I had wanted to speak to him about Ron Paul’s exclusion in the debates. Several Ron Paul supporters found and posted his direct office line so I called.
He was very polite. He thought I was calling about Duncan Hunter, then I said it was actually Ron Paul.
I told him I thought they should be concerned about excluding Ron Paul. He sort of cut me off and said, “You are concerned”. And I said, “yes, but I’m also concerned that FOX News is going to miss out because Ron Paul is pretty interesting guy”. He said that was subjective. I said that for example, Google makes a lot of money off Ron Paul.
He told me Google only makes money off advertising, but not Ron Paul. I corrected him and told him Ron Paul drives traffic to sites, and that in fact, people bid on keywords and that Ron Paul’s keywords are worth more than those of other candidates. He said that’s the case because a lot of his base is on the internet, to which I agreed.
He said a lot of people thought they were trying to exclude Ron Paul because of some special agenda, but he said that they had established a criteria about needing 10% in the national polls because the coming debate in NH would be very focused. But that there will be another debate on Thursday in South Carolina which Ron Paul will be in, and that in fact, Alan Keys will not, because he didn’t meet the criteria.
Sometime before the call ended, I also told him people were selling their NWS stock because of the exclusion, and he said, “Well, people have the right to be angry at us and sell their shares. This happens from time to time.”
I thanked him, told him I didn’t want to waste too much of his time and that I’d tell other people not to call him about that. Then he said, “no, I’m actually taking time off to answer phone calls, so it’s quite alright.”
It was kind of surprising that he was so polite.
Be nice if you call, and try not to ask the same questions I asked, alright?
Afterword
How can I be mad at FOX News and John Moody now? I recommend you don’t call John Moody; he is too polite and reasonable. You might actually start to think FOX News is fair. Can you live with the cognitive dissonance?
We issue 200,000 student visas a year. One of the hijackers had an F-1 student visa. The majority had tourist, business, or visit visas.
So if you are looking to protect the country, a more logical thing to do is ban (1) male (2) Saudi Arabians (3) between the ages of 21 and 43 (4) religious (5) possibly training in flight school.
And, yet, an irrational “strategy” as such would foment more terrorism:
It is necessary to note that relative deprivation
creating exclusion is a comprehensive phenomenon. It
is not merely a socio-economic driver. In fact, relative
deprivation in terms of political space and human
dignity is often even more significant than socioeconomic
factors. The Palestinians in Israel-occupied
territories, whose mobility is curtailed by the Israeli
defence forces, feel deprived of dignity. The Tamils in
Sri Lanka, who have to give up their linguistic advantage
and political balance of power because of constitutional
changes, feel deprived. The Acholis were socioeconomically
deprived for years but it wasn’t until the
Musevini government began to target them specifically
that they took up arms. The Moros of the Philippines
who see migrants from other parts of the country
dominating their economy feel relatively deprived not
just in an economic sense but also in a political and
cultural context. The Iraqis who see their country
overtaken by an external force feel relatively deprived
irrespective of the economic condition of any
particular citizen.
Another reason why “terrorism” is a poor qualifier. We define terrorism to suit our “needs”.
It is possible for any ideology, delivered by
determined and able leaders, anywhere in the world, to
transform those feeling excluded from their society
into terrorists or extremists. In public discourse,
however, there is an unfortunate effort made to
emphasize certain forms of terrorism. As the global
power structure is dominated by the West, attacks on
Western interests are defined as terrorism. The attacks
that do not target the United States and its allies are
defined as acts of ethnic conflict, freedom struggle, or
mere violence
Terrorism is vague and ill-defined. A “terrorist nation” is too, by consequence.
Western discourse on terrorism, with a focus on
Islamist extremism, is therefore neither entirely about
terrorism nor about Islamist extremism. It is not
entirely about terrorism because it does not include
terrorism practised by several national, sub-national
groups, labeling some of them as liberation
movements. It is not entirely about terrorism because
it hardly considers rural-based revolutionary
organisations, responsible for killing thousands of
people in Asia and Latin America. It is not entirely
about Islamist extremism because it blames the groups
in the Middle East that have no ambition to alter the
international order, while giving inadequate attention
to the specific organisations that want to establish a
Caliphate by violent means and that are positioning
themselves to succeed Al Qaeda in the International
Islamic Front for Jihad against Jews and Crusaders. In
ignoring the threats of terrorism around the world
from nationalist, sub-nationalist and revolutionary
groups that commit violent acts and ignoring the threats
posed by Central and South Asian Islamist
organisations to the global security, Western discourse
is selectively focussed on the Middle East. It is more
about the strategic interests of the West in a particular
region than the threats to humanity emanating from
the ideologies of mass destruction.
The media manipulates the focus and definition of terrorism by framing.
The mutually obsessive discourse in Western and
Islamic societies is manipulated by the media, either
by design or otherwise. If North Korea tests a nuclear
weapon the news disappears from the front page of
most newspapers within a couple of days. If Iraq or
Iran is suspected to have even the most elementary
capacity to develop such a weapon, this is major
news for months after months. If Lord’s Resistance
Army forces children to kill their siblings in thousands,
it is a human interest story that appears only
occasionally in the inside pages. If Iran’s President
threatens Israel, it is major news and the subject of
endless op-ed analysis.
In short, terrorism exists on exclusion. Especially unfair exclusion and perceived loss of dignity.
What do you suppose a disproportionate and ignorant measure like banning students from “terrorist nations” accomplishes?
It gets ignorant people to feel good about their safety. It excludes more people who are already living under conditions that fuel terrorism, and it completely misses the point.
Rarely has a more ignorant proposal been advanced – and it is made even worse by the fact that this is Ron Paul we’re talking about.
To begin with, it is odd, indeed, for a libertarian to be invoking the concept of collective guilt: is every citizen of these unnamed “terrorist nations” to be declared persona non grata on account of the actions of a minuscule number of their countrymen?
Secondly, just which nations is Rep. Paul talking about? Fifteen of the 9/11 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia: two were from the United Arab Emirates, one was Egyptian and another one hailed from Lebanon. Is Paul seriously saying that we should deport the thousands from these countries studying in the US? And why stop there? Why allow anyone from these so-called “terrorist nations” entry into the US for any reason whatsoever – just to be on the safe side?
This is pandering to the worst, Tom Tancredo-esque paranoia and outright ignorance (or do I repeat myself?) and is not worthy of Dr. Paul. I have the utmost respect for the candidate, but in using this unfortunate term, “terrorist nations,” the Good Doctor undermines his non-interventionist foreign policy stance.
I have received a lot of criticism for not remaining quiet on the issue, but I’m not going to play to the “sheep” stereotype that some Ron Paul supporters are fomenting.
If Ron Paul wants to run ads that contradict his rhetoric, he better be prepared to be criticized by supporters like myself who have been campaigning for him since he tore Giuliani into shreds on the very topic of terrorism.
David Schuster and his colleagues were extremely disrespectful to Ron Paul. They could have at least listened to what he had to say before they started with the disrespectful comments.
I used to enjoy watching MSNBC, but David Schuster is spoiling the experience. We’re fortunate they still have Chris Matthews and Joe Scarborough on their payroll.
Ron Paul has redefined politics by raising more money in donations than anyone, including himself and his supporters, expected. He is only one million away from breaking Barack Obama’s total for last quarter, and as usual, Ron Paul is expected to take the biggest share of donations from active duty military.
John McCain no longer deserves his free pass from the media. Ron Paul served in the military as well and has received more in military donations.
ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA – Congressman Ron Paul’s presidential campaign had a record fundraising day yesterday.
In a 24-hour period on December 16, the campaign raised $6.026 million dollars, surpassing the one-day record of $5.7 million held by John Kerry.
During the day, over 58,000 people contributed to Dr. Paul’s campaign, including 24,940 first-time donors. Over 118,000 Americans have donated to the campaign in the fourth quarter.
The $6 million one-day total means the campaign has raised over $18 million this quarter, far exceeding its goal of $12 million.
“We have the right message: freedom, peace and prosperity,” said Ron Paul 2008 campaign chairman Kent Snyder. “We also have the right candidate: Dr. Ron Paul.”
Congressman Paul will be campaigning in Iowa today hold including a press conference at 12:45 pm at the Des Moines Marriott in the Des Moines Room.
As of today, the total for the 4th quarter is over $18 million. A little extremely deserved exposure this week will raise Ron Paul’s national average poll ratings to double digits.
To defeat or make an embarrassment out of. A slang portmanteau of Ron (Paul) and Own and Pwn. Similar usage to Leetspeak own as in “Sean Hannity and Michael Steele just got r0wn3d by Ron Paul’s supporters”. Used to describe the act of metaphorically crushing an unreasonable opponent (likely a neoconservative or Patriot Trash), naysayer, after winning an argument or destroying the opposition by proving them dead wrong, via logic, or tangible results that contradict the opponents political position or argument.
Alternative spellings include R0wnd, Rwn3d, R0wn3d.
Etymology: Term originated on Nov 5th, 2007 on Ron Paul Day as portmanteau of Ron (Paul), own and pwn from English Leetspeak pwned or owned, from Middle English, to possess, own, owe, from Old English āgan; akin to Old High German eigun (1st & 3d plural present indicative) possess, Sanskrit īśe he possesses
