Moore hates the current administration

Michael, the current administration isn’t running, whether or not Obama gets elected. You are offering a false dichotomy.

Hillary is taking cheap shots at Obama

Since when is this a good reason to vote for someone? Maybe Obama deserves your sympathy. But your vote? I thought you opposed the war in Iraq. So why vote for Obama? He too wants to stay in Iraq permanently.

Fahrenheit 9/11 was an entertaining documentary. You took some cheap shots at some politicians, but that’s not a good reason for me to vote for those politicians, is it? in Fahrenheit 9/11 you criticized our occupation of Iraq, and yet, Obama intends to deploy permanent bases.

I do applaud you for seeing through Hillary’s warmongering neoconservative leanings, but the fact that Hillary doesn’t deserve a vote is a very weak argument for voting for Obama. A lot of people look up to you without thinking for themselves. You are asking Pennsylvania to oppose Hillary, a bad choice, for Obama, another nearly equivalent bad choice. If you dislike the Bush administration, and their policies, why mislead the people of Pennsylvania into voting for Obama, who intends to pursue the current agenda?

If you want to persuade people to vote for Obama, at least offer some persuasive reasons. “Hillary sucks” and “the current administration sucks” are not good reasons to vote for Obama.

What are we left with as viable candidates? There is Obama, Hillary, and McCain.

Obama

Obama started out as a promising candidate. He became an overnight sensation due to his age, and skin color. Partially as a linguistic remnant of our racist past, Obama is referred to as black, despite the fact that his genetic make-up is better described as multi-racial. Yet, Obama’s legitimate newness in the realm of politics does not appear to transfer in policy.

Obama fills a void. He offers Rorschach-ink-blot-style symbolism. A candidate who fulfills your every political desire, even if you change your mind tomorrow. For all the empty buzz about Obama, there are a few things that stand out in his policy-making. Obama does offer the voter an exit from Iraq. When? Soon. Maybe. He also offers neoconservatives hope that we may invade Pakistan someday under his “leadership”.

We get a sense of justice from a theoretical Obama presidency. Finally, a “member” of a much maligned “race” in recent history, especially in the United States, gets a chance to hold one of the most powerful political positions in the world.

There is not a single enlightened person in the world who does not feel good about this possibility. In today’s racially-tense urban areas, particularly well-depicted by the movie Crash, such an event resolves a deep cognitive dissonance shared at many levels by “white” people who are constantly labeled “oppressors” - ironically oppressed occasionally by policies enacted with benevolent intent, such as affirmative action.

And Obama’s policies do not deviate from this pattern of humanitarianism. He wants to pursue more affirmative action, create programs that encourage students to fill 50 hours of community service, and enable civil unions for gay and lesbian couples.

As a matter of political savvy, or perhaps hypocrisy, Obama stands against actual marriage for gay and lesbian couples. Though incremental steps are always wise, one must wonder why Obama has chosen to hide his intentions, if he indeed favors gay marriage. Some theorize it has to do with appealing to the Christian vote. After 8 years of incompetence, Obama is a welcome sight, but in terms of “new”, the only thing he offers is his background.

Hillary

There’s little to say about Hillary, whose policies mirror those of Obama’s. The only contrast between Hillary and Obama is a heightened sense of fakery and disingenuity, from her fake laughs to her unlikely emotional outbursts during televised events.

Well, Hillary does offer more to neoconservative-leaning folk. She is ambiguous about Iraq, but less ambiguous about pursuing conflict with Iran. And she is definitely not ambiguous about protecting Israel at all costs simply because Israel is an ally. One wonders if the defense industry chose to fund her for her interest in Israel, or if she developed an interest for Israel as a result of the funding.

McCain

Where Obama’s background appeals and Hillary’s repels, McCain’s background also offers the voter a chance to sympathize. A former prisoner of war who refused to use his familial connections to escape Vietnam without his fellow soldiers, McCain appears deserving of sympathy.

One would expect such an experience to change a person for the better. Why, then, does McCain insist on provoking Iran with an attempt to get them kicked off the Soccer World Cup? Why, if he so despises torture, does McCain insist on resolving conflict through war? Is this a case of “to a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail”?

Perhaps McCain could conduct a war more responsibly than his predecessor. Perhaps anybody could. But is he wise enough to ask himself why we need war in the first place?

Ron Paul

Ron Paul is not without his shortcomings. But in the areas that are relevant to the presidency, Ron Paul shines. Foreign Policy and Economics. Ron Paul’s presidential bid offered hope to the families of soldiers deployed in Iraq. It also offered a platform that differed from most others. The difference? Substance.

While most candidates were out distorting facts to fit their platform and appealing to emotion, Ron Paul stuck to the facts. Factcheck.org released some criticism on Ron Paul’s claims that the Iraq War was costing the United States 1 trillion dollars a year. They claimed they had not criticized Ron Paul because of his visibility (lack thereof), which may be true. However, their insinuation that Ron Paul was exaggerating is misleading at best.

While McCain and Romney argued about “who said what when,” Ron Paul actively raised questions about the costs and benefits of the war. Ron Paul did not shy away from citing his sources, and inciting intelligent debate.

The central question
What happened to Ron Paul is at one level, very simple: Ron Paul’s policies are counter-intuitive. Fighting racism by dissolving affirmative action? Enabling gay rights by leaving the government out of marriage? Fighting drug-related violence by legalizing drugs?

Ron Paul is not without blame. When faced with questions regarding a newsletter published under his name, Ron Paul should have gone as far as to produce the name of the ghostwriter(s). His counter-intuitive (but intelligent) libertarian-leaning solutions were too consistent, whether by chance or by design, with some of the ideas expressed in the infamous politically-incorrect newsletters.

Had the writings been his own, an admission with contextual explanation would have sufficed. Everyone who has heard Ron Paul speak knows that he has either never uttered such non-sense, or it no longer represents his informed views. Then, again, giving a false rumor undue attention would have also backfired.

Ron Paul’s misplaced emphasis on NAFTA and the hypothetical North American Union and his association with unsavory individuals or organizations, whether mutual or not, fueled perceptions that Ron Paul was a “kook”.

The mainstream media ultimately earns the blame for Ron Paul’s mostly disappointing official poll numbers. Not just because they distorted the results on occasion, or asked him irrelevant or loaded questions at the debates; The media deserves the majority of the blame because they censored him every chance they had. This is not a “conspiracy theory” in the modern sense of the word. The censorship and misrepresentation is well-documented, on occasion by the offenders themselves, when it suited ratings.

A Ron Paul presidency was a long-shot. Especially from the beginning. However as Ron Paul’s supporters organized massive one day donations, the media began to take notice and Ron Paul’s numbers in the polls improved dramatically. After all, you can be featured in a debate, asked irrelevant questions and still get little coverage on the news. As an avid Ron Paul supporter I might watch every debate he is featured in, but what about the average uninformed or uninterested voter who sees the Ron Paul-less highlights on CNN or FOX News? This is why Ron Paul could give the most intelligent answers, and generally outperform the other candidates at the debates, and still be relatively unknown.

Add to the general media blackout the typical misrepresentation, and you have voters believing Ron Paul has “no chance” even before the official results come in. Had Ron Paul been given an equal amount of fair airtime on the news as Obama, or Giuliani, when Ron Paul announced his candidacy, the results would be dramatically different. There is no delusion here - Ron Paul would have still had to work hard at better explaining his ideas, and his ideology would not appeal to all who were accurately exposed to it. Nevertheless, the mainstream media didn’t do Ron Paul any favors. Not in the way they gave Obama and Giuliani a free pass.

Ironically, the premature labels of “non-factor” and “he has no chance” would have been better suited for Giuliani, whose only source of viability was a fake expertise on terrorism, and a willingness by the mainstream media to monetize a symbolic figure of IX.XI.

Do you want substance in your elected leaders? You may need to move to the 14th Congressional district.

[l]ibertarianism has experienced a resurgence likely to resonate in politics for quite some time. I did not agree with Ron Paul on some issues, and I don’t think strict libertarianism is the answer to everything. But at a time when liberties are threatened by irrational fears, a little reasonable freedom couldn’t hurt. We can all thank Ron Paul for bringing this to the global stage.

The next 8 years could be very long. Fortunately, Giuliani’s authoritarianism will not be a factor. Now we only have to worry about a 100-year war, and/or more deficit spending in the name of equality with a dash of dogmatic authoritarianism.

In the pursuit of responsibility and peace of mind, I may vote against a 100-year war for the alternative 5-6 years of war and limited interference abroad. Nevertheless, I’d much rather abstain from that “choice” and write-in Dr. Ron Paul as a statement of disapproval.

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?

FOX’s news studio “is too small”, so several Ron Paul supporters have volunteered to donate money to FOX to build them a bigger trailer.

In the meantime others are selling their News Corp stock.

Just one objection: You continue to assume Ron Paul will not win the nomination, which is an understandable assumption. But it is an assumption, and some of your colleagues have been very wrong on their assumptions. For example Michael Steele had said Ron Paul “[is] done” after the first debate in South Carolina almost 8 months ago.

In fact, you are perpetuating a self-fulfilling prophesy. Ron Paul doesn’t really need your debates more than he needs positive exposure and name-recognition. This is key in marketing. Some Ron Paul supporters sometimes give Ron Paul a bad name via their obsessive campaigning or their wide variety of views. Ron Paul appeals to many distinct groups because everyone wants liberty, including liberty from each other. But I digress slightly; the point is, you (the media) hardly discuss Ron Paul’s stances in depth. You barely touch the surface of Ron Paul’s stances, and at the surface, his stances look quite ‘kooky’. Sadly, Ron Paul doesn’t promote himself with cheap soundbites, so that doesn’t help make your job easier, but now that he has a solid 10% anchor in Iowa you have a justification for taking Ron Paul seriously and discussing his stances beyond the surface.

It’s not your job to make Ron Paul look good, but presumably, it’s not your job to make him look bad either. Do you want high ratings? Discuss Ron Paul in depth. Even people who disagree with him are intrigued by what he actually believes. His views are counter-intuitive. Not all of them are strictly pragmatic or even objectively correct. But they are certainly thought-provoking.

If Ron Paul has no chance, then what’s the harm in giving him even airtime? He is certainly more interesting than Britney Spears (though arguably not as good-looking). A common technique used by websites is to talk about Ron Paul. It increases viewer traffic so much that Google makes more money on bids for Ron Paul’s name as a keyword than any other candidate. FOX News is already revolutionary in marketing and propaganda (I mean this in a positive way); you can hold an audience’s attention like no other news network. Now add some substance (Ron Paul) and you’ll make a killing. CNN is beginning to take advantage of this insider knowledge, and now that Ron Paul has secured some credibility in Iowa there is no shame in taking Ron Paul seriously.

If you are looking for substance and higher ratings, give Ron Paul a call. Take a hint from Shepard Smith and Greta Van Susteren.

And we are proud to say we were the first to report these amazing statistics.

Are you an American tired of FOX News’ propaganda?

Are you tired of the war in Iraq?

Are you a Ron Paul sympathist miles across the world?

Do you despise U.S. military intervention in your country?

Are you angry?

Then it’s time to sell Newscorp [NWS].

News Corporation has excluded the most widely acclaimed presidential candidate in the world, Ron Paul, from the next debate.

Many of you have wanted to help Ron Paul in one way or another, but you are not allowed to donate to Ron Paul’s campaign, or you may have maxed out your allowable contribution. Well, here is an easy way to help, which may benefit you in more than one way: Sell all your NWS stock.

Teach FOX News a lesson. Make them bleed green until they put Ron Paul back into the debates.

UPDATE: NYSE has been on the downturn, but it is rebounding, while Newscorp is, for whatever reason, not moving in parallel.

Probably coincidental, but it need not be if people start selling now. Even if people are skeptical that it has anything to do with Ron Paul supporters, it would be smart to sell your NWS stock just to be safe.

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.

IX.XI attacker profiles

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.

According to a report by the strategic foresight group.

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.

This is the ad in question.

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.

I know Ron Paul is trying to capture the attention of Tancredo’s former supporters, but labeling nations as “terrorist” goes against everything Ron Paul has said about foreign policy. Denying student visas for students from “terrorist nations” is intellectually dishonest. This is the same kind of propaganda the GOP uses to justify the war on terror.

Artistically, I must admit, the ad was well done.

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 on Terrorism.

Mr. Speaker, my guess is that in the not-too-distant future so-called
proof will be provided that Saddam Hussein was somehow partially
responsible for the attack on the United States, and it will be
irresistible then for the United States to retaliate against him. This
will greatly and dangerously expand the war and provoke even greater
hatred towards the United States, and it is all so unnecessary. It is
so hard for many Americans to understand how we inadvertently provoke
the Arab Muslim people, and I am not talking about the likes of bin
Laden and his gang. I am talking about the Arab Muslim masses.

Looks like he was right about everything. The Austrian Economists even predicted the housing bubble recession back in 2004:

Thornton says that it ‘is difficult to predict how long bubbles will last,’ but the geoclassical half of the geo-Austrian theory does provide an indication. Historically, the real-estate cycle has had a duration of 18 years, aside from the interruption of World War II. That puts the next real estate bottom around 2008 [link mine]. If past patterns continue, and so far they are right on schedule, we can expect the next recession to take place towards the end of this decade.

Fighting terrorism the way Bush wants to fight it is stupid. IF you want to fight terrorism, the best way to start is to stop creating terrorists, and furthermore, to stop giving them reasons to attack us.

If you don’t think about why they attack us in the first place, regardless of whether it has to do with us or not, YOU WILL NEVER ADDRESS THE ROOT OF THE PROBLEM.

“When this Paul campaign is over I think we should continue the meetup groups and use our influence to bury the main stream media!! Lets demonstrate outside their buildings, boycotts their programs, petitions against their staff and company, mail bomb their comments and feedback, trash and flood their online surveys and hound their reporters everywhere they go!!”

Posted by brotherbaldrick at this Ron Paul video

Get ready for the upcoming media storm. Ron Paul deserves it.

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.

Obama is not an agent for change (he never was). Ron Paul promises to reverse the big government President George Bush created.

Hillary doesn’t intend to leave Iraq until 2013. Ron Paul intends to bring our troops home right away.

Mitt Romney lends himself 7 million every quarter. Ron Paul gets over 10 million in 48 hours from real Americans (Nov. 5th, Dec. 16th Tea Party).

Rudy Giuliani claims he is tough on terrorism (but hasn’t read the 9/11 Commission Report). CIA and other experts on terrorism routinely praise Ron Paul for his informed analysis and understanding of the real causes of terrorism.

Ben Bernanke (Federal Reserve Chairman) sweats and dissembles when Ron Paul asks him about our monetary policy. Wall Street traders cheer when Ron Paul explains economics to the Chairman.

About Ron Paul’s record:

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.

Ron Paul may or may not get the Republican nomination, but his decentralized approach to government, and the message of freedom will live on through thousands if not millions of young supporters who will shape the United States and the world in years to come.

After all, Ron Paul has consistently received more donations from active duty military, and has already broken the 12 million mark.

In fact, it looks like poor students are sacrificing precious Christmas cash to support Ron Paul.

I translated the debate to clear up any confusion. As you will see, Ron Paul was cheered loudly for the most part especially regarding his opposition to a mandatory ID card, his opposition to the war, and when he spoke about the importance of the U.S. Constitution. Strangely, he was booed when he advocated normalizing trade and foreign relations with Cuba and Venezuela. As I soon found out, this is because there is a strong hatred among Cuban-Americans for Castro. However, as Ron Paul explained his position further, some began to clap. The rest of the candidates received polite applause after most responses, but none was cheered as loudly as Ron Paul.

Of course, Ron Paul’s advocacy for restoring trade and positive diplomatic relationships with Cuba and Venezuela was not well-received in Miami. In Los Angeles, or a different location, the response to Ron Paul’s argument would have been mostly positive because the logic would not have been clouded by personal anti-Castro resentment.

I can imagine Ron Paul regrets not mentioning that the point of restoring trade and positive relations is not to please Castro, but instead to stop punishing Americans who want to trade, and to stop punishing Cubans who want to trade for the actions of their dictator. Ron Paul did mention that we talked to Khrushchev and others during the Cold War. In an unrelated question Ron Paul even mentioned how we restored relations with Vietnam, to which everyone cheered. This inconsistency in the response of the audience (negative for improved relations with Cuba and positive for improved relations with Vietnam) is very telling; it shows that anti-Cuban sentiment is a rather automatic and deeply-ingrained emotional response, and that while restoring diplomatic relations with Vietnam instead of imposing sanctions is good, doing the same with Cuba (however logical) is unacceptable.

The other Republican candidates demonized Castro, and Giuliani took a shot at Ron Paul by implying he was weak (to which he received a mixed audience response). Although the moderators didn’t grant Ron Paul a rebuttal, Ron Paul comes out on top, and here is why: While Ron Paul is advocating trade and diplomacy, the other Republicans are advertising just how isolationist they are. Quite ironic, since they inaccurately like to call Ron Paul an isolationist.

Ron Paul is willing to talk and trade with all countries. If anyone is an isolationist, it is Giuliani, Romney, and the other Republicans AND Democrats who would not even talk to Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, and North Korea. Most of the time they oppose trade with China, Syria, Sudan, Zimbabwe, Congo and Lebanon. Perhaps McCain can think twice before he ever calls Ron Paul an isolationist again - it is especially hypocritical of McCain since he tried to get Iran kicked off the FIFA World Cup in Germany (and failed).

Univision GOP Debate: Ron Paul Highlights with English translation (English Subtitles)

*Note: Subtitles are English translations of what the interpreters said in Spanish (that is, what the audience heard in Spanish, and not necessarily a verbatim transcript).
Here is a full transcript of the entire debate
**Youtube has removed the video due to possible copyright infringement issues. If there is enough demand, we may look for a work-around; however, we recommend visiting univision.com instead.

A lot of the justification for attacking and provoking Iran is the premise that Iran is a terrorist regime; that Ahmadinejad a terrorist for threatening to “wipe Israel off the map”. Perhaps this view is accurate. However, if we view Iran as a terrorist regime, then we ought to take a closer look at our leaders and foreign policy.

ter·ror·ism [ter-uh-riz-uhm]
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

ter·ror·ist [ter-er-ist]
–noun
1. a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism.
2. a person who terrorizes or frightens others.
3. (formerly) a member of a political group in Russia aiming at the demoralization of the government by terror.
4. an agent or partisan of the revolutionary tribunal during the Reign of Terror in France.
–adjective
5. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of terrorism or terrorists: terrorist tactics.

Under that definition many of our presidential candidates are terrorists, especially Giuliani and Tancredo, who would gladly turn the Middle East, and in particular, Mecca, into glass.

Ahmadinejad didn’t actually threaten to wipe Israel off the map - his speech was mistranslated.

If we are going to judge terrorism by such standards, then Bush is a terrorist for stating that he’d like to wipe Al-Jazeera off the map

If you compare the speeches of political leaders around the world, you’ll find that they all sound very similar. When Bush threatened Saddam by telling him he had 48 hours to leave Iraq, that is terrorism, too.

The “Shock and Awe” invasion of Iraq resembles terrorism as well. The point of shock and awe was to promote fear and terror.

If you look at psychological studies, you’ll notice that Bush sounds like a terrorist to them, just like Ahmadinejad sounds like a terrorist to some of us.

Let’s not forget we’ve have organized various coups d’état that could be characterized as acts of terrorism, around the world, including Iran.

This is why a war on terrorism is a double standard, and a play on vague words. Should we truly be concerned with terrorism around the world, we’d take a closer look at our foreign policy. The political rhetoric of our leaders sounds the same as that of the world leaders they demonize.

References:

terrorism. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Retrieved November 24, 2007, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorism

terrorist. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Retrieved November 24, 2007, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorist

Have anything to say about your choice? Is your choice not listed? Comment below.

Pronunciation: \’rōn ‘rȯn, ‘rän\

Function: transitive verb

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.

Synonyms: beat, defeat, overcome, overthrow, vanquish

Connotations: conquest, vindication

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

Date: before 12th century

—

Further information on this meme:

http://rwned.com/

—

See also:

Patriot Trash

An impressed Wolf Blitzer reports on CNN:

The rate of donations is currently averaging 136K per hour.

Astrophysicist Stephen Hawkins’ wheelchair was among those hijacked in the process. “The on-board computer on my wheelchair suddenly signed on to RonPaul2008.com and threatened to shut off my air supply if I didn’t enter my credit card number… It then proceeded to spam websites like Digg and facebook.”

Researchers from the Singularity Institute, a non-profit think-tank tasked with creating Friendly Artificial Intelligence suggested schematics on Seed AI were stolen from their lab.

Ray Kurzweil, a lead Artificial Intelligence researcher and author of The Singularity is Near, believes Ron Paul and his team has created a series of intelligent beings with free-will that now roam the web, “it’s was only a matter of time before they organized and began a revolution. It’s not surprising that these free entities would choose a leader that opposes government and regulation. Information wants to be free.”

Although legislators in both houses of congress are ready to label Ron Paul’s internet self-sufficient robots a terrorist threat, it is not clear whether these organisms present a threat to society. An NSA representative neither confirmed nor denied the existence of designer-AI beings roaming the web, nor whether the rumors are cause for concern.

Paul spokesman Jesse Benton said in an e-mail, “This is the first I’ve heard about this situation.”

“If it is true, it could be done by a well-intentioned yet misguided supporter or someone with bad intentions trying to embarrass the campaign,” he wrote while ferrying his boss to tape an appearance on The Tonight Show. “Either way, this is independent work, and we have no connection.”

Candidate [Air Force] [Army] [Navy] [Marines] [Coast Guard] [Other*] [Total]

Brownback [151] [0] [0] [0] [0] [250] [401]
Cox [0] [0] [0] [0] [0] [0] [0]
Guiliani [1,250] [750] [1,500] [1,000] [0] [0] [4,500]
Huckabee [2,050] [1,200] [2,850] [0] [250] [260] [6,610]
Hunter [0] [500] [0] [0] [0] [30] [530]
McCain [4,120] [7,972] [6,645] [1,721] [100] [800] [21,358]
Paul [7,450] [17,998.96] [7,227.76] [2,740] [800] [4,200] [40,416.72]
Romney [500] [3,410] [750] [800] [0] [250] [5,710]
Thompson [4,800] [5,825] [6,350] [800] [23] [2,600] [20,398]

Ron Paul: $40K
McCain: $21K
Thompson: $20K

This data is sourced from FEC Reports for Q3 and was compiled here by jfletch and RP4.US

*This list uses donators who listed their employer as some variation of Air Force, Army, National Guard, Navy, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, Retired Vet, Veteran, Civilian Military employee, or Military (no branch indicated). This is preliminary data and may contain insignificant errors.

Ron Paul led in military contributions last quarter as well.

Some other notable republican campaigns owe considerable amounts of money.

Cash-on-hand minus debt after Q3

Ron Paul 5.3 million

McCain 1.7 million

Huckabee 0.6 million

Romney -8.1 million (yes, negative)

Stay tuned for more analysis.

“…does the party want to follow George Bush off a cliff or do they want to follow Ron Paul?” -Paul Beggala

“RP is more anti-war than Clinton, Obama, etc” -CNN commentator.

Cafferty Letter: How can Republicans turn it around?
“Stop marginalizing the smartest among them, that is, Ron Paul.” -CNN viewer.

MSNBC has historically been positive about Ron Paul: Tucker, Chris Matthews and Pat Buchanan like him a lot. They will likely cover him today based on his 5 million for Q3. However, the breaking news coverage on the 5 million incorrectly called him an isolationist.

Any positive coverage by neoconservative FOX News is unlikely to be seen tonight.

And a comment for MSNBC on their breaking news: Ron Paul is NOT an isolationist. He is a non-interventionist, and there is a big difference. Nevertheless, I want to commend MSNBC on their generally fair coverage of Ron Paul.

As for ABC, CNN and FOX News… study ethical journalism and get back to us.

By the way, our prediction that Ron Paul would reach 1.2 million last week held true

“Rep. Paul is not a liberal, protesting against the War in Iraq. He is an isolationist, who seeks to keep America’s business at home.”

Wrong. Non-interventionist. This means he advocates trading with other nations and staying out of their internal conflicts. It doesn’t mean we ignore the world.

“Rep. Paul is not socially liberal, but economically conservative, as some have claimed. He is an old-style Conservative, through and through. “

Wrong, he is mostly socially liberal AND economically conservative. Otherwise known as a classical liberal.

I suspect spreading disinformation about Ron Paul is in response to his growing numbers of liberals, conservatives, and independents who find his message of liberty appealing.

Furthermore, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Barack Obama are betraying their own constituency by backing out of any promises to end the war. If anyone is a wolf in sheep’s clothing, it is these fake liberals who are looking more like pro-war neoconservatives everyday.

To clear up misconceptions about Ron Paul:

He may not like gay marriage, but he believes the contracts between two people should be enforced by the government. That means if a church wants to marry two gay people, Ron Paul believes the government should honor that agreement, and that heterosexual marriages should hold no special privilege.

He may detest abortion, but he believes such matters should be decided by the individual states and not the federal government. (Which means some states will allow abortion and some won’t. And perhaps it is better this way until we understand human consciousness better).

He opposes affirmative action, because he wants to treat people like individuals, not as arbitrary groups of people with special privileges, regardless of their skin color. He believes treating people like individuals and allowing them to exercise their liberties is a better way to achieve equality.

He strongly opposes the war on drugs, because prohibition causes more problems than it solves. There are only two democratic candidates who oppose the war on drugs: Gravel and questionably Kucinich. After all, should the government put you in jail for consuming Burger King food and putting yourself at risk? Why should it be any different with the personal use of drugs? Furthermore, the FDA prevents many useful medications from being sold in the market, forcing people to seek other alternatives abroad, increasing the cost of medicines, and sometimes leaving patients with no options.

He strongly opposes the Iraq war, on the grounds that we have no right to start wars of aggression. On the other hand, we have seen that Hillary and Obama are very likely to pursue an unnecessary conflict with Iran and start a new conflict in Sudan, as if we hadn’t learned from Vietnam and Iraq, already, and despite the fact that the majority of voters want out of Iraq.

Ron Paul doesn’t arbitrarily choose issues when it is convenient, like the majority of Republicans and Democrats. He goes by the principle of individual liberty, which means his stances on most issues are consistent and predictable, instead of progressively changing based on the whim of lobby groups.

I know it’s threatening to see Ron Paul earn more in donations in seven days than John Edwards earned in ten days. I know it’s threatening to see that liberals and conservatives are finding good reasons to support Ron Paul. But instead of misinforming voters, try to engage in honest discussion.

Note: There is a poll within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post’s poll.

Current projections will place both candidates at 1.2 million by the end of the quarter. Although these numbers reflect only the last 10 days of the quarter, it raises very interesting questions about Ron Paul’s financial standing this third quarter. If John Edwards pulled in 9 million last quarter, will we see Ron Paul triple last quarter’s numbers?

With straw polls placing Ron Paul in first place among Republican contenders, and the GOP recognizing Ron Paul as a de facto 1st tier candidate, any financial reporting over 5 million is bound to cement his position. Let’s not forget Ron Paul surprised everyone by taking in more military contributions than ALL the Republican and Democratic candidates in Q2, and amassing more cash-on-hand than Sen. John McCain.

If you want to see Ron Paul out-raise John Edwards in the 10-day boost that ends this Sunday, donate now: https://www.ronpaul2008.com/donate/

Update*: It was brought to my attention that Ron Paul started his boost last Monday, meaning Ron Paul is out-pacing Edwards, who has a 3-day advantage.

Ron Paul intends to withdraw immediately and he supports most socially liberal ideas. Because of this, I urge you to reconsider the candidates that have betrayed you.

Also at the debate, none of the so-called top-tier candidates promised to end the war by the end of their first term. In essence, Edwards, Obama, and Hillary are towing the neoconservative line.

The only senators running for president who voted against this bill were Biden and Dodd.

Here is the relevant amendment:

It is the sense of the Senate–

(1) that the manner in which the United States transitions and structures its military presence in Iraq will have critical long-term consequences for the future of the Persian Gulf and the Middle East, in particular with regard to the capability of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to pose a threat to the security of the region, the prospects for democracy for the people of the region, and the health of the global economy;

(2) that it is a vital national interest of the United States to prevent the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran from turning Shi’a militia extremists in Iraq into a Hezbollah-like force that could serve its interests inside Iraq, including by overwhelming, subverting, or co-opting institutions of the legitimate Government of Iraq;

(3) that it should be the policy of the United States to combat, contain, and roll back the violent activities and destabilizing influence inside Iraq of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, its foreign facilitators such as Lebanese Hezbollah, and its indigenous Iraqi proxies;

(4) to support the prudent and calibrated use of all instruments of United States national power in Iraq, including diplomatic, economic, intelligence, and military instruments, in support of the policy described in paragraph (3) with respect to the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran and its proxies;

(5) that the United States should designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a foreign terrorist organization under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act and place the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists, as established under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and initiated under Executive Order 13224; and

(6) that the Department of the Treasury should act with all possible expediency to complete the listing of those entities targeted under United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1737 and 1747 adopted unanimously on December 23, 2006 and March 24, 2007, respectively.

As usual, when confronted by a tough question, or in this case, a relevant accusation, Hillary resorted to pausing, laughing maniacally and then dancing around the question.

Then she refused to answer relevant hypothetical questions. If she doesn’t want to answer questions, they should revoke her time and give it to another candidate who will answer the questions asked.

This extrapolation is not based only on the current rate, but also on the concept of self-fulfilling prophesies, and the strong grassroots support that will push donations beyond the 500,000 goal. Ron Paul’s campaign can help this happen by extending the goal to one million.

Although Ron Paul leads all republican candidates in military contributions, straw polls, meet-up groups, youtube videos and anything not controlled by the mainstream media, a strong 3rd financial quarter will help Ron Paul gain the positive exposure intentionally denied to him by the main stream media, by pundits such as Wolf Blitzer and Sean Hannity.

A conservative projection for Ron Paul is 5-6 million for Q3, while 7 or 8 million is not out of the question.

https://www.ronpaul2008.com/donate/

—

It may be easy to reject Ron Paul at first because you don’t understand him or his policies.

You can probably look at the other candidates’ names or faces and make a quick decision that way.

But if you spend any time making a thoughtful decision, and if you get past the learning curve, you’ll love Ron Paul.

—

Libertarianism is a political philosophy that upholds the principle of individual liberty. Libertarians maintain that all persons are the absolute owners of their own lives, and should be free to do whatever they wish with their persons or property, provided they allow others the same liberty.

It is also one of the only political philosophies backed up by modern economics and psychology instead of pure dogma.

The opposite of libertarianism is authoritarianism; meaning you submit to authority simply because “you should”. Giuliani is a prime example of an authoritarian. Giuliani wants to tell you what to do even though he is no expert and even though he has no logical or rational explanation. Of course, Giuliani would never say that he doesn’t have a rational explanation. He’ll simply say something that sounds good like ‘9.11′.

An example of authoritarianism is Hillary Clinton’s assertion that we should ban mature video games. A libertarian would leave such decisions to the parents of a child. Another example of authoritarianism is the move to ban trans fats in NY. Sure, trans fats are unhealthy and undesirable. A libertarian would let people make the decision themselves.

In other words, libertarianism maximizes your ability to make your own choices. Authoritarianism maximizes Giuliani and Hillary’s ability to make choices for you, even when you disagree with them.

And what happens when Giuliani and Hillary make a bad decisions for you and you choose not to comply? Tough. If you disobey you get punished.

Next thing you know, you won’t be allowed to eat at your favorite restaurant.

—

A free market describes a theoretical, idealized market where the prices of goods and services is arranged completely by the mutual non-coerced consent of sellers and buyers, determined generally by the supply and demand law with no government interference in the regulation of costs, supply and demand. In theory, a free market will affect the price of goods such that the price reflects the real value of the goods.

An example of a society with free market society is Hong Kong. Hong Kong is ranked #1 when it comes to economic freedom. Hong Kong enjoys an employment rate nearly identical to that of the United States and there are no minimum wage laws. This keeps inflation at bay, which means residents can afford more with their money. The lack of artificial manipulation of the market means an umbrella costs more when it’s raining than when it’s not. And why shouldn’t it? An umbrella is worth more when it’s raining.

It also means there is more competition, and thus prices stay competitive. People will buy your umbrella if it is better or cheaper. In turn people make and sell better, cheaper umbrellas.

An opposing concept is the idea of nationalized healthcare systems, such as Hillary and Edwards’ proposals. These programs are wasteful because they raise taxes to pay people that have no incentive to provide good healthcare. They also raise the price of healthcare because people go to the doctor even when they don’t need one. They order expensive tests when they don’t need any. The patient (consumer) has no idea what their medication or their doctor visit costs, so there is no feedback that pushes prices back or indicates which services are more efficient. The end result is worse healthcare, longer waiting lines, and higher taxes.

If you are more interested in the concept of free markets watch John Stossel’s “Whose Body is it Anyway” and “Stupid in America“.

—

Studies involving psychology of ownership show that people place more value on goods they own than on public goods. This means private property gets taken care of better than public property. This is great news for the environment. In true free market conditions (that is, with no corporate welfare) an oil company has a real incentive to minimize its effect on the environment for two reasons: (1) It can resell the land it has bought at a better price and (2) If they pollute the surrounding private property they are liable for damages to private property.

Better news for the environment: If the oil companies do not get subsidies to drill for oil, and they must pay for the plot of land they will drill on, the price of the plot of land will increase. This means oil companies better do what they can to resell the plot of land once it has been drilled; and more importantly, it provides a real incentive for the oil companies to invest in other technologies - both to drill more carefully, and to avoid oil dependency.

This also explains why our government (and in particular the military branch) is the biggest polluter in the United States. What incentive does the military have to keep its easily-acquired land clean?

References

Jeffrey J. Rachlinski and Forest Jourden. “Remedies and the Psychology of Ownership”, 51 Vanderbilt Law Review 1541-82 (1998).

Recommended

If you are interested in Ron Paul, and this counter-intuitive concept, I highly recommend reading Think Rink - Freeing Minds by Smashing Paradigms.

USA Today: Obama, Paul net most military workers’ donations - September 14th

Paul spokesman Jesse Benton said the military support makes sense. The congressman “wants to get (troops) out of playing the world’s policemen and get them home,” he said.

Pat Buchanan: “Bottom line? Our U.S. Military is standing strong for Dr. Ron Paul […]” - July 23rd

FOX News: Ron Paul earns most in military donations among Republicans (video) - July 20th

Andrew Sullivan’s The Daily Dish: Ron Paul - Still Defying Expectations - July 17th

Phreadom: Ron Paul is the most financially supported, by military personnel and veterans, 2008 Presidential Candidate - July 17th

Digg: Military Favors Ron Paul Over McCain - July 16th

The Spin Factor: Military support for the republican candidates - July 16th

Numbers were originally crunched by T. S., a Ron Paul supporter who frequents the facebook Election 08 Newsvine application, and published here. Anybody who still questions the relevance of the internet in today’s politics ought to reconsider.

Related

Ron Paul leads ALL ‘08 candidates with over one-fourth of military contributions for Q2