Ron Paul Reality Check

[LaMarcus Bryant]

Ron Paul Reality Check

http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/blogs/voices.php/2007/11/02/p20743

As self-professed champion of the Constitution, presidential candidate Ron Paul has missed a monumental opportunity to educate Americans about the criminal behavior of Congress in violating their oath of office. Even more important, he has not taken advantage of his 15 minutes of fame to promote the nation’s first-time use of what the Founders gave us in the Constitution in case the public lost confidence in the federal government - the Article V convention option.

Paul clearly recognizes the many failures of the federal government. Maybe as a member of Congress he just does not have the courage to confess that he too has been part of a long-standing refusal by Congress to obey Article V of the Constitution. Why don’t passionate Paul supporters see his lack of integrity, guts and consistency?

Support for using the Article V convention option should be a litmus test for any presidential candidate, which is reasonable considering that Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt supported it.

First, let’s be clear that Paul has no problem in seeing the need for constitutional amendments. For example, he has been a proponent of an amendment that would not allow children born in the USA from illegal parents to become citizens. Second, he has maintained throughout his career his love and respect for our Constitution. Third, he has carefully refused to publicly state his views on the provision in Article V of the Constitution for the use of a convention of state delegates to make proposed amendments as the alternative to Congress proposing amendments (the only procedure used for 220 years). Fourth, he has made no attempt to pass any law that would modify, clarify or expand the single requirement now in Article V for a convention. How can a champion of the Constitution remain so silent on Congress’s refusal to honor over 500 applications from all 50 states for a convention that more than satisfies the one and only requirement in Article V?

Anyone who studies the history of attempts to get the first Article V convention will learn that it has consistently been opposed by people and groups on the political left and right that are part of the nation’s elitist political status quo establishment. So here is Ron Paul, supposedly an honest non-elitist political maverick that does not fit into the political establishment, yet too cowardly to stand up to the political establishment by backing the use of the Article V convention option. Paul has had virtually no real impact on what Congress has done, yet he does not support the convention option that would circumvent the power of Congress. What does he have to lose?

Of course, if all the passionate supporters of Paul would spend more time investigating all his congressional activities, they would find a lot more to seriously question. A chief example is that he has routinely inserted earmarks for pork spending to make constituents in his district happy. Then he hides behind his votes against the spending bills containing his earmark spending items. But those earmarks remain in those spending bills passed by Congress. Tell me, is that really virtuous behavior? His earmarks increase federal activities and spending. Many have been for projects by the Army Corps of Engineers, many to funnel money to the Texas Department of Transportation (including one for repairs to the Galveston Trolley system), and one for Texas A&M University/Galveston Campus to convert the Texas Clipper for educational purposes; maybe this was the $30 million for the Texas Maritime Academy to refurbish a ship. And then there was the $8 million for the marketing of wild American shrimp and $2.3 million to pay for research into shrimp fishing. This seems like pretty conventional Republican politics. This year Paul has requested about $400 million worth of federal spending for his district – not exactly consistent with Paul’s rhetoric on reducing federal spending and taxing. His duty is to inform his constituents about the wrongness of earmarks, not capitulate to their requests.

There is still time for Paul to search his soul and find the courage to either to support use of the Article V convention as the route to achieving deep political reforms that Congress itself will never have the integrity to propose through constitutional amendments, or to step up and make the case for an amendment that would remove the never-used Article V convention option.

Here is some irony. With our thoroughly corrupt and rigged political system Ron Paul has absolutely zero chance of becoming the Republican presidential nominee, regardless of his high level of grassroots support. Odd then that Paul has not supported the one and only route to profoundly changing this awful political system. It is the method our Founders gave us with the Article V convention option. Indeed, his lack of support for using the Article V convention option seems to makes him a part of the political establishment, which is consistent with his recent announcement that if he does not get the Republican nomination he will not run as a third party candidate.

[Galileo]

Ron Paul in Three Major Films

Here are excerpts of Ron Paul in three major films that have been spending a lot of time in the Google Video Top 100:

Ron Paul In ENDGAME

[from: Endgame - Blueprint for Global Enslavement by Alex Jones]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3936270660976349724&q=ron+paul+endgame&total=54&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1

Why I'm voting for Ron Paul

[from: America - From Freedom to Fascism by Aaron Russo]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4298957765530631953&q=ron+paul+freedom+to+facism&total=7&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

Ron Paul on Federal Reserve, banking and economy

[from: Fiat Empire - Why the Federal Reserve Violates the U.S. Constitution]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8201117796365456721&q=ron+paul+fiat+empire&total=31&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

It should be noted that these films are getting thousands of downloads each day, and millions per year. No small bookseller can get their message out like you can on Google Video.

It should be noted that there are very few political films in the Google Video Top 100, so these films are reaching a demographic that is mostly out of reach of the MSM.

[Galileo]

Ron Paul Reality Check

http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/blogs/voices.php/2007/11/02/p20743

As self-professed champion of the Constitution, presidential candidate Ron Paul has missed a monumental opportunity to educate Americans about the criminal behavior of Congress in violating their oath of office. Even more important, he has not taken advantage of his 15 minutes of fame to promote the nation’s first-time use of what the Founders gave us in the Constitution in case the public lost confidence in the federal government - the Article V convention option.

Paul clearly recognizes the many failures of the federal government. Maybe as a member of Congress he just does not have the courage to confess that he too has been part of a long-standing refusal by Congress to obey Article V of the Constitution. Why don’t passionate Paul supporters see his lack of integrity, guts and consistency?

Support for using the Article V convention option should be a litmus test for any presidential candidate, which is reasonable considering that Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt supported it.

First, let’s be clear that Paul has no problem in seeing the need for constitutional amendments. For example, he has been a proponent of an amendment that would not allow children born in the USA from illegal parents to become citizens. Second, he has maintained throughout his career his love and respect for our Constitution. Third, he has carefully refused to publicly state his views on the provision in Article V of the Constitution for the use of a convention of state delegates to make proposed amendments as the alternative to Congress proposing amendments (the only procedure used for 220 years). Fourth, he has made no attempt to pass any law that would modify, clarify or expand the single requirement now in Article V for a convention. How can a champion of the Constitution remain so silent on Congress’s refusal to honor over 500 applications from all 50 states for a convention that more than satisfies the one and only requirement in Article V?

Anyone who studies the history of attempts to get the first Article V convention will learn that it has consistently been opposed by people and groups on the political left and right that are part of the nation’s elitist political status quo establishment. So here is Ron Paul, supposedly an honest non-elitist political maverick that does not fit into the political establishment, yet too cowardly to stand up to the political establishment by backing the use of the Article V convention option. Paul has had virtually no real impact on what Congress has done, yet he does not support the convention option that would circumvent the power of Congress. What does he have to lose?

Of course, if all the passionate supporters of Paul would spend more time investigating all his congressional activities, they would find a lot more to seriously question. A chief example is that he has routinely inserted earmarks for pork spending to make constituents in his district happy. Then he hides behind his votes against the spending bills containing his earmark spending items. But those earmarks remain in those spending bills passed by Congress. Tell me, is that really virtuous behavior? His earmarks increase federal activities and spending. Many have been for projects by the Army Corps of Engineers, many to funnel money to the Texas Department of Transportation (including one for repairs to the Galveston Trolley system), and one for Texas A&M University/Galveston Campus to convert the Texas Clipper for educational purposes; maybe this was the $30 million for the Texas Maritime Academy to refurbish a ship. And then there was the $8 million for the marketing of wild American shrimp and $2.3 million to pay for research into shrimp fishing. This seems like pretty conventional Republican politics. This year Paul has requested about $400 million worth of federal spending for his district – not exactly consistent with Paul’s rhetoric on reducing federal spending and taxing. His duty is to inform his constituents about the wrongness of earmarks, not capitulate to their requests.

There is still time for Paul to search his soul and find the courage to either to support use of the Article V convention as the route to achieving deep political reforms that Congress itself will never have the integrity to propose through constitutional amendments, or to step up and make the case for an amendment that would remove the never-used Article V convention option.

Here is some irony. With our thoroughly corrupt and rigged political system Ron Paul has absolutely zero chance of becoming the Republican presidential nominee, regardless of his high level of grassroots support. Odd then that Paul has not supported the one and only route to profoundly changing this awful political system. It is the method our Founders gave us with the Article V convention option. Indeed, his lack of support for using the Article V convention option seems to makes him a part of the political establishment, which is consistent with his recent announcement that if he does not get the Republican nomination he will not run as a third party candidate.

Ron Paul is a 6-1 shot to be the next president.

Here are the latest Las Vegas Odds:

2008 Presidential Race (All Bets Action)
11-04-08 6:05 PM

Hillary Clinton 1-3

Al Gore 4-1

John McCain 5-1

George Allen Jr 50-1

Rudy Giuliani 5-1

Sam Brownback 25-1

Bill Richardson 50-1

Mark Warner 30-1

Mitt Romney 8-1

Mike Huckabee 50-1

Evan Bayh 40-1

Chuck Hagel 200-1

Colin Powell 50-1

Joe Biden 50-1

Bill Frist 50-1

John Edwards 6-1

Newt Gingrich 20-1

Tom Vilsack 50-1

Russ Feingold 50-1

Barack Obama 7-2

Rick Santorum 80-1

Tom Tancredo 100-1

Mike Gravel 100-1

Tom Ridge 60-1

Tom Daschle 60-1

Bill Owens 100-1

Bob Kerrey 100-1

John Kerry 40-1

George Pataki 50-1

Condoleezza Rice 30-1

Gary Locke 100-1

Dick Gephardt 100-1

Wesley Clark 20-1

Dick Cheney 75-1

Howard Dean 100-1

Alberto Gonzales 100-1

Bob Ehrlich 100-1

Charles Schumer 100-1

Harold Ford Jr 100-1

Jack Kemp 100-1

Jeb Bush 100-1

Jay Rockefeller 100-1

Ralph Nader 100-1

Paul Bremmer 150-1

Joe Lieberman 150-1

Bob Graham 150-1

Michael Bloomberg 15-1

Tommy Franks 200-1

Jesse Jackson 200-1

George W Bush 200-1

Dennis Kucinich 200-1

Arnold Schwarzenegger 250-1

Bill Clinton 300-1

Paul Wolfowitz 750-1

Alan Keyes 750-1

Elizabeth Dole 750-1

Clint Eastwood 750-1

Ted Kennedy 750-1

Bill OReilly 750-1

Laura Bush 500-1

James Carville 1000-1

Jesse Ventura 1000-1

Al Sharpton 500-1

John Ashcroft 1500-1

Donald Rumsfeld 500-1

Pat Robertson 2000-1

Bill Maher 2500-1

Donald Trump 1000-1

Michael Moore 1000-1

Chris Dodd 100-1

Doug Stanhope 50-1

Wayne Root 1000-1

Ron Paul 6-1

Fred Thompson 4-1

Tommy Thompson 200-1

Duncan Hunter 200-1

http://www.sportsbook.com/sportsbook/livelines.php?st=203

Look under "Exotics".

[Wild Cobra]

Here are the latest Las Vegas Odds:


Hmmmm.... how does one trust this site?

75.00% Hillary Clinton
22.22% Barack Obama
20.00% Al Gore
20.00% Fred Thompson
16.67% John McCain
16.67% Rudy Giuliani
14.29% John Edwards
14.29% Ron Paul
11.11% Mitt Romney

etc.
etc.

290.72% Total

Now I'm no expert, but shouldn't the odds add up to near 100%?

Look at the democrats, hillary 1:2, Obama 8:5. 66.7% and 38.5%. Just the two are above 100%!

Is this a legit site?

Also, if Hillary gets a 66.7% chance in the primary, how does she get a 75% chance ofbeing president? With the democrats having 61.5% projection of winning, that's only a 41% chance of winning. Not 75%.

[Galileo]

Hmmmm.... how does one trust this site?

75.00% Hillary Clinton
22.22% Barack Obama
20.00% Al Gore
20.00% Fred Thompson
16.67% John McCain
16.67% Rudy Giuliani
14.29% John Edwards
14.29% Ron Paul
11.11% Mitt Romney

etc.
etc.

290.72% Total

Now I'm no expert, but shouldn't the odds add up to near 100%?

Look at the democrats, hillary 1:2, Obama 8:5. 66.7% and 38.5%. Just the two are above 100%!

Is this a legit site?

Also, if Hillary gets a 66.7% chance in the primary, how does she get a 75% chance ofbeing president? With the democrats having 61.5% projection of winning, that's only a 41% chance of winning. Not 75%.

It adds up to over 100% so the house can make a profit.

To calculate the odds of winning, you must multiply the stated odds by the ratio 100/290.72

www.sportsbook.com is the # 1 online bookmaker in the world.

If you take a closer look at the odds, you can see that Ron Paul is considered the best chance to win a general election for the GOP.

Since he is 4-1 to get the nomination, and 6-1 to win the general election, he is 2/3 likely to win the general election if he gets the nomination.

Since Ron Paul most closely matches the general public on the war issue, this make sense.

[Galileo]

Ron Paul is in third place in the GOP primary at www.Intrade.com as well:

2008.GOP.NOM.GIULIANI
Rudy Giuliani to be the Republican Presidential Nominee in 2008 M 38.2 40.6 38.1 121501 -3.9
2008.GOP.NOM.ROMNEY
Mitt Romney to be the Republican Presidential Nominee in 2008 M 28.3 28.7 28.7 99620 +0.2
2008.GOP.NOM.THOMPSON(F)
Fred Thompson to be the Republican Presidential Nominee in 2008 M 7.7 7.9 7.7 91477 -0.6
2008.GOP.NOM.MCCAIN
John McCain to be the Republican Presidential Nominee in 2008 M 7.0 7.3 7.0 150096 -0.1
2008.GOP.NOM.PAUL
Ron Paul to be the Republican Presidential Nominee in 2008 M 8.1 8.3 8.2 72893 -0.5
2008.GOP.NOM.HUCKABEE
Mike Huckabee to be the Republican Presidential Nominee in 2008 M 5.6 5.7 5.6 60512 +1.1

http://www.intrade.com/jsp/intrade/contractSearch/

[braeden0613]

Of course, if all the passionate supporters of Paul would spend more time investigating all his congressional activities, they would find a lot more to seriously question. A chief example is that he has routinely inserted earmarks for pork spending to make constituents in his district happy. Then he hides behind his votes against the spending bills containing his earmark spending items. But those earmarks remain in those spending bills passed by Congress. Tell me, is that really virtuous behavior? His earmarks increase federal activities and spending. Many have been for projects by the Army Corps of Engineers, many to funnel money to the Texas Department of Transportation (including one for repairs to the Galveston Trolley system), and one for Texas A&M University/Galveston Campus to convert the Texas Clipper for educational purposes; maybe this was the $30 million for the Texas Maritime Academy to refurbish a ship. And then there was the $8 million for the marketing of wild American shrimp and $2.3 million to pay for research into shrimp fishing. This seems like pretty conventional Republican politics. This year Paul has requested about $400 million worth of federal spending for his district – not exactly consistent with Paul’s rhetoric on reducing federal spending and taxing. His duty is to inform his constituents about the wrongness of earmarks, not capitulate to their requests.

I guess Ill beat this dead horse again. The money will go somewhere, so why wouldnt he want it for his district?? The fact is he has never taken a tax-payer funded junket, refuses medicare, and chose to not accept federal aid for his daughter's college tuition (to name a few). How many politicians can say that? Articles like these are ridiculous. You could fill the oceans with all the backroom deals and lies from all the other candidates and yet Paul is written off b/c of this.

[PixelPusher]

Now I'm no expert, but shouldn't the odds add up to near 100%?

Look at the democrats, hillary 1:2, Obama 8:5. 66.7% and 38.5%. Just the two are above 100%!

Is this a legit site?

The logic behind Vegas odds is "how do we entice people to lay down more bets".

[Nbadan]

RON PAUL IS CRAZY!!! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYCr_718ccI)

[Holt's Cat]

So Paul is not perfect and hasn't publicly supported some obscure constitutional procedure. :jack

[ChumpDumper]

I applaud Wild Cobra's complete understanding of betting odds.

[BradLohaus]

RON PAUL IS CRAZY!!! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYCr_718ccI)

I think this guy thinks that when Ron Paul wants to get rid of something that the federal government does, then he also wants prevent state or local government from doing it as well.

For example, Paul wants Roe v. Wade overturned, but he wants the states to make their own abortion laws.

He wants to get rid of the Department of Education, but I haven't seen him say that he wants to ban all public education in the states, and I seriously doubt that he wants to.

Just because he wants to get rid of a federal regulation does not mean that he intends to get rid of the states' power to regulate; he wouldn't have the power to do that anyway.

Paul also wants to end corporate welfare and the personal income tax, but he didn't mention that. The guy even brought up the newsletter thing. I can't believe he didn't bring up earmarks; I'm guessing he's never heard of that one.

[Wild Cobra]

Again Brad, I like Ron Paul except for his stance of being Commander in Chief. That is a seriously important role, and he deviates too much from my beliefs.

I would love to see a conservative leaning libertarian as president. Just not him.

[mookie2001]

right because youre prowar and hes not

[Nbadan]

How did Ron Paul raise all of that money (4.2 million) on November 5th?

Ron Paul's Money (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ToRSSlocgv0)

[DarkReign]

If you think you can rise to the national stage without dirtying your pure little hands, youre delusional. Everyone's hands need to be properly greased. If it didnt go to his district, it'd be in Wyoming preventing a 9/11-type terrorist attack there.

[xrayzebra]

right because youre prowar and hes not


Ever hear the phrase "Peace for our time". It was uttered
by a British Prime Minister after a meeting with Hitler.

And the following taken from wikipedia.




The phrase "peace for our time" was spoken on 30 September, 1938 by British prime minister Neville Chamberlain in his speech concerning the Munich Agreement, often misquoted as "peace in our time". It is primarily remembered for its ironic value. The Munich Agreement gave the Sudetenland of Czechoslovakia to Hitler in an attempt to satisfy his desire for Lebensraum or "living space" for Germany. The German invasion of Sudetenland began on 1 October.

One year after the agreement, following continued aggression from Germany and its invasion of Poland, Europe was plunged into World War II.Peace in our time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_for_our_time)

[mookie2001]

ever hear of the gulf of tonkin 1964?

[Cant_Be_Faded]

ever hear of the gulf of tonkin 1964?



I don't listen to hip hop.

[Galileo]

Ron Paul Money Bomb for the Boston Tea Party!

On December 16th, 1773, American colonists dumped tea into the Boston Harbor to protest an
oppressive tax. This December 16th, American citizens will dump millions of dollars into the
Ron Paul presidential campaign to protest the oppressive and unconstitutional inflation tax
(which has enabled a flawed foreign policy, a costly war and the sacrificing
of our liberties here at home).

http://www.teaparty07.com/

[xrayzebra]

ever hear of the gulf of tonkin 1964?

That was a dimm-0-crap liberal that made that up,
supposedly, right?

[mookie2001]

made what up?

[Nbadan]

That was a dimm-0-crap liberal that made that up,
supposedly, right?

:lol

....Tonkin was made up....

(we need a irony symbol...any suggestions?)

[Nbadan]

Ron Paul Money Bomb for the Boston Tea Party!

On December 16th, 1773, American colonists dumped tea into the Boston Harbor to protest an
oppressive tax. This December 16th, American citizens will dump millions of dollars into the
Ron Paul presidential campaign to protest the oppressive and unconstitutional inflation tax
(which has enabled a flawed foreign policy, a costly war and the sacrificing
of our liberties here at home).

http://www.teaparty07.com/

...Anarchist....

[mookie2001]

a little mission accomplished banner

[Yonivore]

It's possible Ron Paul has hit a bit of a snag in his campaign...

The Ron Paul Campaign and its Neo-Nazi Supporters (http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/11/the_ron_paul_campaign_and_its.html)

[Galileo]

It's possible Ron Paul has hit a bit of a snag in his campaign...

The Ron Paul Campaign and its Neo-Nazi Supporters (http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/11/the_ron_paul_campaign_and_its.html)

The Neo-Nazis will be upset when they find this out:

Press Releases › Ron Paul is Highest-Polling Republican Among Black Voters
October 24, 2007 10:12 am EST

ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA--Public opinion service Rasmussen Reports recently released data indicating that Texas congressman Ron Paul is the top Republican presidential candidate among African-American voters.

1200 individuals were polled and asked if they preferred Ron Paul to Democratic presidential candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. 33 percent of Black voters chose Congressman Paul over Senator Clinton and 31 percent over Senator Obama. Rasmussen Reports polled voters on their preference for the other GOP contenders over Clinton and Obama, and all polled lower than Congressman Paul. John McCain was preferred over Clinton and Obama by 24 and 16 percent, and Mitt Romney by 20 and 27 percent, respectively. Rudy Giuliani was only preferred to Clinton by 15 percent, and to Obama by 17 percent.

Congressman Paul’s support among African-Americans is much higher than what Republicans have received in recent presidential elections. CNN’s 2004 presidential election exit polls show that Democrat John Kerry was preferred over George Bush by 88 percent.

The RealClearPolitics Insider Advantage Poll from early October also indicated that Dr. Paul was the leading Republican candidate among Black voters in key primary state, New Hampshire.

“Dr. Paul is the candidate who brings Americans together,” said Paul campaign manager Lew Moore. “His unifying message of freedom, peace, and prosperity is drawing supporters of all backgrounds back into the Republican party.”

Rasmussen Reports conducted preference polls for Ron Paul between October 12 and 14. Preference polls for Rudy Giuliani were conducted October 8 through 9 and 15 through 16, and for Mitt Romney and John McCain between October 10 and 11 and 17 through 18.

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/press-releases/15/ron-paul-is-highest-polling-republican-among-black-voters/

[Yonivore]

The Neo-Nazis will be upset when they find this out:

Press Releases › Ron Paul is Highest-Polling Republican Among Black Voters
October 24, 2007 10:12 am EST

ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA--Public opinion service Rasmussen Reports recently released data indicating that Texas congressman Ron Paul is the top Republican presidential candidate among African-American voters.

1200 individuals were polled and asked if they preferred Ron Paul to Democratic presidential candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. 33 percent of Black voters chose Congressman Paul over Senator Clinton and 31 percent over Senator Obama. Rasmussen Reports polled voters on their preference for the other GOP contenders over Clinton and Obama, and all polled lower than Congressman Paul. John McCain was preferred over Clinton and Obama by 24 and 16 percent, and Mitt Romney by 20 and 27 percent, respectively. Rudy Giuliani was only preferred to Clinton by 15 percent, and to Obama by 17 percent.

Congressman Paul’s support among African-Americans is much higher than what Republicans have received in recent presidential elections. CNN’s 2004 presidential election exit polls show that Democrat John Kerry was preferred over George Bush by 88 percent.

The RealClearPolitics Insider Advantage Poll from early October also indicated that Dr. Paul was the leading Republican candidate among Black voters in key primary state, New Hampshire.

“Dr. Paul is the candidate who brings Americans together,” said Paul campaign manager Lew Moore. “His unifying message of freedom, peace, and prosperity is drawing supporters of all backgrounds back into the Republican party.”

Rasmussen Reports conducted preference polls for Ron Paul between October 12 and 14. Preference polls for Rudy Giuliani were conducted October 8 through 9 and 15 through 16, and for Mitt Romney and John McCain between October 10 and 11 and 17 through 18.

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/press-releases/15/ron-paul-is-highest-polling-republican-among-black-voters/
I'm thinking it's more likely the black voters will abandon him when they discover his ties to skinheads, Nazis, and the KKK.

[Holt's Cat]

"His ties"? Racists supported GWB. Does that make him one?

[Holt's Cat]

I guess Paul is something more than a "fringe" candidate if his opponents are already trotting out the race card. All the more amusing that it's fellow "conservatives" who aren't ostensibly into such things.

[xrayzebra]

You know HC and all the rest of you. It is damn shame that we
have to listen to all these blowhards start a Presidential campaign
two damn years before we vote. You can blame this crap on
the Clinton's and MSM. Bill Clinton campaigned his whole eight
years in office. The sad thing is that we may really have a voter
burn out before this all over.

[Yonivore]

"His ties"? Racists supported GWB. Does that make him one?
Granted, you can't always help who supports you; there's always that crazy uncle in the attic but, Ron Paul has written columns that have been featured for several years in the American Free Press - a publication of the nation's leading Holocaust Denier and anti-Semitic agitator, Willis Carto. His book club even recommends works that glorify the Nazi SS, and glowingly describe the "comforts and amenities" provided for inmates of Auschwitz.

That's a little more proactive than just being supported by a distasteful group or person...he's actually interacting with them.

Now, what racists supported President Bush with his knowledge, acceptance, and agreement?

[Yonivore]

You know HC and all the rest of you. It is damn shame that we
have to listen to all these blowhards start a Presidential campaign
two damn years before we vote. You can blame this crap on
the Clinton's and MSM. Bill Clinton campaigned his whole eight
years in office. The sad thing is that we may really have a voter
burn out before this all over.
I kind of hope we do Xray. Maybe then, only those that are passionate about the election will be at the polls.

Here's to voter burnout before MTV decides to do another "bring out the vote" stupidity.

[Yonivore]

I guess Paul is something more than a "fringe" candidate if his opponents are already trotting out the race card. All the more amusing that it's fellow "conservatives" who aren't ostensibly into such things.
No, he's still a fringe candidate but, it's not him the opposition is worried about as much as the few voters he'll dupe into pulling the switch for him on election day.

In an era of 50.1% to 49.9% elections, the .1% he gets on election day could be valuable.

[Holt's Cat]

No, he's still a fringe candidate but, it's not him the opposition is worried about as much as the few voters he'll dupe into pulling the switch for him on election day.

In an era of 50.1% to 49.9% elections, the .1% he gets on election day could be valuable.


Right. Politics isn't actually about ideas or policies.

[Holt's Cat]

Granted, you can't always help who supports you; there's always that crazy uncle in the attic but, Ron Paul has written columns that have been featured for several years in the American Free Press - a publication of the nation's leading Holocaust Denier and anti-Semitic agitator, Willis Carto. His book club even recommends works that glorify the Nazi SS, and glowingly describe the "comforts and amenities" provided for inmates of Auschwitz.

That's a little more proactive than just being supported by a distasteful group or person...he's actually interacting with them.

Now, what racists supported President Bush with his knowledge, acceptance, and agreement?


The ones whose support GWB failed to recant.

[Yonivore]

The ones whose support GWB failed to recant.
Okay Captain Cryptic, are you saying President Bush failed to distance himself or the racists failed to stop being racists?

And, then, tell us all who you're talking about.

And, finally, how does that defend Ron Paul's association with such groups and people?

[xrayzebra]

The ones whose support GWB failed to recant.

I don't apologize for supporting Bush. I still do. He has
been a good President compared to the ones we have had
since Reagan. But those like President Reagan are far
and few in between.

[Holt's Cat]

Okay Captain Cryptic, are you saying President Bush failed to distance himself or the racists failed to stop being racists?

And, then, tell us all who you're talking about.

And, finally, how does that defend Ron Paul's association with such groups and people?


Cryptic? Bush had racist supporters.

[Yonivore]

Right. Politics isn't actually about ideas or policies.
I disagree. It is all about ideas. Unfortunately those ideas have, over time, been distilled down to two general ideals and, therefore, two principal parties:

Republicans -- generally identified as Conservative.

Democrats -- generally identified as Liberals.

Those two identities carry alot of ideology with which most voters can identify. And, most voters can accept the majority of a candidates ideas so long as they agree with the voter on substantive issues.

Independents, Libertarians, and Ron Paul, Ralph Nader, and Ross Perot type Republicans and Democrats can only spoil elections by drawing voters from the other two camps. The question is from which camp are they going to draw the most voters?

[Yonivore]

Cryptic? Bush had racist supporters.
Who are they?

[Holt's Cat]

You don't know? :dramaquee

[Yonivore]

You don't know? :dramaquee
No, I don't. Enlighten me. Are you stalling while you google or something?

[Yonivore]

You don't know? :dramaquee
Well?

[Holt's Cat]

I disagree. It is all about ideas. Unfortunately those ideas have, over time, been distilled down to two general ideals and, therefore, two principal parties:

Republicans -- generally identified as Conservative.

Democrats -- generally identified as Liberals.

Those two identities carry alot of ideology with which most voters can identify. And, most voters can accept the majority of a candidates ideas so long as they agree with the voter on substantive issues.

Independents, Libertarians, and Ron Paul, Ralph Nader, and Ross Perot type Republicans and Democrats can only spoil elections by drawing voters from the other two camps. The question is from which camp are they going to draw the most voters?

So now it's "generally conservative" to preside over the largest increase in the size and scope of the federal government in a generation. Yeah.

American politics is now exclusively about personalities without any regard or accountability for the policies they actually advocate and implement.

[Holt's Cat]

Well?

Hey, you're the resident know-it-all. I'm surprised you're stumped.

[BradLohaus]

Bush's grandfather did business with the original Nazi's.

[Yonivore]

Hey, you're the resident know-it-all. I'm surprised you're stumped.
Not hard to stump someone when you expect them to know something that isn't.

Hey, you brought it up. The article I posted names names and organizations that support Ron Paul financial and ideologically from which he's either refused or failed to distance himself.

You say President Bush was supported by racists. I allow that may be true, we can't control who supports us; but, when I ask you to provide the proof, you play games. Shit or get off the pot.

[Yonivore]

Bush's grandfather did business with the original Nazi's.
And? What's your point. You can pick you friend and you can pick your nose but, you can't pick your family.

I'm asking Holt's Cat who the racists were that supported George W. Bush for president from whom he neither repudiated or distanced himself.

Robert Byrd was a former Kleagle in the Ku Klux Klan. I'm betting he supports the next Democratic nominee.

[BradLohaus]

How about Strom Thurmond?


And? What's your point. You can pick you friend and you can pick your nose but, you can't pick your family.

The Bushes are a shady bunch, Yoni. One worlders who will do anything for a buck.

[Yonivore]

How about Strom Thurmond?
He's dead...and, therefore, unable to support anyone any longer. Plus, I don't recall him endorsing George Bush in either of his races for president. Do you?


The Bush family are a shady bunch, Yoni. One worlders who will do anything for a buck.
Your black helicopter Alex Jones nonsense aside, neither you nor Holt's Cat can name a single individual or group that is racist and that supported George W. Bush for President and from whom he did not distance himself or repudiate their position.

Sweet.

[xrayzebra]

Bush's grandfather did business with the original Nazi's.

Yeah JFK's dad was a bootlegger. And JFK had an affair
with a Nazi spy. No big deal.

[Yonivore]

You don't know? :dramaquee
I'm all ears, HC, who are they?

[BradLohaus]

He's dead...and, therefore, unable to support anyone any longer. Plus, I don't recall him endorsing George Bush in either of his races for president. Do you?

Yes, in 2000.
http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/special.strom.thurmond/stories/bio/index.html

Thurmond's pull with the military and veterans' communities came into play in 2000 during the South Carolina presidential primary, when upstart candidate U.S. Sen. John McCain of Arizona courted the state's large number of military retirees. Thurmond helped deliver the state's primary voters to now-President George W. Bush.


Your black helicopter Alex Jones nonsense aside,
xray agrees with me.


One world government
is damn sure not a conservative point of view. One of the reasons
I don't like Bush that much nor his Father. They both more of
less profess this view.
Ray: Yoni thinks you are an Alex Jones black helicopter conspiracy theorist. Seriously, Yoni. Every consrvative in the country wants something done about the border. Hell, something like 2/3 or 3/4 of Hispanic Americans want something done about. So why aren't Bush and the Republicans in DC doing what we all want? Why is it that out of Paul, Romney, Giuliani, Thompson, and McCain, only Paul is talking about doing what we want about the border? I leave it to you to figure out the most logical answer to that question.

[BradLohaus]

Yeah JFK's dad was a bootlegger. And JFK had an affair
with a Nazi spy. No big deal.

Oh yeah, JPK was a big Nazi supporter. It goes to show that in general, the people who have been running our country in recent times are a shady bunch that are not to be trusted.

[Yonivore]

Yes, in 2000.
http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/special.strom.thurmond/stories/bio/index.html

Thurmond's pull with the military and veterans' communities came into play in 2000 during the South Carolina presidential primary, when upstart candidate U.S. Sen. John McCain of Arizona courted the state's large number of military retirees. Thurmond helped deliver the state's primary voters to now-President George W. Bush.
Very good. But, was Thurmond still espousing racist venom in 2000? Any more than is Robert Byrd in 2007?


xray agrees with me.
In the sense that I disagree with President Bush on border security and amnesty for illegal immigrants, I guess I agree with the Alex Jones black helicopter conspiracy, as well.

I probably should have considered my response more before posting.

But, sorry, Ron Paul still doesn't get my vote next November.

[BradLohaus]

Very good. But, was Thurmond still espousing racist venom in 2000? Any more than is Robert Byrd in 2007?
I know a big racist from my home town, and he loves GWB. Is that good enough?

And yes, there are racists in both parties, and you could find terrible people who support every politician in DC.



In the sense that I disagree with President Bush on border security and amnesty for illegal immigrants, I guess I agree with the Alex Jones black helicopter conspiracy, as well.

Somebody put that in their sig. Yoni's coming around! :toast

[Yonivore]

I know a big racist from my home town, and he loves GWB. Is that good enough?
No, I think I'm looking for someone George W. Bush is aware is a racist.


And yes, there are racists in both parties, and you could find terrible people who support every politician in DC.
The operative question here is whether or not Ron Paul is sufficiently distancing himself for those elements.


Somebody put that in their sig. Yoni's coming around! :toast
I've always disagreed with the administration's policy on immigration.

[Nbadan]

Zogby hints that Ron Paul has a good chance of winning New Hampshire


The latest CBS poll out has Ron Paul at 8% among registered Republicans who are likely to vote in the primaries. Given that a large number of Paul supporters are always excluded from the polling data, it is possible that Ron Paul could win New Hampshire when their primary is held.


Yesterday on Sean Hannity’s radio show Mr. Zogby was a guest who said that Ron Paul could take up to 18% of the vote–I’d like to think it is a higher amount overall but he could win it. I know Zogby says Ron Paul won’t win to Sean Hannity, but he’s just reassuring himself. It is going to really depend on how many independents, Democrats, and new voters go for Ron Paul. From what I can tell it is very difficult to measure that because it’s impossible to figure out who all is going to vote in a primary for a Republican when half the state are registered independents plus a lot of libertarian minded people who probably vote for libertarian party candidates most of the time.

Linky (http://politicalinquirer.com/2007/11/14/zogby-ron-paul-has-a-good-chance-of-winning-new-hampshire)

[BradLohaus]

No, I think I'm looking for someone George W. Bush is aware is a racist.
So you don't count Strom Thurmond because he hadn't said anything racist in public in a while? Hallelujah! Strom saw the light and the error of his ways! Even as he hid his black illigitimate daughter, but never mind that!



The operative question here is whether or not Ron Paul is sufficiently distancing himself for those elements.
Have GHWB and GWB sufficiently distanced themselves from Prescott Bush's Nazi dealings? Did they give away to charity all the profits that the family made from Hitler's regime?



I've always disagreed with the administration's policy on immigration.

But now you are figuring out why that is. There are only 3 possible reasons why Bush and those who agree with him in the party won't do what conservatives and the population in general want done about the border:

1. They don't want to
2. They want to, but the people that fund their political careers and the party don't want them to
3. Both

That's it; there are no other possible explanations. Now the next question is: why is it that powerful people in this country, inside and outside the government, think the way they do about the border?

[Galileo]

I'm thinking it's more likely the black voters will abandon him when they discover his ties to skinheads, Nazis, and the KKK.

Not likely.

Ron Paul wants to end the war on drugs, which has millions of young black men locked up, their property seized, and a criminal record that scars them for life.

The average black male spends over two years in prison mostly most of it from victimless drug "crimes".

All the other 1st tier candidates running, like Hillary, think it's just great that all these black people are locked up for fictional unconstitutional crimes.

Ron Paul will pardon everyone convicted of a federal drug crime.

[Mavtek]

It looks like Ron Paul supporters really are everywhere :) Awesome!
http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/4078/crowdzn6.jpg

[Nbadan]

Are Ron Paul supporters anti-government?


Federal agents have reportedly seized illegal "Liberty Dollars" and other currency, including two tons of copper coins bearing the likeness of GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul.

The raid took place yesterday in Evansville, Ind., at the headquarters of the National Organization for the Repeal of the Federal Reserve Act & Internal Revenue Code, a group that the government accuses of producing and distributing illegal currency.

A spokesman for Paul says the GOP lawmaker has nothing to do with the group or its currency.

"We have no connection with that," Jesse Benton tells AP. "He was using Ron as a marketing technique. We didn't have anything to do with that or sanction it or give permission in any way."

Link (http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2007/11/feds-seize-two.html)

"The U.S. Mint says on its website that "it is a Federal crime to utter or pass, or attempt to utter or pass, any coins of gold or silver intended for use as current money except as authorized by law."

Looking at the pics of the coins at the link it is clear that the minted coins were intended to be a form of currency --there is no disclaimer that it is not legal tender.

And the group minting the coins makes no bones about it that they want it used as legal tender.

[Galileo]

Are Ron Paul supporters anti-government?



Link (http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2007/11/feds-seize-two.html)

"The U.S. Mint says on its website that "it is a Federal crime to utter or pass, or attempt to utter or pass, any coins of gold or silver intended for use as current money except as authorized by law."

Looking at the pics of the coins at the link it is clear that the minted coins were intended to be a form of currency --there is no disclaimer that it is not legal tender.

And the group minting the coins makes no bones about it that they want it used as legal tender.

Does this include Disney dollars or McDonald's gift certificates?

[BradLohaus]

Are Ron Paul supporters anti-government?

No, just anti Federal Reserve. :)


“I see this as a golden opportunity to go into court and vindicate the Liberty Dollar as being legal and being the solution to our great country’s monetary problems,” von NotHaus said. “This is going to be a big trial. We’re going to be putting Evansville on the map. Because money is going to be on trial right there in Evansville.”

That would be great, but my guess is that the judge doesn't let him anywhere near that. People have gone to court over the unconstitutionality of the Fed before - "no dice" say the judges, even though it's completely obvious that it is.


The Congress shall have Power...To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures

Is the Federal Reserve part of the Legislative branch of the federal government? No.
Was the Fed created by a Constitutional Amendment? No, it was created by an Act of Congress.

Why has the court system not thrown out this unconstitutional Act? It is considered to be constitutional by the court system because the congress "delegated" it's power over the value of money to the Fed, and that's okay, even though no where in the constitution is congress given the power to do this. It would be like the president giving the powers of commander in chief to a whole new institution, complete with shareholders!

But what else is new, I guess; much of the federal government and the actions it takes are unconstitutional.

[possessed]

How about Strom Thurmond?

Robert Byrd disagrees with Bush, I guess that makes him even.

[possessed]

I like Ron Paul too BTW.

[pussyface]

i hereby endorse the ron paul revolution.

[mookie2001]

jfks dad was a bootlegger!!


nelson rockefellers dad was a gambler!

[Nbadan]

Wing-nut shill Glen Beck calls Ron Paul supporters terra-ists (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eg8M2JBIoqo)

[Nbadan]

Kucinich/Paul ?

...Kucinich's wife says that Dennis could run with Ron Paul. She says that they're both "truth tellers"... It comes up with 2:05 left in the video....

Elizabeth Kucinich: My Husband Would "Absolutely" Consider Running With Ron Paul (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHpnLV1gUZY)

[braeden0613]

Kucinich/Paul ?

...Kucinich's wife says that Dennis could run with Ron Paul. She says that they're both "truth tellers"... It comes up with 2:05 left in the video....

Elizabeth Kucinich: My Husband Would "Absolutely" Consider Running With Ron Paul (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHpnLV1gUZY)
Besides foreign policy and a few civil rights issues, they are polar opposites. Kucinich is pro gun control, for universal healthcare, pro-amnesty, and voted for no child left behind. Paul is for none of these issues. While i respect Kucinich for his stances on the patriot act and non intervention, this would never work and I think i can speak for RP when i say he would never let it happen.

[boutons_]

Houston & Texas News

Nov. 26, 2007, 12:17PM

Texas' top corporations stay loyal to GOP

By RICHARD S. DUNHAM and KATHRINE SCHMIDT
Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle

WHO GETS MONEY

Here are the top 10 Texas recipients of contributions from the state's 46 largest companies:

1. Sen. John Cornyn , R-Texas, $66,330

2. Rep. Joe Bart on , R-Ennis, $45,200

3. Rep. Kay Granger , R-Fort Worth, $37,500

4. Rep. Jeb Hensarling , R-Dallas, $34,500

5. Rep. John Carter , R-Round Rock, $31,000

6. Rep. Gene Green , D-Houston, $26,500

7. Rep. Michael Burgess , R-Lewisville, $26,500

8. Rep. Lamar Smith , R-San Antonio, $25,500

9. Rep. Henry Cuellar , D-Laredo, $24,000

10. Rep. Charlie Gonzalez , D-San Antonio, $23,500

Source: Congressional Quarterly MoneyLine


Bucking a national trend, Texas-based corporations have remained loyal to Republican congressional candidates in the 2008 campaign.

According to a Houston Chronicle analysis of Federal Election Committee data, the 46 Texas companies that are included in the Fortune 500 gave 73 percent of their political action committee contributions to Republican House and Senate candidates in Texas, while donating just 27 percent to Lone Star Democrats in the first nine months of 2007.

Nationally, the largest Texas companies sent more than $1.8 million, or 58 percent of their overall campaign cash, to congressional Republicans. Democrats received about $1.3 million.

"Texas is still Republican locally, and Texas businesses remain committed to the Republican Party," says Cal Jillson, a political science professor at Southern Methodist University.

But Jillson notes that even in Texas, "interest trumps ideology," and Texas companies have increased their donations to influential Democratic committee chairs and other power brokers in Washington.

( corporate "interest' = $$$$ they can get back from complicit, compromiseble political whores )

"There are more Democrats now, and more are in positions of leadership," explained Jim Greenwood, vice president for governmental affairs at heavily Republican Valero Energy Corp. San Antonio-based Valero has shifted its PAC contributions from 9 percent Democratic in the 2005-2006 election cycle to 23 percent this year.

The cash flow toward Capitol Hill Democrats is far more pronounced among businesses in the other 49 states. In the months since Democrats gained control of Congress in January, the 50 biggest American industries have given 57 percent of their contributions to Democrats, according to a Nov. 15 analysis by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.

Just last year, when Republicans controlled Congress, business interests favored the GOP by a margin of 2-to-1.

"This is when you find out who your friends are," said Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va., a former chairman of the House Republicans' campaign committee. "In the business community, everybody is anteing up to who they think will win."

Analysts said Texas businesses are more likely to stick with Republicans because Lone Star State businesses tend to be more ideologically conservative than corporations in other states.

Energy sector is Republican

Texas companies also are heavily concentrated in the energy sector, which has remained staunchly Republican even in the new period of Democratic control of Capitol Hill.

( Iraq war, M/E instability, the ill-fought war on terra, absolutely no effective oil conservation programs, pushing the price of energy higher, are all Repug highest objectives and essentially dickheads still-secret National Energy Policy, and therefore energy corps are Repug )

One prominent example, Irving-based Exxon Mobil, has given Republicans 90.4 percent of the $360,330 in PAC money it has sent to candidates and party organizations this year. Among the recipients: Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, Rep. Joe Barton, R-Ennis, the top Republican on the House Energy & Commerce Committee, and the Republican Governors Association.

Regardless of which party controls Washington, Exxon Mobil spokesman Alan Jeffers says his company's PAC gives to candidates "who are pro-business and favor strengthening the free enterprise system."

( total bullshit )

Another factor contributing to the GOP tilt of Texas companies: The state's congressional delegation is dominated by Republicans, and businesses tend to support friendly incumbents.

"We're a Republican state," said Rep. Gene Green, D-Houston, "(so) they're still going to play that way."

The favorite candidate of Texas' largest companies is Cornyn, a first-term Republican senator who is up for re-election in 2008.

Cornyn has received $66,330 from the state's Fortune 500 companies in the first nine months of 2007, according to FEC records.

The free-enterprise conservative from San Antonio has received 100 percent of the business PAC donations to the Texas Senate race, where the early Democratic front-runner is state Rep. Rick Noriega, D-Houston.

Cornyn campaign spokesman Kevin McLaughlin says the senator "understands that government's role is providing a pro-growth environment, where taxes are low and government red tape is kept to a minimum."

Green leads on Dem side

The leading Democratic recipient of Texas business donations is Houston's Green, a member of the Energy & Commerce Committee and a frequent ally of hometown oil interests. His contributors have included Exxon Mobil, Reliant Energy, and CenterPoint Energy.

"I have a district that has energy in it," said Green, who represents much of the petrochemical area of eastern Harris County. "I don't represent the managers and owners. I represent a lot of people who work at the plants. My goal is to make sure they continue to have jobs."

Green said he tries "to balance the interests of the district."

Only one House member received no contributions from the state's largest corporate PACs: maverick Republican Rep. Ron Paul, a libertarian and frequent critic of big business who currently is running for president.

"They're very aware that they cannot influence his votes one way or the other, so they generally do not bother to give him money," said Mark Elam, campaign manager of Paul's congressional re-election race.

[email protected]
[email protected]

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5328077.html#