneficial. it must be that both parties benefit from the transaction, otherwise they wouldn't take part in the transaction unless coercion was involved. as long as private property is still around, hardly anything of value disappears. if you look at african elephants. it is the elephants in socialist areas like kenya where there is no private ownership where these elephants are facing extinction. in the free areas, they charge to hunt or photograph the elephants and the elephants are doing pretty damn good.

i never understood it though. the free market allows all the coercive state socialist tree huggers to pool money together, and buy acres and acres of land in the US and protect it. it must be that they really dont want to protect the land if they cant put their money where their mouth is. in fact this is what im trying to do. (im a crazy right wing survivalist peckerwood with to many guns, in case you didnt know) i dont hear of that many limousine liberals giving up their bmw's and buying desolate acreage or mosquito infested swamps. what it really means by not 'trusting the market' (the unfettered free market is the most destructive force in history right?) is that they would rather hire jack booted bully men to force others to fund their little fuzzy whims and force property owners to go to confess their sins in court for 'destroying' the environment by owning property. they like to use said jack booted thugs to coerce property owners with threat of jail time or charges if they want to do anything with their property that the greens dont like or if they irritate the local bugs, weeds or poisonous pests that live on the property. they would probably support calling in the military in cattle trailers to subdue these evil property owners that build mesh fences around their perimeter.

it obviously wasnt the methods of the earlier generations of big government twits used when they said things like...'i suggest the policy makers look at the solutions that are most effective at eliminating jews, slavs and the other subhuman races from our midst.' that the modern big government twits are against. they are just applying the tactics to another area. the only problems were the GOALS of hitler or stalin, not that statism. the methods of statism that they used like propagandizing kids in 'public' schools to memorize the religion of statism or to snitch on their parents werent really that bad at all. hell, they can use those methods! the greens just need to use those methods with a more noble goal, you see. like saving the 'environment.'

its fun for the arm chair environmentalists to sit back and come up with these ideas and solutions to these problems. but the only real alternative to the free market is a 'market' in which people who take part in transactions you disapprove of are charged, jailed, arrested, beaten, herded on cattle cars, sent to gulags or shot and dumped in mass graves. in the end that is always what it means to not 'trust' the market.

sorry for the rant. i've been reading to much of one of my favorite writers.

[Juan Fuentes]

he's official
http://www.abcnews4.com/news/stories/1107/475839.html

yes!

he is doing very well money wise. over 10 M

he also have been doing well on straw polls.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/straw-poll-results/
i see a lot of 1s there...

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

rant away aod, rant away.

[El Mamerro]

what it boils down to is that you have any utter disdain for property rights.

It's taken me forever to respond to this because this opening line is just so incredibly unencouraging that I read it and go "argh, I'll respond later"... it reminds me that no matter how much any of us would like to engage you in discussion, you eventually regress to the same talking points over and over, not addressing any of the real issues being brought up. You also love to take your grey area-walking opponents and pretend they sit on black ground, where its easy for you to rant away from your white podium. ie: I am against total landowner omnipotence and dismissal of landowner responsibility towards nature, therefore I am COMPLETELY against any kind of property rights. It's not that simple.

I still see no response to the house analogy. Again, are we to allow tenants to do whatever they want to their rooms even if it brings the house down? You seem to be agreeing with me that they shouldn't, because that affects other tenant's properties, but then you ridicule scientists when they try to warn and regulate that that's precisely what's gonna happen if tenants keep up with their frivolous "exercising of their rights". So which one is it? It's lovely to think that all threats to nature come in big broad easy-to-point-out swipes, but the truth is that within the complexity of nature it's the small incremental changes that do the most damage.

I just took a break and went out to lunch and now I'm all sleepy. Maybe I'll continue later.

[vanfullofretards]

http://www.libertystickers.com/5856562_38289.htm

[Juan Fuentes]

did anyone heard about this?

i never thought they would come up with such clever idea


http://www.ronpaulblimp.com/

a blimp!

[vanfullofretards]

A














fucking



































BLIMP?!?!?!!?!

[lord_casek]

did anyone heard about this?

i never thought they would come up with such clever idea


http://www.ronpaulblimp.com/

a blimp!

rather fitting at the end of football season. i see a lot of them around these parts.

[vanfullofretards]

They better fly that shit at the Super Bowl.

[angelofdeath]

i think this ron paul movement is f'ing awesome. i thought when i heard about his candidacy for president me and a handful of lewrockwell.com readers were gonna be the only ones who gave a shit.
so much for that.

[russell jones]

It's taken me forever to respond to this because this opening line is just so incredibly unencouraging that I read it and go "argh, I'll respond later"... it reminds me that no matter how much any of us would like to engage you in discussion, you eventually regress to the same talking points over and over, not addressing any of the real issues being brought up. You also love to take your grey area-walking opponents and pretend they sit on black ground, where its easy for you to rant away from your white podium. ie: I am against total landowner omnipotence and dismissal of landowner responsibility towards nature, therefore I am COMPLETELY against any kind of property rights. It's not that simple.

I still see no response to the house analogy. Again, are we to allow tenants to do whatever they want to their rooms even if it brings the house down? You seem to be agreeing with me that they shouldn't, because that affects other tenant's properties, but then you ridicule scientists when they try to warn and regulate that that's precisely what's gonna happen if tenants keep up with their frivolous "exercising of their rights". So which one is it? It's lovely to think that all threats to nature come in big broad easy-to-point-out swipes, but the truth is that within the complexity of nature it's the small incremental changes that do the most damage.

I just took a break and went out to lunch and now I'm all sleepy. Maybe I'll continue later.

true.

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

The blimp is just another way to spread his name to people who haven't heard it yet.

I still get a lot of "who?" when people ask me who I'm going to vote for and I say Ron Paul. Clearly what happens on the internet doesn't reach everyone, so why not throw a gigantic blimp in the air, over a few major cities for the WHOLE city to see.

I think this is great. I just hope nothing bad happens to the blimp. Wouldn't want to see Ron Paul go down in flames.

^__^

[lord_casek]

The blimp is just another way to spread his name to people who haven't heard it yet.

I still get a lot of "who?" when people ask me who I'm going to vote for and I say Ron Paul. Clearly what happens on the internet doesn't reach everyone, so why not throw a gigantic blimp in the air, over a few major cities for the WHOLE city to see.

I think this is great. I just hope nothing bad happens to the blimp. Wouldn't want to see Ron Paul go down in flames.

^__^

nothing bad will happen to it. it's going to be neat as fuck to see that shit
and then see the media's reaction. fuckers ignore dr. paul like he's not even running.
they hate it,

[theme from the bottom]

just out of curiosity, when ron paul doesn't make it past the republican primaries, for whom will all of you staunch ron paul supporters be voting for? will it be some other republican, or perhaps a democrat?

this is a real question, so even though i'd bet my life that this dude will not make it past the primaries, let's put it in a hypothetical context, so this doesn't turn in to an argument as to weather or not this guy will get the nomination.

[lord_casek]

just out of curiosity, when ron paul doesn't make it past the republican primaries, for whom will all of you staunch ron paul supporters be voting for? will it be some other republican, or perhaps a democrat?

this is a real question, so even though i'd bet my life that this dude will not make it past the primaries, let's put it in a hypothetical context, so this doesn't turn in to an argument as to weather or not this guy will get the nomination.

ron paul. hoping he won't stay faithful to the party if he doesn't get the primary bid,
and run libertarian.

[theme from the bottom]

ha.
naturally.

which i would be all for, because that would do nothing more than pull a nader on the republicans.

anyone else?

[lord_casek]

ha.
naturally.

anyone else?


well, i don't have much of a choice. i just don't believe the other candidates are honest about much of anything (if anything)

[theme from the bottom]

man, i'm psyched about it. the more right wingers who vote for this guy on a libertarian ticket, the better.

[lord_casek]

man, i'm psyched about it. the more right wingers who vote for this guy on a libertarian ticket, the better.

well, i'm a registered republican. and that's how i am voting.
so are all of my friends who are voting...

kinda screws up what you're thinking, huh?

[theme from the bottom]

well, i'm a registered republican. and that's how i am voting.
so are all of my friends who are voting...

kinda screws up what you're thinking, huh?

im not sure i get that.
if you mean that you and all your registered republican friends are going to be voting for ronnie 'right of mussolini' paul on the libertarian ticket, then no. that's exactly what i'm thinking, and hoping for.
if you mean that you and all your registered republican friends will be voting for whoever the republican candidate is, then i guess that contradicts what you had just said about who you're going to vote for once this dude loses to one of the other republicans.
please clarify.

just the same, this dude will never become president.

[lord_casek]

im not sure i get that.
if you mean that you and all your registered republican friends are going to be voting for ronnie 'right of mussolini' paul on the libertarian ticket, then no. that's exactly what i'm thinking, and hoping for.
if you mean that you and all your registered republican friends will be voting for whoever the republican candidate is, then i guess that contradicts what you had just said about who you're going to vote for once this dude loses to one of the other republicans.
please clarify.

just the same, this dude will never become president.



no, on the republican ticket...i will be voting in my states open primary as a republican.
and where do you get the mussolini mud slinging?
do you even like our country? honor our constitution?


btw: you do know dr. paul is getting more and more popular every day? winning most of the straw polls, gaining monetary support, etc?

[vanfullofretards]

Who's watching the republican debate on PBS right now? Ron Paul is making the most sense as usual, Huckabee is getting more time than anyone and this crazy eyed Alan Keyes (who I've never seen before) is making a total fool of himself.

[Blood Feast Island Man]

anyone got a youtube link for that?

[theme from the bottom]

no, on the republican ticket...i will be voting in my states open primary as a republican.
and where do you get the mussolini mud slinging?
do you even like our country? honor our constitution?


btw: you do know dr. paul is getting more and more popular every day? winning most of the straw polls, gaining monetary support, etc?

naw dude, i'm from massachusetts, so i'm a complete fuckin commie pinko who wants a country full of tree hugging, married, gay stem cell researching atheists with free health insurance. i hate this country. duh!

yeah, dude's getting more popular by the second. we know. he'll still never be president.

and what i had commented on was post primary, as i'd said. so to answer your question, no. it doesn't screw up what i was thinking at all. like i said, i'm psyched that all the republican ron paul supporters will be 'nadering' their own party by voting for him on a libertarian ticket.

btw,
it's cute when you call dude "dr. paul." like, it kind of gives off this impression that you two are tight or some shit. it sounds kind of endearing.

so, what about the rest of you? who's got your vote once "dr. paul's" run for the republican nomination goes over like a lead zeppelin? (not unlike that blimp all these fools threw away their money on)

[yumone]

who is your desired candidate theme from the bottom?

[lord_casek]

naw dude, i'm from massachusetts, so i'm a complete fuckin commie pinko who wants a country full of tree hugging, married, gay stem cell researching atheists with free health insurance. i hate this country. duh!

yeah, dude's getting more popular by the second. we know. he'll still never be president.

and what i had commented on was post primary, as i'd said. so to answer your question, no. it doesn't screw up what i was thinking at all. like i said, i'm psyched that all the republican ron paul supporters will be 'nadering' their own party by voting for him on a libertarian ticket.

btw,
it's cute when you call dude "dr. paul." like, it kind of gives off this impression that you two are tight or some shit. it sounds kind of endearing.

so, what about the rest of you? who's got your vote once "dr. paul's" run for the republican nomination goes over like a lead zeppelin? (not unlike that blimp all these fools threw away their money on)



first off: i call him dr. paul because that is his title. dr. of obstetrics. it's out of respect.
when i speak of my dr., i refer to him as dr. khaled. i don't just call him "joe" or something.


i'm enjoying this, man. seriously. and you're voting for hillary? is that right?

"nadering"? ha! i actually kinda liked nader, but found it disappointing when he went weird on the campaign trail. but i really haven't supported any candidate in a very long time. just not much of a choice. and before dr. paul came along, i wasn't very keen on voting.

you're from mass? pretty democratic are up there. kennedy family and whatnot. but i am surprised that you don't like dr. paul since he is for the same thing kennedy was for...abolishing the federal reserve.

guess some people are just suckers for punishment.

anyway, keep up the conversation. it's interesting.

[angelofdeath]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v11/supersoer/rooftops.jpg

[yumone]

^ yeah just like how Lee Harvey Oswald registered his 'no' vote against Kennedy :rolleyes:

[lord_casek]

^ yeah just like how Lee Harvey Oswald registered his 'no' vote against Kennedy :rolleyes:

did you know he was a cia agent?????

[lord_casek]

check this out
http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=8bh8sow&s=1
http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=7yqz59j&s=1
http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=7x0xp28&s=1

[yumone]

i can't tell if you;re joking but post a source if you;re serious please

[yumone]

too quick for me ;)

[yumone]

is this an established fact? as in the authenticity of those documents is proven etc etc? if so that's pretty amazing, i'm very surprised i;ve never heard that before assuming it's true

[lord_casek]

is this an established fact? as in the authenticity of those documents is proven etc etc? if so that's pretty amazing, i'm very surprised i;ve never heard that before assuming it's true

yeah, it's real. i was surprised, too. i knew when he was military he had intelligence connections, but had no idea it went further.

[theme from the bottom]

and you're voting for hillary? is that right?

no.
i'm voting for dennis kucinich.
we've got our own "cold day in hell candidate" on this side of the fence, too.
i'm just not delusional about his chances of getting elected.

[lord_casek]

no.
i'm voting for dennis kucinich.
we've got our own "cold day in hell candidate" on this side of the fence, too.
i'm just not delusional about his chances of getting elected.

why kucinich? and i am not delusional about this at all.
i want our country back. that's it.

[theme from the bottom]

why kucinich? and i am not delusional about this at all.
i want our country back. that's it.

i'm voting for kucinich because i agree on most of what he stands for. you should read up on him.
now, when you say "back," (and i'm not disagreeing that it's been taken) when exactly do you think we lost it?

[lord_casek]

i'm voting for kucinich because i agree on most of what he stands for. you should read up on him.
now, when you say "back," (and i'm not disagreeing that it's been taken) when exactly do you think we lost it?

1903.

[theme from the bottom]

1903.
please cite a specific event, happening, circumstance.

[lord_casek]

please cite a specific event, happening, circumstance.

i mis-dated. 1913.

the federal reserves inception. loss of gold standard. jekyll island.


“I do not feel it is any exaggeration to speak of our secret expedition to Jekyll Island as the occasion of the actual conception of what eventually became the Federal Reserve System. We were told to leave our last names behind us. We were told further that we should avoid dining together on the night of our departure.
"We were instructed to come one at a time and as unobtrusively as possible to the railroad terminal on the New Jersey littoral of the Hudson where Senator Aldrich's private car would be in readiness attached to the rear-end of a train to the south. Once aboard the private car we began to observe the taboo that had been fixed on last names. We addressed one another as Ben, Paul, Nelson and Abe. Davison and I adopted even deeper disguises abandoning our first names.
"On the theory that we were always right, he became Wilbur and I became Orville after those two aviation pioneers the Wright brothers. The servants and train crew may have known the identities of one or two of us, but they did not know all and it was the names of all printed together that would've made our mysterious journey significant in Washington, in Wall Street, even in London. Discovery we knew simply must not happen."

[thecoldmidwest]

we've got our own "cold day in hell candidate" on this side of the fence, too.
i'm just not delusional about his chances of getting elected.

In the rural area I live in, I've seen eight Ron Paul yard signs. I've yet to see any support for any other candidate. Isn't that weird?

[lord_casek]

In the rural area I live in, I've seen eight Ron Paul yard signs. I've yet to see any support for any other candidate. Isn't that weird?

not really. i see ron paul signs all over where i live. never see another candidates signs or stickers.

[thecoldmidwest]

not really. i see ron paul signs all over where i live. never see another candidates signs or stickers.

That was my point.

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

I hope the delusional comment wasn't directed towards Ron Paul's chances at winning.

I might have agreed with you maybe a year ago, but now.

This mother fuckers going to win.

[angelofdeath]

great. voting for a communist with a good stance on foreign policy and intervention.
didnt kucinich's wife say that they he would consider being paul's running mate?

i used to think the US was lost in the progressive era. then i thought it died in 1865. actually im almost inclined to think that the revolution was betrayed when the constitution was signed. its a great document, but its not perfect.

[Juan Fuentes]

aod , could you name what would you add to it if you could? be simple





ron paul signs are the only ones...the other candidates might bite but that would only make the ron paul crowd go louder.
have to keep pushing.

[vanfullofretards]

I just heard on the radio that Ron Paul supporters were severely slowing down rush hour traffic by holding up very large signs from a bridge.

:) :) :)

[lord_casek]

I just heard on the radio that Ron Paul supporters were severely slowing down rush hour traffic by holding up very large signs from a bridge.

:) :) :)


some of us are doing the wrong thing. i hope that doesn't affect our stupid masses by making them think it's dr. paul's campaign directly doing this. i'm also encouraged by the grassroots support. it's amazing what liberty can do.

[The Fun Police]

i don't vote.

[theme from the bottom]

i just watched a PBS article on ron paul tonight. some points were brought up about his support from white supremacist groups, and how he had never come out publicly in opposition until tonight's article.

so, i did some reasearch and i found this on http://www.dailykos.com/ which is some kind of wacky commie liberal site, so obviously it's taken with a grain of salt, but i thought the quotes from dr. paul in the Ron Paul Political Report published throughout the late 80's and early 90's were rather interesting and worth bringing to light and into the discussion here.

__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _____

Ron Paul, In His Own Words
by phenry
Tue May 15, 2007 at 06:57:29 PM PST

As tonight's Republican presidential debate winds down, I expect to see the diaries humming with praise for Texas Rep. Ron Paul, whose forceful, eloquent anti-war rhetoric sticks out like a sore thumb from the undifferentiated conservative yammerings of the other candidates. The Simi Valley debate earlier this month was many Kossacks' first exposure to Paul, and many of them liked what they saw. Before any other well-meaning liberals decide that we and Ron Paul were made for each other, I think it's important that we dig a bit deeper and learn more about exactly who, and what, he is: a vicious, contemptible racist who comforts the radical right wing like no presidential candidate since David Duke.

We need jump to no conclusion to arrive at this judgment. His own words convict him.


THE RON PAUL EXPERIENCE - A Diary Series

1. Ron Paul, In His Own Words
2. Ron Paul: The Radical Right's Man in Washington
3. Ron Paul: Dude is Wack
4. Ron Paul Hates You

After his 1979-85 service in Congress as a Republican and his 1988 campaign for the presidency as the nominee of the Libertarian Party, Ron Paul returned home to Surfside, Texas and devoted himself to a variety of pursuits, one of which was his self-published newsletter, The Ron Paul Political Report. Founded in 1985, the eight-page newsletter featured Paul's extreme libertarian perspective on a number of different issues, notably crackpot theories about the Federal Reserve and the money system and a tireless advocacy of a return to the gold standard—a longtime Ron Paul hobby horse. The Ron Paul Political Report would come to feature in the stable of "underground" publications and photocopied "zines" that fed the nascent "patriot movement" that arose in the early 1990s, spurred by anger over federal government actions in Waco, Texas and Ruby Ridge, Idaho, and by fear of a supposed "New World Order." Indeed, Paul changed the name of the newsletter to the Ron Paul Survival Report around 1993 in what we may presume to be an effort to tap into the survivalist sentiments then peaking among the radical right wing.

It is extremely difficult to track down content from the Ron Political/Survival Report today. The Report only had about 7,000 subscribers, and Paul has—unsurprisingly—refused to release copies to the media. Lexis/Nexis is of no help, as the obscure publication largely escaped the notice of major media publications during Paul's hiatus from electoral politics. What remains to us today comes almost entirely from secondary sources, such as quasi-samizdat publications and contemporaneous Usenet postings from sources like Google Groups. These few fragments of a much larger body of work—almost all of which have been preserved by Paul's supporters, not his opponents—give us an illuminating and frightening look into his demented, racist worldview.

The only complete article from the Ron Paul Political Report on the Internet that I am aware of is a 1992 piece titled "LOS ANGELES RACIAL TERRORISM," on the subject of the so-called Rodney King riots in South Central Los Angeles in 1991. It is available to us today because it was posted to the talk.politics.misc newsgroup on July 30, 1993 by Dan Gannon, a notorious white supremacist and Holocaust denier, and archived by the Nizkor Project, an anti-revisionism organization that was active in cataloging hate speech on the early public Internet. You can read Nizkor's copy of the article here, and see a reposted version on Google Groups here. Some relevant passages from the article (emphasis mine):

Regardless of what the media tell us, most white Americans are not going to believe that they are at fault for what blacks have done to cities across America. The professional blacks may have cowed the elites, but good sense survives at the grass roots. Many more are going to have difficultly avoiding the belief that our country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists -- and they can be identified by the color of their skin. This conclusion may not be entirely fair, but it is, for many, entirely unavoidable.

Indeed, it is shocking to consider the uniformity of opinion among blacks in this country. Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action.... Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the "criminal justice system," I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.

If similar in-depth studies were conducted in other major cities, who doubts that similar results would be produced? We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, but it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings, and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers.

Perhaps the L.A. experience should not be surprising. The riots, burning, looting, and murders are only a continuation of 30 years of racial politics.The looting in L.A. was the welfare state without the voting booth. The elite have sent one message to black America for 30 years: you are entitled to something for nothing. That's what blacks got on the streets of L.A. for three days in April. Only they didn't ask their Congressmen to arrange the transfer.

Reading the entire article will show that I have not taken these quotes out of context, though the article is definitely not for everyone: it's a 3700-word racist tirade that is frankly stomach-turning in its depiction of African-Americans as violent, unevolved savages and even rapists. Without a doubt, it was articles like this one that prompted the Heritage Front, a Toronto-based neo-Nazi organization, to include the Ron Paul Political Report in its list of "Racialist Addresses and Phone Numbers."

During Paul's 1996 Congressional run, the Houston Chronicle unearthed some additional racial comments from his newsletter (emphasis mine):

Texas congressional candidate Ron Paul's 1992 political newsletter highlighted portrayals of blacks as inclined toward crime and lacking sense about top political issues.

Under the headline of "Terrorist Update," for instance, Paul reported on gang crime in Los Angeles and commented, "If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."

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

... [i]n the same 1992 edition ... [Paul wrote], "We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such."

Paul also asserted that "complex embezzling" is conducted exclusively by non-blacks.

"What else do we need to know about the political establishment than that it refuses to discuss the crimes that terrify Americans on grounds that doing so is racist? Why isn't that true of complex embezzling, which is 100 percent white and Asian?" he wrote.

And the November 1, 1996 issue of the alt-weekly Austin Chronicle offered some additional gems from Paul's oeuvre, including his thoughts about his former House colleague, the legendary Barbara Jordan (D-TX):

University of Texas affirmative action law professor Barbara Jordan is a fraud. Everything from her imitation British accent, to her supposed expertise in law, to her distinguished career in public service, is made up. If there were ever a modern case of the empress without clothes, this is it. She is the archetypical half-educated victimologist, yet her race and sex protect her from criticism.

Years later, in an interview printed in the October 2001 issue of Texas Monthly, Paul changed his story about these and other racist comments: "I could never say this in the campaign, but those words weren't really written by me," he said. "It wasn't my language at all." Unfortunately, this explanation doesn't really withstand scrutiny. The Ron Paul Political Report was an eight-page newsletter, not a 200-page magazine; whether he employed other writers or not, it beggars belief that Paul would not have had full control and approval over its contents. Moreover, the L.A. riots article does in fact bear some evidence of having been written by Paul, at least in part. (For example, the article relates the observations of one Burt Blumert, who is labeled "expert Burt Blumert" but who is actually just a gold coin and bullion dealer in San Francisco who happens to be a longtime personal friend of... Ron Paul.) Regardless, the fact remains that Paul suffered these words to be published under his name in his newsletter as a representation of his views, and his efforts to distance himself from them are more than a little bit disingenuous.

I understand how important, how visceral, opposition to the war is for a lot of people. It is for precisely this reason that it is so important that Kossacks understand that, opposition to the war aside, Ron Paul is not our friend.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/15/124912/740

[lord_casek]

those reports were written by someone else and never approved by paul.
do your research.

[theme from the bottom]

i did.
he claims the writing in the Ron Paul Political Report (his newsletter bearing his name, mind you) were written by a staff member. now, giving him the benefit of the doubt, and assuming he isn't lying, don't you think that he would share the same views as a staff member writing for his own newsletter? with a publication that had approximately 7,000 subscriptions, it isn't outrageous to assume that he had a fairly small staff and whoever was writing for the Ron Paul Political Report wa close enough to dr. paul to share the same views and publish them in the newsletter bearing his name.

i guess the more important question would be would ron paui show the same judgment of character in those he would appoint to his cabinet?

[lord_casek]

i did.
he claims the writing in the Ron Paul Political Report (his newsletter bearing his name, mind you) were written by a staff member. now, giving him the benefit of the doubt, and assuming he isn't lying, don't you think that he would share the same views as a staff member writing for his own newsletter? with a publication that had approximately 7,000 subscriptions, it isn't outrageous to assume that he had a fairly small staff and whoever was writing for the Ron Paul Political Report wa close enough to dr. paul to share the same views and publish them in the newsletter bearing his name.

i guess the more important question would be would ron paui show the same judgment of character in those he would appoint to his cabinet?


well, it's actually not fair to assume he had a small staff. if you've ever seen the staff that just hangs around a governor, then you know it is fairly large...and dr. paul is a congressman.

also, dr. paul is a christian man. i know there are racist fucktards who claim to be christians and then go out and say "i hate naggers" (that's the way those people talk, trust me, i live in tennessee)
but dr. paul is different. used to give his services as an obstetrician out for free to those who couldn't afford it, feeds homeless and hungry during the holidays (something i am going to do this x-mas is volunteer at a soup kitchen in town. off subject) the man coudn't have gone so far if he was a biggot. look at david duke.

[theme from the bottom]

i i guess the more important question would be would ron paui show the same judgment of character in those he would appoint to his cabinet?

and just so you're not confused, i should probably have been more clear about his staff. (though that was pretty crystal to begin with) i meant the staff on his publication, not his staff as a congressman.

[vanfullofretards]

i live in tennessee

I'm sorry.