Ron Paul Revolution!!!!

[thinksmall]

Yeah, I know whatchu talkin' bout Shai. The Grammaton Cleric syndrome. You don't know freedom, until you meet her.

Crooked, is it impossible to have a majority of schools take part in small classes?

The Mouse that roared: Why Ron Paul won the election
http://dougwead.wordpress.com/2008/02/06/the-mouse-that-roared-why-ron-paul-won-the-election/

[russell jones]

What made me realize Ron Paul wasn't right for our country was looking at a calender and realizing it is 2008, not 1789.

[thinksmall]

^What made me realize Obama wasn't right for our country was looking at his face and saying, "Wait a minute. You're not Jimmy Carter." Just kidding. Maybe a pint of seriousness.

Wait. Shai, were you saying the same as russell? Or that 2008 is not ready for Ron paul. If you sayin' what russell is sayin', I want takebacks. No win for you.

[shai]

Not exactly. In light of the path the country took after the New Deal, it just wouldn't be feasible. Let's say, 1938. That's a little more reasonable.

[shai]

I missed something completely earlier, and it's pretty huge.

The odds are that Ron Paul is not going to win in November. But, I predict that he's going to do well enough that the pundits are going to notice.

Let's say he pulls 10% of the vote. (I'm being very, very generous, but it makes it easier to make my point.) 10% as a representative sample of the US population would be around 30 million people. That's a lot of people...and, you can be certain that some of them are going to be politicized enough to want to enter politics to try and change the system from within. A good example- casek mentioned that he was interested in possibly running for city council where he lives.

So, expect to see a ripple effect of more young people deciding to participate in government as a result of candidates like Ron Paul and Obama in the next decade or so. Taking the long view is something I like to do when I don't know what else to do...haha.

[MY ROTTING LIVER]

Actually 10% of the Republican vote (being roughly half the country) would represent more like 5%, but you're wrong either way.

He's got 16 delegates in a field that thus far has tallied 1346, he represents about 1% of the Republican party and thus about 0.5% of the voting population. Also, Pat Buchanon got 18 delegates in 92 and besides random extreme headline grabbing quotes, the guy isn't taken seriously by anyone except the same 0.5% towards the extreme end of spectrum.

I like Paul too, but you guys need a reality check acting like ravenous irrational animals towards other candidates.

[shai]

I did throw in the "I'm being generous" qualifier, MRL.

As I say in elections, sports, and relationships, time will tell. You can't deny that his popularity has been an interesting phenomenon. It could have a longer lasting impact than you would expect.

[angelofdeath]

crazier things have happened. eastern europe was first communized, then decommunized. the american colonies were 'tyrannized' (what they dealt with is NOTHING like what we have to deal with today) and were ruled by a mercantilist government. if you look at the part of the population that actively supported secession from great britian, you would be surprised at the figures. it wasnt much different than the ron paul supporters.

granted changing america back to the constitution is highly unlikely, absent a full scale revolt, but it is possible. and history has showed us that crazier things have happenend.

there is estimates that float around the gun circles. there is something like 240 million guns in private hands. and if 1% of the gun owning population, just one percent, revolted against the federal government, told them to get the F out of their states, and sent the declaration of independence back to the halls of congress, that would be 750K pissed off 'rebels' fighting a guerrilla war on their own territory. and that isnt really even counting the deserters from the military who would not shoot their own people and would join the 'resistance.' the british empire cant even control the IRA and what are their numbers? how many insurgents are there in iraq? and they have the whole fighting US military pinned down in an unwinnable war
?

exactly.
that is why the feds could never win, absent nuking the whole country.
and they know that.
but im digressing big time.

[shai]

That's all well and good, but this loops right back to my original statement. People have grown accustomed to this style of government. If you propose an insurrection to "give them back their liberty", they're not going to understand you...they're just going to see it from perspective that they were raised to believe.

So we've read some books. We've seen the forest for the trees, and know what lies are being told and why they're told.

Would you give a four year old a hatchet and a bag of food, take him to the edge of the wilderness, and tell him that he was free to do whatever he pleased and really expect him to understand what that meant? No, he'd start crying for his mommy and his toys.

The US, in spite of the ideals it was founded on, right now is at a point in its history where the people are dependent on a central government to deal with all the big things. And, do you think that was by accident or by design? I suppose it depends on your level of enlightenment and how many history books you have read.

The only thing I could see working in this country in this era would be a massive civil disobedience movement based on a tax/voting strike. If no one votes for the candidates, then none of the candidates won. Will they be installed regardless? Then we clearly live in a totalitarian society. What would the Feds do if people said, "Hey, we didn't want these wars, and until we have a say in how are money is spent, we're not going to give you another thin dime." Start shooting people? That's called many things...coersion, terrorism, fascism...the fact is that I don't think enough Americans would understand a armed rebellion, because they have a defeatist attitude towards the government, and would probably support any fighting in the streets of the US getting squashed because that threatens THEIR comfort zone.

However, if the people (or a good percentage of them) CHOSE TO NOT PARTICIPATE and observed the results, then you'd probably see a lot more outrage and far more tangible results. Either it would force the Feds to play their hand, or it would put them in bargaining mode.

I'm just sort of brainstorming here. I think civil disobedience is a far more effective tool than violence. If the Palestinians decided to call a general strike and stopped working for the Israelis tomorrow, you better believe the Israelis would start listening to what the Palestinians had to say in jig time.

[10sicz.chick]

That's all well and good, but this loops right back to my original statement. People have grown accustomed to this style of government. If you propose an insurrection to "give them back their liberty", they're not going to understand you...they're just going to see it from perspective that they were raised to believe.

So we've read some books. We've seen the forest for the trees, and know what lies are being told and why they're told.

Would you give a four year old a hatchet and a bag of food, take him to the edge of the wilderness, and tell him that he was free to do whatever he pleased and really expect him to understand what that meant? No, he'd start crying for his mommy and his toys.

i think this is a bit of a mischaracterization since it would be the equivalent of a RP President making all of his promised changes overnight. He has never claimed that the changes would be rapid, however he would need to make enough changes in his first four years for people to see a difference and insure his reelection. Then in his final four he would need to create more and reinforce the changes from the previous four years so that voters were solid in understanding and seeing proof of the benefits of those changes so that at the end of those 8 year, the next president would be one that would continue on with Freedom Movement vision.

Gaining back our freedom would take at least a generation. We wouldn't be starting over....we would going back. Like riding a bike.

[10sicz.chick]

I did throw in the "I'm being generous" qualifier, MRL.

As I say in elections, sports, and relationships, time will tell. You can't deny that his popularity has been an interesting phenomenon. It could have a longer lasting impact than you would expect.

why is freedom and people wanting freedom such a phenomena?

it statements like yours that make me truly see how little freedom we have and how numb the population is. the population is so use to living in a narrow bandwidth of freedom that on the surface seems to be wider than anyone else's so they think thats all the life has to offer when it comes to freedom. In addition our loss of freedom has been incremental with changes spanning over a generation at a minimum and often over several...that it isn't readily apparent. Therefore...to minimize the pain and sense of abandonment of the latchers from the breast, gaining back our freedom is going to take at least a generation i would imagine.

[shai]

You seem to define freedom a lot differently than I do. Make no mistake, the feds are trying end runs around the Constitution left and right. But, graffiti is illegal, and that's never stopped me from doing as I please. Recreational drug use, same thing. Public drinking, same thing.

What I think people are willing to sacrifice is based on the prevailing morality of the society at large. To continue on this train of thought, the definition of consensual crime is tied to this. This is a HUGE thing with Libertarians, sort of like when Aleister Crowley said "And it hurt no one...do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law."

That's what I live by. I live like an outlaw because I don't choose to subscribe to the prevailing morality of 21st century America. But, would I push that on anyone else because I thought it was ethically superior? NO. People make their own choices, and so do I.

THAT'S what being a Libertarian is all about, to me. Other people have different standards they apply to the ideology. That's fine, as it's a flexible worldview.

This thread SHOULD include some different perspectives from people as to the definition and nature of what being a Libertarian means to them. I'd certainly be interested in what people have to say on the subject.

[10sicz.chick]

You seem to define freedom a lot differently than I do. Make no mistake, the feds are trying end runs around the Constitution left and right. But, graffiti is illegal, and that's never stopped me from doing as I please. Recreational drug use, same thing. Public drinking, same thing.

What I think people are willing to sacrifice is based on the prevailing morality of the society at large. To continue on this train of thought, the definition of consensual crime is tied to this. This is a HUGE thing with Libertarians, sort of like when Aleister Crowley said "And it hurt no one...do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law."

That's what I live by. I live like an outlaw because I don't choose to subscribe to the prevailing morality of 21st century America. But, would I push that on anyone else because I thought it was ethically superior? NO. People make their own choices, and so do I.

THAT'S what being a Libertarian is all about, to me. Other people have different standards they apply to the ideology. That's fine, as it's a flexible worldview.

This thread SHOULD include some different perspectives from people as to the definition and nature of what being a Libertarian means to them. I'd certainly be interested in what people have to say on the subject.

honestly...one of our biggest problems is our labels for political states of mind and party names. i think that the constitution stands well on its own. What does that make me? i use to think i was free thinking, tree hugging hippie green conscious extremely liberal democratic chick. Apparently i am not. i define Constitutionalist as those that stand by the Constitution as the forefathers wrote and intended it.

[thinksmall]

what a police state looks like:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article19347.htm


get your guy fawkes masks! srsly!

[Dawood]

this thread is a little slow....looks like Mr. Paul isn't doing so well.

[Blood Feast Island Man]

what a police state looks like:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article19347.htm


get your guy fawkes masks! srsly!

robert catesby masks would be better

[lord_casek]

this thread is a little slow....looks like Mr. Paul isn't doing so well.


shit happens. i think most paul supporters are still in to write in his name.
i am.

i'm also busy with other things...

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

this thread is a little slow....looks like Mr. Paul isn't doing so well.


Well. He's basically assed out. The man has integrity though, I mean he's still campaigning and trying to win people over and spread his message and is still raising money from all over the place. Apparently the top three contributors to his campaign are people in the Army, Navy and Airforce. All things considered, the man still impresses me.

Too bad the rest of the country doesn't feel this way. We be fucked.

[shai]

(Cue "Don't Stop Believin' by Journey)

Remember how I said that the Ron Paul campaign was going to have some last ing effects? If it gets some of you guys off your butts and involved in making the world a better place, then it's a good thing.

Start going to city council meetings. Run for local office. Volunteer for an adult literacy program...or a youth arts program. Do midnight basketball. I do Food Not Bombs here. That's a good option...or help cook for Meals On Wheels. Offer to help out senior citizens or disabled people in your community. I do that too.

If you're committed to change, then do what you can in your community. Don't wait for Ron Paul or whoever else to fix things.

[russell jones]

Well. Apparently the top three contributors to his campaign are people in the Army, Navy and Airforce.

.

That's strange, since if it was up to him, most of them would be out of a job.

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

Not really, but okay.

[russell jones]

NO really. Paul wants to reduce the size of all branches of government. That includes the standing army.

[lord_casek]

NO really. Paul wants to reduce the size of all branches of government. That includes the standing army.


http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070730/engelhardt

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

NO really. Paul wants to reduce the size of all branches of government. That includes the standing army.


Dude we're at war. I'm pretty sure we haven't met the mark set for recruits for years now. I highly doubt that this man will be tossing dudes out of the Military once he gets into office.

As far as just getting rid of people I doubt that is even legal. I'm sure he would post people on our borders and have troops doing other jobs at home rather than abroad.

[jerkspot]

(Cue "Don't Stop Believin' by Journey)

Remember how I said that the Ron Paul campaign was going to have some last ing effects? If it gets some of you guys off your butts and involved in making the world a better place, then it's a good thing.

Start going to city council meetings. Run for local office. Volunteer for an adult literacy program...or a youth arts program. Do midnight basketball. I do Food Not Bombs here. That's a good option...or help cook for Meals On Wheels. Offer to help out senior citizens or disabled people in your community. I do that too.

If you're committed to change, then do what you can in your community. Don't wait for Ron Paul or whoever else to fix things.

man this is the truth.

i definatly believe that while he isnt going to be president anytime soon his message is inspiring people to get out there and make a change in their community. defaintly a great thing.

[jerkspot]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com

it seems like the march is getting very organised. it certainly seems like he has sparked something.

any ron paul supporters making the trip to dc?

[russell jones]

Dude we're at war. I'm pretty sure we haven't met the mark set for recruits for years now. I highly doubt that this man will be tossing dudes out of the Military once he gets into office.

As far as just getting rid of people I doubt that is even legal. I'm sure he would post people on our borders and have troops doing other jobs at home rather than abroad.


You might want to read up on Libertarian views. They are generally against standing armies of any kind.

Paul would pull out the troops immediately. He would not have troops doing other jobs other than guarding the boarders. He would "other jobs" to private enterprise. Libertarians like Paul believe in making the government as small as possible. That means no big military expenditures except in cases of declared war.

My whole point in my last few posts is that many hear some good things about Libertarians, but they don't bother to look into the specifics. I would guess that would be the case for many in the military.

[russell jones]

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070730/engelhardt

casek, I read the article, which says nothing about Paul's actual views on the military, only that military personnel give more to Paul than other candidates.

I would think that considering your seeming support and experience with the views of Libertarians that you know they do not believe in standing armies in times of peace. Iraq is not a declared war.

[russell jones]

If you would like to see Paul's views on standing armies, consider this article he wrote. In it, he clearly warns against a large standing army and advocates for a far smaller force.

"April 25, 2006
Policy Is More Important
Than Personnel
by Rep. Ron Paul

President Bush has been under pressure to fire Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, whom many view as the architect of a failed approach in Iraq. Even many ardent war hawks are unhappy with the secretary for not having more troops on the ground in Iraq, and for conducting the war less aggressively than they would like.

But the issue is not who serves as secretary of defense, the issue is how, when, and why the United States uses military force. It makes no sense simply to replace Mr. Rumsfeld with someone else who holds the same view, namely that it's the job of American soldiers and U.S. taxpayers to police the world. We should be debating the proper foreign policy for our country – utopian nation-building vs. the noninterventionism counseled by our Founding Fathers – rather than which individual is best suited to carry it out.

I happen to agree with Mr. Rumsfeld on the matter of downsizing the military as a whole and remaking it to reflect modern realities of warfare. A swifter, nimbler military would be better suited to tracking individuals like bin Laden who do not operate under the flag of any particular nation or army. The war in Iraq shows that we're trying to adapt our military to fit our foreign policy, rather than the other way around. For all our high-tech advantages, we are mired in a simmering urban civil war that does not play to the true strengths of our troops.

The old model of warfare, based on invading and occupying whole nations, is unsustainable. Both financially and in terms of manpower, American simply cannot afford any more Koreas, Vietnams, or Iraqs. Many people in the Pentagon understand that America's armed forces are not trained in occupation, policing, and nation-building. The best way to support the troops is through a sensible foreign policy that does not place them in harm's way unnecessarily or force them into uncomfortable, dangerous roles as occupiers.

It's interesting to note that our Founders warned against maintaining standing armies at all, both because of the taxes required to do so and the threats to liberty posed by a permanent military.

Consider the words of James Madison, often considered the father of the Constitution:

"A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defense against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home…"

Madison continues:

"Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. … No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."

In other words, Madison understood that large military forces can become the tools of tyrants, and can bankrupt the nations that support them. Instead of debating who should be secretary of defense, we should be studying the writing of our own Founding Fathers. Perhaps then we will question the wisdom of an open-ended, vague "war on terror" and the realities of trying to remake whole societies in our image."

http://www.antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=8893

[angelofdeath]

well, your theory also discounts the fact that 'libertarians' can be in the military, and some want to serve in defense of the country and do their time and move on. some dont want to be life long military career men that go to war for dumb reasons. some actually believe in the just war theory.

just sayin'

[lord_casek]

russell: i'm aware. but i'm also aware that he wouldn't do all this at once. it probably wouldn't be a priority, either.

[russell jones]

I don't think it is a theory, unless Paul was lying in his article. I didn't say he would eliminate the military entirely, only that he would significantly reduce their numbers. I don't doubt that some Libertarians would like to be in the army, I just doubt that many in the military understand the full implications of supporting Paul. I could be wrong of course, but people tend to arrange their thinking around their next paycheck.

[russell jones]

russell: i'm aware. but i'm also aware that he wouldn't do all this at once. it probably wouldn't be a priority, either.

What evidence do you have to support that proposition?

[lord_casek]

I don't think it is a theory, unless Paul was lying in his article. I didn't say he would eliminate the military entirely, only that he would significantly reduce their numbers. I don't doubt that some Libertarians would like to be in the army, I just doubt that many in the military understand the full implications of supporting Paul. I could be wrong of course, but people tend to arrange their thinking around their next paycheck.

my neighbor, long time air force guy, also a paul supporter, is completely aware of dr. paul's
ideologies. thing is, he'd rather this country be in shape and then worry about the job status.
good thing is, he's trained and certified in a technical field where he wouldn't be out of a job for very long at all. but whatever. it's time for us to stop being world police and just focus on bringing our troops back home, getting our finances straight, and bringing back our countries good name.

[10sicz.chick]

(Cue "Don't Stop Believin' by Journey)

Remember how I said that the Ron Paul campaign was going to have some last ing effects? If it gets some of you guys off your butts and involved in making the world a better place, then it's a good thing.

Start going to city council meetings. Run for local office. Volunteer for an adult literacy program...or a youth arts program. Do midnight basketball. I do Food Not Bombs here. That's a good option...or help cook for Meals On Wheels. Offer to help out senior citizens or disabled people in your community. I do that too.

If you're committed to change, then do what you can in your community. Don't wait for Ron Paul or whoever else to fix things.

These things are wonderful and commendable...the problem is that they are treating symptoms rather than causes.

[10sicz.chick]

Dude we're at war. I'm pretty sure we haven't met the mark set for recruits for years now. I highly doubt that this man will be tossing dudes out of the Military once he gets into office.

As far as just getting rid of people I doubt that is even legal. I'm sure he would post people on our borders and have troops doing other jobs at home rather than abroad.

Not really at war.....invasion and occupation are more like it.

[10sicz.chick]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com

it seems like the march is getting very organised. it certainly seems like he has sparked something.

any ron paul supporters making the trip to dc?

i'll be there fo'sure.

[10sicz.chick]

russell: i'm aware. but i'm also aware that he wouldn't do all this at once. it probably wouldn't be a priority, either.

He'll pull them all out asap and keep them employed for a while by printing money out of thin air (since the fed is so good at that) then He will transfer the troops to civilian life. I expect that a educational package would be offered to the troops to give them a more appropriate and useful civilian skill set.

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

I'm sayin I doubt this man would toss everyone out and leave them stranded. He just isn't that type of guy. Not to mention is a Vet himself.

I'll be at that March in DC for sure.

[10sicz.chick]

I'm sayin I doubt this man would toss everyone out and leave them stranded. He just isn't that type of guy. Not to mention is a Vet himself.

I'll be at that March in DC for sure.


don't forget to make up a lot of RP and just general "freedom" slappers for DC.
i'll be making up a few hundred for the the trip.

[shai]

He'll pull them all out asap and keep them employed for a while by printing money out of thin air (since the fed is so good at that) then He will transfer the troops to civilian life. I expect that a educational package would be offered to the troops to give them a more appropriate and useful civilian skill set.

That's a noble idea, but you do realize that the military and the people who supply it have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo for financial reasons.

Money on that scale doesn't roll over that easliy. Any state where the defense industry contributes a sizable amount to the economy is going to sya things like, "Of course we don't want war, but...what are all the people who are employed by General Dynamics/Lockheed/whoever supposed to do?"

I want everyone to keep one thing in mind- THERE IS NO OIL SHORTAGE. The prices are being artifically inflated to try to keep an economy based on impractical and unsustainable technology afloat. You talk about the gold standard, when what actually exists now is essentially a "petrostandard". At least with gold, it's much closer to being a finite and tangible number...so, the wealth of the people who have the most gold has a cap. Anyone sitting on huge oil reserves is sitting on undefinable and quite posibly infinite wealth.

Also, the petroleum based economy is something that should be getting a great deal of scrutiny as well, because it's just as intangible as the Federal Reserve, and does far more to ruin the planet in the long run.

[10sicz.chick]

That's a noble idea, but you do realize that the military and the people who supply it have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo for financial reasons.




then i guess they would have to kill him. Might not be such a bad thing in the sense that it would draw lots of attention and that is when the revolters would be able to really get busy with exposing war profiteers.

[angelofdeath]

even paul's plan to abolish the fed is a not totally radical total instant abolition sort of thing. he wants to first legalize competition. as for social security, he wants to allow young people to opt out. those are far cries from 'throwing the poor and soldiers into the street to starve.'

he does recognize that people have been corrupted, abused and made dependent on the state.

[shai]

I keep expecting a draft, but it never happens.

The last period of extraordinary civil unrest in the US centered almost entirely around conscription for an undeclared war.

When that happens, I'll be out there raising hell with the best of them. For now, I'm biding my time and waiting to see what happens.

A draft is almost a certainty if McCain wins. He's so full of shit you could grow flowers in his mouth.

[shai]

i don't mind that the Fed exists, but what I would like is a little more clarity as to the fed's role in commerce. I also think that they should have to abide by SEC regulations if they are involved with bond issuance and foreign investment.

*edit- I forgot, aren't they a privately held corporation? If that's the case, then they don't have to report quarterly earnings.
http://www.12ozprophet.com/forum/images/12oz/buttons/edit.gif (http://www.12ozprophet.com/forum/editpost.php?do=editpost&p=6136190)

[angelofdeath]

shai, pick up the book called 'the case against the fed' by murray rothbard. explains everything you need to know and will get you started on what exactly they do. you can usually find it for under 10 bucks on ebay.

[JustinTimberlake]

this thread is chillll. seriously, i like to just have a whiskey and relax, read this thread, be like "ahh political theories!"

[lord_casek]

dr. paul questions bernanke
http://blog.myspace.com/ronpaul2008

[MOE-LESTER]

mployed by General Dynamics/Lockheed/whoever supposed to do?"

I want everyone to keep one thing in mind- THERE IS NO OIL SHORTAGE. The prices are being artifically inflated to try to keep an economy based on impractical and unsustainable technology afloat. You talk about the gold standard, when what actually exists now is essentially a "petrostandard".

is this true?? now i feel alot better about buying my ford expedition.

[CreamyPotatoe]

damn casek you beat me to it

[10sicz.chick]

:blinks:

is anyone out there?
have you jumped ship?

[angelofdeath]

im still here.

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

Jumped ship, never that.

I'm going to the march, and I'm still trying to educate people on an individual basis.

[YoungCousin]

Not sure if this was posted, but....
The unintended consequences of not voting for Ron Paul (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRmuj4VU0lg)

[lord_casek]

now that is powerful.

[YoungCousin]

extremely powerful. i'm surprised MTV had the balls to pull something off like that.

[lord_casek]

extremely powerful. i'm surprised MTV had the balls to pull something off like that.

sometimes a patriot slips in.

[El Mamerro]

And then Viacom steps in and pulls it off the Internet.

[10sicz.chick]

some peeps are so stupid.
an acquaintance the other day asked why they hell i was still supporting Paul if he had no chance in hell of winning.

no matter how many times you explain, people simply can't grasp this is a movement.

[MY ROTTING LIVER]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxpx7AKoPzw

Interesting spot, but it wasn't a Ron Paul support ad per se.

[10sicz.chick]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxpx7AKoPzw

Interesting spot, but it wasn't a Ron Paul support ad per se.

It isn't per se, but what other candidate is aware of the potentional of a police state?

[MY ROTTING LIVER]

Ron Paul is a candidate?

[lord_casek]

yes, and a damn good one at that.

[thinksmall]

hell yeah!

[Juan Fuentes]

What kind of a pathetic loser you have to be to hate on Ron Paul?
You can like other candidates, but making fun of Ron Paul?
You are cursed.

[MY ROTTING LIVER]

It's almost blasphemy!!! Hang he who speaks against thy lord and savior!!!

[Some1]

Its just stupid because he is the only one with experience and plans for change...

[lord_casek]

Its just stupid because he is the only one with experience and plans for change...

the only one who understands that NAFTA, CAFTA, etc. are hurting us....the only one who acknowledges the NAU is real, and the only one who wants to disable this COG thing going on right now is called a fool and a conspiracy nut....how odd.

and now i see obama using some of dr. pauls lines....talking about our constitution, etc.

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

It's almost blasphemy!!! Hang he who speaks against thy lord and savior!!!

It's really funny because you act the same way when someone attacks Obama, his policy or the experience he doesn't have to be President of the United States especially at this crucial point in time. So can we hope off our high horse for a moment and actually THINK about who the better candidate is.

[Some1]

and now i see obama using some of dr. pauls lines....talking about our constitution, etc.

Hey man you gotta go with what the people want right? I mean thats what Obama is all about...telling people what they want to hear...

[lord_casek]

yep. all words.

meet your new boss.....same as the old boss.

[10sicz.chick]

whatcha guys think about this?

http://ronpaulchat.net/drpaulwillwin.html

Is this accurate?

[thecoldmidwest]

I'm disappointed that Paul isn't being more aggressive with his run for president. Forget the seat in the house, he's in his 70's, why does he care about keeping his seat that much? Clearly he's not going to change much alone in the house. There are more important things to do. He should run 3rd party in my opinion, both parties are corrupt and it was pretty obvious that he wasn't going to get the republican nomination. Why does he care if the republican party kicks him out if he runs 3rd party? A police state is in our future if he doesn't win. I know he's done alot, but really, I think he needs to push harder.

I am still writing his name in regardless...

[Some1]

As am I, how are you going to be more aggressive when everyone refuses to give you air play its stupid if you keep failing then you need to change course and find other outlets for success. Too bad George W. Bush has no concept of that in Iraq...

[thecoldmidwest]

As am I, how are you going to be more aggressive when everyone refuses to give you air play its stupid if you keep failing then you need to change course and find other outlets for success. Too bad George W. Bush has no concept of that in Iraq...
In his failing he was waking up alot of people. We need extreme change in this country to undo the damage that has been done, and that change is not going to come through him sitting in the house being the only opposition to what is happening. Though I don't know how successful a third party run would be, I know that his enthusiastic supporters would help him go far. Farther than most people expect I think.

[Some1]

This is true, this is what he is saying its not a lost cause if people are waking up.

[After School Special]

http://fitsnews.wordpress.com/files/2007/08/straightjacketronpaul1.jpg

JEWS DID 9-11 DON'T DRINK THE FLUORIDE

[russell jones]

this is the best thread on all of crossfire. It has replaced the "nature of the creator" thread in my mind. Rock on!

[lord_casek]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnnOOo6tRs8&fmt=18

[angelofdeath]

who watched the john adams miniseries last night? pretty good... and the principles they spoke about are always relevant.
i've always liked adams, until he became president.

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwRIzNyArRY&feature=related

Wasn't sure where exactly to put this so I just threw it here. More and more reasons why our boy should be the leading candidate.

[APDFanClub]

in school we had to vote for president. they didnt have ron paul on the ballot, so i wrote him in. on the outcomes of the 'election', it had ron paul with 4 write-ins. im starting the revolution slow but sure

[the.crooked]

it will be a long while before you finish... rub faster.

[lord_casek]

in school we had to vote for president. they didnt have ron paul on the ballot, so i wrote him in. on the outcomes of the 'election', it had ron paul with 4 write-ins. im starting the revolution slow but sure

kinda weird how they discount dr. paul and still call him a nutjob.
not long ago, people like mccain, clinton, and obama would be laughed at
for saying the things they say.

[jerkspot]

Why Ron Paul Scares the GOP

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1724358,00.html?cnn=yes

[Juan Fuentes]

I didn't wanted to make a thread about it. It's some kind of news related to this thread, which is about a Libertarian, freedom loving presidential candidate like Ron Paul, and from my personal opinion it makes this post related to Ron Paul himself.


Mike Gravel, said he is running for president as the libertarian candidate, accepted by the party...
Sounds good, because he is not giving up. And personally i like him better than Kucinich...

After all, the voting system is owned by the Global Elite so a non-elite-related candidate can win, if, MASSIVE voting in his favor happens, so i'm not jumping with joy on the Gravel trampoline.
He needs major help, specially from a man like Ron Paul.
Unity, or America goes down the drains.
Consider uniting forces.

[russell jones]

your posts never fail to entertain me Juan. Any luck finding a tinfoil hat that fits?

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/31/news/economy/paulson_regulation/index.htm?cnn=yes

Expanding the Fed. YES!

[lord_casek]

yeah, just what we needed......

[angelofdeath]

i like gravel to the extent that he is fairly good on guns which is surprising for a democrat and he is against the empire and drug war. but on other things... i dont know. sort of horrible. i'd be suprised if he actually gets the libertarian nomination. lots of LP folks didnt like ron paul because he wasnt pro choice and pro open borders.

im waiting for bob barr to get nominated by the libertarians. i'd rather see him than gravel.

[theme from the bottom]

bump

[syneonetrk]

in school we had to vote for president. they didnt have ron paul on the ballot, so i wrote him in. on the outcomes of the 'election', it had ron paul with 4 write-ins. im starting the revolution slow but sure
same shit here man, my class only had two though, me and some random girl id never saw before, i talked to her and sure enough she knew her shit pretty good.

[scaryletters]

another old, rich, elitist, republican...
wow, how truly revolutionary!

[angelofdeath]

ummmmm...
research, much?

[dreaken1993]

yall need to wake the fuck up. man the elite have enough power to fix elections, start wars, and enslave you and your children to debt but there not smart enough to have a person like ron paul. IMO ron paul is just a puppet just like obama and every other politicians. Sure he votes against govt. power but isnt that exactly what they would have him do. And does his vote really change anything. no. congress is still corrupt and the world is still ran by elitist. There isnt a chance in hell that hes going to eb president unless they want him too. And if he does then you know he works with them. JMO deny ignorance

[scaryletters]

ummmmm...
research, much?

you assume i'm uneducated and don't read because i have a differing opinion than your own? perhaps you're the one who's in need of a little book work.

[lord_casek]

you assume i'm uneducated and don't read because i have a differing opinion than your own? perhaps you're the one who's in need of a little book work.


no, i'm pretty sure you don't know what you're talking about.

have you seen dr. paul's impeccable voting record? it's all based on the
constitution of the united states.

know anything about his clinic in texas? know anything about what he's done for texas?
probably not. otherwise you wouldn't call him an old, rich, elitist.

[dreaken1993]

yall need to wake the fuck up. man the elite have enough power to fix elections, start wars, and enslave you and your children to debt but there not smart enough to have a person like ron paul. IMO ron paul is just a puppet just like obama and every other politicians. Sure he votes against govt. power but isnt that exactly what they would have him do. And does his vote really change anything. no. congress is still corrupt and the world is still ran by elitist. There isnt a chance in hell that hes going to eb president unless they want him too. And if he does then you know he works with them. JMO deny ignorance

bump for recognition

[lord_casek]

ron paul is certainly not part of the elite. the reason he didn't win the place for republican candidate in the last election is that the mainstream media made him out to be a nutjob.

now they have him on every single news network commenting at least three times a week.
do they see the error in their ways or is he not a danger now that obamalamadingdong was elected?

[dreaken1993]

if hes such a threat to the elite then why would they do that just another reason why he could be in with them look at all the people who are involved with them almost every noticed politician which could include ron paul theres no way to know

[lord_casek]

if hes such a threat to the elite then why would they do that just another reason why he could be in with them look at all the people who are involved with them almost every noticed politician which could include ron paul theres no way to know


sure there is. have you ever heard him speak? one who encourages people to question authority and rallies for the constitution is certainly not part of some power grab.

some quotes from dr. paul

A system of capitalism presumes sound money, not fiat money manipulated by a central bank. Capitalism cherishes voluntary contracts and interest rates that are determined by savings, not credit creation by a central bank.


Cliches about supporting the troops are designed to distract from failed policies, policies promoted by powerful special interests that benefit from war, anything to steer the discussion away from the real reasons the war in Iraq will not end anytime soon.



I am just absolutely convinced that the best formula for giving us peace and preserving the American way of life is freedom, limited government, and minding our own business overseas.


sound like an elitist?

[dreaken1993]

im not saying he doesnt sound like a freedom fighter but man the way the elite run everything without fail and have a grip in almost every situation in the world i dont see how a man like ron paul would be able to hold as much power as he does were it not for some underlying support from those same elite jmo i dont see why he hasnt been assassinated yet i mean any one that oposses them with any public power are usually silenced quickly thats the only problem i have with him

i think the elite would have a man like ron paul so the people who are awake will blindly follow him because he says the truth about govt and not really bring about any change

if he gets elected and does what he says he will ill support him but until then im going to watch every person in power for corruptness

[lord_casek]

im not saying he doesnt sound like a freedom fighter but man the way the elite run everything without fail and have a grip in almost every situation in the world i dont see how a man like ron paul would be able to hold as much power as he does were it not for some underlying support from those same elite jmo i dont see why he hasnt been assassinated yet i mean any one that oposses them with any public power are usually silenced quickly thats the only problem i have with him

i think the elite would have a man like ron paul so the people who are awake will blindly follow him because he says the truth about govt and not really bring about any change

if he gets elected and does what he says he will ill support him but until then im going to watch every person in power for corruptness



no, the scumbags have rush limbaugh and sean hannity. they promote their scumbag
agenda via the talking points those two and the rest of the talking heads like to parrot.

[El Mamerro]

OMG THE ELITE™

[lord_casek]

mamerro, you really should look into the power players. it may not surprise you, but i'm pretty sure it would.

"confessions of an economic hitman" spells it out pretty well.

[dreaken1993]

i would say nwo or illuminait scum but elite sounds better cause it dont scare away people or i could just use corporate international bankers

[lord_casek]

i would say nwo or illuminait scum but elite sounds better cause it dont scare away people or i could just use corporate international bankers



people respond better when you call them international bankers or just "elite".

the illuminati, even though they were and maybe are real, are synonymous with
"conspiracy theory" in most peoples minds.

gotta use language that doesn't get laughed at.

[El Mamerro]

I think elite sounds funny and simplistic. The whole premise of trying to label the hugely complex and varied web of those at the top under a single moniker is funny to me. Whenever I hear it it just smacks of "OMG I JUST OPENED MY EYES TO THE TRUTH" nooberism.

Also, Elite was the name of a Honda scooter in the 80's.

[dreaken1993]

i know but thats what you have to do you have to talk to people in simplistic ways so it dosent scare them away i know theres so many diverse and complex societies and groups that all work for their control over the world but nwo or elite is just a way to label them even though its wrong cause not all people who work for these global domination plans are elite some are scientist religious figureheads and many other fields besides rich and powerfull banksters but you gotta do what you gotta do

[lord_casek]

I think elite sounds funny and simplistic. The whole premise of trying to label the hugely complex and varied web of those at the top under a single moniker is funny to me. Whenever I hear it it just smacks of "OMG I JUST OPENED MY EYES TO THE TRUTH" nooberism.

Also, Elite was the name of a Honda scooter in the 80's.


i agree completely. but look at our society. people don't understand when you lay it out the way it is. if you say "illuminati", they laugh. even if you explain that "illuminati" means "the illuminated ones", they don't get it.

it is a very complex system in place that took a very long time to put into place. people just don't want to hear about it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhOKhJaM1QE

[scaryletters]

no, i'm pretty sure you don't know what you're talking about.

have you seen dr. paul's impeccable voting record? it's all based on the
constitution of the united states.

know anything about his clinic in texas? know anything about what he's done for texas?
probably not. otherwise you wouldn't call him an old, rich, elitist.

impeccable voting record? according to who? you? i could give a fuck about the constitution of the united states, this is the same country that was founded on genocide and imperialism so excuse me if my faith in the constitution is less than full.

[scaryletters]

no, i'm pretty sure you don't know what you're talking about.

have you seen dr. paul's impeccable voting record? it's all based on the
constitution of the united states.

know anything about his clinic in texas? know anything about what he's done for texas?
probably not. otherwise you wouldn't call him an old, rich, elitist.

impeccable voting record? according to who? you? i could give a fuck about the constitution of the united states, this is the same country that was founded on genocide and rampant imperialism so excuse me if my faith in the constitution is less than full blown.

[lord_casek]

impeccable voting record? according to who? you? i could give a fuck about the constitution of the united states, this is the same country that was founded on genocide and rampant imperialism so excuse me if my faith in the constitution is less than full blown.
'

i hope you get kicked in the head repeatedly by some JBT's.

[scaryletters]

hey, great argument. that's the kind of logic we need leading us around. im sure dr ron paul would agree with you. ron paul is no more of a freedom fighter than George W Bush, his father, and every single president through US history. he isn't there to serve you or I, he's there to reinforce the upper classes total domination of society.

[scaryletters]

I think elite sounds funny and simplistic. The whole premise of trying to label the hugely complex and varied web of those at the top under a single moniker is funny to me. Whenever I hear it it just smacks of "OMG I JUST OPENED MY EYES TO THE TRUTH" nooberism.

Also, Elite was the name of a Honda scooter in the 80's.

elite- "In sociology as in general usage, the elite is a relatively small dominant group within a large society, which enjoys a privileged status envied by individuals of lower social status."

stop wasting your time arguing semantics when there are more important issues out there.

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

How about the "Super-Class". Like my boy David Rothkopf likes to put it.

PS: He's definitely not my boy. Good book though.

[dreaken1993]

impeccable voting record? according to who? you? i could give a fuck about the constitution of the united states, this is the same country that was founded on genocide and rampant imperialism so excuse me if my faith in the constitution is less than full blown.

you gotta point but you have to go with it cause thats the law of the land and even though it is based on fucked up shit it better then being without it were the govt can do whatever the fuck they want.

IMO america was only created so Britain could have a way to start a new bank in a new place, i mean if you look it up america is a colony of britain so this country was basically made to fail


man fuck ron paul fuck alex jones fuck anyone who comes out trying to support the revolution whos involved with the govt fuck em all, cause in reality everyone that says their on our side that holds power are lying snakes implanted by the same people who are powerfull enough to fix election sell us into debt and start wars but you think they wouldnt have someone like alex jones and ron paul. deny ignorance man deny it no matter what package it comes in

[scaryletters]

i dont see why i have to go with it simply because it's the law of the land. i'm not a communist but i thoroughly believe we don't need a state to tell us what's right and wrong. ron paul is just another, in a long list, of manipulators and exploiters.

[lord_casek]

Huffington Post interview with Dr. Paul

Kathleen Wells: As a member of the U. S. House of Representatives' Foreign Affairs Committee, what is your take on this issue of torture?

Congressman Ron Paul: Well, it's against the law - both our law and international law. So, we shouldn't do it. And I'm against it for personal, moral reasons. I think it's horrible. And for practical reasons, I think it's absolutely worthless. And if we are serious about getting information, if we use other techniques, we actually get more information.

Kathleen Wells: So, you do believe that we were committing torture in our interrogations in Guantanamo?

Congressman Ron Paul: I don't think the pictures I've seen were fictitious - the ones that were released a year or two ago. And, obviously, there are some more pictures of torture that they draw more attention to because they refuse to release them, which means that it must be a true indictment of what they were doing.

Kathleen Wells: What are your thoughts on President Obama's decision to release the torture memos?

Congressman Ron Paul: I think he is purely political. I think he has backed down on what he said. He was elected for change and it is the same old stuff and he is as much of a neo-con now as Bush was with this issue and other issues. The war has been expanded. He continues with not closing down Guantanamo. There is probably, for as most [sic] as we can tell, there is still secret rendition going on. We just moved some of this process overseas. We are not going to be aware of it in detail.

Kathleen Wells: You feel President Obama is a neo-con like Bush? You don't see a distinction between the two administrations?

Congressman Ron Paul: The tone is different, but the policies don't change. We are spreading the war. The war is expanding. We are not prosecuting those that committed torture. Guantanamo is not going to be closed down. So, no, I don't see [a distinction between Bush and Obama].

He [Obama] increased the DOD [Department of Defense] budget. We surely could spend some of that money at home where people are really hurting. But we increased the DOD budget, I think, by 10-percent. I can't see any significant change in foreign policy. The pretense in leaving Iraq was a mild pretense and I'm predicting that's not going to happen. There are going to be troops in Iraq throughout this administration, I'm convinced.

Kathleen Wells: Why are you convinced?

Congressman Ron Paul: Because I don't think anyone wants to face the difficulties that might ensue. The problems came from us being there and when we leave, the problems will probably accelerate a bit. And then they will blame leaving for [causing] the problems and, yet, the real problem was going in. So, I think the international pressure that we get from various allies will be so great that we won't leave. And just don't expect the policies to change.

It just goes along with what I have said for years. Foreign policy does not change with Republicans or Democrats. Overall, there is very little policy that changes. There is a lot of debate and a lot of rhetoric, but things continue as they do.

When Clinton was in, the Republicans condemned his Somalia problem. Bush said he wasn't going to be a nation builder and a policeman of the world and he gets in and he is worse. Obama says Bush is terrible and gets in and all of a sudden, guess who is cheering Obama on right now? People like [Senator] Lindsay Graham. The real hawks of the Republican Party are sorta enjoying this right now. They figure they are winning these fights.

Kathleen Wells: Can you give me your thoughts on former Vice President Dick Cheney's recent speech on interrogation techniques and national security?

Congressman Ron Paul: I [didn't] expect anything brand new. He ... just [tried] to defend what he had been doing and his involvement over the years. He'll keep saying that he saved many lives by torturing - which I don't believe for a minute.

I'm more likely to believe Matthew Alexander and his position on torture. Matthew Alexander was an official that was involved. He was in the Air Force, but he was over there and he carried out over 300 interrogations over there and was very, very successful. But [he] refused orders to ever participate in anything violent or anything that hinted of torture. That is the evidence - you can get more information, rather than less [without using torture].

I think the evidence is now coming out of people saying that the torture wasn't intended to get information. They got a lot of information from these individuals - these few, these three that are well known now. They got a lot of information from them before they were tortured. They were trying to get them to say that there was a connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein in order to justify this illegal war.

Kathleen Wells: Elaborate on why you believe there is no difference between the Obama Administration and the Bush Administration?

Congressmen Ron Paul: In style, they are different. The tone is different and I think there is a benefit to that. But his policies don't change. Ultimately, policies win out. The strong statements against Iran are still there. And, right now, going through our committee (the Congressional International Relations Committee/the Foreign Affairs Committee), stronger sanctions will be put on Iran - just looking for another fight. And we have taken the position we will not allow them to proceed on any nuclear testing, even if it is within the law and even if it is done peacefully. We are not going to permit that. So no, that position hasn't changed.

Like I said before, the war is not winding down in Iraq. The violence is increasing. And war is expanding into Afghanistan, sending more troops there. And now we are taking on Pakistan. And, actually, the whole Pakistan thing is just a reflection of a very, very flawed foreign policy of ours. Because we chase the Taliban around and some go into Pakistan and we urge the public government there to do this and that, we are just working very hard to have another war in Pakistan.

Kathleen Wells: What would you be doing differently if you were President? I know you were a Presidential primary candidate.

Congressman Ron Paul: I would bring the troops home. I'd just bring them all home. I'd bring them home from Korea. I'd bring them home from Germany. Save hundreds of billions of dollars and that would be a real boost. In order to stimulate the economy, I would immediately suspend the income tax for everybody.

The money we get into the hands of the people - that would cost less money than these hundreds of billions of dollars of bailouts that go into the pockets of the privileged who then get to take their retirement benefits and all their bonuses. I would do it a lot differently.

Foreign policy, though, would be the big thing. Just move away from that. Take off the sanctions and start trading with Cuba. Not just talk about it, but go ahead and do it.

Kathleen Wells: And Iran?

Congressman Ron Paul: I would treat them like we treated the Soviets. We talked to them. The Soviets had 30,000 nuclear weapons. Iran is not going to bomb anybody. They deserve a little bit of protection for themselves. They have nuclear weapons to the north, to the south, to the east, and to the west and all they do is get beat up. There are a bunch of bad people over there, but there are a bunch of bad people all over the world.

Khrushchev wasn't exactly the nicest guy in the world and he claimed he was going to bury us, too. Even guys like Ronald Reagan talked to him and we worked things out. Their economic system collapsed.

What we ought to do is pay more attention to the goals of Osama Bin Laden. He said, "We will bring you to your knees through your bankruptcy because we are going to drag you over here and we will drain you and we will eventually bring on an economic crisis in your country." Right now he is winning. Right now the Iraqis are closely aligned with the Iranians. The Shiites are winning. The Sunnis are on the run. We've weaponized the whole area. More guns sent over there by the American taxpayer. The Sunnis are all armed. It's just a very, very ridiculous foreign policy.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kathleen-wells/congressman-ron-paul-talk_b_212520.html

[dreaken1993]

you do OBL dead right since about 2001

[lord_casek]

you do OBL dead right since about 2001


does it matter? osama bin laden has never been the target. ever.

tim osmond....

[Vulcan5]

fuck osama hat nigga pinched my sac yesterday

[frankiefiver]

This thread continues to get worse and worse.
Ron Paul..........yeah!!1

[lord_casek]

explain.

[scaryletters]

does it matter? osama bin laden has never been the target. ever.

tim osmond....

you're finally right on something...osama has never been the target. ever.

[dreaken1993]

i know that if they wanted him if he wasnt dead he would have been caught

and i know he was a cia asset when the cia funded and trained the Taliban

i dont think their is a real target they just want this war to rage on and on

[angelofdeath]

some of you guys are just silly.

i always get a kick out of 'conspiracy theorists' who think other people who are generally considered 'conspiracy theorists' are part of the 'conspiracy.

that said... to argue that you hate ron paul simply because you hate the state is an argument i can somewhat have some sympathy for, although im not a full blown anarchist. BUT... its rather silly to believe that the most pro liberty politician in history serves no use in a battle with the state. its sort of like if you are against all taxes, but you dont support tax cuts. or if you are for eliminating the federal government but you dont support abolishing a department or two.

[Nag One]

It's too bad Paul could never get elected. Theirs so much corrupt power in the media that the government can get it to the point where most people don't even know who he is. Sad really.

[dreaken1993]

It's too bad Paul could never get elected. Theirs so much corrupt power in the media that the government can get it to the point where most people don't even know who he is. Sad really.

thats mainly what i was talking about i mean if ron paul really isnt working for the elite then there is no chance for him to win and be president so all the people who think hes their savior are idiots cause one mans vote isnt going to change shit

[dreaken1993]

some of you guys are just silly.

i always get a kick out of 'conspiracy theorists' who think other people who are generally considered 'conspiracy theorists' are part of the 'conspiracy.

that said... to argue that you hate ron paul simply because you hate the state is an argument i can somewhat have some sympathy for, although im not a full blown anarchist. BUT... its rather silly to believe that the most pro liberty politician in history serves no use in a battle with the state. its sort of like if you are against all taxes, but you dont support tax cuts. or if you are for eliminating the federal government but you dont support abolishing a department or two.

you know what i get a kick out of? All you people who blindly follow people and blatantly call anyone who oppose your views on reality a conspiracy theorist see thats a part of the govts conditioning of the populace

cause when you here conspiracy theorist what comes to mind a crazy maniac who thinks the govt has implanted chips in their head
never when they mention someone opposed to the govt or their lies do you here them being an objective opinionated researcher which would be the proper terminology you here loony nut case conspiracy theorist

the only thing is even though ron paul is appose to govt power, supposedly, he dont change anything the govt is still a corrupt system ran by the elite and ron paul cant change it

[sety]

http://semiauto101.blogspot.com/

[angelofdeath]

you know what i get a kick out of? All you people who blindly follow people and blatantly call anyone who oppose your views on reality a conspiracy theorist see thats a part of the govts conditioning of the populace

i thought you were the guy in another thread who said you think everything is a conspiracy? im used to being called a conspiracy theorist. if you own a bunch of guns and talk about freedom, you are labeled by default by the majority of the population as a conspiracy theorist, black helicopter nut. i've been following ron paul since about the year 2000. it just so happens that his ideology, libertarianism, is what i believe in. i've been a believer in liberty way before ron paul decided to run for president. just because a bunch of people started following the guy, doesnt mean that i hate all these people because he has a small following. sure, some of these people are silly, who cares? every faction has weirdo's.
i believe in keeping my mitts to myself unless in defense. i apply this to everything. this is the freedom ideology. ron paul is about as consistent as you can get to it. do i 'blindly' follow him? no, i dont 'blindly' follow him. i have yet to hear him say he wants to take away any of my freedom, so as of right now, i back pretty much everything i've heard the guy say.

the only thing is even though ron paul is appose to govt power, supposedly, he dont change anything the govt is still a corrupt system ran by the elite and ron paul cant change it

i do not believe the answer lies in politics. i believe the country is to far gone. what i do believe in is education and ultimately forceful defense of my rights, if it comes to it. you have ron paul in congress, inside the very heart of the government, telling them basically to fuck off. how could a supposed freedom lover NOT be a supporter of this guy? ron paul is only one guy, sure he alone wont be able to restore liberty to the US. but a ron paul inspired movement of millions can change it.
i'd much rather see all the bums voted out and replaced with ron pauls than have to stand in defense of my rights in guerilla warfare fashion. it might be unlikely to win with politics, but as i said... i'll still support ron paul and his courageous stand for freedom. lost causes are in my blood. we've won a few, we've lost a few. from the american revolution to the war to prevent southern independence and so on... you win some and you lose some. but there is no need to stop fighting and consider ron paul part of the 'elite' or the 'enemy'

[dreaken1993]

i support the whole education issue but i see all these people who follow him and want him to lead the movement for freedom but we shouldnt do that we should be leading the freedom movement not relying on one politician

[lord_casek]

i support the whole education issue but i see all these people who follow him and want him to lead the movement for freedom but we shouldnt do that we should be leading the freedom movement not relying on one politician


you aren't looking far. a lot of ron pauls folllowing are setting out on their own and running for local and state government. doing their own thing.

the whole of the matter isn't about dr. paul at all. it's really about taking what belongs to us back.

[dreaken1993]

see thats what i like to hear i mean if rp can get people so inspired that they actually take action but i just dont see the reasoning behind sitting back and jocking one politician that aint got much power to change shit

[lord_casek]

see thats what i like to hear i mean if rp can get people so inspired that they actually take action but i just dont see the reasoning behind sitting back and jocking one politician that aint got much power to change shit


united we stand, divided we fall.



it's on the back of our money.

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

you aren't looking far. a lot of ron pauls folllowing are setting out on their own and running for local and state government. doing their own thing.

the whole of the matter isn't about dr. paul at all. it's really about taking what belongs to us back.


Word.

I honestly can't tell you how many people I know that have gotten interested in politics, or the well being and conservation of this nation through Ron Paul.

This man will be remembered in history for sparking a movement who's relevance we probably won't know until my generation (people around 20 and a little older right now) reach into their 30's and 40's.

At least I'm hoping for that change anyway. Oh and when I say change, I'm not talking about you know who. Or that kind of change anyway. ^___^

[lord_casek]

HR 1207 is going on the floor.

[russell jones]

Word.

I honestly can't tell you how many people I know that have gotten interested in politics, or the well being and conservation of this nation through Ron Paul.

This man will be remembered in history for sparking a movement who's relevance we probably won't know until my generation (people around 20 and a little older right now) reach into their 30's and 40's.


I wouldn't hold your pee waiting for that to happen; could get messy.

[scaryletters]

the whole of the matter isn't about dr. paul at all. it's really about taking what belongs to us back.

if you were really interested in "taking back what belongs to us", you'd stop preaching to these sheep that ron paul is somehow looking out for their best interests. ron paul wants what all politicians want, absolute power and absolute control. nothing is going to change until we get rid of this system where people like ron paul prosper off the blood, sweat, and tears of the working class.

[angelofdeath]

a voting record and rhetoric that is as anti state and pro liberty as one can get and you are trying to tell me in a serious manner that ron paul only wants absolute power and absolute control.
nothing could be further from the truth.

i agree, 98% of politicians want absolute power and control... but not this guy.

[scaryletters]

a voting record that's anti-state? that doesn't exist my friend.

[angelofdeath]

sure it does.
any vote that is a vote against government power is in essence 'anti state.'

[scaryletters]

you can't destroy the masters house with the masters tools.

[dreaken1993]

exactly i dont think any one can save the system in which we live, with our govt there is always a chance for someone to repeat history and this include ron paul

imo revolution is the only chance america has

[angelofdeath]

look, as a rule, i dont believe in voting. i dont think ron paul will magically change america all by his self. but that doesnt mean i wont support him. i think the only way to restore the rights of the public is if something is done to tick everyone off and its time to resort to the cartridge box.

not supporting ron paul, but saying you support liberty is silly. its like if you want to abolish taxes but dont support tax cuts

[dreaken1993]

Not supporting ron paul dosent mean i dont support liberty, i just feel anyone who fights the system from the inside is bound to be corrupted bt it, and i feel if these people can run amerika behind the scenes start wars assassinate people with no problem but you think that someone like ron paul is any threat to them.... thats why i either think ron paul is with them so everyone follows him and hope for change but no real change happens, or hes not and they just no he cant do anything

thats why i think supporting him is irrelevant, just like supporting presidents its all a game

[lord_casek]

so you wouldn't trust anyone who got into govt for the right reasons?

anarchist?

[dreaken1993]

no because with all the power these people have i dont see how they would let someone like that into their infrastructure unless it would work to their advantage no matter how good of intentions the person may have

and i think an anarchist type america would be better then the one we have now, anarchy dosent mean no rules it means no rulers and i fully support that if we didnt have a centralized govt their would be no way for one person or a group of people to gain all the power while the lower get nothing

[angelofdeath]

i fully know what anarchy is.
i sympathize with with the ideology, but from a anarcho capitalist perspective instead of a anarcho commie perspective.

but i just think its hilarious that you think ron paul is involved with a 'conspiracy.' it is the ron paul supporters who are considered the conspiracy theorists by most everyone. so its REALLY kooky to me to think that RP supporters are part of a conspiracy.

ron paul and perhaps a few other guys out there are actually devoted to limiting governmental power. your rule and thoughts apply to everyone else.

[russell jones]

a voting record and rhetoric that is as anti state and pro liberty as one can get and you are trying to tell me in a serious manner that ron paul only wants absolute power and absolute control.
nothing could be further from the truth.

i agree, 98% of politicians want absolute power and control... but not this guy.


I don't think many of them care about absolute power and control. I think most of them care about their boats, cars, bank accounts, and how many interns they can bang. The whole power trip is necessary so they can keep the gravy train rolling.

[Blood Feast Island Man]

i fully know what anarchy is.
i sympathize with with the ideology, but from a anarcho capitalist perspective instead of a anarcho commie perspective.

what the fuck is an anarcho capilatist?

[angelofdeath]

a person who believes in abolition of government but has recognition of property rights.

[frankiefiver]

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE5833R520090904?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

I wouldn't hold your pee waiting for that to happen; could get messy.

If you think that's what I'm doing than you're wrong.

Nothing messy over here my friend.

[the.crooked]

Let me ask the more important question in all of this:


Why is this thread still going?

[LEVEL 75 PALADIN]

FIGHT THE BLACK HELICOPTER OVERLORDS!

RON PAUL!

[frankiefiver]

Let me ask the more important question in all of this:


Why is this thread still going?

Ill take the blame for that. I bumped it with an article about RP getting support for a bill to audit the Federal Reserve.

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

FIGHT THE BLACK HELICOPTER OVERLORDS!

RON PAUL!


Dude, DAO don't post in here. That shit don't work.

Keep trying though. Good for a laugh every now and again.

Let me ask the more important question in all of this:


Why is this thread still going?

Because his influence still stands? Because he still after not getting his bid to run for president is still fighting the fight he has been fighting since he arrived in Congress?

BTW: He has a son that is running for a Senate seat in 2010.

So after Dr. Paul does step out of politics. We can just change the title to this thread a little and keep it moving. ^____^

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

I would have edited my last post but after a certain amount of time you can no longer do that so here it is.

Not that this proofs anything that I said earlier on the subject, but a film is about to be put out about the exact thing I was talking about. Dr.Paul's influence on a generation of people. Who probably without hearing of him would have continued to not care about what goes on in Washington.

http://www.forlibertymovie.com

I'm not going to explain anymore about the movie. You can check out everything you need to or may want to know at the above website.

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAd6RLlxjyg

[boxcarrapist]

Que???

[Purple Mushroom]

what the fuck is an anarcho capilatist?

What they call a "libertarian" in the US and what most people call fucking idiots. Ron Paul is like the anarcho-capitalist/Libertarian Jesus.

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

You are one angry man.

[SHITFACED-ANAL-FISTER]

Why would any of you support ron paul. He wants to take religion out of government and give our country to the heathen atheists. And Abortion would be legal if he ever gets his way.

[lord_casek]

Why would any of you support ron paul. He wants to take religion out of government and give our country to the heathen atheists. And Abortion would be legal if he ever gets his way.


Uh, no it wouldn't. You need to read some more about who Ron Paul is and what he stands for.

[lord_casek]

Missing GOP ballots counted in Nev. after months


The Associated Press
Saturday, Oct. 31, 2009 | 3:57 p.m.
Eighteen months later, Nevada Republicans have completed a count of all delegate ballots from last year's state convention.
A group of disaffected Republicans says it feels vindicated after a Friday night count of missing ballots from the April 2008 gathering showed three delegates for U.S. Rep. Ron Paul should have been sent to the national convention.
Paul supporters said they felt party leaders cheated them out of a place at the national convention when they abruptly recessed the convention before delegate ballots from the state's 2nd Congressional District could be counted. The district was allowed to choose three of the state's 34 delegates to the national convention.
The convention in Reno ended after Paul supporters won a rule change that allowed them to vote Paul delegates to the convention.
"It's good to get it done," said Wayne Terhune, a Paul supporter. "It's nice to be vindicated. The fact the three Ron Paul people won indicates that might have been the reason they shut down the convention."
Party leaders say the count will have no impact on the state's role in nominating U.S. Sen. John McCain as the party's presidential nominee last year.
But they said they hope it brings closure to Paul supporters and others who had pressed for the count.
"This should have been done a long time ago," said Nancy Ernaut, state party chairwoman.
About 25 Republicans gathered at the party's Washoe County headquarters to count ballots that had spent the last 18 months locked in a casino cashier cage at the Peppermill, where the convention was held.
The count showed Paul delegate Robert Terhune won the most votes in the 2nd Congressional District, with 288. Paul supporters Marla Criss and Pat Kerby had 283 votes each.
Controversy over the state convention prompted Paul supporters to later hold an insurgent state convention, where Paul won most of the national convention delegates.
A Nevada GOP committee appointed another delegation, mostly prominent party regulars and contributors.
A key Republican National Committee panel then recommended a compromise list of delegates and said it was troubled by the "ineptness" of the Nevada GOP.
Paul supporters blame then-state GOP Chairwoman Sue Lowden for the state convention flap and hope to make it an issue in the U.S. Senate race.
Lowden is one of about a dozen Republicans vying for the seat held by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

[laughslast]

^^took them long enough. doesn't make a difference now though except possibly for sue lowden.

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Hn6ad4_FzM

[lord_casek]

[email protected]

124.193.170.162

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQts21QiKTQ

Cus this needed to get bumped.

[Zig]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hekoOFyFKOE Part 1 of 6

John Stossel Interview

[cunt sauce]

fuck Ron Paul, he called bruno a queer.

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

Daily Bell: What is the future of the Ron Paul freedom movement in your view?

Rockwell: This much is clear: the Paul movement has made a huge difference in bringing people to libertarian ideas. In some way, there is an element of tragedy in that it takes politics to wake people up. Ideally, people would discover the ideas of liberty through other means. Ron Paul agrees with this observation, by the way. He sees himself as an educator first. He chose politics because, for him, it was an effective route for his larger and more important goal. And what an extraordinary job he has done, in his writing and speaking and personal example for almost four decades. He has brought vast numbers of people into the light. That was always his dream. I should add that his early support was very important in the Institute's success. We are honored to have him as our Distinguished Counselor.

Rockwell on Ron Paul...

The rest of the interview can be found here.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/daily-bell-interview141.html

[Zig]

he won a CPAC poll concerning who Republican voters would like to see become the next President of the United States.

i'm not for Republicans or Democrats whatsoever, and I can see how some view Ron Paul as more right-leaning then left, however if the Republicans are poised to take back over after Obama I would rather see it be Ron Paul over anyone else, regardless of some of my disagreements on his personal views he would follow our constitution and do a lot of fixing to this nation's policies.

[cunt sauce]

Ron Paul voted against the Kyoto Protocol (international treaty on reducing carbon emissions. USA is the only developed country that has not signed the kyoto)

Ron Paul voted to drill Alaskan Wildlife Refuge for Oil.

Ron Paul voted against giving tax incentives to companies that embraced conservation and renewable energies.

[Zig]

Ron Paul voted against the Kyoto Protocol (international treaty on reducing carbon emissions. USA is the only developed country that has not signed the kyoto)

Ron Paul voted to drill Alaskan Wildlife Refuge for Oil.

Ron Paul voted against giving tax incentives to companies that embraced conservation and renewable energies.

yea, i guess it's worse to drill for oil on your own property rather than going over seas and bombing/killing people for it right?

[Smart]

I like Ron Paul but he's going nowhere. NOT GONNA HAPPEN. Plus all the recent bullshit about 'following the constitution' is a bunch of 'who shot john?'.

[cunt sauce]

yea, i guess it's worse to drill for oil on your own property rather than going over seas and bombing/killing people for it right?

That is not the argument i am making Zig. I am a single issue voter and that issue being the health of our natural world. While i have love for his anti-war, anti-patriot act views and his opposition to the war on drugs, Ron Paul has consistently voted against pro-environment, anti-pollution legislation.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Ron_Paul.htm

Ron Paul:
NO on tax incentives for energy production and conservation
NO on criminalizing oil cartels like OPEC
NO on tax incentives for renewable energy
NO on starting implementation of Kyoto Protocol
NO on increasing AMTRAK funding
NO on enforcing limits on CO2 global warming pollution

Anti-environment, anti-choice, against international justice, Ron Paul is just another right wing kook.

[Zig]

That is not the argument i am making Zig. I am a single issue voter and that issue being the health of our natural world. While i have love for his anti-war, anti-patriot act views and his opposition to the war on drugs, Ron Paul has consistently voted against pro-environment, anti-pollution legislation.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Ron_Paul.htm

Ron Paul:
NO on tax incentives for energy production and conservation
NO on criminalizing oil cartels like OPEC
NO on tax incentives for renewable energy
NO on starting implementation of Kyoto Protocol
NO on increasing AMTRAK funding
NO on enforcing limits on CO2 global warming pollution

Anti-environment, anti-choice, against international justice, Ron Paul is just another right wing kook.

Let me ask you a question, does your concern for the health of our natural world outweigh your concern for our individual personal liberty?

[cunt sauce]

YES. I don't believe corporations should be free to abuse the natural world that we all share.

[scaryletters]

isn't this douchebag dead yet? we can only pray for a heart attack.

[cunt sauce]

Ron Paul likes to believe that Government regulation is unneeded and the free-market will fix itself. That could be true, but only in the case that we would have an educated consumer. Most Americans are stupid and pretty much develop all of their viewpoints upon what they see on T.V. without ever checking the facts.

[Zig]

YES. I don't believe corporations should be free to abuse the natural world that we all share.

well then there you have it, that is why you misunderstand Ron Paul. when you put the "safety" of the planet above even your own individual safety, or in this instance, the safety of human freedom and liberty, then you are not going to be able to comprehend why it is that Ron Paul is voting no against these acts which you believe to be saving the planet.

let me ask you another question, do you believe the human species is a plague on this planet and only causes harm to the state of nature? for that reason, if you agree, do you think that this planet should be depopulated? i'm interested to know if i've pretty much gathered where you are coming from...

[cunt sauce]

your either McStain or NObama, depending on whether you prefer MSNBC or Fox News.

[Smart]

Zig, do you believe you should be able to dump hundreds of gallons of diesel fuel in a hole in your back yard because it's YOUR backyard?

[Zig]

Zig, do you believe you should be able to dump hundreds of gallons of diesel fuel in a hole in your back yard because it's YOUR backyard?

no, i don't and that is called pollution there are laws against that.

[Smart]

no, i don't and that is called pollution there are laws against that.

so, you would put laws in front of your individual freedom and safety?

[Zig]

so, you would put laws in front of your individual freedom and safety?

no don't twist my words around, that isn't anything similar to what i'm saying...

[Smart]

I didn't twist anything, that's what you said... I'm not maliagning your position, just clarifying.

[Zig]

that isn't what i said at all.

[cunt sauce]

no, i don't and that is called pollution there are laws against that.

then you should be for international laws limiting carbon emissions. the kyoto protocol was an international agreement Ron Paul voted against. i DO put the needs of the natural world ahead of the economic needs and personal freedoms (the freedom to pollute) and do you know why? human life wouldnt be possible without the natural world. when it comes down to it, MONEY IS PAPER AND NUMBERS ON A COMPUTER and not worth destroying our forests, air, mountains and water over.

[Smart]

that isn't what i said at all.

you said individual freedoms should come before the "safety" of the planet didn't you?

[Zig]

you said individual freedoms should come before the "safety" of the planet didn't you?

you're insinuating that i said breaking the law is an infringement upon my personal freedom and liberty. no, drilling for oil and breaking the law are two different things.

[Zig]

then you should be for international laws limiting carbon emissions. the kyoto protocol was an international agreement Ron Paul voted against. i DO put the needs of the natural world ahead of the economic needs and personal freedoms (the freedom to pollute) and do you know why? human life wouldnt be possible without the natural world. when it comes down to it, MONEY IS PAPER AND NUMBERS ON A COMPUTER and not worth destroying our forests, air, mountains and water over.

yea i've pretty much gathered where you're coming from...

[Smart]

Well, the law says you can only drill for oil in certain ways in certain places... do you believe that we should be able to drill willy nilly?

[Zig]

Well, the law says you can only drill for oil in certain ways in certain places... do you believe that we should be able to drill willy nilly?

really? the law says we can't drill in the Alaskan Wildlife Refuge? interesting then that they voted on it :confused:

[Smart]

I don't remember mentioning Alaska... I asked a very general question (yes or no) and perhaps you were too specific in your answer, but whatever the case, I fail to get your reply on several levels. Laws get voted on to become laws, later other laws can be enacted to counter previous laws and those laws must also be voted on... so, yeah, what are you saying there, smiley with the question marks indeed...

[cunt sauce]

no, drilling for oil and breaking the law are two different things.

its a different thing when you make laws preventing the destruction of the alaskan wildlife refuge. ron paul voted for drilling there and not for laws prohibiting the drilling of the alaskan wildlife refuge. he is against the governement intervening when it comes to the freedom of business and industry, but when it comes to individual freedoms, such as oh, the freedom of clean water, air, sustainable climate, he votes against. it is a fundamental human right to have a clean healthy world to live in and ron paul really hasnt shown me that he is down with that.

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

http://www.zimbio.com/The+Ron+Paul+Money+Bomb/articles/12/Ron+Paul+and+Pollution

Perhaps if you actually understand why he votes that way, you will understand his logic.

Not caring about the environment, and having a different approach to it, are two completely different things.

http://green-agenda.com/quoterefs.html

[cunt sauce]

"Ron Paul would hold companies and individuals legally liable for any harm they do, to people or their property.

When one has a proper respect for property rights, environmental concerns go away. In a society that respects the property of others, it is cause for legal action if someone pollutes your land, or the water coming across your property, or the air which floats above it.... So while a land owner may choose to build a big factory on his land, he must be very careful to ensure that no harm comes to adjacent property owners, or he will face the unmitigated wrath of those neighbors. In the past, big businesses often colluded with government to allow them to pollute their neighbors land, leaving the adjacent owners with devalued property and no recourse."

do you have any idea how hard it is to sue a corporation. what do you think would happen if i tried to sue the tobacco industry for second hand smoke that caused me to have asthma?

people have tried to sue meat companies that practice factory farming and they failed miserably and have even been countersued for defamation. and im not talking about suing factory farms on an animal rights premise, i mean for farms downstream from factory farms that get infested with animal waste runoff

[Zig]

I don't remember mentioning Alaska... I asked a very general question (yes or no) and perhaps you were too specific in your answer, but whatever the case, I fail to get your reply on several levels. Laws get voted on to become laws, later other laws can be enacted to counter previous laws and those laws must also be voted on... so, yeah, what are you saying there, smiley with the question marks indeed...

lol this forum is ridiculous. you didn't ask me anything at all, you twisted my words around and tried to make it come off like i was saying something completely different from what i was actually saying. you're right you didn't mention alaska at all, which is what we're talking about so i don't even know what you're getting at. anywayyyy......

[cunt sauce]

"Ron Paul would hold companies and individuals legally liable for any harm they do, to people or their property.

When one has a proper respect for property rights, environmental concerns go away. In a society that respects the property of others, it is cause for legal action if someone pollutes your land, or the water coming across your property, or the air which floats above it.... So while a land owner may choose to build a big factory on his land, he must be very careful to ensure that no harm comes to adjacent property owners, or he will face the unmitigated wrath of those neighbors. In the past, big businesses often colluded with government to allow them to pollute their neighbors land, leaving the adjacent owners with devalued property and no recourse."


Should justice only be allowed to those wealthy enough to afford a Lawyer? A Lawyer that is capable of battling it out with BIG OIL, BIG BEEF and BIG COAL Lawyers?

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

do you have any idea how hard it is to sue a corporation. what do you think would happen if i tried to sue the tobacco industry for second hand smoke that caused me to have asthma?

people have tried to sue meat companies that practice factory farming and they failed miserably and have even been countersued for defamation. and im not talking about suing factory farms on an animal rights premise, i mean for farms downstream from factory farms that get infested with animal waste runoff

You honestly think that more government regulation would help make any of this easier?

If anything it would complicate the problem even further, allowing those people who are so hard to win in court against, even more wiggle room.

You have to also understand that our government and military are the biggest polluters, and they also bail people out who can't pay off the damages they cause with pollution.

[cunt sauce]

You honestly think that more government regulation would help make any of this easier?

YES, now answer my question on whether or not justice would be available to everyone, NOT just those able to afford the legal costs. What about the people of the Nigerian Oil Deltas?
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2007/02/nigerian-oil/oneill-text
How are they supposed to sue?

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

http://www.mg.co.za/article/2010-01-11-shell-faces-legal-action-over-niger-delta-pollution

That's how.

Private organizations come down to lend aid. Pollution isn't tolerable. Especially on a scale such as that. However no system is perfect. There is no utopia....

I'd like to you explain your response to my question though. YES doesn't really cut it for me.

[cunt sauce]

Cool! Thanks for posting that, I hadn't heard about that yet so I'm pretty happy right now that something is finally being done.

Its kind of too late though. This has been going on for 50 years, the people there can't even fish their once living rivers for fish. Even if oil pollution stopped there tomorrow, it would still take decades and decades for nature to run its course and clean their home.

That isn't getting at the root of the problem either. Getting fucked over and suing later is like putting neosporin and band-aids on your knees all the time. Why don't you just wear knee pads when you skate son?

[cunt sauce]

http://www.mg.co.za/article/2010-01-11-shell-faces-legal-action-over-niger-delta-pollution

I'd like to you explain your response to my question though. YES doesn't really cut it for me.

look into the clean air act! it got rid of the acid rain problem in the U.S. through emissions trading. the same could be applied to the entire world for carbon emissions via an international agreement known as..... The Kyoto Protocol.

[nsmbfan]

global warming is a myth. it is too anthropomorphic to think that we as humans have that much of an impact on our world.

[Smart]

lol this forum is ridiculous. you didn't ask me anything at all...

What I said to was:

so, you would put laws in front of your individual freedom and safety?

So, here's my thing. I was under the impression that, by ending the above sentence with a question mark, I was in fact asking you a question. So, uh, my bad, or whatever.

Pardon me for thinking the drilling question was actually larger than the Alaskan refuge, sorry that I realize the Gulf of Mexico and the Pacific are full of oil deposits and oil rigs that the petro companies are trying to build close enough to be seen from shore. Forgive me if I took your little Alaskan argument to a national scale or ignored your defense of Ron Paul or whatever the fuck your point is.

"Mmm, now that's good passive aggression!"
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v608/LegendaryMidnightRider/forum/simpot16.png

[cunt sauce]

global warming is a myth. it is too anthropomorphic to think that we as humans have that much of an impact on our world.

Jackass. Global Warming is true and there is no debate even on FoxNews/CNN as to whether that is true. The debate that is currently going on TV is whether or not it is anthropogenic (human influenced) Global Warming. Additionally this debate is ONLY HAPPENING IN AMERICA. Global Climate Scientists are in consensus that our world is changing due to carbon dioxide and methane emissions, deforestation, and poor soil management. Do you understand what that means? People that have gone through years and years of education have been researching these issues globally and have all come to the conclusion that humans have caused this. Now why do you think 1/2 of Americans don't believe in Climate Change? Do you think it could be because they are listening to News Anchors like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh debate with people upon these issues? What do Politicians know about climate science? What does Sean Hannity know about Climate Science? This isn't even a political issue. You can't argue with science. If you really want me to go in depth and explain how greenhouse gases trap solar energy that reflects off of the earths surface i can start a new topic but.....

Here's some questions to ask yourself...
What do Corporations (with Politicians in their pocket i might add) have to lose if anthropogenic climate change is True? PROFITS.
And what do Climate Scientists have to gain if anthropogenic climate change is true? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

Can I also ask you, do you have any experience with science past the high school level? Or do you have any form of research that can back up this opinion of yours?

I think you need to turn of the fuckin TV and read a little bit.

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

http://www.mixtapetorrent.com/system/files/streetpolitician.jpg

[lord_casek]

Jackass. Global Warming is true and there is no debate even on FoxNews/CNN as to whether that is true. The debate that is currently going on TV is whether or not it is anthropogenic (human influenced) Global Warming. Additionally this debate is ONLY HAPPENING IN AMERICA. Global Climate Scientists are in consensus that our world is changing due to carbon dioxide and methane emissions, deforestation, and poor soil management. Do you understand what that means? People that have gone through years and years of education have been researching these issues globally and have all come to the conclusion that humans have caused this. Now why do you think 1/2 of Americans don't believe in Climate Change? Do you think it could be because they are listening to News Anchors like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh debate with people upon these issues? What do Politicians know about climate science? What does Sean Hannity know about Climate Science? This isn't even a political issue. You can't argue with science. If you really want me to go in depth and explain how greenhouse gases trap solar energy that reflects off of the earths surface i can start a new topic but.....

Here's some questions to ask yourself...
What do Corporations (with Politicians in their pocket i might add) have to lose if anthropogenic climate change is True? PROFITS.
And what do Climate Scientists have to gain if anthropogenic climate change is true? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

Can I also ask you, do you have any experience with science past the high school level? Or do you have any form of research that can back up this opinion of yours?

I think you need to turn of the fuckin TV and read a little bit.


No, scientists are not in consensus about the causes. What do scientists have to lose? Funding.

Didn't the recent three scandals involving climatologists wake you up in the least?

Agendas prevail.

[Zig]

Didn't the recent three scandals involving climatologists wake you up in the least?

no, those don't matter they mean nothing.
/sarcasm

[Zig]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vi1nxu-Sy-w

Ron Paul owns a fat guy.

[russell jones]

global warming is a myth. it is too anthropomorphic to think that we as humans have that much of an impact on our world.

I think you mean anthropogenic.

[cunt sauce]

I think you mean anthropogenic.

no anthromorphic is attributing human qualities to objects, such as the atmosphere etc...

[cunt sauce]

Didn't the recent three scandals involving climatologists wake you up in the least?



The "climagate" scandal was caused by rival scientists trying to discredit each other, it had nothing to do with the science behind climate change. Look into what was actually leaked, not what politicians and network news anchors are saying about it.

other scandals??? what the OMG EPIC SNOWFALL GLOBAL WARMING IS A MYTH!!?!?! :lol:

[cunt sauce]

i find it interesting that the argument has moved from,

"Yes the Environment is an important issue with Ron Paul, he just doesnt think regulation will do anything..."

to

"CLIMAGATE, It's a scandal! Global Warming doesn't exist!"

[cunt sauce]

What do scientists have to lose? Funding.

Hmm I think you may be on to something Casek... Scientists are a part of a global conspiracy to maintain funding for their studies. The politicians that rest in the pockets of big oil companies have been telling us the truth because they really do care about us.

Bush Aide Softened Greenhouse Gas Links to Global Warming

A White House official who once led the oil industry's fight against limits on greenhouse gases has repeatedly edited government climate reports in ways that play down links between such emissions and global warming, according to internal documents.

In handwritten notes on drafts of several reports issued in 2002 and 2003, the official, Philip A. Cooney, removed or adjusted descriptions of climate research that government scientists and their supervisors, including some senior Bush administration officials, had already approved. In many cases, the changes appeared in the final reports.

The dozens of changes, while sometimes as subtle as the insertion of the phrase "significant and fundamental" before the word "uncertainties," tend to produce an air of doubt about findings that most climate experts say are robust.

Mr. Cooney is chief of staff for the White House Council on Environmental Quality, the office that helps devise and promote administration policies on environmental issues.

Before going to the White House in 2001, he was the "climate team leader" and a lobbyist at the American Petroleum Institute, the largest trade group representing the interests of the oil industry. A lawyer with a bachelor's degree in economics, he has no scientific training.

The documents were obtained by The New York Times from the Government Accountability Project, a nonprofit legal-assistance group for government whistle-blowers.

The project is representing Rick S. Piltz, who resigned in March as a senior associate in the office that coordinates government climate research. That office, now called the Climate Change Science Program, issued the documents that Mr. Cooney edited.

A White House spokeswoman, Michele St. Martin, said yesterday that Mr. Cooney would not be available to comment. "We don't put Phil Cooney on the record," Ms. St. Martin said. "He's not a cleared spokesman."

In one instance in an October 2002 draft of a regularly published summary of government climate research, "Our Changing Planet," Mr. Cooney amplified the sense of uncertainty by adding the word "extremely" to this sentence: "The attribution of the causes of biological and ecological changes to climate change or variability is extremely difficult."

In a section on the need for research into how warming might change water availability and flooding, he crossed out a paragraph describing the projected reduction of mountain glaciers and snowpack. His note in the margins explained that this was "straying from research strategy into speculative findings/musings."

Other White House officials said the changes made by Mr. Cooney were part of the normal interagency review that takes place on all documents related to global environmental change. Robert Hopkins, a spokesman for the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, noted that one of the reports Mr. Cooney worked on, the administration's 10-year plan for climate research, was endorsed by the National Academy of Sciences. And Myron Ebell, who has long campaigned against limits on greenhouse gases as director of climate policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a libertarian group, said such editing was necessary for "consistency" in meshing programs with policy.

But critics said that while all administrations routinely vetted government reports, scientific content in such reports should be reviewed by scientists. Climate experts and representatives of environmental groups, when shown examples of the revisions, said they illustrated the significant if largely invisible influence of Mr. Cooney and other White House officials with ties to energy industries that have long fought greenhouse-gas restrictions.

In a memorandum sent last week to the top officials dealing with climate change at a dozen agencies, Mr. Piltz said the White House editing and other actions threatened to taint the government's $1.8 billion-a-year effort to clarify the causes and consequences of climate change.

"Each administration has a policy position on climate change," Mr. Piltz wrote. "But I have not seen a situation like the one that has developed under this administration during the past four years, in which politicization by the White House has fed back directly into the science program in such a way as to undermine the credibility and integrity of the program."

A senior Environmental Protection Agency scientist who works on climate questions said the White House environmental council, where Mr. Cooney works, had offered valuable suggestions on reports from time to time. But the scientist, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because all agency employees are forbidden to speak with reporters without clearance, said the kinds of changes made by Mr. Cooney had damaged morale. "I have colleagues in other agencies who express the same view, that it has somewhat of a chilling effect and has created a sense of frustration," he said.

Efforts by the Bush administration to highlight uncertainties in science pointing to human-caused warming have put the United States at odds with other nations and with scientific groups at home.

Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain, who met with President Bush at the White House yesterday, has been trying to persuade him to intensify United States efforts to curb greenhouse gases. Mr. Bush has called only for voluntary measures to slow growth in emissions through 2012.

Yesterday, saying their goal was to influence that meeting, the scientific academies of 11 countries, including those of the United States and Britain, released a joint letter saying, "The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action."

The American Petroleum Institute, where Mr. Cooney worked before going to the White House, has long taken a sharply different view. Starting with the negotiations leading to the Kyoto Protocol climate treaty in 1997, it has promoted the idea that lingering uncertainties in climate science justify delaying restrictions on emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping smokestack and tailpipe gases.

On learning of the White House revisions, representatives of some environmental groups said the effort to amplify uncertainties in the science was clearly intended to delay consideration of curbs on the gases, which remain an unavoidable byproduct of burning oil and coal.

"They've got three more years, and the only way to control this issue and do nothing about it is to muddy the science," said Eileen Claussen, the president of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, a private group that has enlisted businesses in programs cutting emissions.

Mr. Cooney's alterations can cause clear shifts in meaning. For example, a sentence in the October 2002 draft of "Our Changing Planet" originally read, "Many scientific observations indicate that the Earth is undergoing a period of relatively rapid change." In a neat, compact hand, Mr. Cooney modified the sentence to read, "Many scientific observations point to the conclusion that the Earth may be undergoing a period of relatively rapid change."

A document showing a similar pattern of changes is the 2003 "Strategic Plan for the United States Climate Change Science Program," a thick report describing the reorganization of government climate research that was requested by Mr. Bush in his first speech on the issue, in June 2001. The document was reviewed by an expert panel assembled in 2003 by the National Academy of Sciences. The scientists largely endorsed the administration's research plan, but they warned that the administration's procedures for vetting reports on climate could result in excessive political interference with science.

Another political appointee who has played an influential role in adjusting language in government reports on climate science is Dr. Harlan L. Watson, the chief climate negotiator for the State Department, who has a doctorate in solid-state physics but has not done climate research.

In an Oct. 4, 2002 memo to James R. Mahoney, the head of the United States Climate Change Science Program and an appointee of Mr. Bush, Mr. Watson "strongly" recommended cutting boxes of text referring to the findings of a National Academy of Sciences panel on climate and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations body that periodically reviews research on human-caused climate change.

The boxes, he wrote, "do not include an appropriate recognition of the underlying uncertainties and the tentative nature of a number of the assertions."

While those changes were made nearly two years ago, recent statements by Dr. Watson indicate that the administration's position has not changed.

"We are still not convinced of the need to move forward quite so quickly," he told the BBC in London last month. "There is general agreement that there is a lot known, but also there is a lot to be known."

[cunt sauce]

Philip Cooney ended up resigning because of the scandal. He is no longer in politics. Guess what he's doing now? He works for EXXON MOBILE.

[Mainframe]

No, scientists are not in consensus about the causes. What do scientists have to lose? Funding.

Didn't the recent three scandals involving climatologists wake you up in the least?

Agendas prevail.

Sorry dude, but your tin foil hat is showing again...

http://www.jessicadunton.com/blog/TinfoilHat.jpg

[lord_casek]

The "climagate" scandal was caused by rival scientists trying to discredit each other, it had nothing to do with the science behind climate change. Look into what was actually leaked, not what politicians and network news anchors are saying about it.

other scandals??? what the OMG EPIC SNOWFALL GLOBAL WARMING IS A MYTH!!?!?! :lol:


Uh, did you even read the emails? They discussed the how to's on manipulating and hiding data, they discussed doing whatever it takes to discredit anyone who disagrees, they discussed altering the programming in software they use to swing the data in their favor, etc. etc.

I actually read through the whole thing. Maybe you should do the same?

[lord_casek]

i find it interesting that the argument has moved from,

"Yes the Environment is an important issue with Ron Paul, he just doesnt think regulation will do anything..."

to

"CLIMAGATE, It's a scandal! Global Warming doesn't exist!"


'Climategate' Professor Phil Jones 'considered suicide over email scandal'


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7180154/Climategate-Professor-Phil-Jones-considered-suicide-over-email-scandal.html

[Decyferon]

I don't really see what relevance that article has to the arguement though Casek, all it shows is that all the media hype and hate mail the guy recieved made him depressed and contemplated suicide. Personally I can see why the scientist were so defensive about the emails and trying to discredit their opposition because the people opposed to climate change certainly would use the exact same tactics.

[lord_casek]

I don't really see what relevance that article has to the arguement though Casek, all it shows is that all the media hype and hate mail the guy recieved made him depressed and contemplated suicide. Personally I can see why the scientist were so defensive about the emails and trying to discredit their opposition because the people opposed to climate change certainly would use the exact same tactics.


It wasn't limited to discrediting. They were discussing the manipulation of data to go along with their agenda. Even in the code that was released there are programmer notes on how
he made changes/manipulated datasets.

It's plain and simple fraud on a global scale (considering this was the main reporting unit to the IPCC)

[Decyferon]

I am not saying what they did was right, however I don't think their actions completely discredit global warming. I am more inclined to agree with global warming than disagree with it, the level of pollutoin that man has inflicted on this planet doesn't just happen with no consequences.

[lord_casek]

I am not saying what they did was right, however I don't think their actions completely discredit global warming. I am more inclined to agree with global warming than disagree with it, the level of pollutoin that man has inflicted on this planet doesn't just happen with no consequences.


It discredits anything they have to say about it.

[Decyferon]

maybe it discredits what they have to say but it doesn't discredit global warming as a whole, it wasn't every single scientist that has studied and agrees with global warming that was part of this, I don't believe that the damage we have done to the planet hasn't had any consequnce, I think that would be fairly naive an idea.

[lord_casek]

maybe it discredits what they have to say but it doesn't discredit global warming as a whole, it wasn't every single scientist that has studied and agrees with global warming that was part of this, I don't believe that the damage we have done to the planet hasn't had any consequnce, I think that would be fairly naive an idea.


East Anglia is the main hub for reporting to the IPCC. The emails clearly show that
there was communication between several top climate reporting Uni's around the globe.
It shows that these scientists (the ones involved in this debacle) were promoting an agenda.


That's all I'm saying. These guys are corrupt and we shouldn't listen to anything they have to
say.

Any other scientists I'm willing to listen to. Just not anyone connected to the UN's IPCC or East Anglia.


Let me back up my claims with this picture
http://imgur.com/IvKr0.jpg

[Decyferon]

but then on the flip side I bet the scientists saying there is no such thing as global warming get plenty of kickbacks from major oil companies and the like

[cunt sauce]

'Climategate' Professor Phil Jones 'considered suicide over email scandal'


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7180154/Climategate-Professor-Phil-Jones-considered-suicide-over-email-scandal.html

Lord Casek, you negapropped me for "talking out of my ass". I'm sorry but can I ask you to explain the actual SCIENCE behind Climate Change if you are so convinced its a bunch of bullshit? I think you are the one that is talking out of your ass.

There is no scientific debate on whether Climate Change exists, There is only a Political Debate. Its a few Politicians and Corporate Assholes that are either too stupid to research the topic before drawing an opinion, or they just really don't care about future generations on this planet.

Look at the Philip Cooney character, an ex-lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute that was chief of staff of the Council on Environmental Quality in Bush's Administration. He edited the climate reports that reached congress, and it is a proven fact. He resigned after it went public. He now works for Exxon.

If you ask me, the Phillip Cooney story is way worse than a couple emails that went public.

This debate in here started because I said I would never vote for Ron Paul because of his view on the environment. No one in this thread has made me even consider voting for him.

[lord_casek]

Lord Casek, you negapropped me for "talking out of my ass". I'm sorry but can I ask you to explain the actual SCIENCE behind Climate Change if you are so convinced its a bunch of bullshit? I think you are the one that is talking out of your ass.

There is no scientific debate on whether Climate Change exists, There is only a Political Debate. Its a few Politicians and Corporate Assholes that are either too stupid to research the topic before drawing an opinion, or they just really don't care about future generations on this planet.

Look at the Philip Cooney character, an ex-lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute that was chief of staff of the Council on Environmental Quality in Bush's Administration. He edited the climate reports that reached congress, and it is a proven fact. He resigned after it went public. He now works for Exxon.

If you ask me, the Phillip Cooney story is way worse than a couple emails that went public.

This debate in here started because I said I would never vote for Ron Paul because of his view on the environment. No one in this thread has made me even consider voting for him.


You claimed and are still claiming that this is of little importance. That is why you got negaprops.

This "climategate" is of great importance. Have you not got it in your head that East Anglea is the reporting center for the IPCC? This isn't just an isolate few scientists.

Wanna talk about profits? Let's talk about Al Gore. Mr. Greenthumbs. Check into carbon credits and Al's company "Blood and Gore" (no shit, that's the name). Seems Al has already raked in tons by fearmongering liberals and children into believing that the oceans will rise and swallow up half of N. America, etc etc.

You should really see his house. All lit up with it's 20k a month power bill....but he's not home. He's flying around on his private jet collecting money from speaking tours and fearmongering.

It swings on both sides of the aisle, my friend.

[lord_casek]

Scientists Taking Steps to Defend Work on Climate
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/03/science/earth/03climate.html?th&emc=th

[russell jones]

It discredits anything they have to say about it.

Climategate is a load of horseshit. If anything, it shows that lay people jump to conclusions based on insufficient evidence far easier than scientists. From http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/

"Some critics claim that the e-mails invalidate the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (http://www.ipcc.ch/index.htm), the world scientific body that reaffirmed in a 2007 report (http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf)that the earth is warming, sea levels are rising and that human activity is "very likely" the cause of "most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century." But the IPCC’s 2007 report, its most recent synthesis of scientific findings from around the globe, incorporates data from three working groups, each of which made use of data from a huge number of sources — of which CRU was only one. The synthesis report notes key disagreements and uncertainties but makes the "robust" conclusion that "warming of the climate system is unequivocal." (A robust finding is defined as "one that holds under a variety of approaches, methods, models and assumptions, and is expected to be relatively unaffected by uncertainties.")"

There is no smoking gun. It's science.

[russell jones]

Scientists Taking Steps to Defend Work on Climate
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/03/science/earth/03climate.html?th&emc=th

That is not a bad article, it certainly does not support your views in any way ,shape or form though. How about this line:

"Some of the most serious allegations against Dr. Jones, director of the climate research unit at the University of East Anglia, and other researchers have been debunked, while several investigations are still under way to determine whether others hold up. "

This line is also telling:

"The battle is asymmetric, in the sense that scientists feel compelled to support their findings with careful observation and replicable analysis, while their critics are free to make sweeping statements condemning their work as fraudulent."

Just because many of the possible solutions to anthropogenic global warming are distasteful to you Casek, does not mean that it does not exist.

[lord_casek]

I saw that factcheck page. I don't know what to make of it. Who funded the creation of that site? Is it bipartisan?

Those emails are very telling. Especially the parts about the code.

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-green/ron-paul-should-be-presid_b_481835.html

lolz

[El Mamerro]

The climategate "scandal" was a giant load of hoo hah. In addition to the fact that the findings have been independently supported by many other groups worldwide, as well as the raw data being 100% freely available for anyone to pore over, the emails were evidence of very routine dealings that any scientist who has ever dealt in peer review journals and scientific journalism in general recognizes as part of the selection process. All of my scientist buddies were completely flabbergasted as to how that shit was interpreted.

And lets not forget that of 11 years worth of emails, that's the closest "evidence" they found that even remotely suggests some kind of cover up. Wow, great sleuthing guys!

[lord_casek]

The climategate "scandal" was a giant load of hoo hah. In addition to the fact that the findings have been independently supported by many other groups worldwide, as well as the raw data being 100% freely available for anyone to pore over, the emails were evidence of very routine dealings that any scientist who has ever dealt in peer review journals and scientific journalism in general recognizes as part of the selection process. All of my scientist buddies were completely flabbergasted as to how that shit was interpreted.

And lets not forget that of 11 years worth of emails, that's the closest "evidence" they found that even remotely suggests some kind of cover up.


Really? They discussed how to make the data bend to their agenda, the programmers notes discuss how he made it bend to the agenda, etc.


; Plots 24 yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD reconstructions
; of growing season temperatures. Uses "corrected" MXD - but shouldn't usually
; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures.



; Computes regressions on full, high and low pass Esper et al. (2002) series,
; anomalies against full NH temperatures and other series.
; CALIBRATES IT AGAINST THE LAND-ONLY TEMPERATURES NORTH OF 20 N
;
; Specify period over which to compute the regressions (stop in 1960 to avoid
; the decline



; Specify period over which to compute the regressions (stop in 1960 to avoid
; the decline that affects tree-ring density records)
;

17. Inserted debug statements into anomdtb.f90, discovered that
a sum-of-squared variable is becoming very, very negative! Key
output from the debug statements:
(..)
forrtl: error (75): floating point exception
IOT trap (core dumped)
..so the data value is unbfeasibly large, but why does the
sum-of-squares parameter OpTotSq go negative?!!


Well, dtr2cld is not the world's most complicated program. Wheras cloudreg is, and I
immediately found a mistake! Scanning forward to 1951 was done with a loop that, for
completely unfathomable reasons, didn't include months! So we read 50 grids instead
of 600!!! That may have had something to do with it. I also noticed, as I was correcting
THAT, that I reopened the DTR and CLD data files when I should have been opening the
bloody station files!!

[russell jones]

I saw that factcheck page. I don't know what to make of it. Who funded the creation of that site? Is it bipartisan?

Those emails are very telling. Especially the parts about the code.

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

They are bipartisan, and they seem to take that stance seriously. They criticize everyone fairly equally.

[Mainframe]

Casek, none of what you just posted proves anything unless you provide a LOT more context. Your assumptions are hemorrhaging right through your meager 'evidence.'


The climategate "scandal" was a giant load of hoo hah. In addition to the fact that the findings have been independently supported by many other groups worldwide, as well as the raw data being 100% freely available for anyone to pore over, the emails were evidence of very routine dealings that any scientist who has ever dealt in peer review journals and scientific journalism in general recognizes as part of the selection process. All of my scientist buddies were completely flabbergasted as to how that shit was interpreted.

And lets not forget that of 11 years worth of emails, that's the closest "evidence" they found that even remotely suggests some kind of cover up. Wow, great sleuthing guys!

Thank you, I've been saying this for a while. I have a lot of respect for scientists and this amateur-climatologist/conspiracy-nut bullshit pisses me off. It reminds me of some fat slob in the stands trying to heckle a pro athlete...

[lord_casek]

Casek, none of what you just posted proves anything unless you provide a LOT more context. Your assumptions are hemorrhaging right through your meager 'evidence.'




Thank you, I've been saying this for a while. I have a lot of respect for scientists and this amateur-climatologist/conspiracy-nut bullshit pisses me off. It reminds me of some fat slob in the stands trying to heckle a pro athlete...


(stop in 1960 to avoid
; the decline that affects tree-ring density records)

[cunt sauce]

Lord Casek, you negapropped me for "talking out of my ass". I'm sorry but can I ask you to explain the actual SCIENCE behind Climate Change if you are so convinced its a bunch of bullshit? ????

[Mainframe]

(stop in 1960 to avoid
; the decline that affects tree-ring density records)

...and? Which decline? How are tree-ring density records affected and what exactly are the tree-ring density records indicative of? This sounds like a certain method of analysis is only accurate within a certain time period. Doesn't sound unusual. Nothing here indicates funny business.

I'm baffled that you can't see how much you're reading into this "evidence."

[cunt sauce]

????

???

[Smart]

Somewhere I read this thing, manifesto, diatribe, I forget, but it was in the last couple weeks. Anyway, it started out well by down playing the holocaust in some sort of 'knifey-spoony' Aussie strategy... "That's not a holocaust, THIS is a holocaust!".

And that always butters up the crowd... to hear the 'truth'!

In this case, the truth is DDT, or, rather the crux is DDT, the truth is that it's ban led to "literally brazilians of deaths!" from malaria and related disease. The US govt. and really all the empirical nations are desperately trying to cover this up. They don't want the blighted to recognize the blunder/subjugation SO...

here it comes...

wait for it...

'They' INVENTED global warming.

So, now we know...

It went on to say that I should join the Teabaggers. The entire reason I bring it up in here is because they had a Ron Paul link, plus, to, you know, promote awareness... and stuff...

[lord_casek]

Somewhere I read this thing, manifesto, diatribe, I forget, but it was in the last couple weeks. Anyway, it started out well by down playing the holocaust in some sort of 'knifey-spoony' Aussie strategy... "That's not a holocaust, THIS is a holocaust!".

And that always butters up the crowd... to hear the 'truth'!

In this case, the truth is DDT, or, rather the crux is DDT, the truth is that it's ban led to "literally brazilians of deaths!" from malaria and related disease. The US govt. and really all the empirical nations are desperately trying to cover this up. They don't want the blighted to recognize the blunder/subjugation SO...

here it comes...

wait for it...

'They' INVENTED global warming.

So, now we know...

It went on to say that I should join the Teabaggers. The entire reason I bring it up in here is because they had a Ron Paul link, plus, to, you know, promote awareness... and stuff...


The manual for my microwave invited me to David Crosby's fat camp.

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

Not agreeing to the man's approach on how to deal with Global Warming is fine, saying that nothing is being done is something completely different.

Ron Paul needs to dump the Republican party and go back to his Independent roots.

It's prime time for a Independent candidate to take office.

[cunt sauce]

The manual for my microwave invited me to David Crosby's fat camp.

casek can you please explain to me your understanding of the "theory" of climate change. drop the political aspect and just tell me what scientific research you have observed. you have a pretty strong viewpoint, so it would seem that you would have a great understanding of this topic, but i have not once seen you bring any science into this. all of your "research" that you have cited is from google searches. none of them are science related at all, and it goes back to my point that the current debate on climate change is not a scientific debate, it is a political debate. stop listening to what other people have to say about the social aspects of this and read a fucking science book. its pretty simple.