JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Archives

Books

Ron Paul – the man the media fear the most

I met two Australian libertarians a few weeks ago who didn’t know who Ron Paul was, but then, why would they? The media sure doesn’t want anyone to talk about Paul.

In the Iowa Polls Romney is the “front-runner”, the “man-to-beat”, and leads at (wow) 24%,  while Paul is completely out of contention, hardly worth a mention, at… ah… 22%.  If Romney wins, it will set him up for the run at the White house, if Ron Paul wins, it “it may jeopardize the future importance of Iowa in the presidential election cycle“. Follow the logic: if Paul is elected in Iowa, then “Paul is just unelectable.” They actually say that. (Some polls put the two men level.)

If there was a serious frontrunner in the US republican race who was smart, decent, a doctor with no scandals, a long record of keeping promises in congress, a magnetic ability to raise money, massive grassroots fan base, and excellent polling, well of course the media will ignore him. Censorship by omission is weapon number one (and we know all about that as climate skeptics). If they have to mention him (and it’s coming to that), look for the opinion that writes him off: “No one seriously thinks Paul can win”. (It doesn’t even need to be an attributed quote). It’s weapon number two. Starting now is weapon three: stringing dirt out of newsletters that are 20 years old.  They’ll call him extreme, fringe, a radical, but what he wants most is to stick with the US constitution and the words of the founding fathers. He wants freedom for the people, peace, and the government to get out of the way. Get ready for the smear campaign from the people who want the opposite.

The parallels with how the Establishment (the governments and mainstream media)  treat climate skepticism are obvious. They ignored skeptics until 2008, omitting any mention of us or our arguments. Then we started doing well in public polling, and they switched to ridicule. (Remember the famous quote mistakenly thought to be Ghandi?* First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight, then you win.) Declaring that “all scientists say x” is so like “no one seriously thinks Paul can win”.

Notice that, like us, Paul gets his message out via the Internet because the mainstream media is denied to his ideas. There is an historical precedent for this phenomenon: the church once had a monopoly on distributing high quality information, via the pulpit. Then the printing press came along, bypassing the Church, and we got the reformation and the enlightenment (and also a profound shake up in the power structure, leading to a series of wars including the 30 Year War, but that’s a story for another time). The powers that be currently own our political class and our mainstream media, but the Internet is increasingly bypassing their controls on what people can know and think. (Something like this paragraph, for instance, will probably never appear anywhere in the mainstream media.) Paul threatens both the military power (he wants the US to stop being the world policeman, to bring its forces home) and the money power (he wants to stop money manufacture out of thin air and abolish the Fed), and for good measure he even threatens the power of large criminal organizations (he wants to legalize drugs).

I have no business telling US voters how to vote. But I’m a member of Western Civilization too. The rest of the West needs a strong US to help us defend our freedoms. We need free speech. We need politicians with principle and people who can clean up the corruption.

There are points I don’t agree with him on, but I so admire the man who sticks to his word, who speaks his mind, who can’t be bought.

http://www.ronpaul2012.com

The media are staffed by people known to vote left. They want Mitt Romney or even Newt Gingrich (just like they want Malcolm Turnbull in Australia). That’s exactly why the Republicans should pick… someone, anyone else. Whoever the media want in this race, they don’t have the interests of (non-establishment) Republicans at heart.

 

….

 

The John Stewart segments in the clip above come from this piece below. Stewart is a left-of-centre guy, so his comic genius on this topic is all the more pointed.


 

The media and Ron Paul  in Stewart’s words:

“Whats wrong with (them)! He is Tea Party patient zero, all that small government grassroots business, he planted that grass. Ron Paul is the real deal…”
“He’s the one guy in the field, agree with him, or don’t agree with him, he doesn’t go out of his way to regurgitate talking points, or change what he believes to fit the audience he’s in front of..”

 

http://www.ronpaul2012.com

Who is Ron Paul?

Dr. Paul never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution. In the words of former Treasury Secretary William Simon, Dr. Paul is the “one exception to the Gang of 535″ on Capitol Hill. As an obstetrician, Dr. Paul has delivered more than 4,000 babies. He and Carol, who reside in Lake Jackson, Texas, are the proud parents of five children and have 18 grandchildren and one great grandchild.

Dr. Paul is the author of several books, including The Revolution: A Manifesto, End the Fed, Liberty Defined, Challenge to Liberty; The Case for Gold; and A Republic, If You Can Keep It. He has been a distinguished counselor to the Ludwig von Mises Institute, and is widely quoted by scholars and writers in the fields of monetary policy, banking, and political economy. He has received many awards and honors during his career in Congress, from organizations such as the National Taxpayers Union, Citizens Against Government Waste, the Council for a Competitive Economy, and countless others.

Dr. Paul’s consistent voting record prompted one Congressman to comment that “Ron Paul personifies the Founding Fathers’ ideal of the citizen-statesman. He makes it clear that his principles will never be compromised, and they never are.”

Pay attention to the man and his policies, and the way the media  work so hard to ignore a front running candidate. Will we get the candidate the voters want or the candidate the journalists want?

* UPDATE and correction: The famous Ghandi quote was not his quote. Darren Porter tells me that the “it comes from a much earlier Trade union Pamphlet – “And, my friends, in this story you have a history of this entire movement. First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. And then they attack you and want to burn you. And then they build monuments to you. And that, is what is going to happen to the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America.” General Executive Board Report and Proceedings [of The] Biennial Convention, Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, 1914.” Thanks to Darren.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.3/10 (103 votes cast)
Ron Paul - the man the media fear the most, 9.3 out of 10 based on 103 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/75v6eaf

278 comments to Ron Paul – the man the media fear the most

  • #
    val majkus

    there’s been a lot said about Ron Paul over the last day (see
    http://catallaxyfiles.com/2012/01/02/two-views-of-ron-paul/#comments)

    but in my view the more important event is
    2012 Bloggie Awards being called for

    read all about it (you can nominate up to 3 blogs)

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/02/2012-bloggies-awards-nominations-open/#more-54095

    We know what to do

    ——————————————————————————–

    00

  • #
    val majkus

    2012 Bloggie Awards being called for

    read all about it (you can nominate up to 3 blogs)

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/02/2012-bloggies-awards-nominations-open/#more-54095

    We know what to do

    ——————————————————————————–

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    As far as the US media is concerned, Ron Paul is unelectable simply because he is incorruptible.

    There is a very cosy reciprocal relationship between the politicians and the media, on a you scratch my back, and I’ll scratch yours, basis. The chosen media get the “leak” before their competitors, and they get to interview top aids, who just aren’t available to other media outlets. In return, the chosen media often look to their extensive stable of contacts to arrange for discreet campaign funding, and they often make their investigative resources available to favoured politicians, and take their comments to heart.

    That is how the system works.

    Ron Paul will have none of that, because he believes in a clear and demonstrable separation between the three branches of Government and the Media. So if he gets elected, he will break, and possibly expose, the cosy arrangement that has existed since the Johnston and Nixon eras. No wonder the media are in a spin (pun intended).

    We are truly living in interesting times.

    00

    • #
      MadJak

      I’ll say this – with the way congress has been for some time, the traditional clean skin spin talking wally would definitely not be the person to root out what appears to be one of the most corrupted institutions in the world.

      Does anyone else recall the christmas tree’ing the first bank bailout legislation got near the end of GWBs presidency? I think it started being only about 7 pages and then got christmas treed into over 1000 pages -including tax breaks for things like some kids bow and arrow manufacturer in indiana or whatever.

      If he is uncorruptable now, I can only hope he will remain that way for long enough to get the US (and the rest of the world by proxy) into a position where it actually can recover both economically as well as morally.

      00

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        I wasn’t going to go anywhere near kick-backs – that is a monster of a different stripe – truly corrupt.

        In fact I was carefully trying to limit my comments to the “incestuous” relationship that exists between most democratic governments and their respective media, but particularly in regard to the upcoming Presidential’s.

        00

    • #
      Truthseeker

      I am hoping that this election will prove that the MSM has become entirely irrelevant when it comes to how the majority of registered voters get their information and make voting decisions. If that is proven true and Ron Raul does get elected, then the cosy arrangement will just evaporate due to it being inconsequential.

      00

    • #
      kuhnkat

      Incorruptible??

      Every year Ron Paul purs in earmarks for his district. He explains that it is so his people who also pay taxes get their fair share back. EXCEPT they get MORE than their fair share back!!!

      It is STILL UnConstitutional from a man who supposedly is all about Constitutional Gubmint!!!! Playing both sides eh??

      00

    • #
      co2isnotevil

      The US media doesn’t like him because he’s a Republican and the US media leans decidedly left, with few exceptions. The Republicans don’t like him because he’s the least likely candidate to beat Obama in the election. I just hope he doesn’t run as a third party candidate as that would insure Obama’s re-election. What concerns me is that Obama’s tether towards center, tenuous as it us, would no longer be necessary during a second term.

      00

  • #
    MattB

    with non-compulsory voting I think you really do need a candidate who can pull your average punter though. How many swing voters would vote for him? Your Aussie Liberetarian mates must have their heads in the sand though as even I know Ron Paul. Don’t really have a problem with him to be honest.

    00

    • #
      brc

      That would be an internet/non-internet user type of thing. Most people know of Ron Paul from the 2008 primaries when he was an internet meme big enough to put a dancing baby to shame.

      I actually agree – while I agree with most of what he says and does (ie voting) – I don’t think he is mainstream enough to actually carry an election.

      However, sometimes you need people who are in the race not to win but to get the other talking heads talking about the things you bring up.

      Most republicans don’t like him because he appears anti-military to them. But to me that’s part of his sticking to the constitution schtick. The USA would do well to end it’s imperial grandeur and start closing some foreign bases.

      I don’t think he’s a serious chance but I do think he can give others a serious shakeup, and I’d settle for that.

      00

    • #
      Pierce

      For once your right!

      00

    • #
      Pierce

      Wow! About 8 hurs & 48 whole comments!

      00

  • #
    MadJak

    I have found it quite remarkable that as the tea party movement took hold and needed to be paid attention to by the Lamestream media, they found whatever they could to discredit it – what was it, they found some nazis attended a rally and then did the old guilt by association thing?

    And then the occupy movement came along and the lamestream were really quick to give it attention and to bolster it – to the point where we even had occupy movements here in Australia which has dodged even a mild recession (largely due to previous govt groundwork combined with good old china still wanting more).

    They even had the multi millionaire capitalist Documentary maker Mr Moore turn up to one of the rallies – I note he was probably wearing his only remaining trailer trash outfit.

    But then an interesting thing happened – the media started to turn on the occupy movement and started to brand them as being a health hazard and dragged out the old “dirty smelly hippies” meme. Confused?

    I reckon the urban elite leftists started to get a bit concerned about how their local occupy movement might drag down their real estate values(shock horror)? Nothing like a bunch of bongo thumping pedal powered latte sippers on your doorstep to turn buyers away eh?

    With only a couple of exceptions (for which I have the utmost repect I might add), almost all left leaning people I know have their own investment properties, are high income earners, live in urban crapholes and mix dicussions about equalising everyone with discussions about where the best latte can be found in town.

    The days of the left coming from the working class are truly over and have been for a very long time.

    00

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      The left is the new moneyed class – running on Government Research Grants, and Financial Stimulus Packages – didn’t you get the memo?

      00

    • #
      John Brookes

      Well, Madjak, I’m a lefty, but a failed one, not owning an investment property, or indeed one to live in myself.

      I will take issue with one thing though. Why is it always latte? Look, latte is milky coffee. Its weak. If you find yourself wanting to drink a latte, you should just try tea, or even water. Macchiato, flat white, or just a short black if you don’t like milk – they’ll do. Our (very small) Wednesday riding group has spent the last month and a half checking out coffee shops from Freo to Subi. There are lots of good ones. I’m a pastry fan, so Choux in Swanbourne was one of my favourites. The single origin coffee at Louis Baxter in Subi is nice. I’ve always been a fan of Cafe Cafe in Subi – often go there before or after watching the Dockers.

      And we don’t want to equalise everyones income. Many of the guys (and girls) I ride with are paid a lot more than me, and that is just fine, because they are worth it. I think what I object to most is listening to employers talking about how hard it is to get (say) child care workers. Just pay them more! You have to do it for CEOs, so why not for child care workers? Its particularly annoying because a lot of child care is used by double income families who are usually pretty well off, and can afford to pay more.

      I harp on about it, but too much income inequality is bad – for everyone.

      00

      • #
        Otter

        ‘I’m a lefty, but a failed one,’

        Yes, johnny, we could tell!

        00

      • #
        klem

        I used to be a lefty, until I read the IPCCs AR4 report back in 2007. That was the beginning of a long and tortured transition to the right. Thank you IPCC.

        Though I never drank latte’s. I’m an espresso guy.

        00

      • #
        Madjak

        JB,

        You can provide a reference to an australian employer complaining about how hard it is to get child workers these days at anytime, or you can admit you’re in hyperbole mode again.

        Of course, in typical lefty fashion you talk about what people earn rather than what peoples net worth is. I still don’t understand how people fail to differentiate between the two. Particularly as the richest appear to have the lowest taxable incomes.

        It sounds to me like you’re caught up in the idealistic romance so your lefty mates can make a killing.

        What was the quote from a certain bad troll on a previous thread you found was music to your ears?, oh thats right it was as follows:
        “Tax the rich scum til they bleed through their ears…”

        It seems to me that your yuppee mates aren’t just riding bikes there JB.

        00

      • #
        lawrie

        JB,

        I’ve been described as being just to the right of Ghengis Khan. GK was quite tolerant of different faiths and practices just so long as his authority was not challenged. I have no authority, just ask my kids, and I tolerate most things except when people try to force their beliefs on me or pedal BS. After that preamble I want to wish you well in 2012 and appreciate that despite your, in my opinion, flawed adherence to the AGW scam you enjoy life just like the rest of us; human in other words.

        00

  • #
    Llew Jones

    Here’s a bit of relevant stuff on Paul, who incidentally doesn’t “believe” in evolution whatever he means by that, from the Left wing , warmist cheer leader, Grist:

    Climate change

    Paul has never had much to offer in the way of climate policy, not even back when he acknowledged that climate change might be a bit of a problem — and more recently he’s taken the Inhofe-ian view that global warming is a big ol’ hoax.

    In a 2007 interview with Grist, Paul said, “I think some of it [global warming] is related to human activities, but I don’t think there’s a conclusion yet.” In an interview with the Freakonomics guys in late 2008, Paul again raised questions about how much humans are to blame for changes in the climate, but acknowledged that “[c]learly there is something afoot” and “science shows that human activity probably does play a role in stimulating the current fluctuations.” He continued, “I think there are common-sense steps we can take to cut emissions and preserve our environment.”

    But the next year, he sounded much more the skeptic: “there is no consensus in the scientific community that global warming is getting worse or that it is manmade,” he wrote, going on to cite a thoroughly debunked anti-climate-science petition. Then in an interview on Fox News on Nov. 4, 2009, Paul slid still further down the skeptic slope: “the greatest hoax I think that has been around for many, many years if not hundreds of years has been this hoax on the environment and global warming.”

    As one might expect, Paul was not a fan of the cap-and-trade bill that passed the House in 2009; he warned that it would “put another nail in the economy’s coffin.” In May 2009, Paul signed the “No Climate Tax Pledge” promoted by the Koch brothers’ group Americans for Prosperity.

    Energy subsidies

    While Paul has wobbled on climate science, he’s been more consistent in his prescription for eliminating energy subsidies. Here’s how he put it in the 2008 Freakonomics interview:

    We should start by ending subsidies for oil companies. And we should never, ever go to war to protect our perceived oil interests. If oil were allowed to rise to its natural price, there would be tremendous market incentives to find alternate sources of energy. At the same time, I can’t support government “investment” in alternative sources either, for this is not investment at all.

    Government cannot invest, it can only redistribute resources. Just look at the mess government created with ethanol. Congress decided that we needed more biofuels, and the best choice was ethanol from corn. So we subsidized corn farmers at the expense of others, and investment in other types of renewables was crowded out.

    Now it turns out that corn ethanol is inefficient, and it actually takes more energy to produce the fuel than you get when you burn it. The most efficient ethanol may come from hemp, but hemp production is illegal and there has been little progress on hemp ethanol. And on top of that, corn is now going into our gas tanks instead of onto our tables or feeding our livestock or dairy cows; so food prices have been driven up. This is what happens when we allow government to make choices instead of the market; I hope we avoid those mistakes moving forward.

    http://www.grist.org/election-2012/2011-04-27-ron-paul-hates-energy-subsidies-doubts-climate-change-loves-bike

    00

    • #
      John Brookes

      I sort of agree with Paul on ethanol subsidies, mandatory renewables etc. These schemes are a poor excuse for just putting a price on carbon and letting the market sort things out. However, I imagine that being a libertarian, Paul would most definitely not support a price on carbon, even if he thought global warming was dangerous.

      Which makes me think, if global warming was perceived to be a problem by a libertarian president, how would they tackle it?

      00

      • #
        brc

        ‘sort of agree’? How very big of you. It’s like you almost want to comment on the failure of the EU carbon market but can’t bring yourself to realise you’re backing the wrong horse, and he’s looking pretty insipid on the field.

        All energy subsidies are stupid. And that includes, especially, solar and wind subsidies. Putting artificial costs on energy via a carbon tax is just as stupid as giving producers a price floor to produce it. Either way you are destroying value and lowering productivity for no benefit.

        If global warming was perceived to be a problem by a libertarian president, then he would communicate that to the people and let them sort it out themselves. Mostly this would mean letting them decide whether or not the sea was going to rise and take away their house, or whether a particular city wanted to tax it’s residents and build a sea wall. Everything else would be a waste of money.

        Why is it that you would expect the government to do everything for you? Why would you need a president to build climate-change adaption? Presidents don’t need to build bridges, why would they need to build sea walls and hurricane shelters – if these things proved to be a problem?

        00

        • #
          John Brookes

          brc, I said “if” global warming was a problem.

          Anyway, you really haven’t given me any confidence in the libertarian solution. What if the US is attacked by China – do libertarians just leave it up to individual cities to defend themselves?

          00

          • #
            brc

            What if my auntie has balls? Would that make her my uncle?

            See, I can ask stupid questions as well.

            What the president would do is go to congress and get authorisation to declare War on China. But libertarians would probably already be trading with China and history shows us that countries that trade with each other freely rarely fight wars.

            If somehow that is an analogy about responding to weather it’s lost on me and I suspect plenty of others.

            00

          • #

            The libertarian view is that the government exists to provide protection of property rights. The national, or federal, level of government provides protection of property from foreign entities.

            What Ron Paul and all libertarians are against is property theft. An empiralistic government steals from foreigners. So obviously, the primary step for the US is withdrawl(stop stealing) from foreign countries and concentrate millitary assets into the defense of their own sovereign wealth.

            00

      • #
        davidR

        THe LIbertarian position on global warming should be to support an emmission trading scheme. Global warming is an example of the ‘tragedy of the commons’ where a scarce resource is overused by allowing unlimited access.
        COnsistent Libertarians recognize that global warming is occurring and that the only way to handle under that philosophy is to place a limit on the amount of CO2 that can be pumped into the atmosphere. Those who wish to emit CO2 should pay the price required to keep emissions down to an acceptable level.
        There is nothing Libertarian about claiming AGW is not occurring. The claim is false regardless of who makes it.
        A true Libertarian deals with the real world, not some fairytale. Obviously the libertarian solution is not practical when 200 governments are involved, however there is nothing Libertarian about Burton your rad in the sand and claiming A GW is not occurring.

        00

        • #

          David, a libertarian answer to a science question is nonsense. There is nothing democratic or republican about the amount of man-made global warming that occurs either. The evidence is clear — the global climate models are based on flawed assumptions.

          But even if CO2 was a problem, a forced emissions trading scheme is not a good answer. CO2 is too ubiquitous, the market is fixed from the start, hard to audit, easy to scam, packed with profiteering middle-men. Someone has to decide how many credits to give, what counts as a credit, which CO2 emitters are in, which are out, it’s a fake “free” market from the beginning.

          00

          • #
            davidR

            AGW has been scientifically established, to the extent that their is no justifiable alternative scientific position.

            (What was empirically established?) CTS

            Libertarianism is a political philosophy, that needs to respond to the issue just like any other political philosophy. Libertarians frequently use the tradgedy of the commons to justify the value of private property. AGW is another situation where the overuse of a scarce resource is resulting in an environmental abuse. The libertarian response should therefore be similar, establish the carrying capacity of the atmosphere and then issue tradeable permits where the users can purchase the right to emit CO2 up to the agreed limit.

            Ron Paul’s position is not Libertarian it is simply ignoring the evidence and claiming no action is required. Like many of his. views his position is simply that government action is bad. This is intellectually unsustainablte. This extreme American position underpins many US policies that have given America one of the most expensive and least effective Health systems, median wealth a small fraction of the median wealth in Australia, and apolitical system that is unable to deal with their chronic debt.

            (The American government has been heavily involved in health care for many years) CTS

            00

          • #
            davidR

            CTS,
            AGW has been empirically (that is; Relying on or derived from observation or experiment)established by 10′s of thousands of scientific papers observing nature; by scientific confirmation of the physics involved, and by measurements that indicate the vast amount of CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere by humans. The only worthwhile remaining debate is about how we deal with it.

            While it is true that the American Government has been involved in health care for many years, it has never adopted the comprehensive policies of the developed economies. This is why the system is the most expensive and least effective amongst developed nations. By stating that the American government has been involved for many years, you are simply ignoring the fact that their involvement is the least effective.

            00

          • #

            davidR,

            you say:

            ….. and by measurements that indicate the vast amount of CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere by humans. The only worthwhile remaining debate is about how we deal with it.

            You people have absolutely no idea about what that means, do you?

            40% of all man made CO2 emissions come from the generation of electrical power.

            If the problem was so dire, then those plants would be just shut down, full stop.

            Instead, the very organisation that tells us the problem is so dire, the UN is using the money it is making from all this to construct large scale coal fired power plants in the Third World, while telling us in the Developed World that we need to close down our large scale coal fired power plants.

            That of itself indicates to me that they are not serious about their so called dire problem.

            When they actually start shutting down the largest source of those emissions, then and only then will I know that they are serious.

            Talk all you like about the Science mate, but until you, and those of you on your side of this debate, have even the vaguest understanding of what you’re calling for, then you’re all just urinating into the teeth of the Cyclone.

            Tony.

            00

          • #
            davidR

            TonyfromOz,
            40% of CO2 emissions come from electrical generation using coal oil and gas, 30% come from burning liquid fossil fuels for transport. I recall making just that point to an ‘environmentalist’ about 15 years ago. Over a period of about 50 years we can replace virtually all of those emissions using nuclear power at very little cost to the economy. The cost of Nuclear Power is little different to the cost of coal fired power. Once we recognize the need to change, and the biggest problem here is the extreme Greens, transferring our economy to a low carbon economy is relatively cheap and straightforward.

            The UN is not the problem, they have a wide variety of objectives not just coping with excessive amounts of CO2. The real problem is the extremists from both the right and the left who are not prepared to give up their own sacred cows to deal with the problem. The world currently spends around $1 trillion dollars on new generating capacity each year. If that money was spent on Nuclear rather than fossil fuel technology the world would be well on the way to a significant reduction in CO2 emissions.

            00

          • #
            kuhnkat

            davidR states:

            “AGW has been empirically (that is; Relying on or derived from observation or experiment)established by 10′s of thousands of scientific papers observing nature; by scientific confirmation of the physics involved, and by measurements that indicate the vast amount of CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere by humans. The only worthwhile remaining debate is about how we deal with it.”

            This pargraph by itself impeaches your knowledge of science and especially AGW. I won’t bore you with Einstein’s statement about only needing one fact to disprove his theory. I will point out that the 10′s of thousands of papers you THINK prove AGW mostly have to do with the effects of AGW IF it is real!!! The actual hard science of proving AGW is very small and mostly depends on correlation. There are exactly 0, none, bupkus papers that empirically prove AGW is happening or even that it COULD happen on our REAL earth, as opposed to the flawed model earth that much of AGW is based on!!

            Youu obviously ignored the IPCC’s own comments that they have a low understanding of clouds and aerosols. Without this understanding any claims of usefulness of models that aren’t empirically proven are simply imagination.

            00

        • #

          The ‘tragedy of the commons’ is a false analysis – the solution is to make the scarce resource available via a truly floating market mechanism. Let the magic of supply and demand in a competitive public bidding market equalize it out. This would then in turn allow alternative ways of utilizing akin resources to be assessed and priced.

          What has happened to the carbon markets (price crashes) indicates that there is no inherent ‘worth’ behind the pricing being attributed – its a completely false (i.e. junk) market. You cannot just give value to something that has no value to begin with, its still worth zero. The only thing you have succeeded in doing is making one party richer at the absolute complete expense of another – i.e. it is a scam.

          00

        • #
          brc

          There is nothing Libertarian about claiming AGW is not occurring. The claim is false regardless of who makes it.

          Just like that. Because you say so, anyone who says AGW is not occuring.

          Care to provide some evidence?

          The libertarian (in reality, any government) position for global warming would be to ask for some decent proof, and then look for the best way to deal with the problem.

          If we do that, we find weak evidence that human-contributed co2 changes the climate, and strong evidence that the best way to deal with it is to adapt to any changes as and when they happen.

          co2 certificate trading is about as far from a free market as you can get. I’m not sure why this fact is hard for people to accept, but somehow they think that because some type of market is involved, it must work. But the reality is that any market that works already exists spontaneously. Any market that must be forced into existence against threat of jail must fail, because it should never exist.

          00

          • #
            davidR

            brc,
            The only intellectually honest position is to accept the overwhelming evidence that already exists for AGW. An honest Libertarian is just as capable of doing that as an honest socialist. The difference is how you respond once you acknowledge the evidence.

            Anyone who claims that AGW is not supported by overwhelming scientific evidence is just fooling themselves or others.

            00

        • #
          handjive

          Open-Ended Resourceship: Bring on 2012!

          “If resources are not fixed but created, then the nature of the scarcity problem changes dramatically.
          For the technological means involved in the use of resources determines their creation and therefore the extent of their scarcity.
          The nature of the scarcity is not outside the process (that is natural), but a condition of it.”

          - Tom DeGregori (1987). “Resources Are Not; They Become: An Institutional Theory.” Journal of Economic Issues, p. 1258.

          The confounding of physics with economics has plagued a real-world understanding of mineral resource development.

          The phenomenon of entropy and the laws of thermodynamics rule in their domain.

          But there is no economic law analogous to the physical conservation of matter.

          There is no law of conservation of value; value is continually, routinely created by the market process.
          And this value creation does not deplete–just the opposite.

          This insight reorients the peak-oil debate from pessimism about hypothetical future physical resources to here-and-now concerns over incentives and institutions–or the ability of a free market to create a robust energy future.

          00

        • #
          Jazza

          Utter balderdash
          You must come here and not even read or else you don’t comprehend–
          I am referring to other voluminous and comprehensive threads over a long time on the Climate Change scam!

          00

          • #
            Robert

            Apparently he is too “overwhelmed” by all his evidence. That seems to be the only thing “overwhelming” about it. So “overwhelming” that he cannot provide any, only claims that it exists…

            Have a great 2012 everyone, with logical wonders such as davidR it is certain to be entertaining.

            00

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          davidR

          There is so much wrong with what you type, it is difficult to know where to begin. So let us start with a couple of definitions:

          Libertarian:

          a) A person who advocates personal liberty, especially with regard to thought or conduct.

          b) A person who will not impose their philosophy on others, nor accept the imposition of other philosophies upon themselves.

          If you disagree with the above then please enlighten us with your definition, because your arguments can not be supported under the above definitions.

          The argument for “the ‘tragedy of the commons’”, is one used to argue against libertarianism as a philosophy. You really can’t have it both ways. The ‘tragedy of the commons’, in true libertarianism would imply, “let those who are concerned, pay – the more people who are concerned, the more money will be raised to address the concern, and those who are concerned can inform their fellows, with a view to raising their concern also”.

          But there should be no compulsion, under the principle of libertarianism, for anybody to pay a tax, or pay the purchase price of a certificate, if they do not accept the reason for the tax or price being imposed.

          You are showing a false flag, and being cowardly in hiding behind a philosophy you obviously know nothing about.

          00

          • #
            davidR

            Rereke,
            you will find there are a wide range of positions within the concept of Libertarianism. Most of them support the concept of private property and the right of individuals to prevent others using their property through the use of State force.

            Libertarians who recognise AGW as an isue, would addres it by treating the right to emit co2 as a limited property right. Just as the right to own land is a limited property right. Once established anyone can purchase the right to emit. THere is no political coercion other than the maintenance of the property right.

            Libertarians who oppose property rights would have no response to the isue other than the power of persuasion.

            Libertarians who accept property rights often use the tragedy of the commons to support there position on property rights. There view is that unrestricted access can destroy the property and that the value of the property is preserved by limiting access to those who perceive the most value and have the ability to pay for it.

            00

          • #
            kuhnkat

            Rereke,

            “b) A person who will not impose their philosophy on others, nor accept the imposition of other philosophies upon themselves.”

            This is the Libertarian problem. There are a number of other philosophies of government, religion etc. that promote their views whether we are Libertarian or not. Need I mention Fascism, Communism, and Islam??

            Ron Paul’s demented idea that Islam is NOT an enemy even though they are definitely expansionist and are driving Sharia into the US court system and infiltrating our gubmint and organizations the same as Communism did, shows how ignorant his Libertarian position is. It didn’t stop Communism and it won’t stop Sharia and Islam.

            So, under RP we allow Iran and everyone else to obtain Nuclear Weapons allowing Iran’s Ahmawhackjob to initiate a nuclear holocaust wiping out Israel and precipitating armageddon in which the Hidden Imam is supposed to return and lead Shiiite Muslims to victory.

            Gee, why didn’t I think of that simple solution to world peace.

            Then there is China…

            00

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          davidR, in answer to #5.1.2.1.1

          … Ron Paul’s position is not Libertarian it is simply ignoring the evidence and claiming no action is required. …

          You present no evidence that this is Ron Paul’s position at all. Can you see inside his head? Has he discussed his views with you? How do you know he is “simply ignoring the evidence”?

          An equally valid position for him to adopt would be to study the evidence carefully and decide, on the basis of that study, that no action is required. How do you know that this is not the case?

          If you are in any doubt, have an honest discussion (or debate, if you would prefer) on this blog with people who have honestly held opinions to that implied in the position you ascribe to Ron Paul.

          00

          • #
            davidR

            To get his position on this read his website.He claimsAGW is not. occurring, which is contrary to the evidence; not that no action is required which is a political position.

            00

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          davidR, in response to #5.1.2.3.1

          The only intellectually honest position is to accept the overwhelming evidence that already exists for AGW.

          Who is overwhelmed? At what point did they become overwhelmed? At what point does evidence become “overwhelming evidence”? Does running the same computer simulation twenty times and getting the same answer every time constitute “overwhelming evidence”? Does twenty academic papers, published by different groups, but all based on the same computer simulation, constitute “overwhelming evidence”? If the previous references to “twenty” were changed to “a hundred” would that make it more overwhelming?

          Curious people would like to know.

          00

          • #
            davidR

            The s cience is. overwhelmed. Not by computer simulations but by observations of nature. THe evidence for AGW is found in the 10′s of thousands of scientific papers observing nature that show warming and the factt that the only known cause of that amount of warming is the rapid increase in human emitted CO2 in the atmosphere.

            Computer simulations provide estimates of the impact of the observed changes. It is the observed changes that are the evidence for AGW.

            00

  • #
    Steve Schapel

    Yes, it is staggering, isn’t it, how blatantly the MSM exercise their manipulative influence over the public’s exposure to the political candidates. I have been watching this unfold with Ron Paul for some time now, and realising that things would be different if he got a fair go. Even more so with Gary Johnson, whose policies are (in my opinion) even more deserving than Paul’s. It is very interesting to see how things seem to be changing for him already since he (just a few days ago) quit the Republicans and now seeking Libertarian endorsement.

    00

  • #
    brc

    I hope your moderators are ready because a storm of anti-Paul people will descend at some point.

    The smearing doesn’t just come from the media, there are plenty of republican supporters who will turn up and attack as well.

    Pauls major failings appear to be that he isn’t mindlessly pro-military and while I think he is against abortions, he doesn’t think the Feds should be involved – or something.

    But the main thing people will attack him for is his position that the Federal Reserve should be abolished and a return to the Gold standard should be adopted. They will label this position ‘extreme’ despite the fact that the USA operated without a Federal Reserve, and on a Gold standard, for most of it’s history. In fact the experiment of a US dollar not backed by Gold is only 40 years old, and on all accounts it’s been a miserable failure. The only thing a fully paper currency has got going for it is it allows printing of money for war expenditures. But then we’re back to that whole military expenditure thing.

    I don’t expect Paul to win the primaries, but I do hope he shakes things up and at least gets these topics into the thinking of people.

    Remember, Tony Abbott was ‘unelectable’ at one point as well, as was John Howard. He actually gathered more votes than the incumbent PM in the end, and would be elected in a landslide if the election was held this weekend.

    00

    • #
      cwon1

      The real gold standard was abandoned by FDR in 1933. Nixon closed the exchange but the gold standard was dead long before that. In fact is was dead due to WWI obligations and was in decline even before WWI. It’s naive to blame FDR for this weakness as well, England left the gold standard first and spread the early depression around the globe.

      You’re right though, it’s all about war-time economics and the aftermath. Go back far enough and you can find plenty to blame for the current conditions and the levels of government/credit we are stuck with today.

      It’s not an excuse to give RP a pass because he has a clue on these topics.

      00

  • #
    Aussieute

    Pitty more politicians didn’t have the guts to stand up for what they believe, not what the polls believe

    Coming out up front with statements like this is like a breath of fresh air.

    And the meejah don’t like it cos he doesn’t pander to their diatribe.

    Would be interested to see what the US version of “who do you trust” … where would the deliverers of diatribe be there?

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    Of course, while Ron Paul getting dudded by the US msm is a worry, the real concern is this. Why don’t we get John Stewart on Australian TV? The guy is a genius and a lefty, about the only thing he could do better is be female and topless.

    Thanks Jo for the clip.

    00

    • #
      Catamon

      Stewart’s stuff on US politics is brilliant. Still, given the Repug lineup this cycle and the existence of Fox, he does have a veritable cornucopia of raw material to work with.

      Tea-Party Patient Zero? A true gem.

      00

  • #
    Llew Jones

    Notice Paul has been labelled *Dr. No. Take heart Tony Abbott you may be in good company.

    If any bill attempts to exercise powers not granted to the Congress by the Constitution, Dr. Paul will vote *against it.

    00

    • #
      Catamon

      On the other hand, Tony Abbott will just vote against it no matter what.

      00

      • #
        Jazza

        Come on, give us the second line all lefties trot out–about how many “bills” have been passed by Gillard’s minority government!

        Guess you don’t do hypocrisy though do you?

        Nor would you give Abbott credit for keeping his word to the Australian people on policies he took to the last election,and he isn’t even in government yet!

        Believe you me, people have NOTICED who lies and schemes and lets us down, and are angry!

        00

  • #
    crosspatch

    I fear him, too. The man is a raving lunatic.

    00

  • #
    BSal

    I hope Ron Paul wins the presidency. Though it’s unlikely.
    If he does win, I hope he doesn’t get shot!

    One trillion in spending cuts… that’s a lot of very angry and vested interests.

    00

  • #
    J.H.

    Michelle Bachmann for my money…. Her record as a politician is proven and she speaks well and is good off the cuff. Not to mention that the Lamestream media have been hammering her right from the start. If you want Washington shaken up, then she would be the one to do it….

    As for Ron Paul…. No, bad choice. He is pretty outspoken in his anti semitism, not to mention that all he ends up doing is causing grief for electable Republicans and taking the attention off Obama and the Dems… As far as I am concerned Libertarians are just lazy Dems…. They want to run everything without actually running it. But of course, soon as you argue with them, it still ends up as “Their way or the highway”. Always reminds me of a Graffiti Joke….. On the wall is painted, “ANARCHISTS ARISE!”….However there is a line painted through it and underneath is written…” Dont tell ME what to do!!!…. Libertarians are not much better.

    If Ron Paul won the nomination, then the Republicans would loose an unlosable election…

    00

    • #
      crosspatch

      I don’t think so. Paul could run, but wouldn’t get more than 5 percent of the votes cast. What is interesting is a major sea change in US politics. For the first time in years Republican registration outnumbers Democrat and the Democrats are losing voters in droves. Most are moving away from the Democratic Party to Independent. This is likely to be an “anyone but Obama” election for most but the difference is that if Romney gets the nod for the Republicans, he is going to collect a lot of the moderate Democrat and Independent vote. There will be a lot of crossover Democrats for Romney.

      Paul might win in the “caucus” states because he has a rather adamant support base. Nearly 100% of the Paul supporters will go to the polls. I don’t believe he will take any of the primaries. Iowa is a “caucus”, not a primary election. Romney looks set to win New Hampshire by a landslide and might take Iowa as well. We’ll know soon enough.

      00

      • #
        BobC

        crosspatch
        January 3, 2012 at 8:19 pm · Reply
        I don’t think so. Paul could run, but wouldn’t get more than 5 percent of the votes cast.

        Hey, Obama would’ve gotten about 5% of the vote (same as Dennis Kucinich, his ideological twin, always gets) except for the fact that he is (half) black. Herman Cain was a fairly weak candidate, but the Progressives went after him like he was the devil incarnate.

        A competent “person of color”, such as Powell, Rice, Jindall, Steele, West etc. would clobber Obama.

        There is a bumper sticker that says: “You voted for Obama to show you weren’t prejudiced — now you need to vote for someone to show you aren’t insane.”

        00

    • #

      As for Ron Paul…. No, bad choice. He is pretty outspoken in his anti semitism

      Examples? Or, were you just conjecting innuendo into the discussion?

      00

  • #
    crosspatch

    His son Rand Paul would make a candidate I could possibly vote for. But Ron Paul is the modern day Lyndon LaRouche.

    00

    • #
      John Brookes

      OMG, not Larouche! What an absolute nutter.

      00

    • #
      Llew Jones

      Paul is an interesting character none the less. What I find interesting along with his “fundamentalist approach” to the Constitution is his unexpected personal positions on a range of topics and issues.

      I had always considered him as impractical and out of touch with the reality of the globalised economy and flogging a dead horse on reviving the gold standard.

      However his emphasis on small government is a corrective to the sort of irresponsible deficit spending of governments like our present Aussie one. To fund that spending it has imposed new taxes that in its naïve incompetence will inevitably have a constraining effect on the nation’s wealth creating activities.

      I notice that Romney is coming around to saying the right things from a skeptical perspective about climate change and also talking of further exploiting American fossil fuel reserves to reduce dependency on foreign suppliers. Will his Mormonism tell against him should he become the GOP candidate?

      00

  • #
    guthfrith

    Just finished reading ‘Left Turn – How the Liberal(read socialist) media bias distorts the American mind” by Tim Groseclose, Professor of American Politics at UCLA.

    His analysis and findings are very well explained.

    Briefly he finds 90% of US journalists are left or left of centre and by distortion (emphasising particular studies rather than others) and their own political views (which determines what they leave out as much as what the put in) the centre of political views is much further left than would be the case with unbiased reporting. Sound familiar?

    And he proves it.

    What happens in the US happens here, I am sure.

    00

  • #
    warcroft

    Alex Jones (infowars.com) talks quite often with Ron Paul and Jesse Ventura.
    The three of them have discussed (both seriously and jokingly) that if Paul was to win Presidency he should make Ventura Vice President. Purely as a safety net for Paul. People would be less inclined to ‘let something happen’ to Ron Paul because Ventura would become President.

    Jesse Ventura is contemplating running in the next election too.

    Back to Ron Paul. . .
    The world needs him as the US president. He would shake things up a bit. Expose the corruption and hopefully turn the ship in the right direction.
    However, its not that he cant win, its that he wont be allowed to win. Regardless of votes he will not be allowed to become president.

    00

  • #
  • #

    [...] Once again, the Republican Party is being tempted to vote for “the lesser of two evils”. A lot of Republicans are actually considering voting for Mitt Romney because they have bought the lie that he has “the best chance” of defeating Barack Obama in 2012. But just because he is the Republican candidate that is most like Barack Obama does not mean that he has the best chance of defeating him. The truth is that no self-respecting Republican should ever vote for Mitt Romney. A vote for Mitt Romney is a vote for theAUTO/DESTRUCTIVE New World Order. Romney comes from the financial establishment, he is being showered with money from the financial establishment and he supports all of the goals of the financial establishment. This year, millions upon millions of dollars are being funneled into Romney’s campaign and into pro-Romney organizations. The AUTO/DESTRUCTIVE New World Order is literally trying to buy the 2012 election for their dream candidate. Romney would be the ultimate Wall Street puppet, and if you cast a vote for Mitt Romney you are playing right into the hands of the financial elite. Ron Paul – the man the parasitic media fear the most! [...]

    00

  • #
    Catamon

    Funny, when i was on holidays last week i met a slightly nutty but sociable American in Ubud who really wanted to talk politics and was very enthused about Ron Paul. Anyhow, went and had a look at his campaign site.

    Yup, he’s a populist nut-bagger. Where he really lost me was his whole lower taxes thing. What about adjusting revenue and expenditure, at the same time, to balance a budget without crashing the economy don’t these people get?? His are the kind of policies that I think will crash the American economy much harder than it needs to, and pretty much throw the burden of that crash onto low/middle income people. Its worrying the economic illiteracy of the right wing at the moment, both here and in the US.

    I suspect the whole bring the troops home asap regardless thing will actually play well during the campaign. Will come a cropper on the rocks of geo-real-politic / value of $ if he gets elected though.

    Still, the Repugs this year are a pretty shoddy lot all round and at least he’s not Bachmann. There is the loopiest of the fruit and seemingly quite nasty as well. I’m actually trying to work out who is the “least worst” out of this lot?? Hmmmm… am i really happy to have one of these people around with the power to launch a nuclear attack??

    00

    • #
      brc

      A populist would have to be the most inaccurate description I’ve seen. Just about everything I’ve read seems to be anti-populist.

      On reducing taxes : if you reduce taxes, then people have more take-home income. If people have more take-home income, they can buy more stuff that they want. If people buy more stuff they want, they create economic activity which creates jobs.

      Currently much taxation is taken from people in order to purchase things they don’t want, like the TSA, or a million other stupid federal programs in the USA.

      The TSA people will lose their jobs (yay!) but they will find work when other places start hiring due to the increased demand from people choosing to buy other things apart from security theater in their airports.

      It’s not like taxes will be cut on day one – the process would necessarily have to be gradual. And the cuts to federal programs would come first. Returning money to people to spend it on what they want to rather than having bureaucrats spend it for them – what a novel idea!

      I read the economy section of his campaign website thanks to your link. He promises to never sign a budget into being that isn’t balanced. Somehow people find this threatening, as if balancing revenue and expenditure is the work of the devil. I just hope that we can get Tony Abbott to say things like that.

      The section on energy was most interesting to me – basically stop trying to restrict supply in the hope that alternative energy can fill it – and let the market supply energy needs, while encouraging conversion of vehicles to natural gas. End all subsidies on all types of energy – basic stuff that makes sense.

      The sooner balancing budgets and stopping foreign wars becomes mainstream for the USA, the better off we all will be. Same goes for a pullback from the UN, defunding the EPA and kicking the entire climate change meme into touch.

      00

    • #
      John Brookes

      Secretly, Catamon, the republicans want Obama to win. Why else would they have such a weird collection of candidates?

      00

      • #
        Catamon

        the republicans want Obama to win.

        Well, that could be it. I’m sure there are conservatives in the US who are rational and who don’t subscribe to sort of simplistic constitutional and religious fundamentalism that seems so much a part of the current campaign. Maybe those people have decided that this election is not one they want to win so they aren’t in the drivers seat if it all goes pear shaped?

        He promises to never sign a budget into being that isn’t balanced. Somehow people find this threatening, as if balancing revenue and expenditure is the work of the devil.

        Not the work of the devil brc, but the legitimate, rational work of Government. What i find curious is the obsession with taxes, and the way that these people see radical spending cuts as the ONLY solution. I’m sure there is room for cuts in the US budget and some WILL have to be made. But if they want to balance their budget, without crashing their economy and withdrawing support for many who need it, they will need to increase taxes somewhere.

        Or they can keep cutting taxes for the rich who will invest that dosh in unreal derivative markets that will sublime into nothing, and then the rich will want handouts, again.

        00

      • #

        The only way to run for president in the US, with the national exposure that that entails, is to have a bus-load of cash. Take a look at the campaign finacing figures of the Republican candidates and you will see most of their contributions are from the finance industry. Small numbers of large contributions. I put those figure onto this website a month or so ago and you can look it up online pretty easily. Unlike Paul, who is running a grassroots fundraising campaign much like he and Obama did in 2008.

        brc: I would also add that one private sector job is worth about three government jobs in terms of productivity. In 1960 The Economist ran an article on the English navy, post WWI, as a case study in the law that beaurocracy begets beaurocracy.

        It has been historically proven that lower taxes results in more taxes collected. This is simply because the free market allocates reasources more efficiently than a comtrolled economy. Take North Korea as our current example for those of this generation who may not be familiar with the soviet collapse.

        As for Ron Paul’s personal beliefs, such as, abortion. I don’t agree with his personal ideology but I respect his personal beliefs. The media seems to confuse ideology with philosophy, particularly when it comes to libertarianism. We believe in freedom of thought, not enslavement to dogma. It is the basic:

        Government = Gun to the Head

        Which means, it is a necessary evil for us to call ourselves civillized but, less is almost always more. To confuse a libertarian’s personal views with the policies that they would implement in governement demonstrates an ignorance of libertarianism as a political philosophy.

        00

  • #
    incoherent rambler

    I was expecting a subject of Ron Paul to get ctmon going (hopefully away).

    I note that Jo’s point about the Ron Paul upsetting the freeloaders nd politicly corrupt seems to verified by many of the posts.

    00

  • #

    The one thing I would like to comment on here is this.

    Remember a few years back now when some Australian States wanted to move to fixed four year terms, and they used the U.S. as an example, telling us that they have four year terms. So now those States have four year fixed terms, and they got it in what was really a ‘weasely’ manner.

    I’m willing to bet a lot of you would be surprised that in the U.S. only the President (and his Vice) gets a four year term.

    The House Of Representatives goes to the polls every two years, not four.

    With the Senate, only one third of Senators (and there’s only two from each State) go to the polls at each election, so they get to sit in the Senate for 6 years, and doing it like this, there is no possibility of a landslide resulting in a ‘rubber stamp’ Senate.

    At the last election, even with only one third of thew Senate going to the Polls, the Republicans very nearly gained control of a Democrat dominated Senate and the election result was basically a Republican landslide victory in the Reps.

    This December will probably see the end of ‘Carter’s second term’, and no matter who becomes President, the Republicans will control Congress, both houses.

    Tony.

    00

    • #

      The cry from the conservative talking heads is “anybody but Obama.” However, the so called Republican candidates base their position mosly on what they think they need to say to get elected. Underneath, there are no principles or at least no uncompromisable principles except those based only on “tradition” and/or “faith”. All of which are unexamined and conceptually disconnected from reality and are thus principles in name only.

      As near as I can tell, this includes Ron Paul. As I see him, he talks a good game of Liberty out of one side of his mouth but gives it away out of the other side of his mouth. He believes we must not defend ourselves unless we are directly attacked on our soil and then the response must be proportional. In practice, it means that when attacked we must roll over on our backs, expose our throats, and pee on our bellies as if we were nothing but subservient dogs submitting to our superiors. My approach would be to obliterate the attackers so there is only one side of the story to tell after the smoke clears.

      My expectation is that things will get much worse no matter who wins this November. Not one of the people running have the slightest inkling what it takes to be truly free nor why it is a life or death issue. They all believe in sacrifice but only argue who to sacrifice to whom, what to sacrifice, how much to sacrifice, for what purpose, and how fast. Sacrifice it will be 24/7 and the proposed slight variations in detail won’t make a difference that matters.

      I am sick to death of having to choose the least evil. This has been true since I heard Goldwater in a speech on campus. I had been working earnestly for him. After that speech, I knew he didn’t have a chance. Johnson won.

      I voted for the least evil then and for the least evil in all subsequent elections. Guess what? All that happened was a little less evil from time to time. It never made up for the sum of evils that had accumulated and still accumulates.

      As long as we are alive we have a chance. It is a slim chance and the situation is grim. Yet, since we are alive we have the power to choose a different path. The challenge is knowing the right path and having the courage and will to walk it BECAUSE it is right.

      00

  • #
    JuergS

    Ron Paul is the ONLY outstanding person in the presidential candidates.

    Try also:
    http://www.dailypaul.com

    It’s the site of Ron Paul’s blogger with a LOT more information than on Pauls “official” site.

    00

  • #
    John F. Hultquist

    “I have no business telling US voters how to vote. But I’m a member of Western Civilization too. The rest of the West needs a strong US to help us defend our freedoms.” [Jo Nova]

    I’ve no problem with the first part of this. You always make good sense. Ron Paul’s biggest problem, however, seems to be his refusal to respond to your second point. He seems to be strongly noninterventionist on the world scale. Recently he has produced more moderate positions on his prior extreme statements (how to deal with Social Security, for example). This hasn’t been enough to have many conservative folks swing to support him. On a different tack, Iowa is an odd place (lived there 7 years) with a caucus selection system rather than just a simple vote. Caucuses require a significant commitment of time and energy in 99 small counties (okay, there are several large population centers). Only about 120,000 folks will participate and the winner will have only about 3,000 more votes than either the second or third place positions. A big deal will be made of this vote by the MSM but most Americans are not paying attention. The more broadly based Republicans are searching for a person that can defeat the current President. They don’t think Ron Paul can do that.

    In any case, I live in a very heavily Democratic state, so my vote won’t count for much come November.

    00

  • #

    Lionell – I just about remember Goldwater. On the home front, he was libertarian like Ron Paul. But on foreign policy, Goldwater wanted to escalate war. Paul wants to end it. If Goldwater had won, we might not be here.

    On a completely unrelated note, the Guardian today features George Monbiot whining about how the right-wing British tabloids select evidence for climate scepticism, and quietly drop predictions about colder weather when they fail to materialise. True enough, but it doesn’t occur to him that the BBC, the Guardian etc. make the same error in reverse. And there’s a thing about David Attenborough the nature nut and the polar bears, which starts by giving his response, before briefly summarizing the sceptical argument he is replying to.

    http://www.guardiannews.com/uk-home?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT9474

    00

    • #

      It was commonly said that a vote for Goldwater was a vote for bombing (who doesn’t matter – think little girl plucking petals off a daisy with an atomic bomb mushroom cloud in the background). Well, I voted for the least evil, Goldwater, he lost as I expected and we still bombed though not with an atomic bomb. We ultimately sacrificed in excess of 50,000 Americans in a totally pointless war. In addition, Johnson gave us the war on poverty based upon the same morality of sacrifice. It has grown into a monster that is still consuming us today. We paid enough to abolish poverty that if it had been given directly to the so called poor, they would have been rich and then almost instantly poor again. Either way, we are losing that war too because we did not fight with a proper purpose and used proper weapons.

      A vote for the lessor of evils is still a vote for evil. Just as accepting compromise with poison in your food is still accepting a poison and just as lethal.

      00

  • #

    It’s not a matter of who the American people want as president. It’s who those in the background want. The bankers want a puppet who will allow the continuation of the plunder. The war contractors want a puppet who will keep their industry of death intact. Other major string pullers have their own agendas. The wild card is who does Israel want?

    The electronic voting machines programme will be the decider.

    00

  • #

    John Hultquist – any Australian wants a strong US for the simple reason that, in the forties, when Britain couldn’t defend Australians against another Nanking (caused by idiotic US/Brit chauvinism toward Japan in the twenties, but a horrendous prospect nonetheless), the USA filled the gap. Ron Paul would not hesitate to save Australians. It’s just that he doesn’t see how or why the US can or should save Afghans. I guess that’s why they call him racist.

    00

  • #
    cwon1

    Ron Paul has many logical (if not naive) libertarian views, especially on the currency and central planning of the US Fed. Where the ship sails for me is the consideration of essentially a 1930′s “America First” stance and global isolationism. Time and technology make this impossible. The world needed the British Empire and it needed the order of post WWII Americanism to replace it, it still does. RP is a scapegoater of Israel and US foreign policy, unfit to manage the world stage.

    It would be nice to believe in a happy unmanaged global free-trade world of declining debt and positive growth, unfortunately it doesn’t work that way. Simply reducing government costs isn’t going to transform a world from a largely redistributative socialist track either. The issue he does point out, without a rational policy solution, is a tired Keynesian financial system that requires greater credit increases than returning real growth (Ponzi result). It’s also required ever increasing government backing to sustain the rapid credit levels and expansion. The western world is largely insolvent and all the efforts to flood “liquidity” with more credit based funding are proving counter productive and undermining of private “confidence”. RP is a creature of this reality but not a solution. While I see the problem that RP does in the real world it requires a more nuanced and transitional approach. I am concerned about Romney’s weak dollar status quo policy but two wrongs of different types don’t make a good policy choice.

    We need strong dollar (leading to gold), progrowth, less regulation, pro-private sector leader. RP wants it all in one day and wants a world of Unicorns to emerge from the mess we have, again overnight. We are already seeing the results of such dreaming of an American vacuum failing in the EU which only still exists on US money creation. We can only imagine the sort of carnage in the Middle East, Asia and Africa of a fully isolatoionist US he has mapped out while at the same time locking the EU into its own chaos of its massive welfare state failures and all that goes with historical European passions.

    RP lives in a dreamland as do many of his supporters living on largely better education and personal circumstances, inherited or debt free land owners dreaming of being left alone. It’s a population that can never get to a majority either at the moment. Supporting RP directly is an epic political fail admittedly against a weak GOP economic field. Supporting RP leads to supporting Obama and greater statism as the total situation will get worse.

    00

  • #
    agw nonsense

    electronic voting,wake up Ron Paul will never be allowed to “win”.The election has already been decided they are just going through the motions now to give the people the illusion that their vote means somsthing in a corporate dictatorship.hahahahahaha

    00

  • #
    Madjak

    the drudge has a poll going today.Ron paul is ahead of the other candidates on the drudge poll :

    http://drudgereport.com/

    I would like to see him get through even if it was justto rub the lamestream medias dirty noses in it!

    00

  • #
    David Cooke

    Another good thing about Ron Paul is that he has taken a clear stand against proposals for mandatory mental health screening of children with the consequent pushing of psychotropic drugs. http://www.cchrint.org/2011/12/14/no-mandatory-mental-health-screening-for-children-by-ron-paul/

    He may be sending chills down the backs of Patrick McGorry’s pals in the USA.

    00

  • #
    hunter

    Jo,
    As a Texan who lives near Ron Paul, and who knows people who helped his early career, I can tell you that Ron paul is not the great guy so many people think he is.
    Ron Paul is an extremist and has no leadership ability. He is dangerous to Western interests, is anti-semtic,and has no demonstrated ability to manage anything. He is a 911 truther. Paul is the answer to no helpful question or need.

    00

    • #
      cwon1

      Generally we agree on RP flaws, which are fatal politically and morally. There is virtue and unique logic in the scale of government questions and on monetary goals, I don’t think many people have done the homework on the flaws or sadly they may be discounted. Plenty of forces are anti-semtic in either party for example. Plenty of forces are isolationist in either party although one party is obsessed with surrendering to the U.N.. In the end RP is a useful idiot of those more complex interests of American decline.

      00

    • #
      Catamon

      Dont know the man like you assert you do, but from reading whats on his website i’d certainly agree that he is dangerous to western interests. I do have a vague memory of reading something about his somewhat conspiratorial attitude to 9/11 which i think puts him pretty much in the nutbagger camp.

      As far as anti-semetic haven’t come across that one. I tend to take those accusations with a grain of salt as it seems that you only have to criticize any small aspect of Israeli policy to get branded that these days.

      00

  • #
    pat

    as is often said these days, there are no elections, only selections, usually decided by pollsters in collaboration with the MSM, on behalf of the power elite. the latest evidence was the Jamaican election last week, which pollsters/MSM claimed almost up until polling date would see the incumbent JLP win by 6 percentage points. when one pollster backtracked just prior to election date and presented a Poll showing the Opposition would win – as pollsters often do to avoid embarrassment – he was attacked mercilessly in the MSM.

    the christian science monitor headline post-election:

    “In surprise landslide, Jamaican opposition wins back power”

    the very nature of US elections leaves too much room for shenanigans. democratic…not. this has been more apparent than ever in Ron Paul’s case.

    there is much talk about possible sabotaging of the Iowa caucus from within the Republican Party but, hopefully, there will be enough scrutiny (and video-ing) by observers, to prevent fraud from taking place.

    3 Jan: Desmoines Register, Iowa: Mary Stegmeir: Ron Paul gets rock star reception at Valley High School
    Throngs of reporters snapped photos and yelled out questions as he made his way into the school’s gymnasium. Once inside, the students offered the 76-year-0ld congressman their warmest welcome of the day…
    U.S. Congressman Michele Bachmann, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum and the sons of former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney also addressed students at this morning’s rally — but were not treated to as enthusiastic of a welcome…
    Paul spoke to the students for about 10 minutes. Because of the large number of media members clustered around him, it took another 10 minutes for the Texan to make his way out of the building…
    http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.com/2012/01/03/ron-paul-gets-rock-star-reception-at-valley-high-school/

    with Rupert Murdoch resorting to tweeting to let the world knw he’s backing Rick “Bomb Iran” Santorum (check today’s headlines “Oil prices soar on Iran tensions”) the following – in Murdoch’s WSJ – is no surprise:

    3 Jan: WSJ Live Blogging the Iowa Caucuses
    4.51am by Danny Yadron
    Former Sen. Rick Santorum is certainly surging in the polls, and received applause Tuesday morning when he spoke at a “Rock the Vote” rally at Valley High School in West Des Moines.
    ***But the clearest indication that Mr. Santorum seems to have caught a wave: the crush of reporters that now follows him everywhere he goes.
    ***After delivering brief remarks, the former lawmaker was mobbed by reporters and cameramen. The media attention is, of course, self-perpetuating. The better Mr. Santorum does in the polls, the more the media cover him. Candidates with more airtime also tend to perform better in voter surveys…
    ***Photo: Reporters surround Rick Santorum at a rally in West Des Moines. (WSJ Photo, Danny Yadron)
    http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/01/03/live-blogging-the-iowa-caucuses/

    anyone recall the infamous Murdoch interview in The Bulletin in 2003?

    17 Feb 2003: Guardian: Their master’s voice
    Rupert Murdoch argued strongly for a war with Iraq in an interview this week. Which might explain why his 175 editors around the world are backing it too, writes Roy Greenslade
    It isn’t always clear exactly what Murdoch believes on any given issue, but this time we know for certain, courtesy of an interview in the Australian magazine, the Bulletin (which, by the way, he doesn’t own)…
    Most revealing of all was Murdoch’s reference to the rationale for going to war, blatantly using the o-word. Politicians in the United States and Britain have strenuously denied the significance of oil, but Murdoch wasn’t so reticent. He believes that deposing the Iraqi leader would lead to cheaper oil. “The greatest thing to come out of this for the world economy…would be $20 a barrel for oil. That’s bigger than any tax cut in any country.”
    He went even further down this road in an interview the week before with America’s Fortune magazine by forecasting a postwar economic boom. “Once it [Iraq] is behind us, the whole world will benefit from cheaper oil which will be a bigger stimulus than anything else.” ….
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2003/feb/17/mondaymediasection.iraq

    of course, the price of oil rose to $145! so much for Murdoch’s predictive abilities…and his passion for War.

    The Real Ron Paul on Foreign Policy
    In his most recently published book, Liberty Defined, Paul elaborates at some length on his controversial views. Contra the Republican neoconservative establishment, he thinks the current course of waging an interminable War on Terror for the sake of establishing “democratic” governments throughout the Middle East (and beyond?) is most unwise. America’s crusade to transform the world into its image — what else could it be, given that we have “troops in 135 countries” and “900 [military] bases” around the world? — has had the effect of transforming America from a Republic into an empire. But empire and liberty are incompatible. Paul is swift and decisive: “The American Empire is the enemy of American freedom. It is every bit as much the enemy of American citizens as it is of its victims around the world.”
    http://thenewamerican.com/opinion/jack-kerwick/7993-the-real-ron-paul-on-foreign-policy

    Wikipedia: Military budget of the United States
    The U.S. Department of Defense budget accounted in fiscal year 2010 for about 19% of the United States federal budgeted expenditures and 28% of estimated tax revenues. Including non-DOD expenditures, defense spending was approximately 28–38% of budgeted expenditures and 42–57% of estimated tax revenues.[citation needed] According to the Congressional Budget Office, defense spending grew 9% annually on average from fiscal year 2000–2009…
    The 2009 U.S. military budget accounts for approximately 40% of global arms spending and is over six times larger than the military budget of China (compared at the nominal US dollar / Renminbi rate, not the PPP rate). The United States and its close allies are responsible for two-thirds to three-quarters of the world’s military spending (of which, in turn, the U.S. is responsible for the majority)…
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States

    Ron Paul for President.

    00

  • #
    pat

    3 Jan: NBC: Live Vote: Predict the Winner (Iowa Caucus)
    Ron Paul: 54.8% of 22,379
    Nearest rival: Romney: 27.9%
    Santorum: 12.1%
    http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/03/9920475-live-vote-predict-the-winner

    3 Jan: NBC: Infographic: Ron Paul’s Facebook buzz leads GOP presidential candidates
    Socialbakers estimates he reached 65 million people through Facebook in December, compared to 35 million for Romney…
    Paul also leads GOP candidates in “people talking about” him this past week with 59,554. His engagement rate has increased by 69 percent, while Rick Santorum saw his engagement rate fall 7 percent in December despite a surge in polls…
    http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/03/9920498-infographic-ron-pauls-facebook-buzz-leads-gop-presidential-candidates

    3 Jan: WaPo: Chris Cillizza: Ron Paul looks for strong Iowa caucus performance to begin GOP primary
    Below are the odds we give each candidate in Iowa. The numbers are based on conversations with strategists for many of the contenders, independent poll figures and a little bit of historical context sprinkled in for taste.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ron-paul-looks-for-strong-iowa-caucus-performance-to-begin-gop-primary/2012/01/03/gIQAE7DpYP_story.html
    Cillizza places Paul third, behind Romney & Santorum, with only Paul’s write-up including negatives, “Both Bachmann and Gingrich have painted Paul not only as outside the mainstream of Republican Party thought, which he is, but also as potentially dangerous if elected.”

    Bloomberg propaganda begins in the opening sentence, with Romney & Santorum being “live links” but not Ron Paul:

    4 Jan: Bloomberg: John McCormick/Lisa Lerer: Candidates Make Final Push in Iowa
    Mitt Romney vied with Rick Santorum and Ron Paul for the top spot in tonight’s Iowa (BEESIA) caucuses …
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-02/romney-plays-it-safe-as-rivals-work-to-gain-ground-in-iowa.html

    what’s Google doing here?

    2 Jan: Columbia Journalism Review: Erika Fry: A VIP Pass to Cover the Caucuses
    Reporters will be able to monitor live results in the Google Media Filing Center, and to interview campaign staff and candidates in what is dubbed, without apparent irony, the AARP Spin Room…
    A “Hangout Room,” also sponsored by Google, is stocked with beanbag chairs, treadmills, baristas serving local coffee, and special gloves that can be worn while operating touchpads (handy in cold Iowa weather)…
    Iowa appears to be the only state to credential reporters and coordinate services for media covering their presidential caucuses and primaries. A spokesman with the Republican Party of New Hampshire, for example, said that journalists covering the Granite State primary coordinate directly with the campaigns, and there is no central filing space there….
    http://www.cjr.org/swing_states_project/a_vip_pass_to_cover_the_caucus.php

    00

  • #
    cwon1

    RP is of course a giant Trojan Horse for leftist interests. He creates cover for the leftist global surrender of American exceptionism on the one hand and expanding UN statism on the other. Isolationism is easy to defeat on the national stage, even Obama could do this.

    It is a weak and scattered GOP field, the talk of massive reductions of the size of government attract idealism but the reality is this man is wearing a tin foil hat.

    If supporters have to consider one detail it’s his outlandish views regarding 9-11 and linking US/Israel policy to the event. It’s Noam Chomsky like and a disgrace, Christopher Hitchens never would cross that crooked bridge of logic. It doesn’t take any more research than that issue and statements;

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCSrVu8k3kg&feature=related

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

    It isn’t that all his views are crazy. Enough of them are.

    00

    • #

      John Gibson: “Will you come to say right here and now that you will completely disavow yourself of the 911 truth movement and the whole idea that the US governement was in on the 911 attack?”

      Ron Paul: “Yes, I do.”

      Guilt by association is one of the weakest arguments in the book. But, I guess you’re going to be slinging mud through the use of baseless alegations for as long as you can’t come up with any quote that Ron Paul is rascist or a conspiracy theorist.

      I’ve spent years researching 911 as a genuine sceptic looking for the smoking gun. Those smoking guns do exist and the US government needs to be able to explain them. I always claim I am no conspiracy theorist, I am a sceptic of those who claim to have authority over me. They are deluded as, I grant no authority to people I don’t know. But, I have questions about 911 as many others do and we are labelled as tin foil hat wearing nut-jobs.

      Warning: video contain science!

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alUOi8hwdLQ

      No one has come up with an explaination of the spheres in the dust, the local seismic activity that morning or, all three buildings falling at the speed of gravity. These are real pieces of scientific evidence which have not been ‘debunked’.

      00

      • #
        brc

        The thing that has surprised me the most is the most venom for Ron Paul seems to come from his Foreign Policy stances, which to me aren’t that radical, but then I’m not American and tend to concentrate on economic rather than military matters.

        It would seem that the military-industrial complex is most threatened by someone who might decide to downsize the military.

        But then Obama was supposed to end the wars and close Guantanamo. Instead it’s all still going and now the rules have been changed to throw US citizens into Guantanamo as well – no trial, no charge, just indefinite detainment.

        But to call Ron Paul a trojan horse of the left- now that’s one of the largest bows I’ve even seen stretched. The guy is nothing if not consistent with his views.

        00

      • #
        cwon1

        The World Trade conspiracy video is Tin Foil quality, 1000 or 1500 degrees for steel melting? Please, this is pathetic. The idea that convection alone couldn’t greatly exceed those numbers in a explosion of fully fueled commercial aircraft is nuts.

        Also, I’m from NYC. Anyone who knows the sad (embarressing) history of the World Trade Center constructions can tell you the buildings were likely well under the specs that were officially listed. A total government hack construction job and I’m sure the Mafia got their cut in the deal (lower quality materials subbed in). I use to hate being in those buildings on a windy day long before they became obvious terror targets. I became sea sick once at a Windows of the World dinner party they swayed so much. The buildings themselves were crap, I explained this while I watched them burn four states away. It’s not talked about but many people know this as well, it’s common knowledge in NYC. There are other buildings of that period you would think twice about if you were the worrying kind like the CITIBANK building which avoids collapse because they have a giant moving weight (computer controlled) on the roof to compensate for wind movements. What could go wrong there?!! Very few people actually know about it but it is indeed a fact. That it’s seldom talked about, does it make it a conspiracy?

        These aren’t conspiracies in either case, simple human failings and construction short-falls. Rather routine if you know how NYC and government is. Do you think Boston’s “Big Dig” is everything they listed it as on quality? More Unicorns in your brain if you do. This doesn’t reach the grassy knoll claims you are presenting as “proof” of wrong doing on the party of the government about 9-11. Terrorist with box cutters got by the Keystone Cops of Logan Airport and hyjacked planes. Really bad security but again no conspiracy at all. Again, if you knew the morons at Logan you wouldn’t have any doubt they could screw it up ahead of time. You bet the terrorist knew to bet on saps at Logan ahead of time, this doesn’t require a conspiracy. Simple observations and common sense, among the worst run airports in America.

        00

        • #
          BobC

          cwon1
          January 4, 2012 at 1:22 pm · Reply
          Anyone who knows the sad (embarressing) history of the World Trade Center constructions can tell you the buildings were likely well under the specs that were officially listed. …(lower quality materials subbed in).

          The steel beams were designed to be sheathed in asbestos, but the developing legal run on asbestos resulted in the use of a spray-on fire retardant foam that had almost no physical strength. The first explosion probably stripped the beams bare.

          The idea that convection alone couldn’t greatly exceed those numbers [1500 degrees] in a explosion of fully fueled commercial aircraft is nuts.

          I have seen an analysis that concluded that the tons of paper in the offices actually contributed more to the fire’s intensity than the jet fuel, which was quickly used up.

          You bet the terrorist knew to bet on saps at Logan ahead of time, this doesn’t require a conspiracy. Simple observations and common sense, among the worst run airports in America.

          You are right, because many security probe operations had been run by recruits who had no previous known association with terrorist groups. Remember the Syrian wedding band that pantomimed the construction of a bomb in the toilet? Or the group of “respectable” Imams who moved about the plane and requested (and received) seat-belt extensions (useful for binding or chocking) even though none were overweight so as to need them?

          The Left, of course, would have you believe these were innocent actions and objecting to them is “Islamophobia”. Sure, sure — you always see multiple people passing bags to each other as they leave and enter the toilets; and don’t you remember the many times you have requested seat belt extensions just for the hell of it? These operations are dry runs, and experiments to see what can be gotten away with, and to see what it takes to identify the Sky Marshalls. The fact that the terrorists have no trouble recruiting “respectable”, “ordinary” Muslims is a clue as to who the enemy really is.

          00

        • #
      • #
        BobC

        Waffle
        January 4, 2012 at 12:20 pm · Reply

        Warning: video contain science!

        Speculation, mostly. Popular Mechanics did an issue (and later a book) applying science and engineering to the 911 truther claims. This could have saved you those “years of research”, as the truther claims don’t hold water, anymore than the “Lander” claims that the Moon landing was faked.

        These claims can only be maintained with those who are ignorant of the physics involved. Educate yourself.

        00

        • #
        • #
        • #

          Sorry Bob, I don’t trust scientist’s argument from authority, I am familiar with the laws of physics. The popular mechanics’s ‘debunking’ has been rebuked. The siesmic evidence still holds, the fall at the speed of gravity still violates the third law of physics, and more importantly, the spheres in the dust are yet unaccountanted for other than the fact that they were formed throuh a force poserful enogh to convert minerals into a fine mist.

          Anyway this blog post is not about science, it’s about politics. So who owns Popular Mechanics? The Hearst Corporation, of course. But look, our estemed Steven R. Swartz, president of Hearst Newspapers and vice-president of the Hearst Corporationis on the board of, who did you say? Associated Press. What a surprise.

          00

          • #
            BobC

            Waffle
            January 5, 2012 at 12:08 am · Reply
            Sorry Bob, I don’t trust scientist’s argument from authority

            And neither do I, but I would have to disagree that the arguments are “from authority” — with my background in math, physics and engineering, the reasoning seems sound.

            The arguments for conspiracy all basically follow the same pattern: An hypothesis is formed based on some datum and thenceforth treated as if it were fact, with no attempt to consider alternative hypotheses, much less subject them to a test.

            The Truther arguments have an eerie similarity in form to the CAGW arguments: “We can’t think of any other explanation for the current warming, so it must be CO2.”

            Science considers multiple hypotheses and subjects them to tests.

            00

          • #

            That’s why I don’t call myself a conspiracy theorist. The fact are waht’s important. The motive, means and opportunity should not be considered until the facts are at hand.

            I have yet to see a scientific debunking of the three facts which concern me. The whole Zionist/NWO/Neocon rubbish is irrelevant until basic questions of pyhics and chemistry are explained by officials whose responsibility it is to investigate the events of the day.

            Galavanting around the whole hunting an ‘unknown’ enemy, fighting a perpetual war and dismantling the very foundations of American’s freedoms seeems a bit premature when there are still so many unanswered questions involving the crime scene forensics.

            Who are you? We don’t get fooled again. Etc, etc.

            00

          • #

            Btw,

            And neither do I, but I would have to disagree that the arguments are “from authority” — with my background in math, physics and engineering, the reasoning seems sound.

            You really, really, really need to re-read waht you just wrote!

            00

          • #
            BobC

            Waffle
            January 5, 2012 at 11:06 pm
            Btw,

            And neither do I, but I would have to disagree that the arguments are “from authority” — with my background in math, physics and engineering, the reasoning seems sound.

            You really, really, really need to re-read waht you just wrote!

            Get over yourself, Waffle: I was telling you why I disagreed — who or what you base your beliefs on (ouija boards, for all I care) is your own business.

            The point you appear to have missed is that an argument from authority is “because someone (the authority) says so”. An argument based on physical principles only seems to be one from authority to those who are ignorant of said principles. If the physics is based on empirical evidence (rather than pure theory), then the argument is empirical and not “from authority”.

            Even given complete agreement on the empirical principles, it is still possible to disagree about the probability of specific sequences of events — hence the need for hypothesis testing. All the “Truther” arguments I’ve seen fail to take account of known empirical science and don’t even consider testing hypotheses.

            This does not mean that they are necessarily wrong — but it does mean that they are propaganda, not serious attempts to determine what happened.

            00

          • #
            BobC

            BTY: For an excellent example of applying empirical science to Truther claims, see Mark D’s post at 37.1.2.2.1

            00

          • #

            All Mrak D discusses is the strength of steel at different temperatures. What does that have to do with the thickness of a slice of bread?

            I know this thread is being hijacked(*ahem) so I’ll leave you with one last thought. Why do you think Ron Paul supporters are all 9/11 conspiracy theory crackpots?

            00

          • #
            BobC

            Waffle
            January 7, 2012 at 2:28 am
            All Mrak D [Mark D at 37.1.2.2.1] discusses is the strength of steel at different temperatures. What does that have to do with the thickness of a slice of bread?

            Mark was obviously addressing the claim (made in the video linked by Kevin Moore, among others) that the buildings couldn’t have been brought down by the fire since it couldn’t reach the temperature of melting steel. Obviously, the steel doesn’t have to melt, only lose it’s strength, which happens at a much lower temperature.

            As to the claims of “melted steel” in the ruins:

            First: These claims are pretty slender on evidence.

            Second: What do you suppose happened to the energy produced by the falling of the towers? Here are some interesting numbers:

            Weight of one tower: ~450,000,000 Kg
            Height of towers: ~400 meters
            Energy of tower weight falling 200 meters (the average distance): 9×10^11 Joules

            This is the energy produced by 200T (400,000 pounds) of TNT, and could melt 10,000T (20,000,000 pounds, or 9 million Kg) of steel (at ~100Kj/Kg); Or only 1/8 that much (2,500,000 Lb) if it had to raise the temperature from ambient to the melting point.

            Why do you think Ron Paul supporters are all 9/11 conspiracy theory crackpots?

            I have no idea (assuming that’s even true, which I doubt).

            00

          • #
            BobC

            Moderator: Sorry about the OT posts — I just noticed your admonitions.

            On topic: I like some of what Ron Paul stands for, but the fact that he blames the US for its being attacked by Moslems (even when we were engaged in saving 10s of 1000s of Moslems from another European pogrom) is a deal-breaker for me. I don’t want anyone who believes that as POTUS.

            The fact that he is apparently sympathetic to the 911 Truthers is just further evidence (to me) of mental unsuitability to be president.

            This is besides his isolationism, which he hasn’t adequately explained why it would work any better than past episodes of US isolationism. I don’t want someone who drives blind ideology off a cliff (we almost have one of those now).

            00

      • #
        kuhnkat

        Strawman.

        My problem isn’t that Ron Paul disavows the truth of his Truther supporters, it is that Ron Paul tells us, as did Bush and Obie and numerous other morons that Islam IS NOT OUR ENEMY!!!

        Why are they attacking in over 40 countries of the world if they are not the WORLD’S ENEMY!!!

        00

  • #
    pat

    don’t know how many votes checked, but ron paul allegedly has 29% in iowa exit poll to 22% romney at this point:

    Video: Iowa Caucus 2012 Results Exit Polling Numbers
    http://lonestarwatchdog.blogspot.com/2012/01/iowa-caucus-2012-results-exit-polling.html

    00

  • #

    hi Jo, usually your articles are spot on… but alas, no, Ron Paul is not the answer for America. He might have a few good ideas but his bad ideas make him more of a lefist than a center/right-ist. Who are Ron Paul’s main supporters? Leftists, “info war” zombies, 9/11 truther nutballs and all sorts of communist supporting types. CRIKEY!

    America is a center/right nation. The media isn’t. Did you hear Rasmussen reports Democrat numbers are declining while R numbers increase? Both number around 35% with remaining registered as independents. If its Ron Paul v Obama? I bet Obama wins (cringe). However, if the Senate goes for R majority, O can still be stopped (maybe he’d be the only D left in Washington… I could live with that).

    In current pack I’d pick Gingrich or Santorum since my favorite Palin dropped out. Too bad Cain didn’t hang in.

    Sultan Knish points out some interesting facts on Ron Paul and his connections to George Soros and Barney Frank: sultanknish.blogspot.com/2012/01/ron-pauls-soros-defense-plan.html

    America “in isolation” would make the world a more dangerous place, not safer.

    You want China or Iran or N.Korea to grow their military because a Ron Paul potus is fine and dandy with that?

    nope, no good… Paul’s brand of leftist libertarianism is NOT a feasible solution for USA

    cheers from an American conservative in NZ

    00

    • #

      Architects & Engineers For 9/11 Truth

      9/11 and Skeptic Magazine’s ‘Science’ of Controlled Demolitions
      News – Press Coverage
      Written by Jeremy R. Hammond, Foreign Policy Journal
      Wednesday, 07 December 2011 15:20
      by Jeremy R. Hammond, Foreign Policy Journal, 11/16/11

      Editor’s note: Journalist Chris Mohr, an ardent defender of the official 9/11 conspiracy theory, recently wrote an article for Skeptic Magazine in which he attempted to rebut several key pieces of evidence that prove the WTC skyscrapers were brought down by controlled demolition. Researcher Jeremy R. Hammond exposes the fallacies in Mohr’s arguments in this response published in the Foreign Policy Journal.

      Chris Mohr at Skeptic magazine writes that “conspiracists” are working hard to publicize their claims of scientific validity to the conjecture that the World Trade Center buildings were destroyed through controlled demolition.” He mentions a debate he had with Richard Gage, the founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, where more than 1,500 professional architects and engineers who question the official explanation for the collapse of the three World Trade Center buildings have signed a petition calling for a new—that is to say, a real—investigation…”

      http://www.ae911truth.org

      00

  • #
    kuhnkat

    “There are points I don’t agree with him on, but I so admire the man who sticks to his word, who speaks his mind, who can’t be bought.”

    Unfortunately he has recently stated that shutting down the Fed and the IRS are not short term, but, long term goals. Not very confidence inspiring from a man who has been riding this for 30 years. He also has been an open borders advocate depending on NOT having socialist handouts to reduce the attractiveness of coming to the US illegally. He has recently flipped on this due to pressure from those who recognize it is also a SECURITY issue as we are seeing diseases we had wiped out reestablishing here due to illegals. At the same time he tells us to be careful because fences can used to keep us in.

    Ron Paul’s clear Libertarian policies are coming apart under the pressures of being a real candidate with a chance at winning who has to attract money and support from mainstream people instead of the radical fringe that kept him alive all these years.

    The worst is his ambivalence and double talk on Israel and his hate America suggestion that the Jihadis are attacking us because we are meddling in the Middle East. He needs to tell that to the Jewish American in the wheel chair who was pushed overboard by a Jihadis commander in the 70′s when we were helping them to throw the USSR out of Afghanistan and helping the Mullahs throw the Shah out of Iran!! Ron Paul is delusional on the threat of ISLAM, not radical offshoots which are in reality the shock troops of Islam!!

    00

    • #
      MattB

      Lol Kuhnkat you should run for president. You’d make Ron Paul look like a liberal.

      00

      • #
        cwon1

        Kuhnkat has it exactly right. I’d like to think blaming Israel for radical Islam was only a left-wing desease but it seem bi-partisan at times. I’ve had issues with Pat Buchannan as well on the same topic.

        The whole country club, slap their back approach with Islamic extremism is a sad mindset of our public radio complex (NPR) and left-wing establishment in the US. RP is and the left are so galling and ignorant of what history has actually shown. If Israel didn’t exist they would only be more intent on killing another group or themselves. In it’s own way Israel saves Islamic lives by giving them a common enemy they can’t do much about but they can all agree on something. Their next targets are in Spain and France, all the socialist sucking up in the world isn’t going to reach a happy ending there either.

        00

      • #
        BobC

        MattB
        January 4, 2012 at 12:51 pm · Reply
        Lol Kuhnkat you should run for president. You’d make Ron Paul look like a liberal.

        So MattB, what is YOUR explanation for why we were being attacked by Muslims while we were saving 10′s of 1000′s of Muslim lives?

        And Ron Paul IS like a liberal in his blaming Americans for Muslim attacks.

        00

        • #
          MattB

          Ok I’ll correct it to “kuhnkat would make Ron Paul look electable.”

          00

        • #

          Muslims Suspend Laws of Physics

          http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/physics+1.html

          Using jet fuel to melt steel is an amazing discovery, really. It is also amazing that until now, no one had been able to get it to work, and that proves the terrorists were not stupid people. Ironworkers fool with acetylene torches, bottled oxygen, electric arcs from generators, electric furnaces, and other elaborate tricks, but what did these brilliant terrorists use? Jet fuel, costing maybe 80 cents a gallon on the open market.

          [bad link error 404] ED

          00

          • #
            Mark D.

            I don’t know of anyone saying that the towers were brought down by “melting” steel. That jet fuel together with a host of other combustibles present (plastics, paper, etc.) could burn hot enough to “weaken” steel should not even be debated.

            Steel retains only about 1/2 of its strength at temperatures as low as 500 degrees C and at 800C has lost almost all. 500 C is only 1/3 of the melting temperature, 800 is just over 1/2 the melting temperature which is about 1500 C.

            The adiabatic flame temperature of kerosene (similar to jet fuel) is about 2000 degrees C and that is 4 times greater than the 500C required for steel to lose half its strength. Flame studies support higher than 1000C temperatures in large fires: http://www.doctorfire.com/flametmp.html

            Taking all of the above information in account, it appears that flame tip temperatures for turbulent diffusion flames should be estimated as being around 320~400°C. For small flames (less than about 1 m base diameter), continuous flame region temperatures of around 900°C should be expected. For large pools, the latter value can rise to 1100~1200°C.

            911 “truthers” are fools.

            Additional references:
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adiabatic_flame_temperature

            http://lib.tkk.fi/Diss/2007/isbn9789512286089/article4.pdf

            http://lib.tkk.fi/Diss/2007/isbn9789512286089/article1.pdf

            00

          • #
          • #
            BobC

            Many years ago I worked at a lumber yard that specialized in constructing very large composite wood beams that were built by gluing boards together. These could be over 75 feet long and 12 X 40 inches in cross-section, and have nearly arbitrary curves built in (i.e. arches).

            The yard’s advertising brochures quoted a lot of government testing of structures. One of the advantages of composite wood beams is that they hold up far better and longer in a fire than steel beams.

            The reason is, as Mark D says, that steel conducts heat and loses much of its strength at fairly low temperatures. The composite wood beams would slowly char from the outside and maintain most of their strength.

            It was not unusual (for the same design strength and fire intensity) for steel beams to fail in minutes and the wood beams to hold up for hours.

            The point is, that steel-supported structures’ vunerability to collapse in a moderate fire has been known for the better part of a century, and it has nothing to do with melting.

            As I said earlier: “Truther” arguments don’t take known empirical knowledge into account — they are simply propaganda supporting a political agenda.

            00

          • #

            BobC

            Why would New York and other fire fighters [Truthers] have a political agenda?

            What makes you think that your knowledge of the matter is better than theirs?

            New York Fire Fighters do not agree with your assumptions re the 3 World Trade Centre building collapses.

            http://firefightersfor911truth.org/?page_id=158

            00

          • #

            Caught In Their Own Web of Contradictions: New Video shows Official 9/11 Story Defenders Espousing Opposing and Impossible WTC Theories

            Written by Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth

            Wednesday, 14 December 2011 16:51

            Cole exposes the false and conflicting claims made by OCT defenders like NIST WTC Lead Investigator Shyam Sunder

            Civil Engineer Jon Cole points out in his latest rapid-paced 18 minute video, 9/11 Theories: Expert vs. Expert, that many people, espousing the official account of the 9/11 WTC events and viewed as technical experts, have proposed a variety of conflicting theories as to why the WTC buildings collapsed on 9/11. What is interesting is that none of those theories supporting the Official Conspiracy Theory (OCT) obey the laws of physics or match the observed events. This innovative and well-researched video also presents a fascinating 9/11 narrative and compelling images that refute these official accounts of how the Twin Towers and WTC Building 7 came down.

            Some experts admitted that there were explosions in the Twin Towers, and others said there were none — even though there are many eyewitnesses to these explosions…”

            http://www.ae911truth.org

            00

          • #
            BobC

            Kevin Moore
            January 6, 2012 at 5:09 am
            BobC

            Why would New York and other fire fighters [Truthers] have a political agenda?

            What makes you think that your knowledge of the matter is better than theirs?

            Perhaps because I bother to check on statements like this (from your link):

            “WTC 7 Building could not have collapsed as a result of internal fire and external debris. NO plane hit this building. This is the only case of a steel frame building collapsing through fire in the world. The fire on this building was small & localized therefore what is the cause?”

            Most definitely not true.

            Arguments that ignore known facts are not honest, although they will succeed in convincing some who don’t check them out.

            (Please get back on topic about RON PAUL) CTS

            00

          • #

            The site you refer to distorts the facts with regard to the structural design and actualties of the three building collapses.

            00

          • #

            I assiduously avoid entering arguments about what happened with the WTC, because there’s no arguing with people who believe what they really want to believe, but for the life of me, I just cannot understand why they believe the conspiracy theories with regard to this.

            Take a sheet of glass and three house bricks.

            Rest the sheet of glass on top of two of the house bricks, one brick at each end of the glass.

            Now very carefully place the third brick in the centre of the glass.

            That third brick will be supported and will just sit there, and sit there forever.

            Now lift the brick two inches and drop it.

            The glass will break, and break every time.

            Those tall buildings, (any tall building) are designed so that each part of the structure is part of the support for the building, even down to the glass in the windows.

            An aeroplane flying at close to its maximum speed flies into the upper part of that building.

            As it enters that building, it destroys a large part of the structure of one or a few of those floors.

            The resultant fire (and it really doesn’t matter how hot that fire is) weakens the steel structure of that floor or floors around the fire.

            You now have an immense weight of the floors above the fire with nothing (removed at impact) or weakened structure.

            That immense weight is bearing down on what is now an empty or weakened space.

            It only needs the last support holding out to give, and that immense weight now starts to move. (under gravity)

            It only needs to move a few inches to gain momentum, and that huge weight now crashes, floor after floor, under gravity, that immense weight from above smashing not the whole building, but one floor at a time, and the building will come down directly on itself, as indeed it did, under gravity.

            The house brick is part of the glass structure while it is attached to that structure. As soon as you simulate a gap, (by lifting the brick) the structure is weakened, and when let go, that same weight now smashes whatever is below it.

            Using a similar (argument) analogy, tell people that the burning of one ton of coal produces 2.86 tons of CO2 (on average) and you will not (ever) be believed. People just cannot accept the concept, and even when you prove it, they will still NOT believe it. That then becomes a ‘crackpot’ theory of itself.

            See the point.

            Now watch as I get torn to shreds here.

            See now how there’s no arguing on this matter.

            Tony.

            (Please get back on topic about RON PAUL) CTS

            00

          • #
            Mark D.

            No shredding from here Tony. By the way your brick and glass example is rather brilliant. I’ve been contemplating how there may not be any other example of something as large and heavy falling as witnessed on 9-11. The energy released would have been an immense added source of heat both from friction and compression. It boggles the mind how that would manifest.

            As BobC has suggested there are many that have been confused by the mis-information and dis-information brought about by “conspiracy” theorists.

            I hope all of them try your glass and brick experiment.

            (Please get back on topic about RON PAUL) CTS

            00

          • #

            Muslims Suspend Laws of Physics!
            Part II
            by J. McMichael
            jmcmichael@care2.com
            Originally published early in 1992, this second part was saved from extinction by Serendipity at http://www.serendipity.li/
            Some people have written to me (or commented publicly) that the collapse of the World Trade Center was a perfectly normal event caused by the heat of the fire.

            Let me recall a few details to the reader’s attention before answering that statement.

            Citing structural engineer Chris Wise, the BBC web page stated that steel supports in the WTC reached 1500 degrees Fahrenheit and melted (http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_1540000/1540044.stm). That is of course not correct, and I provided a link to an on-line chemistry chart to show that steel melts closer to 2800 degrees F.

            Note that the statement (that the WTC steel melted) is not mine: The statement comes from the BBC page, citing Chris Wise, and from others on television.

            The critics have pointed out that steel does not MELT at 1500 F, but it does soften and lose its strength, enough to cause the towers to collapse. We are asked to believe, as one Australian put it, that steel supports turn to licorice when heated in a fire.

            Corus Steel is a trans-national corporation that markets structural steel (http://www.corusconstruction.com/). One graph on their web page shows the diminishing strength of steel as it is heated. http://www.corusconstruction.com/fire/fr006.htm

            Note that structural steel at 550 degrees C (1022 F) has 60% of the strength of steel at normal temperatures. This weakening of steel when heated is supposedly responsible for the catastrophic collapse of the towers. The statement generates three questions to be answered in order to determine whether this phenomenon could cause the collapse of the World Trade Center:

            1. How much strength would the steel have to lose for the WTC to collapse?

            2. What temperature would the steel have to reach to occasion this loss of strength?

            3. What was the temperature of the fire in the WTC; i.e., did it reach the critically weakening temperature?

            Question 1:
            In the original article, I cited my own experience that a support device must be capable of bearing three times the maximum load that would ever be applied.

            It turns out that this rule-of-thumb is applicable only to dynamic loads, not static (structural) loads of commercial buildings. Since then, I have been informed by a commercial structural engineer that the standard ratio for static loads is five, not three. That is, if a bridge is rated to carry 1 ton, it should be capable of bearing 5 tons without collapsing at the time the bridge is built.

            Going back to the fire at the WTC, we can see that reducing the steel structure to 60% its rated strength should NOT have weakened it to catastrophic collapse, because at 60% it would still support three times the rated load. The steel structure would have to be reduced to 20% of its rated strength to collapse.

            Thus, even if the fire had heated the steel to 550 degrees C (1022 F), that would not have been sufficient to cause the towers to collapse.

            Question 2:
            The Corus page on fire vs. steel supports (http://www.corusconstruction.com/fire/fr006.htm) shows that the steel would have to be heated to about 720 degrees C (1320 F) to weaken the steel to 20% of its cool strength.

            The text on that page discusses another change in the steel above 550 degrees C (1022 F): It looses elasticity and becomes plastic. Elasticity means that when the steel is bent, it returns to its original shape; it springs back. Plasticity means that the steel is permanently deformed and does not spring back to the original shape.

            Springing back or not, our only concern with this page is to determine the point on the graph where the steel would be weakened to 20% its original strength, and that point is 720 degrees C (1320 F).

            For steel, 550 degrees C (1022 F) is an important threshold, however, and we should not be glib with it. If a steel tower were heated to 550 C, loss of elasticity could mean that the tower would not spring back to the original shape after a gust of wind, and a series of buffets might cause the tower to fail — if the strain exceeded the reduced strength of the hot steel.

            Question 3:
            Now let us make a guess on the actual heat of the fire.

            Fortunately, a number of studies have been done under very similar conditions. In Europe, multi-storied “car parks” are often built of steel, and the possibility of vehicle fire is a distinct possibility. A parked vehicle, loaded with gasoline, diesel, tires, engine oil, engine tar, upholstery, hydraulic fluid, etc. can cause a fire that seems very hot. A number of other vehicles could be parked close to the burning one, and they too could catch fire, with a general conflagration. Any number of cars could contain almost any household items from shopping, etc.

            These materials are similar to the materials we would expect in the burning offices of the WTC: jet fuel (which is a refined kerosene, very similar to the diesel used in some European cars), oil, upholstery, etc.

            A summary of the results of these studies is published on the Corus page. Go to http://www.corusconstruction.com/ and click on “Fire”. Individual articles are listed across the top of the window. The fourth article, “Fire in Car Parks,” discusses the temperatures of “any fires that are likely to occur” in a car park (http://www.corusconstruction.com/carparks/cp006.htm).

            Presumably, one car could catch fire and inflame other cars parked closely nearby. As explained below, “The maximum temperatures reached [in actual test fires] in open sided car parks in four countries” was 360 degrees C (680 F), and structural steel has “sufficient inherent resistance to withstand the effects of any fires that are likely to occur.”

            Here is the relevant paragraph, complete: “Steel-framed car parks have been rigorously fire tested in a number of countries (Table 3). These tests demonstrate that most unprotected steel in open sided steel-framed car parks has sufficient inherent resistance to withstand the effects of any fires that are likely to occur. Table 3 lists the maximum temperatures reached in open sided car park tests in four countries. These can be compared with the characteristic failure temperatures for beams carrying insulating floor slabs and columns of 620 [degrees] C and 550 [degrees] C respectively.”

            Note that the description does not limit the duration of the fire. From this it does not appear to matter whether the fire burned all week or just for two hours. No mention is made, as some people have suggested (from erroneous interpretation of other graphs involving time), that prolonged heat brings about progressive weakening of steel.

            Here is the data from Corus’ Table 3 (beams are horizontal members, columns are vertical):

            Full scale fire tests Maximum measured steel temperature
            Country Beam Column
            UK 275 C (527 F) 360 C (680 F)
            Japan 245 C (473 F) 242 C (467 F)
            USA 226 C (438 F) –
            Australia 340 C (644 F) 320 C (608 F)

            A fire in a steel car park is a very imprecise event, and the heat

            (This is way off topic.Where is Ron Paul?) CTS

            00

          • #

            TonyfromOz

            Your theory relative to the WTC’s is demonstrated to be incorrect!

            Model Replica of the WTC on 9/11 parts 1 – 2.

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aw4GW977OmI&feature=related

            (Please stop your off topic postings.The thread is about RON PAUL) CTS

            00

          • #
            Mark D.

            Kevin Moore, that video is laughable. If you don’t know why, then you have no business investigating the subject. You are willing to spread this kind of loony propaganda and I find it offensive. The families that lost members on 911 are deserving better.

            Clearly you know little or nothing about physics, engineering, building construction, fire behavior, and more.

            I urge the moderators to delete at least the above video link to save the Nova site from embarrassment. This subject is way off topic and has nothing to do with Ron Paul anyway.

            If, someday, Jo dares to post a thread specifically regarding 911 Truther “science” I’d be happy to explain the problems I see in the video. Until then, Kevin, please stop posting such crap.

            00

        • #
          kuhnkat

          BobC,

          the reason the Jihadis are attacking us is the same reason they were attacking our shipping in the days of Jefferson. The Quran tells them to attack the Infidel and that it is their RIGHT to take anything they want from them.

          What is your excuse for not bothering to study your enemy so that you can act like Ron Paul is right and it is our fault.

          Why are they attacking in over 40 countries besides the US?!?! Yes, in over 40 countries ISLAM is attacking the people and governemnts to carry their violent ideals.

          00

          • #

            In reply to 37.1.2.3

            Ron Paul is an advocate in tracking down terrorists no matter where they are.As long as the victims are American.

            I bet you did not know that.He he…

            Here is evidence for his anti terrorism position:

            The issue of marque and reprisal was raised before Congress after the September 11 attacks[31] and again on July 21, 2007, by Congressman Ron Paul. The attacks were defined as acts of “air piracy” and the Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001 was introduced, which would have granted the president the authority to use letters of marque and reprisal against the specific terrorists, instead of warring against a foreign state. The terrorists were compared to pirates in that they are difficult to fight by traditional military means.[32] Congressman Paul on April 15, 2009, also advocated the use of letters of marque to address the issue of Somali pirates operating in the Gulf of Aden. However, the bills Congressman Paul introduced were not enacted into law.

            LINK

            How did they kill Osama Bin Laden.By attacking him without attacking Pakistan.

            The very method Ron Paul advocates.

            00

          • #
            BobC

            kuhnkat
            January 7, 2012 at 4:31 am · Reply
            BobC,

            What is your excuse for not bothering to study your enemy so that you can act like Ron Paul is right and it is our fault.

            Is there another BobC here? I’m in complete agreement with you.

            00

          • #
            kuhnkat

            sunset,

            like the rest of the PaulBots you don’t admit to the real problem. The problem isn’t only the large number of active Jihadis. Going after them is important but, in the end, of very little effect. The US has done a reasonable job of protecting itself using UnConstitutional means. RP’s solution would be worse than useless. His law would only have allowed action against those who actually PERFORMED acts of violence. What about those recruiting, training, and funding them??

            His bill could be compared to Vietnam. To begin we only fought the military that entered South Vietnam. Later we bombed the Ho Chi Minh Trail and North Vietnam. We NEVER went after Russia or China who provided extensive training, most of their weapons, and much of their support supplies!!! Korea was similar. Even after the Chinese came over the border and attacked we NEVER attacked mainland China, only the troops in the sand box.

            Try and imagine this type of response to Hitler or Japan in WWII. We are only allowed to attack the troops in the field. We are not allowed action against the countries which are fielding those troops.

            This is the kind of leftard thinking that causes wars to run for decades and more with continuous deaths but no final action possible!!!! We end up training people to fight rather than to engage in commerce as the wars are continuous!!!! We end up killing far more people than if we carpet bombed the offending countries manufacturing capabilities. We become military dictatorships through habituation!!!!

            00

          • #
            kuhnkat

            Apologies BobC. Don’t have enough time to do a decent job.

            00

        • #
          kuhnkat

          Kevin Moore,

          you have 30 comments on this thread so far. This is as far as I go for you. I am sure you have found that Rosie O’Donnels claims of burning steel are a Straw Man. It was a stupid statement by a very ignorant person. Steel will “burn” without ANY fuel. You should researh the old ships that transported iron and steel. Seems they had sprinkler systems becuase iron and steel OXIDIZE and, over the length of a voyage will raise their own temp to the point of causing fires!!!

          Now that we have the STUPID stuff out of the way, no reputable person is claiming that the steel burnt in the WTC’s, or even melted. Only that it detempered due to lack of appropriate coatings. Rather than me trying to be another Rosie on the other side, please read this site which pretty much debunks all the Truther and other BS:

          http://www.debunking911.com/index.html

          00

  • #
    Fred Allen

    Ron Paul has the sympathies of the USA youth to a large extent. I am amused by Mitt Romney’s team strategy. They knew from the start that the American voter was sick of Congress: the “politics as usual”; the “win at any cost”, and yet, when facing a loss at the hands of Newt Gingrich, the Romney team reverted to negative ads and mud-slinging. It had the desired affect on Gingrich’s progress, but it also backfired to a small extent and bit Romney on the arse. The strategy pulled the curtain away from the Wizard of OZ and showed that Romney was just another political hack. Paul and Santorum might not have done anything just yet to show that they are presidential material, but they have both demonstrated aptly that they aren’t interested in the “politics as usual”. I think the voters have picked up on this. I think it would be a wonderful preview of things to come if Santorum and/or Paul effectively give Romney the big heave-ho.

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    I’m sorry I’ve been gone for a few days.

    Ron Paul is a decent, smart, well educated man of principles. Too much for the left to have any principles and frightening to the established right. Among the top “canidates” he should win the nomination hands down.

    The reality is politics is dirty, and not concerned with men of principles. Actually, the masters of politics are deathly afraid of principles. This is precisely why we have our system of government defined by the constitution and with a significant stacking of the deck towards the common electorate. We shall see soon how this plays and it will be interesting.

    What you may over look (and should not) is how well supported Ron Paul is by young people. The young college student is paying attention to what Ron is saying and they will carry that wisdom with them into the future regardless of whether Ron prevails or not.

    I predict this will be one of the most viciously fought presidential elections in our lifetime.

    00

  • #
    Gee Aye

    Well i can’t see that this article provides evidence of the media fearing Ron Paul. I also think there is abundant and proportionate reportage of him- including on our ABC. Is there some reason you want to be a victim?

    Speaking of the ABC http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3757534.html

    00

  • #
    Curt

    If Alex Jones and Prison Planet are supporting Ron Paul, run the other way. Jones is a crackpot of the first order. His obsession with alleged conspiracies and alleged conspirators is infamous. His scary video (complete with spooky music) of Bohemian Grove silliness paints him as a charlatan, a fear-monger, and possibly a religious fanatic.

    Ron Paul may be nice and consistent, but he’s not very articulate, he hangs with crazies, and he looks fragile. He could never win a general election, even if the Press loved him. Most Americans vote image, not message.

    The Republican Party has a terrible image, partly because the media (including the entertainment industry) are nearly exclusively Democratic, but largely because it panders to bible-thumpers, who’ve tried to hijack it and turn it into the Baptist Party, completely with official denunciations of gay marriage, and endless paeans to Jesus, the bible, and the alleged chosen people of a blood-thirsty deity. Most Americans don’t want Pastor Billy Bob setting international policy to hasten some predicted Armageddon, or telling them how to live.

    If the Republicans win this November, it won’t be because most voters agree with them on these religious lunacies, but because Obama’s artificial image no longer works. Of course, if the economy gets any worse, image may actually take a backseat for a change.

    00

    • #
      • #
        Roy Hogue

        The crash of each aircraft into the world trade center was recorded on video for all the world to see. These truthers are positing the mother of all conspiracies. Do you have any idea how many people would have to remain silent for the rest of their lives?

        I’d prefer Ron Paul to this.

        00

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        About pilotsfor911truth.org

        Being a pilot I read this one in great detail. It doesn’t hold up under even a cursory examination. But just to be sure I passed it on to a friend who is a retired airline pilot. He’s also an ex Marine Corps pilot with experience flying really hot aircraft that are much touchier about how they’re handled than any 767. Here is what he said about the nonsense analysis of the estimated 430 knot airspeed at impact.

        Mach speeds/airspeeds – you know from your own training that V speeds like VA and VMO, while limiting, are really concerned with control loads and control inputs. At 200 ft MSL an airplane doing 530 KIAS is doing about .80 mach. The aircraft is very stable at this speed, easy to aim at an impact point, and requires little training to execute. Slowing, configuring and then flying to a point of impact would be much more difficult. Transport category aircraft built to FAR Part 25 certification standards have surplus structural capabilities well in excess of what was demanded in these instances.

        MSL means above mean sea level. KIAS means knots indicated airspeed, the number the pilot reads from the airspeed indicator. This is not the same as true airspeed but we needn’t be bothered with that detail to understand what he’s saying because all aircraft operating speeds (V speeds) and restrictions are based on indicated airspeed, which is the only speed the pilot can determine directly. And this is fine because all aircraft performance parameters are a function of indicated airspeed in the first place. FAR refers to the Federal Aviation Regulations.

        As you can plainly see, Kevin, those airplanes did not come apart prior to impact and in fact would have done just fine at an even higher airspeed. He talks about slowing it down because I asked him if it would make the problem of aiming the plane accurately any easier. You see his answer.

        Now just how much real actual knowledge vs. BS does it take to convince you that you’re all wet?

        00

  • #

    With 96% of the Iowa Caucus reporting:

    1. Rick Santorum – 29,051 – 25%
    2. Mitt Romney – 28,938 – 25%
    3. Ron Paul – 25,307 – 22%

    00

    • #
    • #
      brc

      I think most of us would find that result quite surprising, both for a big improvement in Ron Paul over 2008, and for Santorum to seemingly come from nowhere.

      They are always interesting, US Presidential elections.

      00

    • #
      brc

      So the end result was a virtual dead heat between Santorum and Romney and Paul bringing up a relatively close third, with Bachman, Perry and Gingrich lagging far behind.

      I guess with the next being New Hampshire I would guess that Romney is looking solid for the early running.

      Nobody beats Ron Paul for fundraising though – which will be an interesting thing to watch.

      00

  • #
    Bruce D Scott

    I have been aware of Ron Paul for about 8 years, in that time his only conservative position has been “Small Government”. In all other areas he comes across as a far left theorist from the planet “Wishful Thinking”, but I must say it is a very popular address.

    00

  • #
    Gordon of Millswood

    Ron Paul said that Iran should be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon. No matter how much I agree with some of his other comments, that statement would preclude me from ever endorsing him.

    [Gordon, please provide a reference link or additional information about him saying this.] ED

    00

    • #
      brc

      I suspect Ron Paul said this much like Sarah Palin said ‘I can see Russia from here’.

      Great internet memes that nobody ever actually had a source for.

      00

    • #
      BobC

      Gordon of Millswood
      January 4, 2012 at 5:16 pm · Reply
      Ron Paul said that Iran should be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon.

      [Gordon, please provide a reference link or additional information about him saying this.] ED

      ED: I heard him say this on one of the televised debates.

      This link is not as clear-cut as what I remember him saying, but he puts the same idea across.

      00

  • #
  • #
    AbysmalSpectator

    Breathtaking. The hostility is universal. ABC24 just interviewed someone about the Iowa vote and everyone bar Ron got a mention. And I do mean everyone, even the guy who got 1% of the vote. On “The Project”, they played canned laughter when his picture first appeared and kept asking the question as to whether or not he was nuts.

    In fact the blanking and dismissing of a front running candidate is *so universal* that it does make one wonder whether the conspiracy theorists’ “lizard people” really are in control.

    00

    • #

      A Coincidence? What are the odds?

      It’s A Family Thing: Ancestry.com Finds that Romney and George W. Are Cousins

      An online family-history database has found that the GOP candidate has some very influential Republican relations.

      Cousin love? The online ancestry site, Ancestry.com, has found that Mitt Romney and George W. Bush are related. Believe it or not, Mitt Romney and George W. Bush are cousins — 10th cousins, twice removed, that is. Historians at Ancestry.com, the world’s largest online family-history resource, have discovered that Romney is actually related to six past presidents — more than any other 2012 GOP contestant. Franklin D. Roosevelt is his eighth cousin, twice removed, and both Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover are his 10th cousins. Then there is his sixth cousin (four times removed) Franklin Pierce, and both 10th cousins Bush I and II. Three out of these six were even (gasp!) Democrats.

      It turns out that presidential candidates often have Commander in Chief relatives, and this election cycle is no different, finds Ancestry.com after six months of research. Jon Huntsman is also related to FDR, Coolidge and the Bushes. And yes, his bloodline mirrors Romney’s because they too are cousins: Romney’s great-great-grandfather Parley Pratt, an early Mormon missionary, is Huntsman’s great-great-great-grandfather. The Romney-Huntsman–George W. Bush connection comes through Anne Marbury Hutchinson, who was a religious-freedom advocate in early 1600s. Rather fitting, since all three of them are still quite open about their faiths, be they Mormon or Evangelical.

      Rick Perry has just one presidential relative: Harry Truman is his fifth cousin four times removed. But Perry shares Lone State pride and blood with Sam Houston, the famed President of the Republic of Texas from the 1830s. While Houston resigned as the governor rather than swear allegiance to the Confederacy, notes the report, Perry has many relatives who fought for the South during the Civil War.

      True, in the end, America is the land of individuals — not of family trees. It’s who you are now, who you’ve made yourself to be that matters. But, in a roller-coaster primary season, a little “Oh yes, as my cousin FDR once said …” probably doesn’t hurt either.

      http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/12/20/family-ties-ancestry-com-finds-that-romney-and-george-w-are-cousins/

      00

      • #

        True, in the end, America is the land of individuals — not of family trees

        That is true of the few who actually accomplish something. The remainder are simply repeating the past without paying attention that the past doesn’t exist any longer. It is now the future and the future has been created by actual individuals rather than by members of the hive.

        The hive focuses on “stop the future” because they are afraid of being responsible for themselves and the consequences of their actions. Individuals boldly go were no man has gone before and drag the hive into the future in spite of their fears. The hive responds by taxing and regulating the future out of existence. All they accomplish is taxing and regulating themselves out of existence.

        00

  • #
    Gordon of Millswood

    Re: Ron Paul and Iran having nuclear weapons. He seems completely unfazed by the concept.

    http://video.foxnews.com/v/1106063162001/ron-paul-why-shouldnt-iran-want-a-nuclear-weapon/

    00

    • #
      warcroft

      Gordon, what youre saying Ron Paul said and what Ron Paul is actually saying are different.
      You are saying Iran should be allowed to develop Nukes.
      RP is saying why wouldnt they want to develop nukes?

      00

      • #
        kuhnkat

        Warcroft,

        then show us where RP says we should STOP Iran from obtaining Nukes. He never has and never will. Your hair splitting is meaningless in the context of whether the US and other nations should STOP Iran from building nuclear weapons.

        00

  • #
    Gordon of Millswood

    Incidentally, brc, Sarah Palin never said ‘I can see Russia from here’. Tina Fey, making fun of Mrs Palin on Saturday Night Live, said, “I can see Russia from my house.”

    There are two islands in the Bering Strait called Little Diomede which is Alaskan and Big Diomede which is Russian. As they are only three or four kilometres apart, Russia can easily be seen from Alaska.

    http://www.snopes.com/politics/palin/seealaska.asp

    00

  • #
    Shevva

    Long ime read, first (or maybe scond) time poster.

    A little Ying to your Yang, or should that be yang to your ying?

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jan/04/santorum-romney-climate-change?newsfeed=true

    00

    • #
      Llew Jones

      Well that’s good news. To make sure the US economy gets going again say one for president and the other for VP.

      Now all we Victorian believers in the value of a whisker more CO2 in the atmosphere need is an increase of easy to extract, cheap, plentiful, brown coal generation in Victoria.

      00

  • #
    Llew Jones

    re 49.1…not so much coal generation needed but rather BC fueled power generation.

    00

  • #
    The Black Adder

    Can Mel Gibson get the republican vote?

    Just watching Lethal Weapon 4 and by gees, if Ronald could do it, so could Mel.

    Oh, Hang on, Where was he born?

    NZ or Waggga Wagga or Hawaii?

    Hmmmmm…..

    00

  • #
    bob

    Ron Paul has always attracted the fringe voter. True, he is a libertarian and advocates many things with which I agree. The problem is that Ron Paul fell off the good sense wagon many years ago. He just doesn’t have both oars in the water.

    Gold standard? Totally unrealistic and unworkable in today’s globally linked economies.

    Bring home military? Sounds good, until you realize that the US has interests abroad, and treaty commitments that trump such simplistic ideas. Like it or not, there is a world-wide benefit in the US missile shield. Oops! I forgot, Obama trashed that one.

    00

  • #
    gnomish

    while it’s true that ron paul has been ignored and far worse (man imprisoned for making ron paul commemorative medallions – but it was never posted in the news that way- it was called ‘counterfeiting’ and a ‘terrorist attempt to damage confidence in the u.s. currency’) there is something far more important to be considered. that’s basic law of identity.
    apropos of which, i relate an arabic aphorism?
    a scorpion wanted to cross the river, so he asked the frog to carry him on his back. the frog said ‘no! you’ll sting me!’ but the scorpion explained that it would make no sense to sting the frog while they were in the river because then they would both drown. the frog was persuaded and gave the scorpion a rid. as they got to the middle of the river, the scorpion stung the frog. ‘why did you do that? now we’ll both die!’ wailed the frog. “because i’m a scorpion”.
    get it?
    ron paul is a politician.
    it doesn’t matter what you believe about any fairy tales. in fact, it’s the hallmark of the insane to keep repeating the same mistake and expect a different outcome.
    so, are you insane or do you just love abuse? that’s the only 2 alternatives. hellooo.

    00

  • #
    Doug Proctor

    Ron Paul just got 30% of the top 3 candidate Iowa vote. 21.5% vs 24% to Rommney and Santorum. But the MSM reporting only spoke of the R & S differences. Very strange! Lots was made of Bachman backing out, but nothing of Paul staying in!

    The idea that the libertarian, Constitution-is-paramout, pull-back-our-troops Ron Paul could attract the general US voter is so unbelievable to the MSM that they cannot even discuss it. Hysterical blindness or what?

    Iowa is said to be a 91% white, Christian state. Which is why they voted so much for Paul. He says nothing against other ethnic/colour groups, so why would that be so? And, on the other hand, are there not other conversative white Christian states, if that is all it takes? Like Texas? Nebraska? The Dakotas? Montana? Utah (Mormon being like a fundamentalist Christian in values, that is)?

    There is a 30% voting group who didn’t vote for the top three. Who would they vote for in the top 3? And out of the Santorum/Rommney pair, one has to go. Are they so similar that everyone can feel secure that one will pick up the other’s votes?

    You could say that there are 55% of the votes up for grabs. For Paul to be #1, he has to find 30% more, or get 54% of the remaining votes. Romney has to get 49%. Romney has to increase his appeal by 2.13X, while Paul has to increase his appeal by 2.37X.

    If Santorum = Romney, Paul is out. If Bachman = Romney, Paul is out. If neither is true, the final winner is still any one’s guess.

    The MSM may get gobsmacked. It would be good to see. Paul is the only one who appears to be a more than a soundbite on TV.

    00

  • #
    pat

    a sober assessment of Paul, warts and all:

    4 Jan: The Atlantic: If Voters Cared About Liberty, Ron Paul Would Be the Frontrunner
    by Wendy Kaminer
    (Wendy Kaminer is an author, lawyer and civil libertarian.)
    http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/01/if-voters-cared-about-liberty-ron-paul-would-be-the-frontrunner/250880/

    despite what the MSM is saying today, there is still doubt over which candidates will get the all-important delegates going forward:

    Wikipedia: Iowa Caucuses
    Unlike the first-in-the-nation primary in New Hampshire, the Iowa caucus does not result directly in national delegates for each candidate. Instead, caucus-goers elect delegates to county conventions, who in turn elect delegates to district and state conventions where Iowa’s national convention delegates are selected.
    ***Ironically, the state conventions do not take place until the end of the primary and caucus season: Iowa is in fact one of the very last states to choose its delegates
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_caucuses

    Ron Paul could end up with more, or as many, Iowan delegates as Romney, for example:

    4 Jan: Business Insider: Ron Paul May Have Secretly Won The Iowa Caucuses
    That’s because Iowa’s Republican caucuses are non-binding — they are technically just a straw poll, so once selected, delegates are free to vote for whichever presidential candidate they choose.
    “Part of what we’ve been training the Ron Paul people to do is not to leave after the vote,” Dan Godzich, a senior campaign advisor, told BI. “Stay and get elected to the conventions and get us those delegates.”…
    By the eve of Election Day, Hay said she was confident that Paul would come away from Iowa with a strong majority of the state’s delegates. It’s a good first step toward making sure that Paul has a strong presence on the floor in Tampa this summer — something that his supporters believe will help force the Republican party to start reckoning with their Movement…
    UPDATE: 1:40 a.m.
    Sources close to the Paul campaign indicated Tuesday that they were happy with their delegate count. Although we couldn’t get specific numbers, a source told Business Insider that Paul nailed down the delegates in all of Iowa’s smaller counties, and made a strong showing in several larger ones.http://www.businessinsider.com/ron-paul-winner-iowa-caucuses-strategy-201201

    when Paul was way ahead in the Iowa Caucus polls, the MSM made much out of the delegate issue saying, even if Paul wins, he may not get any delegates. today,however, as they continue to pretty much ignore Paul, they are immediately giving Romney & Santorum the delegates:

    4 Jan: Poynter Org: Charles Apple: The problem with all those ‘patchwork’ Iowa state maps on Caucus night
    But the real important info here is that column on the far right: The number of delegates won. At this point in the evening — 10:18 p.m., with only 48 percent of the votes in — the Iowa GOP hadn’t yet certified any results. But if you look at the chart now, on the day after…
    …you see those numbers filled in. Mitt Romney won 13 delegates toward the GOP nomination. Rick Santorum — only eight votes behind — finished with 12. No delegates were awarded to the other candidates.
    And that’s all we really need to know about Tuesday’s Iowa Caucus.
    http://www.poynter.org/how-tos/newsgathering-storytelling/158142/the-problem-with-all-those-patchwork-iowa-state-maps-on-caucus-night/

    plenty more shenanigans to come. after all, the US is not a democracy, it is a Republic.

    00

  • #
  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Ah! Ron Paul! Honest, incorruptible and foolish beyond hope.

    His brand of narrow issue politics will lead to big trouble and everyone who can think straight can see it. His isolationism will be as bad for this country as Obama’s opposite tactic of giving it away to the lowest bidder.

    He may do well in Iowa but not nationally. He can’t get nominated, much less elected.

    If I’m wrong I’ll be falling all over myself with apologies. But in the meantime I’m going to call him as I see him.

    00

    • #
      cwon1

      I have problems with the “Big Government” Republicans and Romney and Santorum both qualify. Then again, we are being led at the moment by the worst President in history. It’s beyond his horrible ideology.

      RP’s foreign policy delusions and that of his followers are pathetic. As for financial reform I see no transitional steps but a complete collapse of the existing financial system which I might be critical of but I LIVE IN THE REAL WORLD! We are looking to 19th century crash and burn and 20th century debt and socialist expectations overhang for the next 50 years at the same time. No real growth (or worse) at all in this business reality.

      Here would be my view of the RP economic plan; restore gold as the currency and settle all the government debt in exchannge to the new global currency standard. A fixed unit of exchange. It means a massive but organized deflation and set all the private asset levels on a similar benchmark during the exchange. All the social programs should be reset as well (reduced) and all money would be exchanged. Governments would no longer back credit, depositors or banks, they would be regulated for fraud but nothing more. We are talking massive price reductions of assets here at the same time the debt overhang will be reduced. Then we need massive reductions in government spending and employment. Pensions, massive reductions. No central bank but a fixed increase in money supply based on population, no inflation. No cycle management.

      There would be a massive and progressive debt forgiveness on housing in the process, a one day bankrupcy auction giving existing owners a chance to refinance a small balance but likely a very high initial rate. Wages get crushed on a nominal basis. We become a mostly cash economy at much lower levels of prices. The rich would have cash balances and no debts, no inflation concerns and the incentives would be to invest and save instead of spend and make work. Confidence would return once all the bodies are buried. Best to stock some ammo in the transition.

      Everyone get a new credit score but then again, there is little consumer credit in the new world order. No student loans, national public welfare, FNM or mortgage guarantees. No small business administration, energy department. All research funding goes private, campus life gets pretty lonely and fast especially for middle age college professors in climate fields.

      How do you think this platform is going to go over RP in the Whitehouse? Think there will much left to keep the world from killing itself at the same time?

      00

      • #
        Mark D.

        Cwon1, you have summed it up well. Let me ask you: why won’t your dark prediction happen anyway. How much more debit can be supported before the collapse happens with or without RP?

        I say this as a “friendly” because I agree with everything you say in the first paragraph:

        I have problems with the “Big Government” Republicans and Romney and Santorum both qualify. Then again, we are being led at the moment by the worst President in history. It’s beyond his horrible ideology.

        00

        • #
          cwon1

          The problem with the Keynesian New Deal model was the combination that it only works well when credit expands faster than economic growth, making it Ponzi like and the government ever extending guarantees to keep the scheme growing and at this point surviving on life support.

          One of the real fallouts in my life is watching a total loss of trust in basic authorities like the Federal Reserve. During the 08′ meltdown you had to think there were at least secret crisis protocals, in fact they were clueless and in disbelief. Same at Treasury and no surprise at every elected level in Washington. I always think of “Dr. Strangelove” when Slim Pickens is going through the government issued instructions on nuclear combat;

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=9CRRVZqrRl0

          I imagined there might be a safe at the Fed for moments like the one here with comparable financial instructions. Alas, it’s Maginot thinking on the greatest scale in history. There is no self-destruct plan at the Fed to restore a fixed currency when the road and the sky collide. How could anyone have thought credit expanding faster than income could last forever? How could there not be a plan aside from issuing more credit when too much credit was the basic problem in the system?

          At least before debt was government backed it would go to heaven in prior busts, now it becomes zombie securities trading near par even if the assets are essentially in default.

          RP is a terrible influence, he can see a problem but he has no plan for the real world at all! Zero, nada. It’s defeatist Hooverism if you can’t form a transition plan that doesn’t lead to riots, death and mass starvation. Think about the impact on the world if the U.S. isolates which it already is doing. RP is giving the idiot-in-chief political cover this very moment.

          Keynes only works with expanding credit and we may socially be at the limit on a global basis. We could inflate, try to sell massive credit expansion around the globe to make up slack while the West delevers. We saw that in the 70′s it failed, the U.S. ended up backing that zombie debt in South America that time.

          I’ve thought there could be a massive currency restructuring (going fixed) and offering the middle class massive debt forgivness during an organized deflation. Plus massive sovereign debt cancellations and exchanges, the surplus holders would end up with excess gold but how could trade imbalances be sustained with real money instead of fiat? This was the real reason the gold window was closed in 71′, we weren’t going to send real money to OPEC so we changed to paper money completely. If global trade fails, it’s back to the 19th century or New Deal type bust. It could take years to reform countries to either import or export in a more balanced way.

          The best policy I can think of it to stimulate demand in the poor countries with low GDP, gradually restore a firm dollar policy leading to gold in about 20 years. Encourage savings, forgive or exchange domestic and global debt, deflate healthcare and educational costs, encourage export growth without devaluation for the deficit countries. In the US we need massive energy development and our Greenshirt lobby should get a lethal injection. We need a pro-growth leader and massive government spending reductions while maintaining a global military presence.

          In short we need Ronald Reagan and there isn’t one who can hold a candle to that legacy. Santorum is deeply flawed (big government, BushIIism GOP, No-Child Compassionate Conservatisism/pandering to the mob defeatism) but looks like the least worse choice. Maybe he’s gotten smarter.

          Keynes has to be replaced, the debt system is dead or dying. It requires a financial plan beyond wing attack plan “R” with RP as General Ripper attacking the global financial system.

          00

  • #

    Wednesday, January 4, 2012
    Iowa Caucus Results 2012

    http://piratenews-tv.blogspot.com/2012/01/iowa-caucas-results-2012.html

    When Ron Paul was leading, GOP decided to COUNT THE VOTES IN A SECRET LOCATION OUT OF STATE. Because Anonymous was going to hack the PAPER ballots.

    ABSENTEE BALLOTS ARE NEVER COUNTED BEFORE A WINNER IS ANNOUNCED.

    NO IDENTIFICATION REQUIRED to vote in the Iowa caucus.

    The Iowa Election Commission website results crashed last night.

    Ron Paul Doubles Vote Tally, Captures EQUAL NUMBER OF DELEGATES As Romney & Santorum in Iowa — 7 total

    Romney got less votes than 2008, Paul doubled his # votes in 2008
    Santorum nephew says Santorum is “another big-government politician who supports the status quo”

    http://www.infowars.com/ron-paul-doubles-vote-tally-captures-equal-number-of-delegates-as-romney-santorum/

    more….

    00

    • #
    • #
      Llew Jones

      Apart from ideological reasons for wanting US military forces either withdrawn from overseas bases and operations or on the other hand being maintained it is important to note that the US military spends about $600 billion per year, part of which gives those overseas personnel jobs. But very importantly it also employs millions of American civilian citizens often in high tech industries that also have important technological spin offs.

      In time, if Paul and his fans had a belief in high federal government spending and the belief that the government can do it better than private enterprise, some of those jobs could be funded in other areas of the economy such as health, infrastructure or energy development.

      If Ron Paul was America’s Julia Gillard but with economic smarts then maybe his policy to close down US overseas military operations would not be so bad. Paul however is against federal government big spending so where do those many jobs including for American civilians, high tech and otherwise, come from? Perhaps Paul’s supporters are dupes or perhaps like him have a bit of trouble with the numbers and are quite happy to see a growth in unemployment due to Paul’s ideological bent.

      00

      • #

        Llew, as far as employment schemes go, surely we can do better than fighting wars? I mean War for a good reason is one thing…
        Ron Paul can certainly tell you where those other jobs are coming from. Read Hayek -and the broken window fallacy. If the people don’t have to pay thousands to employ marines in Afghanistan then they can spend thousands on holidays, or schools, or medicine or houses in the US. Putting the money back in the hands of those who earned it creates jobs.

        00

        • #
          cwon1

          True to a point Joanne but an entire economy built on speculative credit expansion always must maintain confidence and stability. If you think Islamic extremists, as one easy example, are working on a Western timeline where the U.S. isolates (with Ron Paul) and suddenly Iran transforms into a peace loving culture it’s a sorry mistake. Many of these people are still mumbling about Crusades (getting a good part of the history wrong as well in the process).

          If the west retreats, collapses, the next thing will be the hordes looking to blunder in the name of “reparations”. Rome was hated for many good reasons, what followed? I don’t think the U.S. merrits that comparison by the way.

          RP is a hazzard on global policy. You need a plan on transition from fiat results as well, you can’t lead as a crank.

          900 trillion in debt and derivative notational value globally (I might be understating it based on unfunded pensions and healthcare), how does that react to no forward fiat money creation? In the West, debt is increasing at 3x the rate of GDP the last 10 year, this explains the RP rise but cold turkey and chaos as a solution? Global surrender to radicals?

          Less than a quarter of the population is actually in “needed” employment in the fiat system. Sad, but we should expect an old declining culture to suddenly convert to factory work? Selling goods with no credit (cash, real money at that) to younger third world countries? This is the plan?

          Romantic, but people today in the West should realize in the American western expansion on the “frontier” or the industrial revolution most modern types would die very quick deaths even with improved technology. The RP transition plan would dwarf the fall of the Soviet system or the end of WWI or II combined. Keynes didn’t grow off the grass despite all his flaws and that of the current system.

          00

          • #

            cwon1,

            So you wish to maintain the status quo -

            It’s not a matter of who the American people want as president. It’s who those in the background want. The bankers want a puppet who will allow the continuation of the plunder. The war contractors want a puppet who will keep their industry of death intact. Other major string pullers have their own agendas. The wild card is who does Israel want?

            The electronic voting machines programme will be the decider and you would call that democracy I presume.

            God bless America, “they honour me with their lips but their heart is far from me.”

            “And why do you look at the speck in your brothers eye, but do not perceive the plank in your own eye?”

            America, the land that has a war on everything and everybody. Ron Paul is not God but it would seem by his rhetoric that he would rather be on the side of good rather than evil.

            00

          • #
            cwon1

            Kevin,

            As much as I support real money and market ideals, I’m critical of the Keynesian decline as well, you have to take a look at the roots of it. Keynes was a socialist but he formed his basic economic policy out the disaster of WWI and the aftermath. Then when the great depression hit and private capital and credit collapsed he refined his views to expand government and stabilize markets and prices. Even by this time society wasn’t will to go back to the disorder and confusion of the Panic of 1907 (bankers crisis) and the memory of later 19th century cycles. If he had lived longer he might have moderated his dogma as Hayek suggest he would to account for inflationary (monetary) excess.
            You have realize how perverse the world became in his name long after he was buried. All the moderating polices such as the 25% income tax cap that was clearly ignored for example or the building of surpluses in positive cycles. His fiat ideas weren’t based on constant depreciation either. You can call him naive or cynical as you like.

            Now it appears the end of the debt expansion is at hand. Governments are behind big parts of the notes and the currency is fiat. You didn’t address my point, what about the 900 trillion+???? Just how in the world do you go to stable money let alone real money (gold) with this backdrop???????????

            As for blaming American foreign and Israel policy you should consider the alternative, no stability at all and blood lust as the order of the world. It seems like you are prototypical RP unicorn hunter. to describe American principals as “evil” reflects a pathetic distortion. Your ancestors would have been wiped off the map if that same American/British road map hadn’t stopped Japan. The narrative that Israel is the “problem” is childlike stupid at best and self-hating neomarxist at worst.

            00

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            cwon1,

            At last, someone who understands.

            I rest my case.

            00

        • #
          Llew Jones

          Thank you Jo I just acquainted myself with Hayek’s broken window and I have no issue with the concept except…. Hayek …outstanding economist, social scientist, and political philosopher, it seems was not quite on top of the effect of globalisation on a national economy.

          Let me tell you a parable: I’m, amongst other things, a director in an engineering manufacturing firm. It uses tungsten carbide tips on lathe tools to machine a hard Co/Cr/W/C alloy called Stellite. For many years the company was purchasing these from a local supplier at $10 ea. One of our enterprising workers got on the internet and purchased 20 of these from Hong Kong. The price was $14, for… 20 that is. They are now in use and appear, at this stage, to be of superior quality to the locally supplied TC tips. That is they last longer between resharpens and don’t chip.

          I’m sure you and others, including Aussie manufacturers and retailers have many similar parables.

          If I understand the American situation correctly any tax reductions for say the middle class, in exchange for less government spending, are far more likely to enrich manufacturers in Asia, particularly China, than they are to produce more jobs for American workers. That doesn’t mean that Keynesian politics is still not about the quickest way to impoverish a country.

          The real problem is the discipline of economics and economists. If I had the power I would replace them all with accountants like Barnaby Joyce given his obvious skill at picking losers. Something beyond the powers of any reported Aussie economist at the time.

          Perhaps as well as looking at reinstituting the Gold Standard Paul would re impose tariffs to make sure those extra tax dollars for ordinary Americans disappear very quickly without getting much in the way of goods for them.

          So maybe military spending is not such a bad way, to give many Americans an income and a job.

          (Incidentally I’m with John Howard who said something along the lines of America being the most powerful force for good in the world community. I’m not a fan of American isolationism, Paul’s or any other style, which couldn’t care less attitude lead to the US belatedly getting into WW2 via a nasty wake up call at Pearl Harbour. Had Paul been running the US then we Aussies would all be eating sushi now).

          00

  • #
  • #

    Iowa GOP moving voter count to undisclosed location! – YouTube

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

    “The Iowa GOP are moving voter count to undisclosed location…it’s voter fraud to me…when they do this …”

    00

    • #

      http://www.votefraud.org/josef_stalin_vote_fraud_page.htm

      “Those who cast the votes decide nothing,

      Those who count the votes decide everything.”

      Joseph Stalin

      00

    • #
      Mark D.

      In Iowa, it’s a non-binding “straw” ballot. The most anyone could do by rigging this even if believe in (yet another) conspiracy, is get a few more delegates sent to the Republican nominating convention later this year. Since the delegates to that convention are for the most part hand picked by party “regulars” anyway (those that put in their time as volunteers and attend meetings) the whole “straw poll” is a bit of show and very loose example of democracy or free “election”.

      00

  • #
    bananabender

    If Ron Paul is the answer I’m sure the question must be truly idiotic.

    Paul decries big government but has been on the Federal payroll most of his adult life life (medical school on USAF scholarship, Air Force and then Congress).

    An enthusiast of boondoggles and pork barrels in his own congressional district but not for other districts.

    A racist and homophobe (or at least very tolerant of racists and homphobes).

    His opposition to oil imports is due to his constituents being in the oil industry.

    00

  • #
    Michael

    Fascinatingly enough, Ron Paul is well mentioned in the Japanese media- not that they say a lot about the Republican party process.

    00

  • #
    Madjak

    And here is why the media is so scared of ron paul:

    A hot mike at the pentagon catches reporter explaining to a colleague that if ron paul gets elected, two thirds of this room would be gone:

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/01/05/hot_mic_at_pentagon_presser_catches_reporter_see_this_room_two-thirds_of_us_laid-off_when_ron_paul_is_president.html

    So who is behind this scare?

    00

  • #
    TerjeP

    Interesting that Joanne should meet Australian libertarians that have never heard of Ron Paul. However I meet Australian libertarians that have never heard of Australias only libertarian party the Liberal Democrats (LDP). http://www.ldp.org.au

    00

  • #
    Pierce

    I thought that Pauls life story had nothing to do with climate change.

    00

  • #
    pat

    good ol’ US “democracy”…

    5 Jan: UK Telegraph: Romney’s winning votes go missing after chairman goes to bed
    Missing votes from one of Iowa’s caucus precincts and a top official who had retired to bed delayed Mitt Romney’s wafer-thin victory in the early hours of yesterday
    By Jon Swaine in Des Moines
    At 1.15am, with almost every vote counted, Rick Santorum was judged to be narrowly ahead. But the 143 votes of the second precinct of the second ward of Clinton County were nowhere to be seen.
    Reports that “a man in a truck” was still driving the missing ballots to a counting station were repeated live on several national television networks, before being denied by Republican officials..
    She was woken by Caroline Tallett, a fellow official, who pounded on her windows and rang her front door bell after receiving frantic calls from state officials and candidates’ campaign staff.
    “I thought, ‘What in the world is going on?’” Mrs Pfeffer, 70, said yesterday.
    Reached by telephone live on CNN soon afterwards, she was asked whether she could provide the totals.
    “Oh… I haven’t… God, I added them up,” she said to widespread amazement. “I added them up a couple of times. Oh man”.
    She eventually confirmed 51 more votes for Mr Romney and 33 for Mr Santorum.
    But there was further confusion as Mrs Pfeffer was told by the CNN anchor that her vote count was different to a figure provided by the state party…
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-election/8992513/Romneys-winning-votes-go-missing-after-chairman-goes-to-bed.html
    (comment by EmilyEnso: Paul was showing 33.5% on the Drudge Exit polls.
    Wonder where all those votes disappeared to?)

    Ron Paul was 29% to Romney 22% in the Exit Polls i posted above, but hey who’s concerned? Exit Polls in US elections were virtually 100% correct until the 2000 election…not that i would have preferred Gore any more than Bush).

    was following Richard Adams’ Guardian blog during the Iowa caucus, and it is fascinating, especially as Santorum was nowhere in the race until the media and Murdoch boosted him in the final few days. from listening to Caucus observers online yesterday, relating some of the shenanigans, i find it hard to believe Santorum got all the votes that have been awarded to him. amazing a truck could be driving around with votes, when all counting was to be done on site and the results phoned in:

    Guardian: Richard Adams: Iowa caucus result: as it happened
    12.10am: What are we waiting on? According to AP, there’s a guy in truck driving some results from Story County, where only 55% of the precincts have reported. So: Rick Santorum leads Mitt Romney by 40 votes overall and we are all waiting on a guy in a truck. Great.
    Don’t stop for coffee, guy in truck.
    (insert Kyle Munson tweet: Some guy driving Story County #iacaucus vote tallies in his truck is holding this up!?! Sigh for the Iowa image.)…
    12.15am: On Fox News, Joe Trippi – Howard Dean’s 2004 guru, so you know, a great source of advice – reckons that Santorum should just go on TV right now and given a speech and claim that he was the winner, even if the votes haven’t all been counted and he risked eventually losing.
    Karl Rove agrees. So there you are, two political geniusies (well one, Rove), basically saying that Santorum should just go public with a whopper. Tells you a lot. Maybe Santorum should hang up a “Mission accomplished” sign? That works, right?
    12.16am: And obviously the Santorum campaign are taking their advice from Fox News because they have just announced that Rick will appear in a few minutes…
    12.24am: Here’s Rick Santorum coming on stage at his victory party.
    “Game on,” is his first words. Big cheers. But then he quotes CS Lewis in praising his wife. It’s quite sweet. Then he thanks God and then Iowa. “You, by standing up and not compromising, by being bold and leading … you have taken the first step in taking back this country,” he says to Iowa.
    “I never forget the first time I saw someone that had died,” says Santorum. Downer man…
    12.28am: With 98.3% of the vote in, Mitt Romney has retaken the lead from Santorum: by 41 votes. My guess is he’ll win from here on in…
    12.33am: Scratch that: suddenly 98.6% of the votes are in and Rick Santorum is up by FIVE VOTES…
    12.44am: Over to Adam Gabbatt in Johnston, Iowa, who watched Rick Santorum speaking…
    “People are listening intently, most apparently unaware. Santorum hasn’t declared himself the winner – but many here currently think he is.”…
    1.09am: Google and CNN now say: Santorum 29,935, Romney 29,916, with five precincts left to report…
    1.14am: Dear lord: there are just two precincts left to count. Rick Santorum is up by 18 votes…
    1.20am: So we are all waiting for one precinct in Clinton County to report, which will decide a race between two candidates separated by 18 votes…
    1.34am: This is strange: the Iowa GOP have just updated the vote totals, but still have two precincts remaining uncounted.
    The new vote total has Mitt Romney in the lead by ONE VOTE.
    But what is this? It’s the missing Keokuk County precinct! And it gives a massive five votes for Santorum!
    So, with one precinct out, Santorum leads by FOUR VOTES…
    1.54am: Fox News is terrifying people with tales of a lost precinct in Clinton County, and now Karl Rove is saying that there may have been under-counting in Story County.
    There was a case in 2008 where a caucus precinct captain went home and forgot to report their total, I vaguely recall.
    1.59am: Can I be the first to accuse the Republican party of massive electoral fraud to deny Ron Paul the nomination?
    Somewhere in a basement in Clinton city, Karl Rove’s minions are stuffing a ballot box with enough votes for Mitt Romney to win.
    Start your conspiracy theory engines now!…
    2.06am: The tally from Story County has been corrected officially, cutting Santorum’s lead to four.
    And, according to Karl Rove on Fox News, the votes from the final precinct in Clinton County have been “agreed” between the Santorum and Romney camps, giving Romney a win by 18 votes…
    2.34am: The GOP has confirmed that Mitt Romney has won the Iowa caucus with 30,015 votes, with Rick Santorum eight votes behind on 30,007.
    2.45am: And that’s it..
    (Pat: Santorum comes from “NOWHERE) Santorum surely got the biggest boost of this endless night of Iowa voting. He has come from nowhere and came within a whisker of winning.
    Buzzfeed has an excellent illustration of the cost of victory: Romney’s campaign spent $156 per vote, while Santorum spent just $21 and got a lot more value for money…
    (page 4 in comments) by KyleMunson 09.04pm: To all the Iowa caucuses followers across the pond: This is Kyle Munson with The Des Moines Register (@KyleMunson on Twitter) — whose tweet is included in the above story. I just want to clarify that I was at Romney’s headquarters in downtown Des Moines when I tweeted about the anecdote of the pickup truck in Story County as a courier of belated caucus vote totals — because Bret Baier was reporting the anecdote on Fox, broadcast to the ballroom audience via large-screen TV, much to the amusement of the locals as well as the Twitterverse. So I didn’t generate the rumor — we’ll have to ask Baier and follow the trail from there.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/04/iowa-caucus-results-live-coverage

    00

  • #
    JMD

    The rest of the West needs a strong US to help us defend our freedoms

    Rubbish Jo. The USA could sink in its own fetid swamp & no one need care. Freedom is not the prerogative of the USA.

    00

    • #
      cwon1

      Try repeating that when the EU is gone and the Euro with it. Get a history book on the 20th century, you’re clueless.

      00

      • #

        Your understanding of history no doubt would have been attained by your compulsory attendance at a government indoctrination centre.

        00

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          You should stop paying attention to one favorite guru, Kevin and start thinking for yourself.

          00

        • #
          JMD

          Yeah & here’s a good history book for you cwon1 -

          The Battle of Hamburg, written by Martin Middlebrook, published by Cassell Military Paperbacks.

          00

    • #
      kuhnkat

      JMD,

      you are absolutely right that Freedom can be maintained without my US doing it. When can I expect the rest of the FREE World to start building stealth fighters, missile defense shields, aircraft carriers… without us??

      China would appear to be the only country making major increases in their capabilities and I rather doubt that they are looking to allow Europe, Australia and the rest of the world to continue playing the way they have been. Then there is Iran who appear to be working on a realtime test of the missile defenses!!

      00

      • #
        JMD

        Up yours Septic, since when have stealth fighters, missiles & aircraft carriers had anything to do with freedom?

        Hopefully the US government will set those death machines upon you in the near future.

        00

  • #
    pat

    FOR THE RECORD:

    6 Jan: Central Iowa Politics Examiner: Christina Rivers: Discrepancy could rewrite Iowa caucus but not end results
    The fact that the Iowa caucuses were chaotic on Tuesday night was an understatement…
    According to a report by KCCI in Des Moines, Edward True, 28, of Moulton, has claimed that he assisted in counting the votes in the small Appanoose County caucus. According to his tally, only 53 people attended. Although Moulton is not a delegate nor a precinct captain, he says that he wrote the results down on a piece of paper Tuesday night so that he could post it to his Facebook page. Moulton claims that the Republican Party of Iowa has an incorrect vote. According to True, Romney only received two votes on his personal tally and contacted the party to inform them.
    True told KCCI, “When Mitt Romney won Iowa by eight votes and I’ve got a 20-vote discrepancy here, that right there says Rick Santorum won Iowa…not Mitt Romney.”
    According to the Iowa Republican Party’s website, the Moulton caucus at the Garrett Memorial Library, Romney received 22 votes…
    The Iowa Republican Party responded to True’s claims by reiterating that True is not a precinct captain nor a county chairperson, and thus had no authorization to speak on record about election results…
    True claims that he is a Ron Paul supporter and told KCCI that he hoped it was a mistake…
    While appearing Thursday night on Fox News’ “On the Record with Greta Van Susteren”, the topic was again addressed. Santorum responded…
    (COMEDY) Locked in a virtual tie, Romney and Santorum will both remain winners. The fact that Iowans showed up on caucus night to move two men forward that some discounted due to lack of funding, lack of polling results, negative ads or time spent in the state proves that Iowans take politics seriously.
    http://www.examiner.com/central-iowa-politics-in-des-moines/discrepancy-could-rewrite-iowa-caucus-but-not-end-results

    LOL. WE WOULDN’T WANT TOO MUCH SCRUTINY OF OTHER PRECINCTS, WOULD WE? TIME TO MOVE ON…

    6 Jan: Miami Herald: AP: Santorum shrugs off report of Iowa vote errors
    Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum shrugged off reports late Thursday that the vote count from Iowa’s caucuses might be wrong, saying the errors appear not to change the fact that he and Mitt Romney were nearly tied.
    Santorum told Fox News that Iowa’s Republican Party chairman, Matt Strawn, informed him of two cases in which errors were reported in the count from Tuesday night. Taken together, Santorum said, the changes would almost cancel out each other and that Romney would win by nine votes instead of eight.
    “That doesn’t really matter to me,” he said. “This was a tie.”…
    (Edward) True said that when he contacted local Republican officials, “They said they would sort it out in the next couple of weeks, but how many primaries will have happened by that time?” …
    http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/01/05/2575970/santorum-shrugs-off-report-of.html

    00

  • #

    If Ron Paul becomes too popular, perhaps TPTB could start a war and suspend the election:-

    military drill -

    http://www.presstv.ir/usdetail/219663.html

    Tensions on the oil shipping lanes in the Persian Gulf have escalated with the announcement of new naval exercises by Iran’s Revolutionary Guards and news that Israel and the U.S. are planning to carry out their most extensive joint maneuvers in the region.

    The Iranian navy finished 10 days of exercises in the Persian Gulf on Monday, during which it tested a range of new missiles.

    On the same day, the Israeli military said it was preparing for joint exercises with the U.S. to rehearse missile defense and co-operation between the forces.

    The maneuvers, which are codenamed Austere Challenge 12 and involve thousands of troops, have been planned for some time and were hailed by Israeli and U.S. officials as their biggest ever joint drill….

    00

    • #

      Video – Ron Paul Urges US Government to Stop Policing the World

      http://www.presstv.ir/ussection/3510802.html

      00

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        We get it Kevin. Now will you take the hint?

        00

        • #

          Ron Paul is the only presidential candidate who doesn’t want to start another war:-

          Watch as ex soldier gives testimony of sanctioned slaughter of innocent people -

          “Iraq War: US soldier throws his medals and stars!!! and quits”

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6hp8HMstkE&feature=related

          00

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            I’m so glad you have the ability to read other men’s minds. It helps so-o-o-o-o much.

            No candidate wants to start a war Kevin. You cry peace, peace, peace while war is all around you. The western world is under vicious attack and most are asleep. It’s right there in Australia but you’re too blind t see it.

            There is a time for everything under heaven…a time for peace and a time for war. The war is here Kevin. It’s on your doorstep. Iran is building a nuclear bomb. North Korea already has one. Pakistan has them. Russia is no one’s friend. China is no friend of anyone either as you surely must know. Once we are gone from Iraq that democracy, such as it is, will fall. And you think America disengaging from the world will be good?

            From Jesus own mouth we have this little bit of wisdom. Forgive my paraphrasing to fit the situation. “The bad guy doesn’t mess with the strong man on the block. He looks for the weak to prey on.”

            This is my country Kevin. And I will fight any way I can to get it back to being the strong man on the block and keep it that way. Obama has made us weak. Now I should vote for Ron Paul who will make us into a tortoise, pulled into its shell in fear of every danger because it has no other defense.

            No Kevin, if we do not regain our strength and use it to defend western civilization, its principles and ideals, who will?

            As for going to war — who was attacked on September 11, 2001? Was it Australia? Was it Europe? No, it was The United States of America. And we who were so viciously attacked have every right to carry that fight back to where our enemy is.

            George Bush didn’t want a war. No one wants a war now. But it’s here knocking on our door still. You will be no safer if Ron Paul is elected. You can spout off your drivel but it remains just that, drivel.

            00

          • #

            “George Bush didn’t want a war” Drivel you say -

            http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=HPAB,HPAB:2011-45,HPAB:en&q=George+Bush+youtube+im+a+war+president

            YouTube – George Bush “I’m a War Preisident”

            00

          • #

            America’s Permanent War Agenda

            By Stephen Lendman

            01 March, 2010
            Countercurrents.org

            Post-9/11, Dick Cheney warned of wars that won’t end in our lifetime. Former CIA Director James Woolsey said America “is engaged in World War IV, and it could continue for years….This fourth world war, I think, will last considerably longer than either World Wars I or II did for us.” GHW Bush called it a “New World Order” in his September 11, 1990 address to a joint session of Congress as he prepared the public for Operation Desert Storm.

            The Pentagon called it the “long war” in its 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), what past administrations waged every year without exception since the republic’s birth, at home and abroad. Obama is just the latest of America’s warrior presidents that included Washington, Madison, Jackson, Lincoln, T. Roosevelt, Wilson, F. Roosevelt, Truman, Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, GHW Bush, Clinton, and GW Bush preceding him.

            This article covers WW II and its aftermath history of imperial wars for unchallengeable global dominance throughout a period when America had and still has no enemies. Then why fight them? Read on.

            Wars Without End

            America glorifies wars in the name of peace, what historian Charles Beard (1874 – 1948) called “perpetual war for perpetual peace” in describing the Roosevelt and Truman administrations’ foreign policies – what concerned the Federation of American Scientists when it catalogued about 200 post-1945 conflicts in which America was, and still is, the aggressor.

            Historian Gore Vidal used Beard’s phrase in titling his 2002 book, “Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace” and saying:

            “our rulers for more than half a century have made sure that we are never to be told the truth about anything that our government has done to other people, not to mention our own……”

            00

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            So of course you found those statements. After his country was wantonly attacked, yes he was a war(time) president. You apparently have noting against using his words completely devoid of the context in which he said them in order to further your own agenda. And you never miss a chance to harangue us all with your self-righteous point of view.

            You spout off religious platitudes left and right. You call yourself a Christian. But have you forgotten what Christians were to be noticed for? They were to be noticed by the way they live their lives, not for making rules for others to follow and most certainly not for condemning anyone as you do. If Christianity is misunderstood and hated as you asked on another thread, then maybe look in your own heart for the answer.

            You also apparently forget what Christ commanded his followers to do, one of only two things He said we are to do. Speak the Gospel message. For a man with so much religiosity I have not once seen you telling anyone here about Christ, about salvation. But you leave yourself with no opening to spread that message by your condemnation of anyone you think doesn’t live according to the rules you want followed.

            If I judge a man who wants my vote it’s because I must do so in order to make an informed choice. If I judge you it’s because you have absolutely begged for it. You are overripe for it. You can only push me so far, Kevin. I can guess that many here are simply too polite to challenge you. But I know Christianity down where the rubber meets the road every single day. And the image you present here doesn’t measure up.

            We all make judgments all day long. But you take the cake. If the name Hypocrite fits then wear it.

            The bottom line is this. I don’t mind your opinion. I do mind that you support it with religion at every turn. I do mind that you never quit on a point once you’ve stated it. I mind being harangued with your particular religious viewpoint over and over and over.

            00

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            America’s Permanent War Agenda

            Get used to it. We’re here to stay.

            I could begin to regret that we wasted so many good men to stop the expansion of Japan through the South Pacific in 1942 and 1943.

            00

          • #

            Roy,

            Your arguements are based on a false premise.

            00

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            Your arguements are based on a false premise.

            Which is?

            00

          • #
          • #
            Mark D.

            Premise is not plural therefore “is” is correct.

            Premises “are”

            Other than that, I think he means that you’d either look and speak Japanese or you wouldn’t be here at all. (assuming you are in OZ)

            00

          • #

            His premises are based on a false arguement.

            00

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            Non responsive! What is the false premise?

            00

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            Kevin throws out one last pointing finger and then goes silent. Thus does he attempt to escape the hard question he can’t answer, “What is the false premise?”

            Kevin, you not only have no real substance but you have no class either.

            00

          • #
          • #
            Roy Hogue

            Kevin,

            May I quote you once again from post 69.1.1.1.6?

            Your arguements are based on a false premise.

            Those are your own words.

            I think you’re now embarrassed by your own slipshod inattention and eagerness to get in the last word. It’s time to put up or shut up!

            Just to refresh your memory — what is the false premise?

            00

          • #

            Every arguement needs a [proper spelling] ED

            [We're weary of this line of off topic posting. Stop] ED

            00

  • #

    I guess if you look at only one side of the man, he sure does seem to be an honest enough guy.
    Every positive action he takes is usually for vanity sake and has no factual impact on anything. Can he point to a single time where his vote is the one that changed the direction of legislation? What the man does is he talks all about the things people want in economics of the government, and then when it comes time to create legislation he is there porking it up with the rest of them, and better than most in increasing the cost of legislation. Then when it comes time to vote for the bill, he votes no, knowing full well the bill has way more than enough people bought off with pork to pass the massive bill. There is a reason it is called pork, and that is that it is fatty and greases the heaviest most difficult to move legislation out there so that it is able to be passed and placed as a burden on the people, and Ron Paul is there to ensure that the legislation is well greased.

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    The theme of this thread was about how the press wasn’t paying attention to Ron Paul even though he’s doing pretty well as the “underdog”. After some thoughtful reading here I realize something that apparently I repressed. Of the people here that I believe are actually going to vote in the USA: Kuhncat takes the prize for most thought provoking followed by Cwon1, BobC, Roy and I have already shared quite a bit on politics.

    What I repressed isn’t that Ron Paul is treated unfairly, it’s that I have to consider him as the best conservative of the lot! MY MY! I’ve woken up from a dream and find I’m living a nightmare……

    Previously I was just concerned with making sure Obama serves only one term. Now I realize the Republican power brokers (enabled by the left no doubt) have set me up. ALL the candidates stink and for a variety of reasons. Romney is possibly capable but lacks a charismatic spark and is probably the left-most leaner. Santorum has too little experience, not a stellar conservative and too close to the “inside”. Gingrich is likely the smartest (probably since Nixon), but is the consummate insider, heavily loaded with baggage and prone to slip left when it suits him. (Then again, maybe he could actually get something done.) Perry is sunk because of his silly debate errors and the fact that he was a Democrat (in my opinion he was there only to sink Bachmann). I’m beginning to wish that Pawlenty was still in the running (COULD HE BE REVIVED)?

    This leaves me to consider Paul. Smart enough to get through med school, experienced, nice guy, wacky, too old.

    On the subject of wacky lets be real. Recall one wacky wrestler turned governor of Minnesota; Jessy Ventura. I voted for him. I don’t think anyone really thought he’d win, even those that voted for him. It’s just that the other candidates all SUCKED! Sound familiar? In the end the wrestler did pretty well, the State did pretty well and he was far from being the worst governor in Minnesota history.

    Really, the President alone cannot ruin the country. New novel ideas might be just the ticket. Besides, I’m tired of taking it in the chin for policing the world (and paying dearly for it). It would be just fine with me if we became isolationist for 4 to 8 years. Then the rest of the worlds assholes (expressing comments like JMD @67) Could have a hand at doing better. If Iran gets nukes, we’re a safe distance away and we can say “we told you so”. Let the Sunni Shiites kill themselves off that’s the one thing their good at anyway. We’ll be here to mop up the mess if it spills over. Legalizing some drugs certainly can’t end up worse than our present state of full prisons and expensive police futilely fighting an endless battle on our streets all the while we export cash to foreign drug lords.

    In the end, I still won’t care much how this election goes as long as Obama is retired. Lets just please agree on that?

    Happy New Year……..

    00

    • #
      BobC

      Mark D;

      ..it would be just fine with me if we became isolationist for 4 to 8 years. Then the rest of the worlds assholes (expressing comments like JMD @67) Could have a hand at doing better…

      Tempting…

      (JMD’s an idiot: “Freedom is not the prerogative of the USA” ?? Much of the world’s freedom is because of the USA.)

      I would start by pulling all troups out of Europe — let them pay for their own defense (or pay the price of not having one). I’ve been told by a member of Europe’s armed forces (Scandanavian country) that his training focused on holding off an attack for 48 hours — that was how long it would take the US Marines to arrive.

      Hey! BO wants us to become like Europe — lets start by using Europe’s analysis of foreign policy: “What’s in it for us?” You want something from the USA? Pay for it.

      00

      • #
        Mark D.

        Tempting YES! How about pull them out and put them on the Mexican border.

        Much of the wealth attained by Europe since WWII is because we stayed. IMHO left to themselves at that time, Europe would be like the Middle East.

        00

    • #

      America’s Permanent War Economy

      It’s how Seymour Melman (1917 – 2004) characterized it in his books and frequents writings on America’s military-industrial complex. One of his last articles was titled “In the Grip of a Permanent War Economy (CounterPunch, March 15, 2003) in which he said:

      “at the start of the twenty-first century, every major aspect of American life is being shaped by our Permanent War Economy.” He then examined the horrific toll:

      – a de-industrialized nation, the result of decades of shifting production abroad leaving unions and communities “decimated;”

      – government financing and promoting “every kind of war industry and foreign investing by US firms;” war priorities take precedence over essential homeland needs;

      – America’s “Permanent War Economy….has endured since the end of World War II….Since then the US has been at war – somewhere – every year, in Korea, Nicaragua, Vietnam, the Balkans, Afghanistan – all this to the accompaniment of shorter military forays in Africa, Chile, Grenada, Panama,” and increasingly at home against its own people;

      – “how to make war” takes precedence over everything leaving no “public space….on how to improve the quality of our lives;”

      – “Shortages of housing have caused a swelling of the homeless population in every major city (because) State and city governments across the country have become trained to bend to the needs of the military….;” the Chicago Coalition for the Homeless (CCH) currently estimates over 21,000 are on city streets nightly, and during winter months it’s dangerous;

      – the result is a nation of growing millions of poor, disadvantaged, uneducated, and “disconnected from society’s mainstream, restless and unhappy, frustrated, angry, and sad;”

      “State Capitalism” characterizes America’s government – business partnership running a war economy for greater power and wealth at the expense of a nation in decline, corrupted leadership, lost industrialization, crumbling infrastructure, and suffering millions on their own, uncared for, unwanted, ignored, and forgotten.

      Melman stressed that:

      “Further evasion is out of order. We must come to grips with America’s State Capitalism and its Permanent War Economy.” Re-industrialization is essential “to restore jobs and production competence – industry by industry.”

      “Failing that, there is no hope for any constructive exit,” for the nation or its people….’

      http://www.countercurrents.org/lendman010310.htm

      00

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      MarkD,

      On the other hand we have one whacky body builder turned actor who made a complete mess of his tenure in the California Statehouse. Arnold is not very fondly remembered by anyone.

      Which one is Ron Paul?

      00

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        Well, I clicked reply to MarkD. How did I get here?

        00

      • #
        Mark D.

        Good point Roy, and Arnouud went to school very close to here…… I believe he does have a degree of some sort. I’d say the difference is that wrestling is actually work………….

        Arnouud’s big problem was making a Kennedy booty call. He’s scarred for life.

        00

  • #
    pat

    it’s been known for some time, but finally the MSM is admitting it:

    8 Jan: The News Tribune: AP: Paul J. Weber: Paul leads among military donations
    GALVESTON, Texas – An Army reservist who spoke up for Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul while in uniform – and landed in trouble for it – is just one of the soldiers getting behind the Texas congressman’s campaign.
    Plenty of other troops simply send Paul some campaign cash.
    Paul arrived Friday in New Hampshire riding the momentum of a top-three finish in Iowa, a fundraising haul of $13 million in the last quarter and bragging rights of having more donors who list military affiliations than his Republican rivals combined.
    Not among those contributors: Cpl. Jesse Thorsen, who gushed that it was “like meeting a rock star” when he joined Paul on stage wearing his camouflaged fatigues in Iowa this week. That ran afoul of Defense Department rules involving partisan political events, though the military doesn’t prohibit soldiers from giving money to candidates…
    Paul received at least $95,567 from military donors between January and September of last year, the most recent data available, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. That’s nearly seven times what Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum, who edged out Paul in Iowa, collected from military donors combined.
    Retired Army Sgt. Thomas Rutherford, whose campaign contribution of $201 hit the threshold for public disclosure under federal election law, believes soldiers started taking a closer look at Paul’s opposition to U.S. intervention after experiencing it firsthand.
    “He has the firmest grasp on foreign policy of all of them,” said Rutherford, 36. “… In the military, I came to the conclusion that the best way how to do it wasn’t to use the Army.”
    The outsize number of military donors is a badge of honor for the Paul campaign, which has been derisively mocked as the choice of pot smokers, 9/11 conspiracy theorists and idealistic young voters whose wild enthusiasm at campaign stops doesn’t always translate to Election Day turnout.
    http://www.thenewstribune.com/2012/01/07/1972730/paul-leads-among-military-donations.html

    apart from the final para, in particular allegations Paul is a 9/11 conspiracy theorist, which he isn’t, this isn’t a bad piece. of course it should say Paul has been “derisively mocked by the MSM”, and it should link to Paul’s true position re 9/11.

    Thorsen is the soldier who was cut off by CNN when he began to say he agreed with Paul that pre-emptive war is a bad thing, referring to the warmongering on Iran. hope nothing happens to Thorsen for expessing his views.

    00

    • #
      • #
        Roy Hogue

        If one conspiracy theory won’t do then trot out another.

        Kevin, I begin to believe you have a deep seated hatred for the United States. Why is that?

        But I don’t expect an answer. That’s just not in you to give, is it?

        00

        • #
          Mark D.

          Roy, I’m rather sure the lowlife Kevin is trying to bait me with this Wellstone crap. I won’t take is bait but I think it is telling. Just a few posts ago I acknowledged voting in Minnesota. Shortly later “Kevin” posts a very Minnesota conspiracy story. I don’t think that is a coincidence. I have suddenly come to believe that “Kevin” is a professional Astroturfer.

          How ironic that he has now become a part of my conspiracy stories……

          I will respond to him with gusto whenever he posts more propaganda. That is not the same as answering him, it means I’ll OPPOSE him.

          00

    • #

      Roy,

      I don’t hate the people,although it does have it’s fair share of arrogance, I hate the deeds of those in control.

      The United States provides the majority of thinkers who are not subject to the hypnotic control of the media and are aware. However such people are in the minority anywhere, which just seems to be a natural course of events.

      Roy, You haven’t supplied any evidence as to why Senator Wellstone’s plane mysteriously crashed with him and his family aboard plus 2 pilots.Refute the evidence that this was no ordinary plane crash.

      Ron Paul is just as unpopular with the ‘club’ as Wellstone. He would be well advised to keep his plane travel schedules close to his chest. But then,I suppose some would cheer loudly if he did suffer some fatal misfortune.

      00

      • #
        Mark D.

        Kevin Moore posts yet another plea to “prove” his conspiracy is not true.

        There is a clinical name given to the symptoms that Kevin provides ample evidence of.

        It is called Delusional Paranoia.

        00

        • #

          Delusional Paranoia – crikey!

          I didn’t beg Roy, I said refute the evidence. In other words before you send out the lynch mob Roy, check the evidence.

          If the evidence re Wellstone’s plane crash points to foul play, why are you saying that it is a conspiracy theory?

          00

          • #
            Mark D.

            Re: Paul Wellstone, there is NO evidence that points to foul play. Only the “evidence” in your mind. It is a delusion. You post a link to an obvious crap web site as “proof”! Yet again you put up absolute bull shit as some kind of dark revelation. You either have a mission to destroy the credibility of Jo’s site or you really are delusional.

            The real story is that Wellstone has a cult-like following of far leftists. They can’t bear the loss of their god. It is true that today, almost 10 years after his death, you’ll see Wellstone bumper stickers on cars as though he is still running for office.

            What I want to know is why you suddenly selected a Minnesota conspiracy?

            00

          • #

            The reason you can’t find any evidence is because you haven’t looked for any.

            You are so sure of youself that you ridicule anyone who posts here who does not agree with your understanding. What arrogance!

            It is news to me that it is a Minnesota conspiracy – you know more about that than me.

            00

          • #
            Mark D.

            Is it arrogance to have a discerning eye?

            Is it arrogance to insist on more than web links to very fringe sites for “evidence”?

            00

          • #

            I’d rather be wrong and be me than be wrong and be you.

            00

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            Kevin,

            You have no evidence to refute.

            00

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            You still owe me an answer to 69.1.1.1.14.

            00

  • #
    Michael

    For a country at constant war, the US is a mess militarily and intelligence wise- will Ron Paul be able clean that mess up- give the US a clear direction and eliminate the military and intelligence “traitors”- the morons and idiots.
    But then most countries were a mess during wartime especially Second World War with corrupt industrialists and their incompentent military buddies making bad products and bad military structures and decisions e.g. not one torpedo actually worked for the US military.

    00

    • #
      BobC

      Michael
      January 8, 2012 at 7:12 pm · Reply
      … not one torpedo actually worked for the US military.

      Actually, US torpedos had a 70% failure rate for the first 18 months of the war. After the problems were identified and fixed, the failure rate nearly vanished.

      Since you don’t seem to be capable of looking up historical facts on the internet, but make up your own, why should we give any consideration to anything else you say?

      00

  • #
    pat

    so what Edward True said was TRUE. but we won’t let that bother us, will we? such a tiny vote, so many shenanigans, including taking all nite, til americans had gone to bed, to even count them. the full results only went online yesterday. proper scrutiny and recounts would very likely show Ron Paul won this particular Caucus, but we won’t go there:

    6 Jan: DesMoines Register: 2 votes, not 22, to Romney in precinct, county says
    However, a state GOP official is confident the order of finish won’t change in certification
    Mitt Romney received 20 fewer votes than were reported in a Moulton precinct by the Republican Party of Iowa, the Appanoose County GOP chairman said Friday…
    “We stand by the figures that were presented by the Moulton precinct caucus,” said Lyle Brinegar, chairman of the Appanoose County GOP…
    Terri Haub, a Moulton resident who was secretary of the precinct, also confirmed Friday that the count signed in True’s affidavit is accurate. Haub, who works at the Elmer Wood Co. in Moulton, said she checked the numbers twice.
    “I look at numbers all day long. I’m an accountant, and before I sign off on anything, I wanted to double-check it,” Haub said.
    She is certain Santorum won her precinct and said it’s possible that Santorum won the state.
    “It’s all just a little fishy to me,” Haub said…
    However, there is potential for long-term consequences regarding the credibility of the Iowa caucuses, Goldford warned.
    “It reinforces the view from other states that the Iowa caucuses are this unreliable, amateurish event,” Goldford said.
    http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20120107/NEWS09/301070034/1007/NEWS05

    LOL, Mr. Goldford. it ain’t any better in the other States, and i wouldn’t use words like “unreliable” or “amateurish” – try “fraudulent”.

    00

    • #
      Mark D.

      Pat, these “votes” are not conducted through the same process as the official votes in November. There is no oversight other than that provided by and for each political party. They are in fact a sampling of the “winds and tides” of what people are thinking at this moment. These “straw ballots” are not binding, they are how smaller units select delegates to the Republican Convention. “Fraudulent” is a mighty strong and misleading word to be used here.

      00

  • #
    Michael

    No. Republicians don’t like Ron Paul because he is not extreme enough for their tastes- he’s not tea party or rambo or ultrachristian, the fact that he has an excellent chance of winning the Presidency doesn’t enter their calculations. The Media don’t like him because he might upset Obama their beloved leader.

    00

  • #
    BobC

    Michael
    January 9, 2012 at 12:30 pm · Reply
    No. Republicians don’t like Ron Paul because he is not extreme enough for their tastes- he’s not tea party or rambo or ultrachristian

    Yeah, I can tell you’re an “expert” on the US Republican party.

    Perhaps you’re aware that it has historically been the Republican party (ever since it’s inception 157 years ago) that has supported the rights of minority citizens and the Democratic party has opposed them? That, in general, the Republicans have supported personal liberty and the Democrats statism? That the Ku Klux Klan was the para-military force of the Democratic party?

    (Of course you’re not — your “education” has been tightly controlled by leftist propaganda that you’re never managed to rise above. Unlike Mark Twain you’ve let “your schooling interfere with your education”.)

    You know nothing about the Tea Party either, since the Tea Party folks do support Paul in significant numbers, as he reflects their principle of maximizing personal liberty. (Yeah, that’s “extremism” all right — especially to statist Lefties.)

    …the fact that he has an excellent chance of winning the Presidency doesn’t enter their calculations.

    Many people (like myself) admire Ron Paul’s support for liberty but we aren’t ready to try out his extreme brand of isolationism. The memory of WWII is still too strong. (Although, if we have another 10-12 years of Democrats trying to give away national sovereignty, we might be tempted — there seems to be a surge of support among the military.)

    The fact that he is apparently a 911 “Truther” (like many lefties — perhaps you should vote for him) just casts doubt on his intellectual capabilities.

    00

  • #
    pat

    shame on CBS…this makes them look ridiculous:

    Youtube: CBS Omits Ron Paul From Latest New Hampshire Poll
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=z0qPKrwIwPs

    the facts:

    8 Jan: Forbes: Ron Paul Narrows Deficit With Romney In New Hampshire
    Suffolk University/7 News poll published on Saturday had Romney at 35%, down from 40% two days before. Ron Paul, a Texas Congressman, rose to 20% from 17. Undecided voters account for around 15%.
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2012/01/08/romneys-new-hampshire-lead-stable-ron-paul-still-no-2/

    Youtube: MSNBC: Ron Paul Surging in New Hampshire
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKDLFP6a-cU&feature=player_embedded

    00

  • #
    pat

    early exit polls: romney 29%, paul 27%, santorum 12%

    New Hampshire 2012 Primary Jan 10 2012 Exit Poll Results
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JiIUvJ9NoBw&feature=player_embedded

    00

  • #
    pat

    for the record:

    obama democrats voted in the New Hampshire Caucus – their plan was to vote for Huntsman who was Obama’s amb to china, and they did:

    51% of Huntsman voters are satisfied with Obama
    http://www.frequency.com/video/51-of-huntsman-voters-are-satisfied-with/28308666

    Example:
    Guardian New Hampshire Live blog with Richard Adams
    VIDEO: Jamie Feinberg voted for Jon Huntsman this lunchtime, saying she was
    “behind most of his ideas”.
    “I think he’s a moderate candidate who would work to represent the country
    and not just certain interests.”
    Feinberg, 27, who runs a theatre company, said she was “actually fine with
    President Obama, but I figured I’d vote for a Republican candidate that I’d
    be happy with if a Republican could win”.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/10/new-hampshire-primary-day-live?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487

    [Snip is Dieb**old in on the conspiracy? provide evidence or stop posting defamatory garbage]ED

    from the non-partisan BlackBoxVoting website of the truly amazing Bev Harris:

    WHAT’S REALLY GOING ON IN IA, NH, AND SC -
    New Hampshire uses Black Box Voting for over 90% of its votes

    [snip garbage without supporting evidence]ED

    00

  • #
    pat

    Ron Paul’s Fantastic Speech After Taking 2nd In New Hampshire
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJ_sLDWZdc8&feature=player_embedded

    00

  • #
    Kevin Moore

    http://www.theendrun.com/paul-haters-caught-planning-to-dress-up-as-kkk-pose-as-paul-supporters

    “Paul-Haters Caught Planning To Dress Up As KKK, Pose as Paul Supporters”

    00

  • #

    Thanks Kevin. The lengths they will go to to deceive.

    00