Ron Paul (2010-2011)

[Calz]

Perhaps a remix version will need to be done with CNN staff as well.

MSM is sure getting itchy about RP having the lead in Iowa.

Ron Paul Walks Out On Interview With CNN Media Whore


_zp6A-l-TwE

[baddbob]

Ron Paul victory would threaten the establishment's con game

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=iGPDTkeYjFs

[crested-duck]

I saw a interview with Condi not too long ago and she made it quite clear she was all done with polotics and no desire to run for anything. Wish I could remember where I saw it. Might have been on one of the Sunday morning Propoganda talk shows not long ago.

[jackovesk]

Perhaps a remix version will need to be done with CNN staff as well.

MSM is sure getting itchy about RP having the lead in Iowa.

Ron Paul Walks Out On Interview With CNN Media Whore


_zp6A-l-TwE

You've gotta laugh at the Conflicting Headlines of the Story...

CNN: Paul gets Testy in CNN Interview

&

TRUTH: Ron Paul Walks Out On Interview With CNN Media Whore

You are a 'Class Act' Ron Paul, as for Wolf Blitzer and his Media Whore colleague Gloria Borger. No Words required, the MSM bias and their Lame attempt to re-ignite the issue that was put to bed the previous day was there for all to see..!

[skywalker_]

LOL indeed .. very funny :) But to the point as well :)

[Dawn]

I just finished reading through this entire thread. I grew up in a home where open debate on many issues was the subject of every dinner conversation. My genius dad, and my well read mom, made sure we all knew how to logically defend a position and provide really great answers to anyone challenging our point of view. However, in these family discussions, there were never any personal attacks.

I love divergent points of view. They open the possibility for deeper investigation and research to counter them... which then leads everyone to a deeper understanding of a topic.

I have been pretty surprised at the level of venom in this thread specifically targeting ETM567, who is a woman by the way. Is there a reason that some people here attacked her directly instead of sticking to the topic at hand? Calling someone LIAR in capitol letters and bold colors does not address the topic, and does not help lead others to an understanding of the issue. What if ETM567 had not brought this topic up on the forum? Then we would not have been able to address it and to show a public rebuttal of the topic.

I am really sorry to see the level of delight in hurting someone that is displayed here. Attacking someone on the forum can prevent others from feeling free to express their views. In the end, we will have a forum with members where only one point of view (the correct one we like?) is allowed. What a shame. This is just my point of view. Would you like to attack me now and call me an arrogant liar... and if I stop posting on this thread will you write a post about how delighted you are that you chased me away.

Many of you posting on this thread are just plain cruel

[Ilie Pandia]

Hello,

While I agree that Etm567's post should have been worded better and not as a "well known fact", but rather as a rumor or statement to be debated, the reaction she got on this thread is a bit scary to say the least...

What happened with criticizing the message or the article, but show some basic respect for a fellow Avalonian...

I have to agree with Dawn's post above and especially with this statement:

"Many of you posting on this thread are just plain cruel."

My suggestions are:

- do research before you post and when you post, choose your words carefully to reflect what you've learned and based on what. If you feel you're expressing an absolute truth be prepared to show your arguments for that
- when you don't agree with a post, debate the post but remember to be kind and considerate... we all come here with different understandings and different levels and sources of knowledge. Some have been at this for many years, others are just lifting the vale. Being kind and supportive is the only way to "grow our ranks" and create the world we want to live in

[Unified Serenity]

Hello,

While I agree that Etm567's post should have been worded better and not as a "well known fact", but rather as a rumor or statement to be debated, the reaction she got on this thread is a bit scary to say the least...

What happened with criticizing the message or the article, but show some basic respect for a fellow Avalonian...

I have to agree with Dawn's post above and especially with this statement:

"Many of you posting on this thread are just plain cruel."

My suggestions are:

- do research before you post and when you post, choose your words carefully to reflect what you've learned and based on what. If you feel you're expressing an absolute truth be prepared to show your arguments for that
- when you don't agree with a post, debate the post but remember to be kind and considerate... we all come here with different understandings and different levels and sources of knowledge. Some have been at this for many years, others are just lifting the vale. Being kind and supportive is the only way to "grow our ranks" and create the world we want to live in

Of course you and Dawn are correct that the reaction to ETM was direct and not very kind. I think the fact about how those letters came to be had been already brought to ETM's attention earlier, but she chose to bring them to another RP thread and it actually feels like she knew it was inflamatory and she got the reaction she wanted. I apologize for taking the bait. I think it's probably best to follow Ilie's advice here, and stick to the issues, and not be baited in the future.

Mullet for the day

[Sync]

Well, here goes nothing... please don't bite my head off.

Sorry to go against the grain here, but it seems that some Avalonians are unconsciously employing heuristics and a confirmation bias without researching Ron Paul. They seem to be projecting their fantasies onto this man. But, is this an accurate view of his beliefs?

If anyone here personally knows Ron Paul, and can speak for him, please speak up. In the absence of that, I am only going to present some facts in his own words. Be advised, I am neither for or against Ron Paul yet.

I always liked the old joke that the word "politics" is from the Greek word "Poli," meaning "many" and "tics," meaning "blood-sucking parasites."

Did you know that Ron Paul does not believe in a separation between church and state? Hell, G.W. Bush even believed in that.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html

The War on Religion
by Rep. Ron Paul, MD
by Rep. Ron Paul, MD

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

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

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

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

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

December 30, 2003

Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.
Ron Paul Archives

Well, Thomas Jefferson disagreed with that sentiment: "Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law. In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own"


Can a man who distorts the message of this country's founders be trusted to run this country?

Can liberty exist in a country with no separation of church and state?

What does liberty mean to Ron Paul?

Ron Paul on Evolution:

"You know it is a theory, nobody has concrete proof of any of this. But quite frankly I think it's sort of irrelevant, that because we don't know the exact details and we don't have geologic support for evolutionary forms, it is a theory, even though it's a pretty logical theory. But my concept of understanding of a creator is not related one bit to whether or not I or anybody has to believe in evolution or not believe in evolution."

SOURCE: http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-09-11/ron-paul-and-reddit-com/

If you think disclosure will ever come from somebody who is this invested in Christianity, well... good luck.

Can a man who views a 2-5,000 year-old contradictory holy book as more compelling than a scientific fact be trusted with the highest position of power in the land?

He may stop the war, but at what cost?

Is his solution worth a regression on the social and economic front?

Is Ron Paul the new messiah?

When people challenge him, people react with very strong emotions. Almost cult like? Red flag.

He has some good ideas. But he also has some incredibly bad ones.

Discernment.

[Unified Serenity]

RP is a strict constitutionalist. Where does the constitution say there is separation between church and state? It simply says we will not have a state sanctioned church, but that whole "doctrine" has been misapplied to push all things culturally christian out of anything public.



Did you know that Ron Paul does not believe in a separation between church and state? Hell, G.W. Bush even believed in that.



I appreciate your views sync, but I trust rp's record over anyone else running. He has never voted for a tax increase, his views of economics is spot on, and he does not believe in pre-emptive war nor going to war unless congress declares war. He would not approve of fema camps, the over spending, the misuse of our funds, and he would bring sanity back into government hopefully using a bully pulpit to help guide policy.

Congress isn't going to make the changes. We are not going to get the changes via any establishment person, and it's quite obvious the establishment hates RP.

He believes in letting the people run their lives and to handle most things on a state level just as the constitution says.

I really do not think we have a better choice. He does not believe in forcing christian ethics on anyone. He wants us to run our own lives, pay for our choices, and let the community do what it did best years ago, and that was help it's own and if we had more of our money back home we could do more locally. We don't need a nanny government just like the rest of the world does not need the U.S. military policing the world. If they want us to protect them, then let them pay us for that service.

[baddbob]

A Christmas message from Ron Pauls headquarters


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AN4FI-tWZj0&feature=youtu.be

[Referee]

I'm so sorry Ron Paul is a bone fide racist.

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-12-20/politics/30537102_1_newsletters-conspiracy-theories-lew-rockwell


Here's The Real Story Behind Ron Paul's Racist Newsletters
Michael Brendan Dougherty|December 20, 2011|

(AP)

So as Ron Paul is on track to win the Iowa caucuses, he is getting a new dose of press scrutiny.

And the press is focusing on the newsletters that went out under his name in the late 1980s and early 1990s. They were called the Ron Paul's Political Report, Ron Paul's Freedom Report, the Ron Paul Survival Report and the Ron Paul Investment Letter.

There is no doubt that the newsletters contained utterly racist statements.

Some choice quotes:

"Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

"We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational."

After the Los Angeles riots, one article in a newsletter claimed, "Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks."

One referred to Martin Luther King Jr. as "the world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours" and who "seduced underage girls and boys."

Another referred to Barbara Jordan, a civil rights activist and congresswoman as "Barbara Morondon," the "archetypical half-educated victimologist."

Other newsletters had strange conspiracy theories about homosexuals, the CIA, and AIDS.

Read more: http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-12-20/politics/30537102_1_newsletters-conspiracy-theories-lew-rockwell#ixzz1hBcRz6wF


You have posted your same attack on my thread here

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?37116-New-Ron-Paul-Song-by-Goden-State


etm I think you should take a look at my theread here:

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?37372-Internet-Trolls-an-Overview

The reason I have posted this way is because you were the first to reply on both threads. Seems a little interesting to me!

[Jeffrey]

I had to do a little extra research for this one. Most likely, I will need to do more.

These are some valid points you raised. Well, let's get it goin'.


Sorry to go against the grain here, but it seems that some Avalonians are unconsciously employing heuristics and a confirmation bias without researching Ron Paul. They seem to be projecting their fantasies onto this man. But, is this an accurate view of his beliefs?

If anyone here personally knows Ron Paul, and can speak for him, please speak up. In the absence of that, I am only going to present some facts in his own words. Be advised, I am neither for or against Ron Paul yet.

I always liked the old joke that the word "politics" is from the Greek word "Poli," meaning "many" and "tics," meaning "blood-sucking parasites."


1) Dampening heuristics, maybe?

2) Nope, don't know the man personally.

3) Politics=bloodsucking parasites! :p

I believe that Thomas Jefferson and Ron Paul are in the same boat on this issue. It's just a different political scene and a different monster we're dealing with (i.e. the government).


RP: The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.

That's his beef right there.

The Establishment Clause ended up being somewhat of a double-edged sword for the country. It's a fine clause for a society with a small government—it's just another curb. With a big, power-hungry government these limits get twisted, colluded, and exaggerated in order to tighten the girdle on our fair lady, the Statue of Liberty.

Now, Ron Paul feels like it's infringing on his individual liberty (i.e. enjoying his Christmas publicly with like-minded people).


RP: Is Christmas some kind of secret, a word that cannot be uttered in public? Why have we allowed the secularists to intimidate us into downplaying our most cherished and meaningful Christian celebration?

He most certainly agrees that the government should not enforce any religion in particular, but at the same time he doesn't want the government to censor Christianity.


RP: The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders' political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government's hostility to religion.



Can a man who distorts the message of this country's founders be trusted to run this country?

Ron Paul is right. Separation of Church and State is not in the constitution (technically that term isn't even used in the first amendment). To assume that Ron Paul advocates an amalgamation of Church and State based on the former statement is incorrect—that isn't in the constitution either.


RP: The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation's history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government.

Okay, there are a few things to glean from this part. Firstly, the man is a devout Christian. That's alright; he may have tried to convert some friends at a summer camp in his younger days but that doesn't translate into him becoming a "despot" that gets in bed with the priests. He's not going to be cramming the bible down the nations throat from the pulpit. Did Kennedy take orders from the Pope?

Set all the national Christian heritage stuff aside for a second. It sounds to me like he doesn't want a rigidly secular government. Not because of a "Jesus or hell" mentality, but because in he feels that religion promotes "morality and civility". Yes, in many cases it can foster bigotry, but Ron Paul is a libertarian constitutionalist. As a Christian he has his convictions, but he also has a strong political disposition. If it ain't in the constitution he's going to leave it up to the states.

I see the letter written by a politician who's frustrated with the decline of the Christmas spirit. The key is this: he feels that the federal government's "Separation of Church and State" was intended to limit the government, and now it's limiting the people's right express their religious traditions. I think we are definitely more culturally and religiously diverse now, so that probably has something to do with it too.


RP: The justification is always that someone, somewhere, might possibly be offended or feel uncomfortable living in the midst of a largely Christian society, so all must yield to the fragile sensibilities of the few.

I'd like to quote Carmody here, and apply it to this context:


The biggest problem with mass experience is that it is based upon reactive logic.

Let's change that up.

The biggest problem with public experience is that it is based upon predominate reactive logic.

This is public opinion man. This is democracy. Luckily, living in a democratic republic we have laws that "keep the sheep from being eaten". (Side note: it does not keep the people from being sheep.)

Does Ron Paul think that eliminating the "Church and State" amendment will restore the "Christmas spirit" to it's former glory? Sounds like it. Will it? Doubtful. If we leave it up to the states I doubt we'll return to a theocratic-type society with sanctions for blasphemy.

America is a cultural mosaic, religiously diverse. Let it be.

To each his own. Leave it up to the people to be free in their own respects as long as it doesn't interfere with the free-will of another. Leave it up to the people to pass these as state laws if need be. This ball should've never been in the federal government's court. At least not according to Ron Paul's political subscriptions. As far as his convictions as a Christian, I can't say that I adhere to the mainstream theme of pop-christianity. I love Christ. Churches, eh ... the body is my temple. ;)

Thanks for getting the gears going, trust me I'm still churning this stuff. I think this particular topic is thread worthy in itself.

One more thing...


Is Ron Paul the new messiah?

When people challenge him, people react with very strong emotions. Almost cult like? Red flag.

So, what's your counter-argument? An equally exaggerated finger pointing back in response at the "cult-like" Paulites? :suspicious: ...

...and on evolution:


RP: You know it is a theory, nobody has concrete proof of any of this. But quite frankly I think it's sort of irrelevant, that because we don't know the exact details and we don't have geologic support for evolutionary forms, it is a theory, even though it's a pretty logical theory. But my concept of understanding of a creator is not related one bit to whether or not I or anybody has to believe in evolution or not believe in evolution.


He's right, it remains a theory and his "concept of understanding of a creator" really isn't related to whether or not he or anybody else has to believe in evolution. I thought this was pretty well said on his part.

Liberty:

liberty |ˈlibərtē|
noun ( pl. liberties )
1 the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views


Regards with confirmation bias,

Vivek

[Jonathon]

Nice response Vivek.

All I would like to add to the thread in general: Beware the microscope of bias. Mole hills become lava drenched volcanoes in the twinkling of an eye. Paul has an extremely long and distinguished record. It's darned consistent. It would also be unlikely that anyone could "fake-it" for such a long period of time. Look at it on the whole. Digging through the man's underwear drawer will eventually turn up something, somewhere (and SHOULD have by now if there was anything to see).

I make at least 1 mistake per day. Is this the measure of my work and life? How conditioned we have become to search for any available flaw and pounce on it as if it was the devil's pitchfork. I'm not suggesting anyone employ the "hear no evil" method. Just to consider: know yourself well enough to know when you are creating a position or counter-position based on a belief system instead of due diligence; try to understand what is apparent, without the need to attack or defend it. In my experience, the urge to attack/defend usually meant I was either ignorant or wrong on some level.

[jackovesk]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1uc7x4a8SM&feature=youtu.be

:clap2:

[Unified Serenity]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1uc7x4a8SM&feature=youtu.be

:clap2:

Woooo HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO get's one's spirit up! Yes, brother preach it. Repost it. Let's get the truth out there! Stand on the street corner, be a fool for truth. Stand alone and they will come. We must be the army, we must be the change, and we must get LOUD! PREACH IT BROTHER, PREACH IT, PREACH IT AND PREACH IT SOME MORE! God I love this post. Good find Jack... oh and I love you too, soft hugs,

Serenity

[Arrowwind]

Then Again, Wolf Blitzer gives Ron Paul an excellent platform to speak... and Wolf himself said that he had never heard such speech from Ron Paul in all the years he has worked.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOiNpG9LNm8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOiNpG9LNm8)

[Arrowwind]

This may be the interview the first video on this thread is addressing... have a look

LywD6gXBudc

[alienHunter]

¤=[Post Update]=¤

[/COLOR]Some thoughts on Ron Paul:

As an American politician he is nearly unassailable. He does not let his personal opinions interfere with his public duty. So pursuing him on the tack of racism won't really work and will soon burn itself out. American history is full of successful racist politicians.

[Arrowwind]

Oh and here is a great one by CenK on the Young Turks... All these reporters have had to deal with this issue the best that they can.. likely flipflopping as they wade through the sh^t. Unfortuantely this video has been cut. I heard the full deal about a week ago but cant find it now. He ended up defending Ron Paul for Pauls long term integrity regarding the econony and foreign policy and his lack of being bought or sold or flipflopping.

For those not familiar Cenk is a member of the YOUNG TURKS who have a news and commentary program on Current TV.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kuTOP0KJd-Y=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kuTOP0KJd-Y&feature=related)

and here is Jack Cafferty.. giving him a balanced view. I think Jack likes him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEXEeOupoGQ=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEXEeOupoGQ&feature=related)

[Arrowwind]

:humble: All things will be well

[Unified Serenity]

Hey Unified Serenity,

I'm doing a sanity check...

Were you surprised by your parents decision to send you to boarding school?

Simple yes or no is plenty of an answer.



Yet again, you make comments meant to incite me and show your ignorance. I was living in Saudi Arabia and after the ninth grade all "Round eyes" or quajies as we were called had to leave the country after the ninth grade. Saudia actually contributed to paying part of the bill. My parents sent me to boarding school for that reason only. I should have just said, '

D.N.F.T.T.

[risveglio]

This may be the interview the first video on this thread is addressing... have a look

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LywD6gXBudc=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LywD6gXBudc&feature=related)

Here is the uncut video
http://ronpaulflix.com/2011/12/cnn-caught-red-handed-in-outright-lies-over-ron-paul-interview-did-not-walk-out-dec-21-2011/

[alienHunter]

just a little history on Jack Cafferty:

Sorry, I've got to do my civic duty as he MIGHT be one to let personal beliefs cloud his judgement:

Arizona immigration law
Cafferty became extremely critical of the Obama Administration when the federal Government chose to sue the State of Arizona after signing the controversial immigration bill, SB1070 into law. On the April 20, 2010 broadcast of The Situation Room, Cafferty said "so what" when it came to the critics of the law who said it would lead to racial profiling. He then criticized President Obama, Congress and the Federal Government for "failing to secure the nation's borders when it came to illegal immigration and singled out Attorney General Eric Holder for condemning the bill that Holder had later admitted he had not even read. Cafferty stated "had they read the law, they would discover that parts of the law are word for word, the laws that are already on the federal government's books.
When Cafferty read emails from the show's viewers that were fed up with the illegal immigration, Media Matters for America attacked Cafferty for reading what they felt were "hateful emails bashing undocumented workers. Later, when Wolf Blitzer interviewed Mexican President Felipe Calderón and his opposition of the Arizona immigration law, Cafferty criticized the Mexican President by saying, "he has a lot of nerve coming into our country... and what we do with our nation's borders, is none of your business". He labeled the United States Congress as disgusting when they chose to give the Mexican President a standing ovation for opposing Arizona's immigration law.

Reckless driving incident

Cafferty pleaded guilty to leaving the scene of an accident and misdemeanor charges of reckless driving, assault and harassment after striking a cyclist and knocking him off his bike on May 14, 2003. The bicyclist was slightly injured. A traffic officer and several pedestrians ran after Cafferty's car, but he ran at least two red lights without stopping, according to a police complaint. Cafferty was sentenced to a $250 fine and 70 hours of community service.[COLOR="red"]

[Cartomancer]

They're trying to do the same thing to hm they did to Cain but they don't have any ammo. They are reaching and running scared. Ron Paul handled that perfectly.

[Arrowwind]

just a little history on Jack Cafferty:

Sorry, I've got to do my civic duty as he MIGHT be one to let personal beliefs cloud his judgement:

Arizona immigration law
Cafferty became extremely critical of the Obama Administration when the federal Government chose to sue the State of Arizona after signing the controversial immigration bill, SB1070 into law. On the April 20, 2010 broadcast of The Situation Room, Cafferty said "so what" when it came to the critics of the law who said it would lead to racial profiling. He then criticized President Obama, Congress and the Federal Government for "failing to secure the nation's borders when it came to illegal immigration and singled out Attorney General Eric Holder for condemning the bill that Holder had later admitted he had not even read. Cafferty stated "had they read the law, they would discover that parts of the law are word for word, the laws that are already on the federal government's books.
When Cafferty read emails from the show's viewers that were fed up with the illegal immigration, Media Matters for America attacked Cafferty for reading what they felt were "hateful emails bashing undocumented workers. Later, when Wolf Blitzer interviewed Mexican President Felipe Calderón and his opposition of the Arizona immigration law, Cafferty criticized the Mexican President by saying, "he has a lot of nerve coming into our country... and what we do with our nation's borders, is none of your business". He labeled the United States Congress as disgusting when they chose to give the Mexican President a standing ovation for opposing Arizona's immigration law.

Reckless driving incident

Cafferty pleaded guilty to leaving the scene of an accident and misdemeanor charges of reckless driving, assault and harassment after striking a cyclist and knocking him off his bike on May 14, 2003. The bicyclist was slightly injured. A traffic officer and several pedestrians ran after Cafferty's car, but he ran at least two red lights without stopping, according to a police complaint. Cafferty was sentenced to a $250 fine and 70 hours of community service.

¤=[Post Update]=¤

Unified,

It was just a question...I take it that means No? I thought I knew you from cyberspace...Does the name Dennis Rader mean anything to you?

all of this is totally irrelevant... discrediting Jack means nothing to the issue at hand.

Buy the way, I agree with Jack on the immigration issue... and I also agree in states rights to determine border control with a foreign country especially when that foreign country is endangering state citizens and when the federal government refuses to do a dam thing about it.... and Eric Holder was ultimaitely responsibe for thousands of guns going unchecked into Mexico.

[alienHunter]

arrowwind,

I know you do... ;)

[blake]

Hey Unified Serenity,

I'm doing a sanity check...

Were you surprised by your parents decision to send you to boarding school?

Simple yes or no is plenty of an answer.

¤=[Post Update]=¤

Some thoughts on Ron Paul:

As an American politician he is nearly unassailable. He does not let his personal opinions interfere with his public duty. So pursuing him on the tack of racism won't really work and will soon burn itself out. American history is full of successful racist politicians.

Hello AlienHunter,

I undersatnd that some people go off topic on threads some times, but your question to Unified Serenity is not only totally off topic, but it is also totally irresponsible to another's privacy. I am curious as to what your views are in respecting another's privacy and personal information.? I personally found what you asked of another poster on a public forum to be very offensive. At the very least, that should have been a PM to US, and only if you two have built up some sort of relationship in which such inofrmation would be shared, at least that is my opinion. I am wondering what the mods are thinking of a poster asking another poster a very personal question on a public forum. Perhaps you are like most governments and gossipers and don't support the issue of privacy?

Rather Shocked,

Sincerely,

Mr. Davis

[alienHunter]

yeah, I hear you, Mr. Davis...I wan't trying to be obtrusive...I just think I know her and I really don't like the private thing, to me that's more obtrusive than just sly remarks...

[Arrowwind]

Here is the uncut video
http://ronpaulflix.com/2011/12/cnn-caught-red-handed-in-outright-lies-over-ron-paul-interview-did-not-walk-out-dec-21-2011/

Thanks, look what I found in the comments area on the link above:

Expand (http://ronpaulflix.com/2011/12/cnn-caught-red-handed-in-outright-lies-over-ron-paul-interview-did-not-walk-out-dec-21-2011/#)
OH BUT THERE'S MORE TO THIS STORY>>>>>

Gloria Borger is Senior Political Analyst at CNN.
Gloria Borger is married to Lance Morgan.
http://www.gspm.org/caplancemo... (http://www.gspm.org/caplancemorgan)

Morgan is according to the web site of his employer, Powell
Tate,"chief communications strategist at Powell Tate in Washington, D.C.
He specializes in developing and executing communications strategies for public policy debates, crisis communications
and media training."

So who might be the clients of Powell Tate, where Borger's husband is "chief communications strategist and crisis communications" adviser for?

Just about every part of the military industrial-complex that Ron Paul wants to shrink or shutdown. According to the Powell Tate web site, theyare strategic communications for among others:

The U.S. Army
The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services
The U.S Agency for International Development
The U.S.
Chamber of Commerce
and, I'm not joking, The National Pork Board.

Bottom line Gloria Borger's husband is as inside Washington DC as you can get.

This was a total hit job, bringing up decades old accusations about a newsletter that everyone agrees was written by others, while Dr. Paul was practicing medicine.

Source:
http://www.economicpolicyjourn...
http://www.economicpolicyjourn...

[Arrowwind]

:bump2: moving right along into letting go and accepting that we are all growing each with our individual lessons.

[blake]

Hello AlienHunter,

Shocked again by you writing to US stating:

" Unified, It was just a question...I take it that means No? I thought I knew you from cyberspace...Does the name Dennis Rader mean anything to you? "

AlienHUnter, this is in very poor taste and potentially dangerous. I hope the mods notice these inappropriate questions, statements and interpreatation by Alien Hunter to another Avalonian.

Sincererely,

Mr. Davis

[alienHunter]

If you feel that strongly about it, I'll do it myself...if i can.

[baddbob]

LOL after 30+ years the only thing bad that has surfaced about Ron is his name on letter heads that he never wrote.I think if you want to find any bad in him then you will have to do better than that

http://www.bet.com/news/politics/2011/12/20/commentary-is-ron-paul-a-racist.html

http://www.bet.com/content/betcom/news/politics/2011/12/20/commentary-is-ron-paul-a-racist/_jcr_content/featuredMedia/newsitemimage.newsimage.dimg/101111-politics-week-in-polls-ron-paul.jpg

the owned press and corporations do not care if its fake or otherwise misleading. They only need to push the people long enough to get the 'contract with 3d reality' that they want..to be put into place. that is all that matters, for and to them.

Push back.

Fox News Caught In Shocking Dirty Tricks Stunt Against Ron Paul


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwo0Iyrh1Zk&feature=player_embedded

[Arrowwind]

If you feel that strongly about it, I'll do it myself...if i can.

Indeed. Do it.

[alienHunter]

Does anyone know what is Ron Paul's position on the most personal decision known to humanity...the decision to bring a child into the world. I guess we would agree that is a matter within the category of 'personal freedom'?

[alienHunter]

arrowwind & blake,

those references to US are still hanging out there...I got rid of mine.

[T Smith]

Well, here goes nothing... please don't bite my head off.

Sorry to go against the grain here, but it seems that some Avalonians are unconsciously employing heuristics and a confirmation bias without researching Ron Paul. They seem to be projecting their fantasies onto this man. But, is this an accurate view of his beliefs?

If anyone here personally knows Ron Paul, and can speak for him, please speak up. In the absence of that, I am only going to present some facts in his own words. Be advised, I am neither for or against Ron Paul yet.

I always liked the old joke that the word "politics" is from the Greek word "Poli," meaning "many" and "tics," meaning "blood-sucking parasites."

Did you know that Ron Paul does not believe in a separation between church and state? Hell, G.W. Bush even believed in that.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html

The War on Religion
by Rep. Ron Paul, MD
by Rep. Ron Paul, MD

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

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

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

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

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

December 30, 2003

Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.
Ron Paul Archives

Well, Thomas Jefferson disagreed with that sentiment: "Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law. In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own"


Can a man who distorts the message of this country's founders be trusted to run this country?

Can liberty exist in a country with no separation of church and state?

What does liberty mean to Ron Paul?

Ron Paul on Evolution:

"You know it is a theory, nobody has concrete proof of any of this. But quite frankly I think it's sort of irrelevant, that because we don't know the exact details and we don't have geologic support for evolutionary forms, it is a theory, even though it's a pretty logical theory. But my concept of understanding of a creator is not related one bit to whether or not I or anybody has to believe in evolution or not believe in evolution."

SOURCE: http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-09-11/ron-paul-and-reddit-com/

If you think disclosure will ever come from somebody who is this invested in Christianity, well... good luck.

Can a man who views a 2-5,000 year-old contradictory holy book as more compelling than a scientific fact be trusted with the highest position of power in the land?

He may stop the war, but at what cost?

Is his solution worth a regression on the social and economic front?

Is Ron Paul the new messiah?

When people challenge him, people react with very strong emotions. Almost cult like? Red flag.

He has some good ideas. But he also has some incredibly bad ones.

Discernment.

What Ron Paul argues here, although admittedly ambiguous given it's a piece specifically about Christmas, is that free society cannot exist in a state of separation between Morality and State. Religion is irrelevant. What the founders envisioned was free society, governed by and for the people, feasible only on a strong, moral foundation. Christianity being the prevalent religion of the young Republic simply offered a conceptual framework to achieve that morality. The key here is tolerance to other religious organization(s) that might serve the same end.

Ron Paul is a Christian, and so he is talking about Christmas, and therefore employing symbols and language of the Christian religion, but the points he is making is about morality. If you want to understand ideas more clearly representative of Ron Paul's thinking, I suggest his book Liberty Defined, and specific chapters that deal with religion, state, and morality.

As far as the evolutionary question goes, most of readers on this forum also understand that humanity's history on this planet is in no way fully represented by the theory of evolution. The most Ron Paul has ever said about this issue is his "beliefs" of the Creator are very personal to him. I can assure you, based on my understanding of Ron Paul's ideas, that those beliefs are far more complicated than the typical narrative found in the Christian framework.

[Unified Serenity]

Unified,

It was just a question...I take it that means No? I thought I knew you from cyberspace...Does the name Dennis Rader mean anything to you?

Alien Hunter,

Dennis Lynn Rader (born March 9, 1945) is an American (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) serial killer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_killer) who murdered ten people in Sedgwick County (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedgwick_County,_Kansas) (in and around Wichita, Kansas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wichita,_Kansas)), between 1974 and 1991.

You appear to be threatening me or trying to do so. I suggest you cease and desist your comments to me forthwith. You do NOT know me. You and I do not have any sort of relationship or if you think you do, state it now or leave me alone. This is unacceptable behavior on your part.

Serenity

[Arrowwind]

:tea: Living, Loving, Learning.

[Unified Serenity]

just a little history on Jack Cafferty:

Sorry, I've got to do my civic duty as he MIGHT be one to let personal beliefs cloud his judgement:

Arizona immigration law
Cafferty became extremely critical of the Obama Administration when the federal Government chose to sue the State of Arizona after signing the controversial immigration bill, SB1070 into law. On the April 20, 2010 broadcast of The Situation Room, Cafferty said "so what" when it came to the critics of the law who said it would lead to racial profiling. He then criticized President Obama, Congress and the Federal Government for "failing to secure the nation's borders when it came to illegal immigration and singled out Attorney General Eric Holder for condemning the bill that Holder had later admitted he had not even read. Cafferty stated "had they read the law, they would discover that parts of the law are word for word, the laws that are already on the federal government's books.
When Cafferty read emails from the show's viewers that were fed up with the illegal immigration, Media Matters for America attacked Cafferty for reading what they felt were "hateful emails bashing undocumented workers. Later, when Wolf Blitzer interviewed Mexican President Felipe Calderón and his opposition of the Arizona immigration law, Cafferty criticized the Mexican President by saying, "he has a lot of nerve coming into our country... and what we do with our nation's borders, is none of your business". He labeled the United States Congress as disgusting when they chose to give the Mexican President a standing ovation for opposing Arizona's immigration law.

Reckless driving incident

Cafferty pleaded guilty to leaving the scene of an accident and misdemeanor charges of reckless driving, assault and harassment after striking a cyclist and knocking him off his bike on May 14, 2003. The bicyclist was slightly injured. A traffic officer and several pedestrians ran after Cafferty's car, but he ran at least two red lights without stopping, according to a police complaint. Cafferty was sentenced to a $250 fine and 70 hours of community service.

¤=[Post Update]=¤

Unified,

It was just a question...I take it that means No? I thought I knew you from cyberspace...Does the name Dennis Rader mean anything to you?

all of this is totally irrelevant... discrediting Jack means nothing to the issue at hand.

Buy the way, I agree with Jack on the immigration issue... and I also agree in states rights to determine border control with a foreign country especially when that foreign country is endangering state citizens and when the federal government refuses to do a dam thing about it.... and Eric Holder was ultimaitely responsibe for thousands of guns going unchecked into Mexico.



Alien Hunter,

Deleting your posts does not take away the offense AH. You have stalked me from post to post. You spread disinformation and I have read you very well. I suggest that you stop this sort of unsavory behavior towards me or anyone else on this forum.

Serenity

[alienHunter]

T Smith,

A long standing argument about drug laws is one that states, in effect, if there are no laws against drugs, then it is not a crime. That approach is one that has worked remarkably well in nations that have open societies and is a very valid social construction. In a cohesive functioning benevolent society it can work. By derivation it could be argued that if there are no laws against pedophilia, there are no pedophiles, if the U.S. constitution says that Negroes are only 3/5 human, then Negroes are only 3/5 human, if the constitution says that women don't have the right to vote, then women don't deserve the right to vote. The problem with the above approach is that they ignore social consequences and are by their very nature morally exogenous. The underlying 'meaning' is irrelevant, only the words count. The authority is derived from the status of the 'words'.

Words have meaning and should be moral but not selectively. Does morality only take on meaning when the consequences effect only a chosen few or does it apply to everyone.

[Star Tsar]

A million dollars for leaflets damn I'm in the wrong business!

[alienHunter]

Unified,

I asked the others to remove the references...it was in regard to a wichita kansas blog site...the only other place I met someone from florida that went to boarding school...with the same personality (onsite). that's it, I saw your reference about sociopaths yesterday and assumed that you had an interest in the subject which would have explained your presence on that blog. Don't lose your cool...I was just asking. OK!

[Arrowwind]

I do hope we can end this..

Alien I do think a sincere apology is of some merit followed up by a time of distance and a willingness to commit to not pry on line in public nor to make accusations or insinuaitons that you have no business making.... in one's own words of course.

[Star Tsar]

Hey jackovesk

That guy in your video post mentioned this guy and Obama and what they got up to in his limo he also mentions how the press hardly touched the story in a different video...

check it:


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

[ThePythonicCow]

I was just asking. OK!
Not OK. You derailed this thread, with attacks on a member, and irrelevant attacks on Jack Cafferty. You were not just asking. Just because abusive trolling is posed as a question does not make it OK.

You just came off a weeks vacation for posts of little positive value and sometimes negative value.

Now I am returning you to vacation ... two weeks this time.

If the other members ask me to delete your posts (some of which you've already edited) and the various replies to and quotes of your posts, in an effort to get this thread back on track, I can do that. As regards to leaving a public record of the reasons for you being on vacation, I like to leave posts up, but as a matter of actually discussing Ron Paul, I'd like to take them down :).

[Cartomancer]

Well then, Back to Ron Paul. He will bounce back from this smear campaign. This is just situation normal. He has made it this far w/ no lamestream media help so he will keep on truckin' the rest of the way without it.

uZFKZ-kTDzY

[Unified Serenity]

Well then, Back to Ron Paul. He will bounce back from this smear campaign. This is just situation normal. He has made it this far w/ no lamestream media help so he will keep on truckin' the rest of the way without it.



Yes, RP will keep trucking on. I wonder what the next attack on RP will be. They ignored him for years, treated him like a loon which they keep going back to, but it's not working as well as it used to, now they are outright smearing him. I can imagine that he has been "talked" to, that they probably tried to bribe him, I do wonder what their next move will be and I do hope it is not an unfortunate accident.

RP has a great deal of support and both the Republicans and Democrats know this. He is not going to be bought and he isn't going to be derailed by some moral dilemma because if they had that card they would have played it, and so far all they have had is a 20 yr old bunch of junk which he has handled well. Some have mentioned the whole Electoral college card, but it would have to be a very close campaign and out of the primary status to go there. If he wins the primary then I see a good chance at Trump or someone like that running third party against him to stop him.

Any thoughts?

[Star Tsar]

Perhaps the people of the US again will be duped by the promise of change?
I feel this is more likey.

:(

[Star Tsar]

And as far as the bickering goes y'all need a


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hc--dFFp7mY

[Referee]

Does anyone know what is Ron Paul's position on the most personal decision known to humanity...the decision to bring a child into the world. I guess we would agree that is a matter within the category of 'personal freedom'?

He is Pro Life, this choice was made due to his years as a practicing MD and his view on Liberty.

[Jeffrey]

To T Smith:

You said in fewer words what I was trying to get across. Amen brother.

and then there's this to address...


Does anyone know what is Ron Paul's position on the most personal decision known to humanity...the decision to bring a child into the world. I guess we would agree that is a matter within the category of 'personal freedom'?

Yea, he's pro-life (damn baby lovers)... I can't quite tell if this question was a rhetorical/sarcastic one or genuine. Nonetheless, just because Dr. Paul shares his personal opinions on such things doesn't mean he would enforce his moral proclivities on the nation. It's not in the constitution! Remember, he's a strict libertarian constitutionalist. He wants people to have the right to choose and he doesn't want the federal government presiding over such choices (this is a part of liberty). He's pro-life and pro-liberty. These matters should be dealt with at state levels.

PS-I'm a damn baby lover too.

[etm567]

Of course you and Dawn are correct that the reaction to ETM was direct and not very kind. I think the fact about how those letters came to be had been already brought to ETM's attention earlier, but she chose to bring them to another RP thread and it actually feels like she knew it was inflamatory and she got the reaction she wanted. I apologize for taking the bait. I think it's probably best to follow Ilie's advice here, and stick to the issues, and not be baited in the future.

Mullet for the day

Dear Serenity,

I certainly will not call you a liar, but in my view, what you are saying is absolutely not true, so I believe you are mistaken. That had not been brought to my attention earlier in the day. In fact, I think I said I had been called a liar in an earlier thread, which I was then unable to find. So, nothing of any substance had been called to my attention. I had only been called a liar, as far as I can see.

I do not claim to know what it is in Ron Paul's -- or any other politician's -- heart. And I believe by "well known fact" I was referring to what is a well known fact -- that those newsletters were indeed published under his name. The discussion in the media has gone on for days about this, as anyone who looks can see. As I also pointed out to you, US, I have always kind of liked Ron Paul (indeed, I am a life-long Dem, decidedly on the left), but have always been a wee bit concerned about his "other" Libertarian beliefs, by which I mean the typical Libertarian platform, which are generally ones that I disagree with.

I do find, and always have found, it quite interesting that the Libertarians on the right agree with those on the left about so many issues relating to personal liberty, while the more typical Republicans or conservatives seem to want to tell everybody what they may and may not do in their bedrooms and what they may or may not put in their bodies, but insist at the same time that they want the government to remain "small." That would require quite a lot of peculiar contortions, as far as I can see, to keep government small and yet to control so much of what we do, including checking up on the contents of my uterus whenever they want to!

So, in my opinion, Libertarians and left-leaning Dems and progressives have a meeting of the minds as far as personal, individual liberties. That is good. But that is not the entire picture.

I grew up in Memphis, Tennessee during the civil rights movement. My mother was a civil rights activist. In the South, in those days, I think segregation was already to some degree illegal. Public places were, by law, required to be desegregated, but at that time they remained totally separate, and there was no movement. High schools no longer had proms, because the wrong people couldn't be kept out of the prom. The public pools closed, because that was better than to allow Whites and Blacks to swim together. And restaurants just did not allow Blacks in, period, even though that was illegal. It wasn't going to happen, either.

My mother helped to change that. She and some friends of her, a couple of White woman and a couple of Black women, started a "ladies' club," and they called it the Saturday Luncheon Group. One of the white women would call a restaurant, and with her best southern drawl make reservations for her "lady's group" to have their monthly luncheon at that restaurant. And when they showed up, they would be a mixed group, and with the strength of numbers they would face down the restaurant management and have their integrated luncheon.

That small group grew to be a very large one, eventually, and it was a group many people wanted to belong to. My mom did lots of stuff. And then she moved away from Memphis, to a small town in Arkansas.

Libertarians believe, if I am not wrong, that legislation like the Civil Rights Act is unnecessary; that owners of private property should be allowed to do whatever they want. I can't imagine how many decades it would have taken for those "whites only" water fountains and restrooms to have disappeared in the South, but it would have been a long time, and it would have continued to be hard on Black people living there to find a water fountain or a restroom that they could use. That would be utterly wrong, just as it had been utterly wrong all those years ago. But being wrong did not make it stop. It was the status quo. It always takes an expenditure of energy of some kind, I think, to change the status quo, unless something significant in the environment changes.

So, that is my general trouble with the Libertarian "faith." We can all see today that corporations do not do the right thing, when given the freedom to choose. Their purpose is to make money, it is not to be responsible. They do not self regulate. Consequently, I believe that we do need laws and regulations to create a society that is equal for all of us, including everybody, that is. We need laws to protect the weak and the sick. We need laws to stop the wealthy from changing all the rules to suit them. And if I am not mistaken, the creed of the Libertarians is that such regulations are wrong.

So, yes, I do like Ron Paul for a number of reasons. I also like Dennis Kucinich. And I was very sorry to learn that Paul had published a lot of very racist material -- and that fact is indeed indisputable -- for a number of years with his name on it. I put in my original post, I think, that he said he did not have direct oversight of that material, and that I thought -- I said "I think," I believe, which means what it says, that's what I think, not what I know -- that that was lame, to say he was not aware of what his newsletter had in it over a period of several years. I still think that is indeed lame. In my opinion, he must have known, and indeed he should have known, what was going out on a newsletter with his name on it.

So, in my opinion, as much as I like him, as he is a breath of fresh air in a very stale room, I remain leery about him. And I think I am entitled to that position here on Avalon. It is not required that we be Republicans or Libertarians to be members of this forum.

I have been terribly disappointed by the Democrats, no kidding! I believe they are just about all bought and paid for. Maybe not Ron Paul. And maybe not Dennis Kucinich. Maybe there are a few others. We are in desperate circumstances. But it is the folks who are controlling our politicians that we need to dis-empower.

I remain very leery of Ron Paul when it comes to issues of civil rights for everyone -- including gays, Hispanics, Blacks, Asians -- everyone. My youngest brother, whom I love as much as I love anyone on Earth, is gay. He is one of the finest people I have ever known, bar none.

So, now you know a lot about my personal views. I am now sorry I left the thread. I thought, at the time, that that was the correct thing to do, to avoid getting in a name-calling roll in the mud with people who have different political beliefs. So do not cheer that you chased me off. People like me really don't run away. I come from a pretty proud lineage, actually. My mother isn't here anymore, but I am mighty damned proud of what she accomplished in her time. And not a single one of you can take that away from me, or cause me for one moment to feel ashamed of myself. That would be a great big FAIL.

So if I walk away from a nasty fight, it is because I do not want to get myself dirty.

ETM

On edit, I want to add something I neglected to say: Of course, I do not trust the mainstream media. I don't just believe something because they say it. Or because they deny it. And much has been said about these newsletters. I do not know what the truth is. And just because Ron Paul says he didn't know what was in them then -- well, as I said, I find that hard to believe. If he truly didn't know, then, in my opinion, he was in excusably irresponsible. So we do the best we can with the information we can find.

Keep cool.

ETM

[Arrowwind]

The overwhelming evidence to me is that Ron Paul will protect the constitution... even if he did know about some racist stuff in the past. There is no indication in his behavior over the last 20 years that he would work to undo civil rights or assault blacks and latinos or Muslims or Jews while in office.

I certainly do agree with Ron Pauls essay on Christmas.

When I was a child we did all the Christmans stuff in grade school.. songs, art work, plays, etc.
The town I lived in was predominately Christians, protestant and Catholic. We also had some Jewish people.

In school we did christmas trees and Menorahs. We sang Silent Night and Haunaka songs, both in class and in plays.
We celebrated this diverstity way back in 1963. We also had songs and poetry about the winter solstice... and celebrations of spring with the May pole which of course borders on paganism.

Why cant it remain that way?

I suspect it is not remaining that way because Christian fundamentalists protest the diversity and have tried to cram christianity down everyone's throat,,, exclaiming from the roof tops that their children must not be exposted to pagan and Jewish beliefs and all those people are going to hell... and there in lies the problem of this evolving repression in schools... so the Jews, and pagans and peoples of other religions rebel and say If I have to submit or be perpetually assaulted by your crap then we will just have a "Happy Holidays" flat colorless party so no one may be offended.... for truly none offend as offensively as a fanatical evangelical christian.

[Humble Janitor]

Hate to rain on on the pro-Ron Paul parade but here's an interesting link:

http://patdollard.com/2011/12/white-supremacist-founder-of-stormfront-says-his-followers-are-volunteering-for-ron-paul%E2%80%99s-campaign/


The American Free Press, which markets books like “The Invention of the Jewish People” and “March of the Titans: A History of the White Race,” is urging its subscribers to help it send hundreds of copies of Ron Paul’s collected speeches to voters in New Hampshire. The book, it promises, will “Help Dr. Ron Paul Win the G.O.P. Nomination in 2012!”

Don Black, director of the white nationalist Web site Stormfront, said in an interview that several dozen of his members were volunteering for Mr. Paul’s presidential campaign, and a site forum titled “Why is Ron Paul such a favorite here?” has no fewer than 24 pages of comments. “I understand he wins many fans because his monetary policy would hurt Jews,” read one. [...]

The white supremacists, survivalists and anti-Zionists who have rallied behind his candidacy have not exactly been warmly welcomed. “I wouldn’t be happy with that,” Mr. Paul said in an interview Friday when asked about getting help from volunteers with anti-Jewish or antiblack views.

But he did not disavow their support. “If they want to endorse me, they’re endorsing what I do or say — it has nothing to do with endorsing what they say,” said Mr. Paul, who is now running strong in Iowa for the Republican nomination.

Before you go off on me for posting this, keep in mind that Dr.Paul should be speaking out against these people regardless of whether they vote for him or not. I do not condone racist views or racist people and neither should Dr.Paul.

I post on another conspiracy site that is overwhelmingly in support of Dr.Paul and they call for anyone with opposing viewpoints to be BANNED from that site. I certainly hope that mindset doesn't exist here at Project Avalon. I personally do not support Obama (anymore) or ANY of the other Republican candidates either at this point.

[T Smith]

T Smith,

A long standing argument about drug laws is one that states, in effect, if there are no laws against drugs, then it is not a crime. That approach is one that has worked remarkably well in nations that have open societies and is a very valid social construction. In a cohesive functioning benevolent society it can work. By derivation it could be argued that if there are no laws against pedophilia, there are no pedophiles, if the U.S. constitution says that Negroes are only 3/5 human, then Negroes are only 3/5 human, if the constitution says that women don't have the right to vote, then women don't deserve the right to vote. The problem with the above approach is that they ignore social consequences and are by their very nature morally exogenous. The underlying 'meaning' is irrelevant, only the words count. The authority is derived from the status of the 'words'.

Words have meaning and should be moral but not selectively. Does morality only take on meaning when the consequences effect only a chosen few or does it apply to everyone.

I don't quite follow the points you are making here, but I will nonetheless attempt to respond. It would seem you may be confusing morality with language. Morality is universal and transcends language. Language may attempt to codify morality, in the same way Religion may attempt to codify God, but the result in both cases always falls short of codifying what is Moral or what is Devine. At the end of the day, Morality and Divinity are one in the same and cannot be perfectly codified.

That said, societies can fashion laws (language) that proclaim people with red hair must be sacrificed to the Gods by fire, or people under 6 feet tall cannot participate in the vote, or any number of bizarre cultural variations that reflect culture, including the examples you provide. These may be social norms, and perhaps even written into law, but that does not necessarily mean they are moral.

The U.S. Constitution is the closest document since the Magna Carta that attempts to codify a universal set of principals that best represents the Western understanding of morality as far as the social order is concerned. It represents a set of conventions to ensure free humanity as best understood by Western Enlightenment thought. As the narrative of human history invariably depicts a gravitating struggle toward bondage and enslavement, these documents serve the people as a road map on how to dodge and then check the enslaving force that has plagued humankind since the dawn of time. That doesn't mean these are perfect documents, and many ensuing laws written into the Constitution violated the intrinsic principals before the ink was even dry, including Negroes being defined as 3/5 human, etc. Many of the founders recognized the inherent inconsistencies of the prevailing culture with the more ethereal principals of Western Enlightenment thought, not only in this aspect, but in other areas as well. These shortcomings are shortcomings; they do not mean the Constitution was a failure. It means it was designed by an association of humans.

We may never devise a document or a painting or a sculpture that represents the Divine. That doesn’t mean I’m not going to appreciate The David, or the Last Judgment on the altar wall of the Sistine Chapel, or U.S. Constitution for what it is.

[Unified Serenity]

I think Dr. Paul respects the rights of Americans to voice their views and adhers to the second amendment. I do not believe you will find anything of Dr. Paul's admitted writings or any stories that shows he is a racist or wants to use our country to further foreign policy of any other country. He believes in upholding the constitution and less government intervention. Dr. Paul said he wouldn't be happy with it, and maybe he needed more information before he made any definitive statements rather than be like Obama who denounced the police as racists for doing their job without Obama having all the facts present.

I certainly have not heard anyone being told to shut up when bringing up factual information, and by that, I mean stuff that has not already by clearly answered by Dr. Paul and revealed to a poster who insists on continuing to post false information. I welcome all factual information as I have no sacred cows.

[etm567]

He's right, it remains a theory and his "concept of understanding of a creator" really isn't related to whether or not he or anybody else has to believe in evolution. I thought this was pretty well said on his part.

I think both you and Mr. Paul are mistaken about what the word "theory" means in scientific method. Theories are basically accepted as being true. They have been tested. A theory is not just a hunch, although that is how the word is used in general everyday speech. The theory of relativity is not just a hunch, it is taken as being true.

An idea that has not yet been tested is a hypothesis. There's a lot of work and discussion that takes place between something being a hypothesis and something becoming a theory. So the theory of evolution has been studied and tested, and by the scientific community it has been accepted as being true. I don't know how someone would prove it to be a fact. It's much closer to being a fact, though, than to being a hunch.

[Unified Serenity]

What was used to push forward the "theory of evolution" in the early days has been proven to be a total fraud. Now they go to genetic strains etc, but where are the missing links? If this stuff takes millions of years to happen, there should be some very good record of a thumb growing out inch by inch until it gets to the tip of a birds wing, but it does not exist. We do have perfectly well preserved modern human footprints much older than when humans were believed to have "evolved" which flies in the face of the "theory of evolution" for one does not go to a modern state, evolve backwards and them presto blammo there is a new one here we can see.

There are quite a few holes in the "theory of evolution". Then take into the aspect of "Laws" such as the "law of gravity" and I have seen some interesting things that debunk the given law of gravity that really are beyond me for I simply know that when I stand in the wrong place and a bird flies overhead and relieves itself, I experience gravity directly.

[shamanseeker]

Excuse me, Jackovesk but I have always enjoyed your threads and been a fan of your flamboyant style but do not appreciate your response to etm567. If you don't agree, is it necessary to call him a liar in red print? I don't know anything about Ron Paul and I hope he is genuine. However, if someone believes something else of him and it has been proved to be false, it is enough to just point this out without offence.

[T Smith]

Hate to rain on on the pro-Ron Paul parade but here's an interesting link:

http://patdollard.com/2011/12/white-supremacist-founder-of-stormfront-says-his-followers-are-volunteering-for-ron-paul%E2%80%99s-campaign/


The American Free Press, which markets books like “The Invention of the Jewish People” and “March of the Titans: A History of the White Race,” is urging its subscribers to help it send hundreds of copies of Ron Paul’s collected speeches to voters in New Hampshire. The book, it promises, will “Help Dr. Ron Paul Win the G.O.P. Nomination in 2012!”

Don Black, director of the white nationalist Web site Stormfront, said in an interview that several dozen of his members were volunteering for Mr. Paul’s presidential campaign, and a site forum titled “Why is Ron Paul such a favorite here?” has no fewer than 24 pages of comments. “I understand he wins many fans because his monetary policy would hurt Jews,” read one. [...]

The white supremacists, survivalists and anti-Zionists who have rallied behind his candidacy have not exactly been warmly welcomed. “I wouldn’t be happy with that,” Mr. Paul said in an interview Friday when asked about getting help from volunteers with anti-Jewish or antiblack views.

But he did not disavow their support. “If they want to endorse me, they’re endorsing what I do or say — it has nothing to do with endorsing what they say,” said Mr. Paul, who is now running strong in Iowa for the Republican nomination.

Before you go off on me for posting this, keep in mind that Dr.Paul should be speaking out against these people regardless of whether they vote for him or not. I do not condone racist views or racist people and neither should Dr.Paul.

I post on another conspiracy site that is overwhelmingly in support of Dr.Paul and they call for anyone with opposing viewpoints to be BANNED from that site. I certainly hope that mindset doesn't exist here at Project Avalon. I personally do not support Obama (anymore) or ANY of the other Republican candidates either at this point.

99% of disavowing this or that, by a politician, is nothing more than political posturing and often disingenuous. As he is not your run of the mill politician, Dr. Paul does not play those kind of games. However, that does not at all mean Dr. Paul condones racism, and I take him at his word that he would not be happy to learn he was getting support from groups that harbor these views. What more, exactly, do you expect from him here? Freedom of speech, whether we like it or not, includes allowing people who for whatever the reason are stunted in understanding and have backward views. One could argue "hate" consciousness crosses the freedom of speech line and may create cultural consequences that infringe on the rights of others and should be regulated by law. That is a healthy debate for us to have, but for someone who advocates the principal of tolerance as a cornerstone, that's as far as I would be willing "to speak out" against these people, if I were in Dr. Paul's shoes. Anything more becomes "disingenuous" for one who truly believes in liberty. That said, I have often heard Dr. Paul advocate tolerance of race, creed, and individual rights. As far as I'm concerned, he does speak out against those who harbor these type of views every single day.

[Arc]

Well, let's hear what some of them have to say.

0fyRVa4lzRo

ej5_rZof7MA

As a side note, let's check in now where Ron Paul is on the Ghandi "quote-o-meter" of fighting the against the corrupt establishment status-quo:

"First they ignore you."
[Since he started the 2012 campaign he has been here - ignored by debates and MSM]

"Then they laugh at you."
[the last month or so, MSM does not take him serious - mocking him in interviews/debates with off-topic or dumb questions]

"Then they fight you."
[and now we see the first signs of this - Racist argument emerges in MSM - of course! we will see more. The first MSM focus on RP is negative. No surprise...]

"Then you win."
[I can't wait!!]
:)

[Jeffrey]

He's right, it remains a theory and his "concept of understanding of a creator" really isn't related to whether or not he or anybody else has to believe in evolution. I thought this was pretty well said on his part.

I think both you and Mr. Paul are mistaken about what the word "theory" means in scientific method. Theories are basically accepted as being true. They have been tested. A theory is not just a hunch, although that is how the word is used in general everyday speech. The theory of relativity is not just a hunch, it is taken as being true.

An idea that has not yet been tested is a hypothesis. There's a lot of work and discussion that takes place between something being a hypothesis and something becoming a theory. So the theory of evolution has been studied and tested, and by the scientific community it has been accepted as being true. I don't know how someone would prove it to be a fact. It's much closer to being a fact, though, than to being a hunch.

Hello etm567, allow me to clarify my comment you responded to. The theory of relativity is just that, a theory as well. We don't have all the facts. A scientific theory is an educated explanation of some observable phenomenon. New discoveries may come along, new evidence, new data, etc. that require a theory be modified. This is not the point though. Some Christians refuse to believe evolution because they hear the current mainstream paradigm and think that humanity (or all life) evolved from an amoeba that spawned from some primordial soup during a lightning storm. They say, "Nay, God molded me from his holy play-doh!" I took Organic Evolution, Biology, and Ecology classes in college and natural selection is a very real (more importantly provable) and observable phenomenon. I can tell you this too, confirmation bias plays a big part in this (shout out to Sync). They didn't teach about alien interbreeding, extraterrestrial's seeding the planet, spontaneous evolution through cosmological events (shout out to DW), or anything like that. The information is out there. If one sifts through it they can find what they want to find or they can find the truth. I think the pieces to this puzzle are scattered everywhere and there are indeed some very compelling cases (i.e. theories).

Where Ron Paul stands on this issue is unimportant. He's not to keen on a secular government, or secular science. That's all.

Love to you,

Vivek


PS- I'm not saying all Christians think this way. I also think this topic would be good for another thread.

[Jeffrey]

Hate to rain on on the pro-Ron Paul parade but here's an interesting link:

http://patdollard.com/2011/12/white-supremacist-founder-of-stormfront-says-his-followers-are-volunteering-for-ron-paul%E2%80%99s-campaign/


The American Free Press, which markets books like “The Invention of the Jewish People” and “March of the Titans: A History of the White Race,” is urging its subscribers to help it send hundreds of copies of Ron Paul’s collected speeches to voters in New Hampshire. The book, it promises, will “Help Dr. Ron Paul Win the G.O.P. Nomination in 2012!”

Don Black, director of the white nationalist Web site Stormfront, said in an interview that several dozen of his members were volunteering for Mr. Paul’s presidential campaign, and a site forum titled “Why is Ron Paul such a favorite here?” has no fewer than 24 pages of comments. “I understand he wins many fans because his monetary policy would hurt Jews,” read one. [...]

The white supremacists, survivalists and anti-Zionists who have rallied behind his candidacy have not exactly been warmly welcomed. “I wouldn’t be happy with that,” Mr. Paul said in an interview Friday when asked about getting help from volunteers with anti-Jewish or antiblack views.

But he did not disavow their support. “If they want to endorse me, they’re endorsing what I do or say — it has nothing to do with endorsing what they say,” said Mr. Paul, who is now running strong in Iowa for the Republican nomination.

Before you go off on me for posting this, keep in mind that Dr.Paul should be speaking out against these people regardless of whether they vote for him or not. I do not condone racist views or racist people and neither should Dr.Paul.

I post on another conspiracy site that is overwhelmingly in support of Dr.Paul and they call for anyone with opposing viewpoints to be BANNED from that site. I certainly hope that mindset doesn't exist here at Project Avalon. I personally do not support Obama (anymore) or ANY of the other Republican candidates either at this point.

I think he did.


“If they want to endorse me, they’re endorsing what I do or say — it has nothing to do with [me] endorsing what they say,” said Mr. Paul, who is now running strong in Iowa for the Republican nomination.

[etm567]

I certainly have not heard anyone being told to shut up when bringing up factual information, and by that, I mean stuff that has not already by clearly answered by Dr. Paul and revealed to a poster who insists on continuing to post false information. I welcome all factual information as I have no sacred cows.

Dear Serenity,

It is not clear to whom you are referring here, when you say "revealed to a poster who insists on continuing to post false information." I would also point out you are not qualifying "false information" in any way, you are stating that is false information, not mistaken, not a difference of opinion, but false.

You say you have no sacred cows? I detect a wee bit of irony here. I do, I do.

Personally, I have said that I do not think I know what is in Ron Paul's heart or soul (I guess you believe you do know?), but I have now seen PDFs of one of these newsletters, which are written in the first person, as in, I ask you voters blah blah blah, and then they are SIGNED, Sincerely, Ron Paul. They start out, Dear voters, let me tell you what I'm thinking and doing, and end up, Sincerely, Ron Paul, with a photograph of a signature, as in, like, you know, a signature. Like when someone signs something, like a contract, or a check, or a personal letter. Most adults know better than to sign something without looking at it, don't they? I would guess it might even be illegal to put a photograph of someone's signature at the bottom of a letter that they did not write, or a letter of which they had no knowledge, or of which they did not approve. I certainly would not pay an employee to write a newsletter under may name and sign my name to it while they were filling it with statements that I abhor.

I would also point out that when confronted over these same newsletters at various times over the many years that have passed since they were published, it does not appear that, before now, Dr. Paul has ever once denied writing them. In fact, for many years, he defended them in various ways. I will bring those ways to your attention tomorrow perhaps, not now, because I do not have them at my fingertips. I will also post links to the pdf of one of the newsletters, with his signature on it. But I will do that tomorrow.

But, for the record, if you are referring to me, it's okay if you identify me rather than allude to "some poster," but when you are accusing me of insistently stating false information, I would appreciate it if you would be more careful and treat me with the same respect with which I try to treat you. As in my earlier reply to you, where you had stated some information was provided for me (without my knowledge, can you really say factually it was provided to me?), I said it was not true, but that I would say you were mistaken, rather than calling you a liar. And concerning that particular type of information, information which you say you know was provided to me, who would know better than I if I received this information? If I say I did not receive it, I am saying I did not receive it. I did not receive it. So, you are mistaken. You were mistaken earlier, and you remain mistaken now. I did not receive it. Do you understand it yet? I did not receive it. I don't know what you are talking about. The fact that you say someone gave me some information does not mean I received any information. But it is something you will use to, in a crooked sort of way, while pretending not to do such a thing, once again call me a liar,if only by inference. Always the nasty little barb wrapped up in the appealing, pretty looking sandwich. Time after time, the same format.

I fear I am letting my temper get the best of me, which is never a good idea, and I should walk away. Which I shall do. But I appeal to you, do not infer I am a liar any more. Please. I will do the same for you. If you insist on carrying on this way, I do not know what I shall do, but be assured I will do something, and it will probably be something that you won't like. I think the evidence is on my side, and I know how to use it.

I still say, I have always liked Ron Paul. He has been a breath of fresh air. So that makes this a really sad little brouhaha, flamed into being by one who seemingly cannot detach and let go before stinging someone.

ETM

[UFOphotos]

DtexONyfwL8

Danish media Hates Ron Paul (Dec. 22, 2011) – I have seen a few newspieces the last couple of months about the republican presidential, candidate campaign on a state owned TV-station “DR1″ in Denmark. I have not yet heard a word about Ron Paul? Then I saw the newspiece in DR1 on Dec. 22, 2011, I became quite upset, because I had just read an article from CBS News, written one day before on Dec. 21, 2011, stating, that Ron Paul now takes lead in latest Iowa poll, and DR1 are so rude still not to mention a word about Ron Paul. How can it be, that a TV-station in a very small country on the other side of the atlantic, also ignores Ron Paul completely? I know DR1 among others get their news from Ritzau like other medias does around the world, but don´t forget they have their own reporters in the U.S., and they must know the truth. I think we are unwilling spectators to the struggle of the elite establishment, to avoid the masses of the people to wake up, even overseas, and they do it openly in the media now. There is central control and coordination of news information distributed globally, and the media world follow suit like slaves, not journalists…

-so far people report Ron Paul blackouts in following countries:

Japan
Singapore
Norway
Scotland
United Kingdom
Belgium
Denmark

[T Smith]

I have now seen PDFs of one of these newsletters, which are written in the first person, as in, I ask you voters blah blah blah, and then they are SIGNED, Sincerely, Ron Paul. They start out, Dear voters, let me tell you what I'm thinking and doing, and end up, Sincerely, Ron Paul, with a photograph of a signature, as in, like, you know, a signature. Like when someone signs something, like a contract, or a check, or a personal letter. Most adults know better than to sign something without looking at it, don't they? I would guess it might even be illegal to put a photograph of someone's signature at the bottom of a letter that they did not write, or a letter of which they had no knowledge, or of which they did not approve. I certainly would not pay an employee to write a newsletter under may name and sign my name to it while they were filling it with statements that I abhor.

ETM

Hello ETM,

Please attach the PDF of an offensive newsletter written in the First Person and signed by Dr. Paul. If one exists, I would like to see it.

Also, on a side issue, can't you see what's going on here? If not, I suggest you read through a very informative book that serves as a handbook of sorts on political warfare, Rules for Radicals, by Saul Alynski. These are classic Alynski-like smear techniques on how to destroy your political enemy, and specifically, how to manipulate voters and folks like you who admittedly aren't fully aware of the candidates stances on very polarizing issues. It doesn't matter whether they are true or not. What matters is the perception they create, and actually how they can exploit the public itself as a weapon.

I take no issue with those who are concerned about these matters. They should be. Please be aware, however, of the manipulation being waged against you. In other words, I would submit to you for consideration: you may be playing the role of useful pawn here to those who may be manipulating you. These issues have been hashed over years ago. Dr. Paul has disavowed these words years ago, over and over, and now again and again. He has repeatedly stated he did not write these words. Are you saying you don't believe him? That appears to be the real issue. You are essentially calling Dr. Paul a liar, or insinuating that he may be lying, which is why I think many others here have taken issue with your posts and thrown the same kind of rhetoric back at you, albeit much more directly.

I for one believe Dr. Paul and take him at his word. Not necessarily because of his words, but because of his 30 year track record of public integrity spanning issues that deal with the very allegations against him. I also understand Alynski techniques well, and I understand these latest attacks are textbook manipulation games waged against an unsuspecting public.

[markpierre]

Wow. That's sort of a tedious conversation about nothing then. Would they do that if they knew they actually looked like idiots?

Do they go into the green room after the show and wonder what the hell they're doing?

It's weird imagining that they really don't care. It's more weird imagining why.

[jackovesk]

I for one believe Dr. Paul and take him at his word. Not necessarily because of his words, but because of his 30 year track record of public integrity spanning issues that deal with the very allegations against him. I also understand Alynski techniques well, and I understand these latest attacks are textbook manipulation games wages against an unsuspecting public.

Agreed T Smith,

I' like to say more, but I think there is more than enough evidence on this thread to back up Dr Ron Paul's Honesty & Integrity...

For those who continue to talk off topic and can't back up their opinions, IMHO deserve neither yours or my opinion in return..!

So by all means (RP Doubters) - Go For Your Life with the continual semantics and the He said, She Said stuff...

I just want the 'American People' to start fighting to uphold their Constitution and The Bill of Rights and Get Their Country Back from the Bankster OWO Globalist Criminals whole stole it from you in the 1st place..!

As far as I am aware Ron Paul is the only US Politician who can help you achieve that goal...Period..!

Don't just take my word for it, have a listen to what these Americans have to say about Ron Paul (Post #1 on this Thread)...

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?37513-Do-Black-Americans-think-Ron-Paul-is-Racist

[Kindred]

-so far people report Ron Paul blackouts in following countries:

Japan
Singapore
Norway
Scotland
United Kingdom
Belgium
Denmark

Well... taking a quick look at the list tells (almost) the whole story. What is common among this list is that they are All Owned by the (insert your favorite local branch) Central Banking System. Dr. Paul is a Direct Threat to these banking entities, as his calling for the dissolution of the US Federal Reserve Bank (the lender of last resort, thus propping up the lot) threatens Every Central Bank. So it should come as No surprise that the media, who are Also Owned by these systems, are doing their bidding in Ignoring the threat posed by Dr. Paul's campaign.

That the internet is now allowing this knowledge to be heard is of Great discomfort to TPTW, and they are becoming increasingly desperate to the point of trying to control the conversation across a vast area, primarily the so-called Western World. I feel this act is futile.

In Unity and Peace

[Humble Janitor]

I think he did.


“If they want to endorse me, they’re endorsing what I do or say — it has nothing to do with [me] endorsing what they say,” said Mr. Paul, who is now running strong in Iowa for the Republican nomination.

That's not enough in today's society.

There are other reasons not to vote for Dr.Paul. I have tried to be civil when arguing with his supporters but SOME of them are young, misinformed and they seem to like censoring those that disagree with them. Not much different from the Obamamaniacs of 2008.

[Humble Janitor]

As much as I'd like to believe you, jackovesk, there are NO politicians currently in the U.S that can even hope to accomplish ALL of the goals in their agendas.

I am cynical and I am sick of the system as it is set up.

Dr.Paul will meet a lot of opposition if he does get the nomination. That's nothing compared to what he'd face if he were actually elected to a higher office. I have read up on his legislative track record and it shows that he has not been able to get many of his ideas through. That is not a good thing because we Americans demand RESULTS from our politicians. You've seen it with Obama and the presidents before him (Shrub, Clinton, Bush Sr, Reagan) that they talk a big talk but cannot walk the walk.

I do not see it in Ron Paul.

It will take a legion of individuals like Dr.Paul to make this change happen. Depending on one person as your "savior" is a terrible idea that usually brings poor results.

[rgray222]

The bright side of this is that the flow of information is no longer confined to government, corporate or bank controlled media outlets. If you sit on the right side, left side or you are planted firmly in the middle of the political spectrum everyone now recognizes the political bias of the media. For many years people simply believed everything they put forward as the truth. I believe that people started to wake up to the media bias in 2000 but the 2008 U.S. Presidential election was a watershed for how distorted and dishonest (many times by omission)the media actually is.

The hard work actually starts now, people have gotten the message about how dishonest and media is regarding politics but we must gain a full understanding of how the media has been used to manipulate information and people well beyond politics.

While the genesis of the internet is open for much debate it is pretty widely accepted that it got its start with the US Dept of Defense communicating with a few Universities in the United States. It was meant to be a mechanism for control and not the dissemination of information that it is today. When Bolt, Beranek and Newman (BBN) created a computer network that was called ARPANET (Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA)) the forerunner of DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Project Agency) and it was never meant to do what it does today. The department of defense has its fingerprints all over the internet.

There have been desperate attempts to control the internet and I believe we will see some strong efforts to curtail its effectiveness in the coming year and this is something that we all need to guard against. Fortunately the horse is pretty far out of the gate but it will not prevent a major effort from taking place. A few trial balloons (like SOPA) have been sent up to see how feasible it would be and they have been turned back rather vigorously. (a tax on products sold is one of the first steps to control)

When the real effort to control the internet arrives it will be cloaked as something that will appear to be very good for every internet user, this will be the point when we all have to say............any control no matter how good it appears must not be allowed!

[Jeffrey]

I think he did.


“If they want to endorse me, they’re endorsing what I do or say — it has nothing to do with [me] endorsing what they say,” said Mr. Paul, who is now running strong in Iowa for the Republican nomination.

That's not enough in today's society.

There are other reasons not to vote for Dr.Paul. I have tried to be civil when arguing with his supporters but SOME of them are young, misinformed and they seem to like censoring those that disagree with them. Not much different from the Obamamaniacs of 2008.


As much as I'd like to believe you, jackovesk, there are NO politicians currently in the U.S that can even hope to accomplish ALL of the goals in their agendas.

I am cynical and I am sick of the system as it is set up.

Dr.Paul will meet a lot of opposition if he does get the nomination. That's nothing compared to what he'd face if he were actually elected to a higher office. I have read up on his legislative track record and it shows that he has not been able to get many of his ideas through. That is not a good thing because we Americans demand RESULTS from our politicians. You've seen it with Obama and the presidents before him (Shrub, Clinton, Bush Sr, Reagan) that they talk a big talk but cannot walk the walk.

I do not see it in Ron Paul.

It will take a legion of individuals like Dr.Paul to make this change happen. Depending on one person as your "savior" is a terrible idea that usually brings poor results.

I am young, and I voted for Obama (I wasn't an Obamaniac though). I didn't do my research and let me tell you, watching his campaign promises unravel during his incumbency was an eye opener for me. I have never researched, or been as involved in politics as I am now, and it's because of Ron Paul (and my disappointment in Obama). I have taken responsibility for knowing what I should know to be able to make an informed decision. I am not finished learning. Having said that I've never liked bigotry. I used to be able to hide behind naivety, but now I am up for healthy debate, and I am still enthusiastic about Ron Paul.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. I'll tell you what, sometimes I feel so ashamed. :p I do learn though. Inside every cynic is a disappointed idealist, and I am happy to say that my zeal is still intact.

Now, Ron Paul's cause isn't to speak out against racists, he's campaigning for the presidency of the United States. He just said he doesn't endorse what they say. What do you expect him to do, begin a war on racism (like we have a war on terror)? The man has genuine integrity, and morals. Again, I will point to his track record.

As for his opposition, he's met the bulk of it already, it's the mainstream media and the people who think that preemptive war is the way to preserve our nation's security. On the contrary, it's a good way to secure some vested interest in that territory under the auspice of propagating freedom and democracy. It's a double edged sword that we're swinging around the world. His fiscal policy and his take on economics is another issue that his opposition has a problem with.

As for the legion of individuals like Dr. Paul, well, if he wins the nomination I'd say that takes a legion of supporters. If he wins the presidency, the takes an even bigger legion. I'm not expecting a savior, just an honest President who upholds the constitution (call me crazy) and Ron Paul is looking like he's that guy.

Vivek

[Möbius]

If Ron Paul is a racist why on earth would he give two hoots about bombing arabs in Afghanistan & Iraq. Come on, use logic for once instead of crap you read in the Media.

[risveglio]

I think he did.


“If they want to endorse me, they’re endorsing what I do or say — it has nothing to do with [me] endorsing what they say,” said Mr. Paul, who is now running strong in Iowa for the Republican nomination.

That's not enough in today's society.

There are other reasons not to vote for Dr.Paul. I have tried to be civil when arguing with his supporters but SOME of them are young, misinformed and they seem to like censoring those that disagree with them. Not much different from the Obamamaniacs of 2008.

I find the anti-Paul people as being misinformed and unable to be civil. Most anti-Paul supporters are just drones of the MSM and have no ability to think for themselves. The entire Ron Paul is a racist BS is just more proof that anti-Paul supporters (most, not all) are just MSM sheeple.

As for Paul being a racist, please explain this?
http://www.buzzfeed.com/ccbaxter/22-facts-that-dont-jibe-with-ron-paul-being-a-rac-41xp

[jackovesk]

As much as I'd like to believe you, jackovesk, there are NO politicians currently in the U.S that can even hope to accomplish ALL of the goals in their agendas.

I am cynical and I am sick of the system as it is set up.

Dr.Paul will meet a lot of opposition if he does get the nomination. That's nothing compared to what he'd face if he were actually elected to a higher office. I have read up on his legislative track record and it shows that he has not been able to get many of his ideas through. That is not a good thing because we Americans demand RESULTS from our politicians. You've seen it with Obama and the presidents before him (Shrub, Clinton, Bush Sr, Reagan) that they talk a big talk but cannot walk the walk.

I do not see it in Ron Paul.

It will take a legion of individuals like Dr.Paul to make this change happen. Depending on one person as your "savior" is a terrible idea that usually brings poor results.

G'Day Humble Janitor,

I hear what your saying...

But, you missed one very important point in this statement...


It will take a legion of individuals like Dr.Paul to make this change happen. Depending on one person as your "savior" is a terrible idea that usually brings poor results

...and that is your quote 'above'...Your right and that is is exactly the point. Ron Paul can't do this on his own and he will need a "legion of individuals like Dr.Paul to make this change happen"...

Like Vivek and other American Avalonians have stated over and over again, they are educating themselves on exactly what needs to be done to uphold the Constitution & the Bill of Rights and get their Country back from those who stole it from them...

Its not just the individual (i.e. Ron Paul) he is merely the conduit of Truth for many Americans now willing to Wake Up and Educate themselves on how to get their Country back...

It's 'The People' HJ - It's 'The People'...that's the point..!

[T Smith]

As for Paul being a racist, please explain this?
http://www.buzzfeed.com/ccbaxter/22-facts-that-dont-jibe-with-ron-paul-being-a-rac-41xp

Outstanding. All these deeds and actions vs. an obscure newsletter written by an aide twenty years ago.

[etm567]

Does anyone know what is Ron Paul's position on the most personal decision known to humanity...the decision to bring a child into the world. I guess we would agree that is a matter within the category of 'personal freedom'?

Did anybody ever answer you about this?

Just curious. ETM

[Jeffrey]

Does anyone know what is Ron Paul's position on the most personal decision known to humanity...the decision to bring a child into the world. I guess we would agree that is a matter within the category of 'personal freedom'?

Did anybody ever answer you about this?

Just curious. ETM

Yep. Here you go...

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?37160-Explosive--New-Ron-Paul-Video-Bombs-Part-1-2&p=388935&viewfull=1#post388935

[T Smith]

Does anyone know what is Ron Paul's position on the most personal decision known to humanity...the decision to bring a child into the world. I guess we would agree that is a matter within the category of 'personal freedom'?

Did anybody ever answer you about this?

Just curious. ETM

Ron Paul's position on this particular issue is quite clear:

http://www.issues2000.org/tx/Ron_Paul_Abortion.htm

[andrewgreen]

He is the only politician I know to have the balls to come out and say he is for world peace and for taking the cash out of the drug trade so our communities are can start healing themselves instead of being divided. The main stream media supported by the military industrial complex are threatened by him.
He will win if people are awake enough to see it. In Russia, Syria and Iraq people lives grew so uncomfortable they were forced to question things and become activists. Unfortunately I think too many of the middle classes are still 'too comfortable' to ask questions and take radical action against the injustice that is going on in the world.

I'm not worried if he doesn't win. 20 years ago he was extreme now his ideas are becoming mainstream and as great as it would be if he wins he has laid some foundations for future peace orientated politicians to challenge the status quo.

[risveglio]

The Compassion of Dr. Ron Paul

8Rv0Z5SNrF4

[sygh]

I'm so sorry Ron Paul is a bone fide racist.

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-12-20/politics/30537102_1_newsletters-conspiracy-theories-lew-rockwell


Here's The Real Story Behind Ron Paul's Racist Newsletters
Michael Brendan Dougherty|December 20, 2011|

(AP)

So as Ron Paul is on track to win the Iowa caucuses, he is getting a new dose of press scrutiny.

And the press is focusing on the newsletters that went out under his name in the late 1980s and early 1990s. They were called the Ron Paul's Political Report, Ron Paul's Freedom Report, the Ron Paul Survival Report and the Ron Paul Investment Letter.

There is no doubt that the newsletters contained utterly racist statements.

Some choice quotes:

"Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

"We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational."

After the Los Angeles riots, one article in a newsletter claimed, "Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks."

One referred to Martin Luther King Jr. as "the world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours" and who "seduced underage girls and boys."

Another referred to Barbara Jordan, a civil rights activist and congresswoman as "Barbara Morondon," the "archetypical half-educated victimologist."

Other newsletters had strange conspiracy theories about homosexuals, the CIA, and AIDS.

Read more: http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-12-20/politics/30537102_1_newsletters-conspiracy-theories-lew-rockwell#ixzz1hBcRz6wF


Ron Paul has absolutely denied these accusations and explained how this sort of thing happens. I believe him. I don't think he is a racist at all. The man is too smart to be prejudice.

[Humble Janitor]

I think he did.


“If they want to endorse me, they’re endorsing what I do or say — it has nothing to do with [me] endorsing what they say,” said Mr. Paul, who is now running strong in Iowa for the Republican nomination.

That's not enough in today's society.

There are other reasons not to vote for Dr.Paul. I have tried to be civil when arguing with his supporters but SOME of them are young, misinformed and they seem to like censoring those that disagree with them. Not much different from the Obamamaniacs of 2008.

I find the anti-Paul people as being misinformed and unable to be civil. Most anti-Paul supporters are just drones of the MSM and have no ability to think for themselves. The entire Ron Paul is a racist BS is just more proof that anti-Paul supporters (most, not all) are just MSM sheeple.

As for Paul being a racist, please explain this?
http://www.buzzfeed.com/ccbaxter/22-facts-that-dont-jibe-with-ron-paul-being-a-rac-41xp

The irony is that some Paul supporters ignore anything that questions Paul's integrity because they want so badly to believe in someone else, having been burned by Obama.

Do what you want but you're just replacing one drone with another in the White House. Nothing meaningful is going to come from playing that game of musical chairs.

[jackovesk]

The irony is that some Paul supporters ignore anything that questions Paul's integrity because they want so badly to believe in someone else, having been burned by Obama.

Do what you want but you're just replacing one drone with another in the White House. Nothing meaningful is going to come from playing that game of musical chairs.

2 Things HJ,

1. I never believed the Obama Charade to start with..! Why because I did my homework on who funded his Presidential Campaign and the Red Lights started really flashing when I tried to delve deeper into where he actually came from and how he came to rise so quickly in the primary's, etc...

Then I watched the Innaugaration littered with Occult Symbolism (Especially the Church Service) and the way he stuffed up his Oath on purpose, then re-took it behind closed doors...

If people with only half a brain could'nt find something suspicious just from that, no wonder the US is in so much trouble today..!

2. What if any? Solutions do you have to get America the Country & its People out of this mess..?

...or if I am reading your posts correctly, you have just given in already..?

You seem like a 'Don't Tread on Me' kind of a guy, so what say you HJ..?

[ktlight]

"Texas Congressman Ron Paul is soaring in the polls while he tries to capture the GOP nomination in the race to the White House. Will the mainstream media derail his campaign with an all-out smear campaign though? Daniel Faraci, director of Grassroots Political Consulting, LLC., talks to RT about the establishment's effort to crush the candidate and how it's doing little to level the libertarian"

NjtFlZ5syzw

[Peter Kraai]

Thanks for the upload, to be honest I'm also kind of surprised to see Ron Paul anywhere but the spotlights, I really hope to see that guy leading US for once.. and not just his policy on Cannabis, lol !

[Hermite]

Looks to me like he's getting plenty of exposure.
http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/98883/ron-paul-incendiary-newsletters-exclusive

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/08/AR2006070800966_pf.html

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/saint-paul-inside-ron-paul-effort-convince-christian-150637605.html

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/08/27-1

Be careful what you wish for.

[Jeffrey]

I think he did.


“If they want to endorse me, they’re endorsing what I do or say — it has nothing to do with [me] endorsing what they say,” said Mr. Paul, who is now running strong in Iowa for the Republican nomination.

That's not enough in today's society.

There are other reasons not to vote for Dr.Paul. I have tried to be civil when arguing with his supporters but SOME of them are young, misinformed and they seem to like censoring those that disagree with them. Not much different from the Obamamaniacs of 2008.

I find the anti-Paul people as being misinformed and unable to be civil. Most anti-Paul supporters are just drones of the MSM and have no ability to think for themselves. The entire Ron Paul is a racist BS is just more proof that anti-Paul supporters (most, not all) are just MSM sheeple.

As for Paul being a racist, please explain this?
http://www.buzzfeed.com/ccbaxter/22-facts-that-dont-jibe-with-ron-paul-being-a-rac-41xp

The irony is that some Paul supporters ignore anything that questions Paul's integrity because they want so badly to believe in someone else, having been burned by Obama.

Do what you want but you're just replacing one drone with another in the White House. Nothing meaningful is going to come from playing that game of musical chairs.

For goodness sakes man, did you even read the link? One could just as easily say that you are choosing to ignore anything that reflects his integrity as it actually is. You still haven't given your other reasons not to vote for Ron Paul. The only thing you have done is given this pseudo psycho analysis of the irony (I call it reason) that people want to believe in a new president. You have also said that change is not going to come from a new president and that it will require a legion of people, which has been addressed as well. Civility isn't a problem for me, so where's your argument? Where's your breakdown of reasons not to vote for Ron Paul that have anything to do with his politics? He has a national spotlight on him now, it's not just musical chairs in a strict sense. Like I said before, if he gets elected that means a majority of people stand behind his ideals. Again I will ask, what's wrong with his ideals? I hope it's not cynicism alone that's fueling your (as of yet elusive) argument.

Thanks,

Vivek

[T Smith]

The irony is that some Paul supporters ignore anything that questions Paul's integrity because they want so badly to believe in someone else, having been burned by Obama.

Do what you want but you're just replacing one drone with another in the White House. Nothing meaningful is going to come from playing that game of musical chairs.

HJ,

This argument might apply to small percentage of RP supporters, just as it applies to a percentage of supporters of any political candidate. But I also think you may be overly cynical in your analysis in this particular case. Obama was the establishment candidate, and therefore his support was largely based on Madison Avenue generated enthusiasm. This is entirely opposite of what we are seeing with Ron Paul. It would be hard to advance the argument that his support is "generated" by TPTB or by any faction of the establishment. In fact, his support is despite the establishment/Madison Avenue agenda. His support is almost 100% generated by grassroots.

The biggest threat I see is not due to inserting one drone with another, but with mechanisms the power structure has to either remove a non-drone from power entirely (e.g. JFK) or derail the enthusiasm behind the non-drone executive and therefore destroy the "hope" and "change" (for lack of better words) due to massive and devastating false-flag incidents that would ultimately fall on and deflate the public support of the populist. These are the biggest threats to achieving anything "meaningful" from the RP platform.


EDIT: Note, also, I say these are biggest threats to achieve anything meaningful... which doesn't at all mean I subscribe to apathy because of them or therefore believe we should resign ourselves to laying down to them. We need to fight these threats nonetheless. Awareness is the first step.

[T Smith]

Looks to me like he's getting plenty of exposure.
http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/98883/ron-paul-incendiary-newsletters-exclusive

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/08/AR2006070800966_pf.html

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/saint-paul-inside-ron-paul-effort-convince-christian-150637605.html

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/08/27-1

Be careful what you wish for.

These links appear to support the point of the OP. These are exactly the type of smears being waged against Ron Paul to "crush" any hopes of the GOP nomination.

[Unified Serenity]

The fact is most American's get their news and "intelligent" analysis from MSM and talk radio which is dominated by conservative elite backed pundents like Hannity, Beck, Limbaugh, Levine and their guests who sound so knowledgeable and yet put the elite conservative spin on all things Ron Paul. For the longest time they just ignored RP, and by that I mean years and years. Then once he ran for President the last time they did their damnedest to portray him as crazy Uncle Ron and anyone who liked him must be equally crazy, uninformed and stupid. Then the whole Tea Party grew and they (Elite spin machine) did their best to take that over via Glen Beck and his Washington Rally while the millions who started these events got little attention as they happened fairly spontaneously. All we got to see was the Beck machine.

Still, truth is getting out there, but it is again sprinkled with the lies and propaganda to herd the conservative side down the path that still meets the elites goals. RP fans and supporters are continuing to trudge along, but RP has been damaged. The propaganda is slick. Just yesterday I heard the guest host on Limbaugh's show interviewing a guest and they discussed RP at some point. One statement stood out to me in the "analysis" of RP and that is how they constantly bring up his foreign policy and attribute things to him that are completely false and yet it's a glib statement like, "Ron Paul's horrendous and dangerous ideas regarding Foreign Policy where he would not defend America's interests and leave us with a gutted military".

That sort of statement which while in quotes is not exact but put there as that to show how a dialogue carries forth. They make statements like that, get the "yes" or "Exactly" or "Naturally, Ron Paul is not going to win because of this" which if you know and understand NLP those sorts of buzz words are meant to go right into your mind and be accepted because "Naturally" indicates is a well known truth, like "Naturally, you don't want to be playing golf in a thunderstorm".

So, the propaganda is slick and if you do not listen carefully with ears clearly open and discerning not just hypnotized by the droning on, then you begin to assume things that are NOT correct about Ron Paul. RP has a very good chance at winning Iowa, and while in years past the parties have all said, that winning Iowa was extremely important and most often who wins Iowa does become the nominee, suddenly now it is not important because Ron Paul is ahead in polls or so close it's a real horse race. I hope RP and the awake crowd will diligently pursue honest voting, but with diebold holding the keys, I am doubtful of an honest election come January.

[Unified Serenity]

I want to post this one again... . it's such a great RP video.... listen to him and hear his wisdom:

yjBoAQw7bgo

[jackovesk]

The Compassion of Dr. Ron Paul

8Rv0Z5SNrF4

:bump:

Those that continue to question/criticize Dr. Ron Paul's Honesty & Integrity should be Ashamed of themselves..!

Some may have issues with some of his Policies? But if you can't see that this Man, is a Man of Integrity and epitomises everything that is good in this world...You need to have a Good Hard look at yourselves..!

[jackovesk]

Michele Bachmann chair defects to Ron Paul

12/28/11 8:27 PM EST

In a shock announcement Wednesday night, Iowa state senator and onetime Michele Bachmann campaign leader Kent Sorenson declared that he is now supporting Ron Paul for president.

Sorenson made the announcement at a Paul rally with veterans here in Des Moines, telling the crowd: "I believe we're at a turning point in this campaign."

Calling the decision to abandon Bachmann a painful one, Sorenson said he felt obligated to join Paul as the "Republican establishment" tries to undermine his campaign.

"I thought it was my duty to come to his aid, just like he came to my aid during my Senate race, which was a very nasty race," Sorenson said, pledging to go all-out for Paul over the next few days.

To cheers from the crowd, he continued: "We're going to take Ron Paul all the way to the White House."

http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2011/12/michele-bachmann-chair-defects-to-ron-paul-108965.html

PS -


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GtD-mboJd5A&feature=related

Ron Paul Winning Google Trends

http://seektress.com/rontop1.jpg

http://seektress.com/rptrend.htm

[WhiteFeather]

Nice!!!! Someone Woke Up. But than again Bachmann truly is a P/O/$hit

[DreamsInDigital]

At least Ron Paul knows that Africa's a continent and he can find France on a Map. More than could be said for the other Republicans potentials.

[baddbob]

I feel the Love wave :usa2::hippie:

[Jeffrey]

Ron Paul on his electability.

Dn5A3VhQI4U

[ktlight]

"James Williams of Matagorda County, Texas recounts a touching true story. Living in a still prejudice Texas In 1972, his wife had a complication with her pregnancy. No doctors would care for her or deliver their bi-racial child. In fact one of the hospital nurses called the police on James.

Dr. Ron Paul was notified and took her in, delivering their stillborn baby. Because of the compassion of Dr. Ron Paul, the Williams' never received a hospital bill for the delivery.

Ron Paul views every human being as a unique individual, afforded the rights endowed by our creator and codified in the Bill of Rights."

8Rv0Z5SNrF4

[Eric J (Viking)]

Thought this was awesome... What a cracker !

http://a6.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/408262_2729317084675_1609677019_32538750_1566009607_n.jpg

viking

[ktlight]

Viking, that is absoutely brilliant.

[Calz]

Lol Vike ... gotta love it :lol:

Will put this here as it is the "latest" RP thread.

Love him or hate him ... Alex is dishing on MSM last minute smears of RP going into Iowa.


T57yvB4RDHs

[Kindred]

Just saw this on WRH. Dr. Paul was being interviewed by a radio show host, and played a sound track as Dr. Paul had not seen or heard of the piece. His reaction was astounding... -paraphrased - 'that's what we did ... we took care of the patient'. He didn't even recall the incident, as it was so commonplace. In fact, he was amazed that anyone was able to Find this person, let alone get an interview. This points to the Humanity and the Humility of Dr. Paul... one of a kind!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mB7SG5gpWAw&feature=player_embedded

In Unity and Peace

[crested-duck]

viking- I'm going to share that picture with a few friends, that will really make their day too. Thanks for making me laugh out loud !

[Billy]

Thank you for the Video's guys and the Picture Viking. Sharing them all together :eyebrows:

[Carmen]

Excellent video and thread. It's so nice to read and hear stories of compassion.

That was one clever young man Viking!!

Ron Paul is coming across as a true leader and statesman. Something that is quite rare in the world today.

[jackovesk]

Kelly Clarkson sales double after endorsing controversial presidential candidate Ron Paul

December 31, 2011


Clarkson's sales increase 192 per cent in a day
Albulm jumped from 41st to 14th
Some fans say they will never forgive her...:nono:

http://resources0.news.com.au/images/2011/12/30/1226233/073324-kelly-clarkson.jpg

SALES of Kelly Clarkson's latest album "Stronger" nearly doubled in one day following her endorsement of Ron Paul in the Republican presidential primary.

A section of Clarkson's fans used social networking sites Thursday to blast the singer for supporting Paul in light of racially derogatory comments contained in newsletters he published around 20 years ago.

But despite the online backlash, sales of her latest release have soared by 192 percent on Amazon.com in the wake of the criticism.

"Stronger," her fifth studio album, shot from 41 to 14 on the website's "Movers & Shakers in Music" list in 24 hours, according to the Gossip Cop website.

Clarkson, 29, tried to quell Thursday's controversy by tweeting her support for equal rights, but she stood by the Texas congressman "because he believes in less government."

The "American Idol" season one winner ruefully confessed that she should have heeded the advice of her dad, "who said never to share my beliefs on religion & politics."

Despite the surge in online sales, however, some fans told FOXNews.com their days as admirers of the Dallas native were over.

"I used to like Kelly Clarkson. But I can't like anyone who is either ignorant enough or arrogant enough to endorse a candidate like Ron Paul," Spafford Freeman said.

"I have listened to 'Since You've Been Gone' for the last time."

http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity/sales-stronger-for-kelly-clarkson-despite-ron-paul-backlash/story-e6frfmqi-1226233805481

PS - You can bet the MSM paid Twitterers, tried in vane to play this story down and alienate Kelly Clarkson to no avail...:pound:

The Spike in Sales speak for themselves, and shows the MSM that the public are not quite as stupid as the those in 'La La Land' would like to you to believe..!

See, you too can Vote with your Wallet for those that are'nt afraid to Publically Support Ron Paul...

Kudos to you Kelly Clarkson, for having the Guts to Stand Up, Speak Out in favor of the Only Politician who can help save America...:clap2:

[jackovesk]

Maverick Ron Paul threatens to upstage Iowa caucus

December 31, 2011

NEWTON, Iowa: Ron Paul, the eccentric 76-year-old Texas congressman, is threatening to cause an upset in Iowa by winning the Republican caucus thanks to the support of independent and Democratic voters.

Dr Paul, a three-time presidential hopeful credited as being the father of the Tea Party, is gathering late momentum among Iowan conservatives after persuading Michele Bachmann's state chairman to defect. He also stands to benefit from state rules dictating that anyone may vote in the party contest.

Thousands of members of Barack Obama's Democrats, disenchanted but with no contest of their own, are set to turn out at caucus sites on Tuesday to do just that. Almost one in four caucus-goers is expected to be an independent or Democrat, according to a Public Policy Polling survey.

Advertisement: Story continues below Polls indicate that while Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, leads the field among registered Republicans, he is overtaken by Dr Paul when everyone who intends to caucus is taken into account. PPP found that Dr Paul is backed by 39 per cent of non-Republican caucus-goers while just 12 per cent support Mr Romney.

Samantha Dunn, a 28-year-old teacher watching Dr Paul speak at the Iowa state fair grounds in Des Moines this week, said she would switch from the Democrats to the Republicans at her local site in order to support him. ''I voted for Obama in 2008 but we need a change,'' she said. ''Dr Paul is consistent and honest, which is very hard to find. He is not just telling us what we have heard before.''

On stage soon after, the state senator Kent Sorenson, Ms Bachmann's Iowa chairman, caused a shock by announcing he was switching to Dr Paul just six days before the vote. ''If you are as frustrated as I am with what's been done by the ruling class, I urge you to join me,'' he said.

Ms Bachmann responded by saying Mr Sorenson was ''bought'' by the Paul campaign.

Millions of young voters with anti-establishment views discovered Dr Paul via internet forums, where his anti-war stance and revolutionary plans have won a cult-like following. He plans to bring home all US troops, slash $US1 trillion in public spending immediately, abolish five government departments, scrap foreign aid and return the dollar to the gold standard.

''He's idealistic, and young people tend to be idealistic,'' said William Tretton, a 19-year-old naval cadet from Newton, Iowa. His 20-year-old brother, Tom, who like William is registered independent but will caucus for Dr Paul, said: ''Obama did that in '08. But he's mud-slinging like the rest of them.''

Dr Paul's potential success has caused concerns among the Republican establishment. Party grandees dismiss him as a crank, while the former speaker Newt Gingrich said he was ''totally outside the mainstream of virtually every decent American''.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkVU2QDpH2w
Ron Paul leads Iowa pack: GOP presidential contender Ron Paul is back in Iowa, running strongly in the polls and asking why US troops are in Korea and other parts of the world.

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/world/maverick-ron-paul-threatens-to-upstage-iowa-caucus-20111230-1pfjx.html

PS - Slight correction to what RP said in 'above clip', from my understanding and what has been reported in the Australian Press is, 250 US Marines would arrive next year on 6 monthly rotations (2012), eventually over some years building up to 2,500 US personnel.

Having said that Ron Paul, "Why do we need to pay for and send our Troops to Australia in the 1st Place..!"

I Agree (RP)..!

[jackovesk]

Donate now to air “The Compassion” spot in early voting states

December 30, 2011

GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul has commented on the emotional testimony of a man who explained how Dr. Paul came to his rescue when know one else would purely because his wife was white and he was black.

The video, released this week not by the Paul campaign but by independent supporters, features James Williams explaining how close to forty years ago Ron Paul was the only physician who would help him when his pregnant wife became sick.

Mr Williams of Matagorda County, Texas, says he believes no one would come to his aid and deliver the couple’s child “because of the difference, me being black and her being white”.

Mr Williams then explains how Ron Paul stepped in and took care of his wife and even dealt with the medical expenses after the baby was tragically stillborn.

Watch the video below:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Rv0Z5SNrF4&feature=player_embedded

Appearing on the Jan Mickelson radio show, Paul, was clearly emotional when the audio of the piece was played back to him.

Commenting on the video, Paul said “I’m amazed that they found that. If you’d have asked me to go back and find somebody like that I wouldn’t know.”

Explaining that although he does not recall the specifics of the incident, Paul added that he found it humbling to know how grateful Mr Williams is.

Watch the video:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rWFvrxeD8c&feature=player_embedded

The creators of the piece, Revolution PAC, now hope to raise enough funds to air a broadcast version in the early primary states. At time of writing the group have raised almost $28,000 but need to hit as close to $500,000 as possible for the piece to have a wide reaching impact.

The piece is particularly poignant in the face of continued baseless race based smear attempts against Ron Paul being driven by the corporate media.

We urge readers to donate whatever you can afford to Revolution PAC’s “The Compassion of Dr. Paul” campaign by clicking here (http://www.revolutionpac.com/2011/12/the-compassion-of-dr-ron-paul/).

http://www.prisonplanet.com/ron-paul-reacts-to-black-mans-testimony-video.html

PS - Nothing more needs to be said...

12366

[norman]

Ron Paul WILL WIN !....
Trouble IS !

That's kinda what they want for 2012.....( a subjective people person who goes down with the ship)

They wanted a "Black" ( and HAD one ) but he's so dead in the water that they will take a white PATRIOT as a sub.

[Humble Janitor]

Hey jackovesk,

Maybe if we all stop wasting our time putting politicians on pedestals, we could actually make meaningful change in this world!

Why are we all so hung up on keeping this broken system going?

People said the SAME things about Obama in 2008 that they're saying about Ron Paul (the man was practically a saint to the Left in 2008) now. Do you know how dangerous that is? What happens when our assumptions about these politicians are crushed after we elect them?

[jackovesk]

Hey jackovesk,

Maybe if we all stop wasting our time putting politicians on pedestals, we could actually make meaningful change in this world!

Why are we all so hung up on keeping this broken system going?

People said the SAME things about Obama in 2008 that they're saying about Ron Paul (the man was practically a saint to the Left in 2008) now. Do you know how dangerous that is? What happens when our assumptions about these politicians are crushed after we elect them?

G'Day HJ,

Please remember just this 1 thing...

After 1776 your Country was founded on the 'Constitution & the Bill of Rights' and that is (ALL) Ron Paul is trying to uphold...

He's not doing it for himself and potentially risking his life - He's doing it for 'The American People'...Nothing More - Nothing Less...

Ron Paul is a (Strict) - Constitutionalist....:horn:

He wants to (HAND "THE POWER" BACK TO THE PEOPLE) and that means "YOU" HJ..!

Now stop ya Mamby-Pambying around and start looking at RP's voting History and Track Record...and stop feeling sorry for yourself, there's work to be done if you want to take your Country Back form the OWO Globalist Bankster CRIMINALS who stole it from you in the 1st place...!

Got It - GOOD..!

:yo:

[AlternativeInfoJunkie]

Hey jackovesk,

Maybe if we all stop wasting our time putting politicians on pedestals, we could actually make meaningful change in this world!

Why are we all so hung up on keeping this broken system going?

People said the SAME things about Obama in 2008 that they're saying about Ron Paul (the man was practically a saint to the Left in 2008) now. Do you know how dangerous that is? What happens when our assumptions about these politicians are crushed after we elect them?

G'Day HJ,

Please remember just this 1 thing...

After 1776 your Country was founded on the 'Constitution & the Bill of Rights' and that is (ALL) Ron Paul is trying to uphold...

He's not doing it for himself and potentially risking his life - He's doing it for 'The American People'...Nothing More - Nothing Less...

Ron Paul is a (Strict) - Constitutionalist....:horn:

He wants to (HAND "THE POWER" BACK TO THE PEOPLE) and that means "YOU" HJ..!

Now stop ya Mamby-Pambying around and start looking at RP's voting History and Track Record...and stop feeling sorry for yourself, there's work to be done if you want to take your Country Back form the OWO Globalist Bankster CRIMINALS who stole it from you in the 1st place...!

Got It - GOOD..!

:yo:

Haha go jack!

[seko]

See the audience reaction when an Alaskan senator endorses Romney...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNcDCaFFlw8&feature=player_embedded