It's gonna be soo hilarious to watch Paul backpedal to get the far right's vote once he wins the primary due to people who think that a person's party doesn't reflect their supposed values. Paul's a pro. That is why he seems so different Here's the acid test elect Paul and see if a coup occurs. If it does then evidently i'm wrong, because no president who does what Paul said he will do to improve things would possibly not be Kennedyed.
of course there are different parties. They're both basically pushing for the same end, buut last i checked it's still a two party dictatorship. The last three Republicans at least seem to have done a lot more damage than the past three Democrats to hold office. It's very rare but sometimes politics are exactly how they appear.
Go ahead, write in "Ron Paul" when the time comes. When Giuliani is elected, I'll say "told ya so." I wrote the above, but did so while at work, and on the last two minutes of my break. I hereby retract it on the grounds that it was petty and "smart-assed." To my friends, acquaintances, and others who support Ron Paul: good luck in reforming the Republican Party. I hope you can do it. Personally, I don't believe that a fundamentally evil organization- one whose goals are entirely incompatible with justice and peace- can be reformed. You might as well join the KKK to reform racists, or the AOPA to convince people that flying is reckless and dangerous. First of all, the communications wing of the Republican Party is Fox News. Given their true expertise in disseminating propaganda, you're not likely to get far. Secondly, facts and information are considered harmful by Republicans. Members aren't even permitted to have access to the very facts upon which you must rely for your opinions. For instance: In October 2007, National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell reversed the practice of declassifying and releasing summaries of national intelligence estimates. In July 2007, Richard Carmona, President Bush’s first Surgeon General from 2002-2006, testified to Congress that when he attempted to speak publicly about stem cell research, he was “blocked at every turn, told a decision had already been made, stand down, don’t talk about it.” The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has to date failed to produce a congressionally-mandated report on climate change that was due in 2004. In 2003, the EPA bowed to White House pressure and deleted the global warming section in its annual "Report on the Environment." In October 2007, the administration deleted the Congressional testimony of the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In March of 2006, the administration announced it would no longer produce the Census Bureau’s Survey of Income and Program Participation, which identifies which programs best assist low-income families In 2005, after a government report showed an increase in terrorism around the world, the administration announced it would stop publishing its annual report on international terrorism. After the Bureau of Labor Statistics uncovered discouraging data about factory closings in the U.S., the administration announced it would stop publishing information about factory closings. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced plans to close several libraries which were used by researchers and scientists. The agency called its decision a cost-cutting measure, but a 2004 report showed that the facilities actually brought the EPA a $7.5 million surplus annually. On November 1st, 2001, President Bush issued an executive order limiting the public's access to presidential records. The order undermined the 1978 Presidential Records Act, which required the release of those records after 12 years. A new policy at the The U.S. Forest Service means the agency no longer will generate environmental impact statements for "its long-term plans for America's national forests and grasslands." In 2002, HHS removed information from its Web site pertaining to risky sexual behavior among adolescents, condom use and HIV. In 2004, the FBI attempted to retroactively classify public information regarding the case of bureau whistleblower Sibel Edmonds, including a series of letters between the Justice Department and several senators. The White House Office of National Drug Policy paid for a 5-year, $43 million study which concluded their anti-drug ad campaigns did not work -- but it refused to release those findings to Congress. (SOURCES are documented at http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004766.php and this is just a small sampling of a few chosen arbitrarily. Kudos to Josh Marshall for the resources he's helped to collect and document.) You just cannot make an all-out assault on truth like they have done without collaboration and enthusiastic participation at every level and by very nearly every person involved. And it's not just in cases of withholding information. We've seen Blackwater being "investigated by the State Dept.," when actually Blackwater was given a supply of State Department stationary so that they could, legally, be the US Department of State. Meanwhile, the Inspector General's brother sat on the Blackwater advisory board. Good luck, brothers and sisters, but I assure you that you cannot reform an organization so devoted to killing and imprisoning freedom-loving people like us. By participating in its programs, you just lend it some degree of respectability, and that's one organization that needs to be eliminated by any and all means necessary.
On the other hand, maybe I'm wrong about Ron Paul. I'd really be pleased if this guy turns out to really be with us. Which made me wonder... What if Ron Paul intends to break from the Republican Party, but only hangs on right now for tactical reasons? At what point in the campaign would it be most effective for him to drop out of The Party? At the very last minute? RON PAUL, in ROLLING STONE: "We are now spending close to a trillion dollars a year, when you add up every single thing we do overseas. You could start off easily cutting $100 billion. Bring the troops home, you could save $200 billion the next year. And maybe $250 billion the year after that. "Quit paying to blow up bridges in Iraq and then paying to rebuild them. Bring that money home. Our bridges are falling down. Our levees are falling down. The only way we can get enough money is by stopping this insane foreign policy of running this empire that we can't afford. Policing the world? It's impossible. "I say, just quit it. Let's come home. Bring the troops home. Quit spending the money. Get rid of selective service. Don't have the draft. And no more wars like this. It's a real tragedy and a real black mark on our record." Not a bad summary at all of where we stand. And how about that proposed Kucinich-Paul ticket?
Ron Paul is with us.. the others are what's left[no pun int] of the old school politicians who think we're dumb and lazy. And only want to hear sound bites and cute little phrases like a burger commercial or something.If some one at least speaks one word of truth your a fool not to listen.But then again how will you know the truth when you are stupid?
You are a fool if you can't hear some degree of truth flying at you from all sides right around election time. Paul himself said he's always been a republican. i don't care how many stripes you paint on a horse it's still a horse. It's a public relations operation to make the GOP look good again. let the old bastard (the party) die. don't let the republicans hip it up for you in a pathetic attempt to recruit long term members because the old greedy bastards are dying out.
And you think the Democrat party is any different and actually works in favor of the people? Both horses belong to the same owner, pal. Democrat and Republican are one and the same.
"Democrat and Republican are one and the same" I think we may be about to actually EXPERIENCE that fact. Supposing that RON got the Rep nomination? Supposing DENNIS K. got the dems. Now, you have two people RUNNING AGAINST EACH OTHER who are really on the same side. Obviously. I even heard a rumor (Dennis's wife actually) that if Ron gets in and Dennis doesn't that Dennis might SWITCH and run for VICE PRES. with Ron... THAT would be PROOF, don't you think? And on THAT subject, does anyone know if, in the event that it comes down to Ron and Dennis AGAINST each other, might it be LEGAL FOR THEM TO SIMPLY AGREE TO WORK TOGETHER INSTEAD OF COMPETE...?.
Does everyone think if he had hypothetically won the GOP ticket, that he would hold to all his guns in face of the GOP and Lobbyists? If so, that would be respectable, even though I think his politics would be disastrous.
My personal alternative is to move to Canada, but not really. I suppose I'll do what any American acting in enlightened self interest would do. I'll weigh the issues and try to see through the bullshit, then vote accordingly. I think I can accurately predict at this point that not only will this be the most influential election for this country since 1968, and probably the dirtiest. I totally know what you're saying pressed it takes at least two horses to pull (off) a democratic facade. However in my short lifetime anyone with an R following their name have been the most disgusting, greedy, war mongering who seem to all have one agenda, and tthat is to cater to the ultra rich and totally fuck everyone else. Maybe that's just the part they play in this act. It wasn't that long ago that the Republican party stood for the common man and his interests. It's all very confusing and I think that's the way the great puppetmaster likes it. We're like Mushrooms; fed shit and kept in the dark. Recently I have noticed that the Democratic Party caters more or less to people like me. I guess that's their part, but as long as I don't see reform by more than one member of the Republican party, I refuse to give the bastards my vote. When I hear Ron Paul say he's always been a Republican first and foremost (even while running as a libertarian) shits on his impeccable record right off the bat. Anyone with any integrity will be kept out of the beltway, kept to be made a fool of on a national stage (Colin Powell), or assasinated (Kennedy,Kennedy, Kennedy). There are no seats, chairs, or offices for true freedom fighters. There are only coffins and urns. If you honestly believe Paul is gonna get in there and shake things up, take a long look in the mirror before calling me naive.
Yup, I KNOW Ron Paul will shake things up, because he already is. At this point he has shaken the tree so hard that it will bear fruit regardless of what comes next. He's finding the "on" switch that folks lost a long time ago. Imagine what would happen if he won and then was assassinated! It would be SO OBVIOUS that NOBODY would believe it was the work of a "lone deranged gunman"... Imagine if he OR Dennis K. or both looked seriously like they might win. I mean so seriously that only a fool wouldn't know. Then imagine if Bush declared martial law at the last minute so there could be no election. OR imagine if it was assumed by all that Ron would win due to his standings on EVERY news network and EVERY poll, and then somehow, the election results tally differently. I think the American people would simply loose their cookies AND their cool. Perhaps that would be the beginning of the REAL revolution so many seem to wish for... Whatever happens, things will never be exactly the same.
I don't have to imagine because most Americans don't believe Kennedy was killed by a "deranged lone gunman". I honestly don't see how Ron Paul has done anything aside from making the GOP look like they could possibly be intelligent humans.
most Americans don't believe Kennedy was killed by a "deranged lone gunman". A lot of people saw the movie "JFK" and failed to realize that the movie is largely fiction, and there's very little similarity between the events of the movie and actual events related to the killing. Back in the '70s, a very large percentage of people (myself included) doubted that Oswald acted alone. Authors who wrote about the assassination tended to base their work on other writers' work, without going to the original material to find out if there's even any basis in fact at all. Another of the great "mysteries" of the '70s was the "Bermuda Triangle," which, as it turns out, is simply no mystery at all. However, in recent years, it's been studied quite extensively, and all of the "unexplained mysteries" (many were never mysteries, but were simply based on making wrong assumptions) of the shooting have been quite thoroughly explained and proven beyond any reasonable doubt.
Polls have shown that most Americans DO believe that JFK WASN'T killed by a lone gunman. The myth of Oswald was disproven long ago. Why was JFK killed? For speaking the truth and going against his handlers. They don't have to worry about this with the George Bushes and Hillary Clintons of the world. They do EXACTLY as they're told!
It's not fashionable to talk about it, but there were several witnesses (Harold Norman, Bonnie Ray Williams, and James Jarman, Jr.) in the same building and at the window immediately below Oswald, close enough to hear not only the shots, but the operation of the bolt on the rifle. Another witness (Howard Leslie Brennan) actually saw Oswald firing the weapon from that window. Those close enough to the guy doing the shooting gave testimony that was pretty consistent, and which certainly identifies the specific origin of all of the shots. While it's not 100% certain that Oswald acted entirely alone, there's not much reasonable doubt that he was the only one doing the shooting that day.
