Advertisement

Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

topic posted Sat, November 5, 2011 - 4:01 PM by  Marc
Share/Save/Bookmark
Good Daily Show video on how he is ignored:

goldsilver.com/video/inde...e-top-tier/

He has appeal to both the left (anti-war, anti-expansionist, supporter of social liberties) and the right (smaller government).

I think this excerpt from a piece in the Huffington Post sums it up better then I can:

--
Just as in 2000, Bush hadn't shown his true colors, in 2008, Obama had not either. A vote for either in those years was fair enough. But in 2012, if you vote for the Democratic nominee for president, you better have a moral justification that is SO good that it is a) worth killing innocent people who don't threaten you, b) transferring wealth to the rich and well connected, and c) the complete suspension of your right to privacy and such basic rights as protecting your child from being touched by a government official with the full force of the law behind him as he just follows his orders.

Do I labor the point? Good.

I don't believe that such a justification exists. I'm having difficulty seeing how a Democrat who voted for Obama (whom I supported) for the right reasons in 2008 can in good conscience do so again given that there is another candidate who has been consistent in his opposition to all of these things -- not just in words but in deeds.

If you've read my other pieces, you already know who he is. But if not, you should also know that Ron Paul has voted to let states make their own laws on abortion, gay marriage etc. and to let individuals follow their own social conscience -- even when he disagrees with them (as I disagree with him on some of these issues). In other words, he is consistent in his beliefs in civil liberty.

If you are a Democrat, and you sit tight and vote Democrat again "because you've always been a Democrat" or because you think that some group with which you identity will benefit more from Democrat programs than a Republican one, then that is up to you, and I wish you well. But don't you dare pretend that you are motivated primarily by peace, civil rights or a government that treats people equally.

That Ron Paul, who has been standing up for these principles quietly for half a lifetime, happens to be a member of the Republican party is a lot less important than the principles that we should be voting on. The fact that he is not a party guy should be obvious from his extensive differences in policy from his party and the fact that many think, given his views, he should not run as a Republican at all.

As Dr. Paul often points out, however, we live in a country with a corrupt political party duopoly... and the system is stacked against anyone who would run outside the two party system. So he's doing what he has to do. And so should we as Americans who love peace and freedom. It really isn't complicated.

----

Whole article: www.huffingtonpost.com/robin-...50.html
posted by:
Marc
Los Angeles
Advertisement
  • Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

    Sat, November 5, 2011 - 4:08 PM
    Right now Cain has the the fringe candidate spotlight. Against him Paul will have to work twice as hard just to get noticed!
    • Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

      Sat, November 5, 2011 - 6:36 PM
      i don't really think so. paul has polled consistently in 3rd or 4th place for months now. it wouldn't be a surprise if he ended up winning the nevada caucuses. he definitely won't win in new hampshire, where romney has built up a significant lead. highly unlikely he'll win in iowa either.

      what's a little surprising is how little attention huntsman has been getting. next to romney, he's probably the most moderate candidate, and according to this nytimes article, has the most statistically likely chance to beat obama:
      www.nytimes.com/interactiv...ulator.html
      • Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

        Sun, November 6, 2011 - 4:45 AM
        I think you might give NH more credit for possibly recognizing Paul in time to take appropriate action.

        Yankees don't think like Rednecks.
        • Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

          Sun, November 6, 2011 - 2:17 PM
          is this an argument that ron paul is an unknown quantity in new hampshire? if so, that's a joke.

          www.realclearpolitics.com/epoll...1.html

          romney has been polling consistently in the state since april. he's even been immune to cain's surge the past month. new hampshire is significantly more moderate than both iowa and south carolina, so it's no surprise that the supposed "moderate" candidate is winning the polls.
          • Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

            Sun, November 6, 2011 - 6:09 PM
            Ron Paul isn't the unknown quantity.

            New Hampshire is the unknown quantity.

            Romney could lose his edge there a lot faster than he probably knows.
            • Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

              Mon, November 7, 2011 - 11:10 AM
              <Romney could lose his edge there a lot faster than he probably knows.>

              how? he's been a pretty ineffective candidate up to this point (at least in the sense of creating a huge amount of buzz behind his campaign), basically treading water at 40% in new hampshire and 20% in national polls.

              what could romney possibly do to destroy a 20+ point lead in new hampshire?
            • Unsu...
               

              Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

              Fri, December 2, 2011 - 9:31 PM
              <Ron Paul isn't the unknown quantity.
              New Hampshire is the unknown quantity.
              Romney could lose his edge there a lot faster than he probably knows.>

              The Theforeignbankerelite's mashed-media is FAILING keeping Ron Paul a secretwww.youtube.com/watch
      • Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

        Sun, November 6, 2011 - 10:29 AM
        >>highly unlikely he'll win in iowa either.

        Oh yes, highly unlikely.

        Ron Paul wins both tallies at GOP straw poll in Iowa
        politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/201...owa/

        Ignored? Perhaps that's too absolutist a term. Perhaps "neglected" is more appropriate.

        Ron Paul Media Blackout Confirmed
        www.theatlanticwire.com/politi.../43747/

        Ron Paul scares the shit out of the establishment, he polls well against Obama, and he's the only candidate that can't be pigeonholed. Simple as that.
        • Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

          Sun, November 6, 2011 - 2:11 PM
          mitt romney won the ames straw poll in 2007 with 32% of the vote. the winner of the 2008 iowa caucus was mike huckabee. a victory in the straw polls doesn't guarantee paul will win.

          an even better measure of paul's success in the caucus would be to look at the iowa polls. who is in the lead there? last i checked, paul was running third, behind romney and cain.
          www.usatoday.com/news/poli...50999276/1

          and while i applaud ron paul's win in the illinois straw poll, i'd be surprised if he ended up winning the state in march when the primary is held.
        • Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

          Mon, November 7, 2011 - 10:46 AM
          <<Ron Paul scares the shit out of the establishment, he polls well against Obama

          Obama is beating Paul by a 6% average in the polls.
          • Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

            Mon, November 7, 2011 - 11:21 AM
            ...which is better than any of the other Repubs except Romney, and with maybe about 15% of the exposure that's given to Romney.
            • Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

              Mon, November 7, 2011 - 1:11 PM
              <<which is better than any of the other Repubs except Romney

              True, although I think those national polls are meaningless at this point. And I do think that once the public were to see that Ron Paul wants to dismantle the things most Americans hold dear, his numbers would ultimately end up being in the toilet. Be that as it may, the media is always going to focus on the flavor of the moment, with Paul being old news with his many failed attempts.
              • Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

                Mon, November 7, 2011 - 4:41 PM
                So they're meaningless, but you'll quote their 6% difference.

                You don't speak for "most Americans," and your scare tactics are disingenuous.

                To take a few examples, such as those offered by Gerbil, these are hardly things I "hold dear," or entities whose loss I would mourn:

                Housing and Urban Development

                Unanswered Questions About Andrew Cuomo
                www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL.../S00420.htm
                “HUD is Being Run as a Criminal Enterprise”

                HUD Scandal Exposed
                frobertsworld.blogspot.com/2011....html

                A Republican HUD scandal for a new generation
                crooksandliars.com/2008/02/...eneration

                Newsflash: HUD Scandal Broke Last Fall [2007]
                www.cjr.org/behind_the_n..._broke_la.php

                HUD Scraps Cuomo Remedy for Harlem Housing Scandal
                www.nytimes.com/2001/05/11...candal.html

                HUD Scandals
                www.downsizinggovernment.org/hud...dals



                Department of Education

                International Test Scores: U.S. Not in Top 10 [math: 30th, science: 20th, reading: 17th]
                www.cbn.com/cbnnews/worl...t-in-Top-10-/

                A Short Angry History of American Forced Schooling
                4brevard.com/choice/Public_Education.htm
                (by former NY City and NY State Teacher of the Year, John Taylor Gatto)



                Department of Veterans' Affairs (remember, Ron Paul is also a veteran, and has received more campaign donations from current and former military than any other candidate)

                Fallen Soldiers' Families Denied Cash as Insurers Profit
                www.bloomberg.com/news/2010...rofit.html

                Ol' Walter Reed Hospital
                en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walt...ct_scandal

                Dept. Of Veterans Affairs Scandal
                www.bronx.com/news/usa/641.html

                Two Major Scandals Rock VA’s IT Department
                www.veteransforcommonsense.org/in...ing

                Dayton VA Medical Center Scandal
                www.veteranstoday.com/2011/04...scandal/

                Montana VA Medical Fraud Coverup
                www.veteranstoday.com/2009/07...coverup/

                VA $24 Million Bonus Scandal
                www.veteranstoday.com/2009/08...scandal/

                Whatever high intentions these agencies may proclaim, they generally just serve as a vehicle for fleecing the taxpayer to the benefit of the insiders.

                Flavor of the moment? So we should focus on the other guy who failed in '08? There's nothing "flavor of the moment" about any of the other candidates; quite the contrary, they're all more of the same hacks trying to spin hot air into gold while avoiding issues of any real substance.

                But hey... keep on spinning your "he would do worse if he got fair exposure" nonsense. Everyone's got their excuse about why the most principled, consistent, honest, dynamic, forthright candidate that actually represents a positive change in the status quo should be dismissed and ignored, but election of anyone else currently on the plate will simply mean:

                More imperialism
                More revolving-door corporatism
                More debt (more worthless fiat currency)
                More government-aided corporate looting
                More military spending
                More wars (sorry... I meant Humanitarian Love Bomb Redistribution Campaigns)
                More government encroaching further into citizens' lives
                More erosion of Americans' civil rights

                Of course, if losing the Department of the Interior or some other pet subsidy is more "near and dear" to you than the above, then go ahead and vote for the next stooge of the kleptocracy, be it Obama or Romney or whomever. The country needs real change, not bumpersticker "hope and change" sloganeering that's just vague marketing-speak windowdressing for an establishment water carrier.
                • Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

                  Mon, November 7, 2011 - 5:57 PM
                  <<So they're meaningless, but you'll quote their 6% difference.

                  It is meaningless in the sense that he has to win the GOP nomination to even get a chance to go head to head with Obama.

                  <<You don't speak for "most Americans,"

                  Is it your assertion that in general Americans are familiar with Ron Paul's positions? My experience is that he is barely a blip on most peoples radar, and they are turned off by him once they become aware of the entirety of his position. The only reason he is even 6 points behind Obama is because he is really on par with a generic GOP candidate being that people for the most part don't know what he truly stands for. And Generic GOP candidate is out-polling Paul. But I do wish him luck and do hope that he is their candidate, it would make Obama's reelection a slam dunk.
                • Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

                  Mon, November 7, 2011 - 6:06 PM
                  <<Flavor of the moment? So we should focus on the other guy who failed in '08?

                  I never indicated what we should or should not do, just telling you what IS. Typically the GOP likes to nominate the next runner-up from the last election. If neither you nor Paul agree with what the GOP typically does, he can certainly run as an independent candidate thereby funneling votes from the GOP candidate. As a matter of fact, I would encourage it.

                  <<There's nothing "flavor of the moment" about any of the other candidates

                  Then I guess you are not familiar with what the term actually means.

                  <<they're all more of the same hacks trying to spin hot air into gold while avoiding issues of any real substance.

                  Is it your assertion that a "hack" can't be the flavor of the month? Refer to Sarah Palin for your lesson plan.

                  <<But hey... keep on spinning your "he would do worse if he got fair exposure" nonsense.

                  No spin about it being that I am aware of what policies the general electorate supports, Americans are not interested in going backwards and partying like it is 1899.

                  <<Everyone's got their excuse about why the most principled, consistent, honest, dynamic, forthright candidate that actually represents a positive change in the status quo should be dismissed and ignored

                  Your opinion as to what would constitute positive change is just that, opinion, not fact.

                  <<Of course, if losing the Department of the Interior

                  Why focus on the DOI and not the other important and necessary things that Paul opposes and Americans hold dear? I respect Paul in that he walks the walk in regards to his ideology. The problem for me is that I am not a libertarian, I am a progressive, and subsequently him and I have differing views about what constitutes positive change. I will not vote against my conscience, simple as that.
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.

                    Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

                    Tue, November 8, 2011 - 1:10 PM
                    >>Is it your assertion that in general Americans are familiar with Ron Paul's positions?

                    That's not my assertion, and only your warped mental gymnastics could construe it as such.

                    On the other hand, it *is* apparently *your* assertion that you speak for "most Americans," and can attest to what they "hold dear."

                    >>My experience is that he is barely a blip on most peoples radar, and they are turned off by him once they become aware of the entirety of his position.

                    Sure... is that once you throw them all your "1899" scare tactic BS?

                    >>The only reason he is even 6 points behind Obama is because he is really on par with a generic GOP candidate being that people for the most part don't know what he truly stands for.

                    And now you assert that you also hold devine insight into what his supporters know or don't know, as well as a devine insight into the "only reason" he polls as he does.

                    >>But I do wish him luck and do hope that he is their candidate, it would make Obama's reelection a slam dunk.

                    A slam dunk into the spinning toilet.

                    But hey... thanks for that reminder that you're just an Obama cheerleader. Why your opinions should be considered anything less than blind pro-Obama spin is anyone's guess.

                    >>funneling votes from the GOP candidate. As a matter of fact, I would encourage it.

                    Unless Obama lost, in which case you'd be blaming Paul for funneling Democratic votes (which he would).

                    >>Is it your assertion that a "hack" can't be the flavor of the month? Refer to Sarah Palin for your lesson plan.

                    The media doesn't lavish this attention because these candidates are "flavors of the month," the media and their establishment party cohorts periodically prop them up *as* the flavor of the month, and then ride the circus pony to avoid focusing on anything important or anyone with something significant to say.

                    >>No spin about it being that I am aware of what policies the general electorate supports

                    Well hot diggity, you've just got your finger on the pulse of America, doncha fella?

                    >>Your opinion as to what would constitute positive change is just that, opinion, not fact.

                    And your opinions about *anything* are just that. I'm not the one saying "I know what Americans hold dear, and I know they'd hate Ron Paul if he ever got fair coverage."

                    >>Why focus on the DOI and not the other important and necessary things that Paul opposes and Americans hold dear?

                    I "focused" on the DOI? Um... okay? I would have said the VA got the worst of it, but hey, Jeff says it was the DOI.

                    I do find it amusing how you didn't quote the last part of my paragraph:

                    "The country needs real change, not bumpersticker "hope and change" sloganeering that's just vague marketing-speak windowdressing for an establishment water carrier."

                    I just happen to find it interesting because the so much of what you post has the look of "vague marketing-speak windowdressing" "bumpersticker sloganeering."

                    In the "Sharia" thread, you used the phrase "the jury is still out" no less than twenty times, many of those times improperly capitalizing "jury" (which is a penchant of yours, needlessly and improperly capitalizing common nouns, kinda like on a bumper sticker). Bumper sticker: "Is Libya Worse Off? The Jury Is Still Out!"

                    Similarly, in reference to Ron Paul you constantly repeat the same phrases, such as "party like it's 1899" and "programs Americans hold dear." Bumper stickers: "Ron Paul: Wants to Party Like It's 1899," "Ron Paul: Wants to Destroy What You Hold Most Dear"

                    Way to push those talking points.

                    >>I will not vote against my conscience, simple as that.

                    Whoa, you're like... so deep... so principled... or something.

                    A few things that apparently do not go against Jeff's conscience:
                    More world-police imperialism
                    More revolving-door corporatism
                    More debt (more worthless fiat currency)
                    More government-aided corporate looting
                    More military spending
                    More wars (sorry... I meant Humanitarian Love Bomb Redistribution Campaigns)
                    More DHS encroaching further into citizens' lives
                    More drug war spending and imprisonment
                    More erosion of Americans' civil rights
                    • Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

                      Wed, November 9, 2011 - 4:51 PM
                      <<>>Is it your assertion that in general Americans are familiar with Ron Paul's positions?

                      That's not my assertion, and only your warped mental gymnastics could construe it as such. <<

                      I am just trying to understand your position Abraxas being that you are consistently vague. It is my belief that most Americans are not familiar with Ron Paul's positions, and you were seemingly antogonistic to my conclusion. So I think my question is appropriate as opposed to somehow being "warped" being that I am trying to nail down what YOU think. Do you think that Americans are familiar with Ron Paul's positions? What do YOU think?

                      <<Sure... is that once you throw them all your "1899" scare tactic BS?

                      That is an erroneous assumption. All I have to do is send them to his web site and voting record so they can see for themselves.

                      <<And now you assert that you also hold devine insight into what his supporters know or don't know, as well as a devine insight into the "only reason" he polls as he does.

                      Yet another erroneous assertion, I claimed no such divine insight, I simply told you my opinion. What is your opinion regarding the electorates knowledge of Ron Paul?

                      <<But hey... thanks for that reminder that you're just an Obama cheerleader.

                      You are speaking as if it is an outrageous opinion to think Obama could beat your own dear leader. Your pissy, defensive, and reactionary response speaks volumes about your love affair with your own dear leader.

                      <<Unless Obama lost, in which case you'd be blaming Paul for funneling Democratic votes (which he would).

                      Now this is a REAL example of a person claiming divine knowledge, with you pretending to have knowledge as to what I would say in the future. My opinion is that Paul would funnel more Republican votes being that he is a Libertarian. Not really an outrageous opinion, so I am once again bewildered at your pissy and defensive response.

                      <<The media doesn't lavish this attention because these candidates are "flavors of the month," the media and their establishment party cohorts periodically prop them up *as* the flavor of the month

                      I never denied media complicity in the "flavor of the month" creation, just telling you what is. Pay attention.

                      <<A few things that apparently do not go against Jeff's conscience:

                      The rest of your post is nothing more than pissy and reflexive lashing out. For instance, I support cutting the military, not increasing it. I support pulling out of war and ending our occupation of both Iraq and Afghanistan. I support increasing regulations on corporations and banks (unlike Paul). I also support continuing to work toward decreasing our debt. But feel free to have a debate in your head that does not exist. If you want to have a real conversation hit me up, otherwise take a breather and wipe ther spittle off your face so you can think straight.
                • Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

                  Mon, November 7, 2011 - 10:04 PM
                  he's been a part of every nationally televised debate that has aired so far, so i don't think the argument that he hasn't had a lot of exposure holds much water. has he not had as much time during the debates to posit his ideas? probably, but that's because it's only normal for the media to focus on the leaders rather than the outliers. whether you want to argue that they are in the lead by creation of the media is up to you.

                  breakdown of statistics from the bloomberg/washington post debate:
                  www.dawnoftheweak.com/2011/10...ate.html

                  breakdown of statistics from the cnn debate:
                  www.dawnoftheweak.com/2011/10...-10.html

                  breakdown of statistics from the msnbc/politico debate:
                  www.dawnoftheweak.com/2011/09...ate.html

                  quantitatively, ron paul has gotten the third most time in two of those debates. qualitatively, they may not be on par with several of the other candidates.

                  a quick experiment that's totally unscientific:
                  # of google news hits each candidate received as of 11/8/2011 at 12:00 am:

                  ron paul = 9,510 results
                  mitt romney = 14,400 results
                  newt gingrich = 5,590 results
                  rick santorum = 3,990 results
                  herman cain = 22,600 results
                  michelle bachmann = 8,410 results
                  jon huntsman = 3,990 results
                  rick perry = 13,300 results

                  quantitatively, he's about where he is in the polls though the quality of many of those pieces, plus duplications, may inflate some of the numbers for all candidates. rick perry has an inflated number for his position in many polls. i didn't limit a time frame and i'm not exactly sure how far back google news goes so it would be interesting to see a week by week cataloging of stories per candidate.
              • Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

                Mon, November 7, 2011 - 4:44 PM
                "True, although I think those national polls are meaningless at this point"

                odd, being that you were just citing them as if they had some importance...
                • Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

                  Mon, November 7, 2011 - 6:07 PM
                  It is meaningless for Paul being that he has to actually get the GOP nomination first. Without having the nomination, the poll is meaningless. Assuming Paul were to get the nomination, Abraxas is seemingly indicating that he would give Obama a run for his money. Under that assumption, Paul is doing worse than a generic GOP candidate.
              • Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

                Tue, November 8, 2011 - 12:54 AM
                "And I do think that once the public were to see that Ron Paul wants to dismantle the things most Americans hold dear"

                He is talking about reform or elimination of inefficient bureaucracies that cost taxpayers money. And I'd argue that much of the public doesn't hold many of those departments dear to them.
                • Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

                  Tue, November 8, 2011 - 11:25 AM
                  Most Americans want them to be more efficient, but most do not want them dismantled. He is anti-social security and anti-medicare, that is a loser right there. He is also anti-regulation, and the public clearly wants more regulations on the banks. Let alone the issue of contamination and pollution. Can one say that the EPA could be more efficient? Absolutely. But to end environmental protections and the cleanup of our enviroment? Non-starter.
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.

                    Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

                    Fri, November 11, 2011 - 8:23 PM
                    Regarding social security,


                    www.ontheissues.org/2008/Ron...urity.htm

                    Below is a good letter he wrote about it in 2004. He wants to allow people to opt out of it, not totally dismantle it, which seems a lot less scary.

                    ---

                    Social Security: House of Cards

                    by Rep. Ron Paul, MD

                    President Bush should be commended for promising to address the looming Social Security crisis during his second term, a crisis that Congress and successive presidents have ignored for decades. Hopefully Americans will realize that the notion of Social Security as an insurance program is a lie, and that Congress has not put their Social Security contributions into any trust fund.

                    Most Americans already know that Social Security is in trouble. Demographic shifts and an aging population have undermined the unspoken foundation of the system, which is the practice of taxing younger generations to pay benefits for current retirees. Younger generations, however, simply aren't big enough to pay for the millions of baby boomers who will begin retiring in the next decade. When Social Security began in the 1930s, many Americans never reached age 65. Today, however, millions of retirees live well into their eighties and nineties. These realities mean the current system could collapse in as little as twenty to thirty years.

                    Seniors hope the system will hold together for the remainder of their lives, while younger working people hope government will somehow fix things before they retire. Not surprisingly, Congress has chosen to ignore the problem until it becomes acute. It's hard to sell voters on austerity today to avoid a relatively distant crisis. Politicians usually operate on the opposite principle, by promising great things now and leaving the bills for others to pay later.

                    The greatest threat to your Social Security retirement funds is Congress itself. Congress has never required that Social Security tax dollars be kept separate from general revenues. In fact, the Social Security “trust fund” is not a trust fund at all. The dollars taken out of your paycheck are not deposited into an account to be paid to you later. On the contrary, they are spent immediately to pay current benefits, and to fund completely unrelated federal programs. Your Social Security administration “account” is nothing more than an IOU, a hopeful promise that enough younger taxpayers will be around to pay your benefits later. Decades of spendthrift congresses have turned the Social Security system into a giant Ponzi scheme, always dependent on new generations. The size and longevity of the Baby Boom generation, however, will finally collapse the house of cards.

                    We've all heard proposals for “privatizing” the Social Security system. The best private solution, of course, is simply to allow the American people to keep more of their paychecks and invest for retirement as they see fit. But putting Social Security funds into government-approved investments could have dangerous consequences. Private companies would become a partner of sorts with the government. Individuals still would not truly own their invested Social Security funds. Payroll taxes likely would be raised to cover payments to current beneficiaries, as the President alluded to when warning us that fixing Social Security would be “costly.”

                    Furthermore, who would decide what stocks, bonds, mutual funds, or other investment vehicles deserve government approval? Which politicians would you trust to build an investment portfolio with billions of your Social Security dollars? The federal government has proven itself incapable of good money management, and permitting politicians and bureaucrats to make investment decisions would result in unscrupulous lobbying for venture capital. Large campaign contributors and private interests of every conceivable type would seek to have their favored investments approved by the government. In a free market, an underperforming or troubled company suffers a decrease in its stock price, forcing it either to improve or lose value. Wary investors hesitate to buy its stock after the price falls. If a company successfully lobbied Congress, however, it would enjoy a large investment of your tax dollars. This investment would cause an artificial increase in its stock price, deceiving private investors and unfairly harming the company's honest competition. Government-managed investment of tax dollars in the private market is a recipe for corruption and fiscal irresponsibility.

                    The Social Security crisis is a spending crisis. The program could be saved tomorrow if Congress simply would stop spending so much money, apply even 10% of the bloated federal budget to a real trust fund, and begin saving your contributions to earn simple interest. That this simple approach seems impossible speaks volumes about the inability of Congress to cut spending no matter what the circumstances.

                    November 9, 2004
    • Unsu...
       

      Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

      Wed, November 23, 2011 - 5:13 PM
      <Right now Cain has the the fringe candidate spotlight. Against him Paul will have to work twice as hard just to get noticed!>


      Unions are noticing. Are they thinking Ron Paul message?
      'Nobody can screw you like your friends,' says AFL-CIO Metal Trades Department President Ronald Ault. 'We had better labor relations under [Bush appointed-DOE Secretary] Sam Bodman than [President Obama's DOE Secretary Steven] Chu."
      inthesetimes.com/article/1...ansas_city


  • Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

    Sat, November 5, 2011 - 6:23 PM
    probably because his policy appeals to the left are directly opposed to what those on the right believe and vice versa.

    abolishing the department of education, hud, veterans affairs doesn't sound like a good policy to me.

    he's not totally ignored:
    www.slate.com/articles/ne...nevada_.html
    • Unsu...
       

      Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

      Fri, November 11, 2011 - 1:11 AM
      Why abolishing the department of education?

      A WHISTLEBLOWER'S ACCOUNT

      Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt, former Senior Policy Advisor in the U.S. Department of Education, blew the whistle in the `80s on government activities withheld from the public. Her inside knowledge will help you protect your children from controversial methods and programs. In this book you will discover:

      *

      -how good teachers across America have been forced to use controversial, non-academic me

      *

      -how "school choice" is being used to further dangerous reform goals, and how home schooling and private education are especially vulnerable.

      *

      -how workforce training (school-to-work) is an essential part of an overall plan for a global economy, and how this plan will shortcircuit your child's future career plans and opportunities.

      *

      -how the international, national, regional, state and local agendas for education reform are all interconnected and have been for decades.

      deliberatedumbingdown.com/pages...k.html
      deliberatedumbingdown.com/index.html
      deliberatedumbingdown.com/pages/book.htm
  • Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

    Sat, November 5, 2011 - 9:06 PM
    www.suntimes.com/news/poli...inois.html
    Texas congressman Ron Paul won a statewide straw poll that sought to determine Illinois voters’ unofficial preference for the GOP presidential nomination, the Illinois Republican Party said Saturday night.

    Paul won the poll with 52 percent of the vote. He won in both online and total votes.

    Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney carried Illinois’ in-person voting with 35 percent of the vote.

    The Illinois straw poll — at 3,649 votes — surpassed such large states as Ohio, Florida and California that held straw polls earlier this year.

    “Today’s straw poll was an excellent opportunity to showcase our party’s strength one year out of the election,” Illinois Republican Party Chairman Pat Brady said in a statement. “I am pleased with today’s turnout and look forward to building on our successes from 2010.”

    Online voting started Oct. 29 and paper balloting went on throughout the day Saturday at about two dozen sites across Illinois. By Saturday morning, 2,400 online ballots had been filed.

    Any Illinois voter could cast a ballot in the GOP straw poll with a $5 contribution to the state party. Other candidates on the ballot were: Michelle Bachman, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, John Huntsman, Rick Perry and Rick Santorum.

    “I congratulate Congressman Paul on his victory,” Brady said. “It is clear Illinois Republicans are gearing up (for a) tremendous election year in 2012.”

    The Illinois primary is March 20. Illinois is considered a state with much Democratic support. The state’s electoral votes in 2008 went to President Barack Obama, who is a former U.S. senator and state senator from Illinois.

    Herman Cain won a tea party straw poll last month in suburban Chicago, receiving 77 percent of votes from TeaCon 2011 participants. The convention included representatives from tea party groups in Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri and Wisconsin.

    Copyright 2011 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
    • Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

      Mon, November 7, 2011 - 2:01 PM
      If Paul wins or comes close to winning a major primary, we will of course find the fickle lens of the media paying closer attention to him...
      • Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

        Mon, November 7, 2011 - 3:20 PM
        And then they will find out he wants to party like it is 1899!
        • Unsu...
           

          Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

          Sat, November 12, 2011 - 1:24 AM
          And then they will find out he wants to party like it is 1899!

          Yes, some young people, some military agree with Ron Paul message about liberty and want to party to end the fed, end the wars, let too big to fail fail, null the police state. *)
          www.youtube.com/watch

          What voters love state control, love war, love the fed, love too big to fail, love the police state.?
      • Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

        Mon, November 7, 2011 - 9:50 PM
        keep your eyes on vegas. that seems like it's going to be his best bet.
        • Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

          Tue, November 22, 2011 - 12:37 PM
          he may win some of the early states and draw some attention to himself, but it's highly unlikely that the "super tuesday" states will fall as a majority to him.

          what would be really interesting is if at the convention, many of the delegates rebel and switch their support to paul. i doubt that would ever happen, but you can always wish for political drama. (see: 1876 republican national convention)
          • Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

            Tue, November 22, 2011 - 12:48 PM
            <<see: 1876 republican national convention

            You can also see 1876 for many of Ron Pauls proposals. :)
            • Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

              Tue, November 22, 2011 - 12:54 PM
              I actually don't agree with many of his positions, but is probably a mainstream candidate I would vote for, if for no other reason he seems willing to actually initiate reforms, as opposed to simply talking about them, then passing mediocre legislation, that simply appears to be reform
  • Unsu...
     

    Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

    Fri, November 11, 2011 - 12:55 AM
    Who are not ignoring Ron Paul? some soldiers at Fort Bliss, El Paso, Texas.
    The location was chosen because Fort Bliss has a strong financial literacy program that the Fed wants to spotlight. Bernanke has held a handful of public outreach efforts throughout the country.

    It seems financial literacy is healthy among the soldiers who supported one Republican candidate and who asked a question to Bernake about end the fed.

    www.c-span.org/Events/Ber...0737425381/

    Video list: Bernanke Town Hall Meeting
  • Unsu...
     

    Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

    Tue, November 22, 2011 - 12:26 AM
    Why is Ron Paul being ignored by the mainstream press? He is heading for a landslide.
    Ron Paul is not ignored by Former Bush Voters Could Determine Outcome of 2012 Presidential Elections. :)

    www.psypost.org/2010/08/fo...ctions-1403
    • Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

      Tue, November 22, 2011 - 11:32 AM
      I hope he does win the GOP nomination, in large part because it will ensure an Obama win. Ron Pauls views are the fringe of American society.

      1.) Believes that Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are unconstitutional

      2.) Wants to abolish half of all federal agencies, including the departments of Energy, Education, Agriculture, Commerce, Health and Human Services, and Labor.

      3.) Enable State Extremism: Would let states set their own policies on abortion, gay marriage, prayer in school, and most other issues.

      4.) Protect Sexual Predators' Privacy: Voted against requiring operators of wi-fi networks who discover the transmission of child porn and other forms online sex predation to report it to the government.

      5.) Keep Monopolies Intact: Opposes federal antitrust legislation, calling it "much more harmful than helpful." Thinks that monopolies can be controlled by protecting "the concept of the voluntary contract."

      6.) Stop Policing the Environment: Believes that climate change is no big deal and the Environmental Protection Agency is unnecessary. Most environmental problems can be addressed by enforcing private-property rights. Paul also thinks that interstate issues such as air pollution are best dealt with through compacts between states.

      7.) Would not have voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because it was a "massive violation of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of a free society."

      8.) Let Markets Care for the Disabled: "The ADA should have never been passed," Paul says. The treatment of the handicapped should be determined by the free market.

      9.) First, Do Harm: Wants to end birthright citizenship. Believes that emergency rooms should have the right to turn away illegal immigrants.
      reply to this post
      • Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

        Tue, November 22, 2011 - 1:06 PM
        Whatever you say, plagiarist.

        motherjones.com/mojo/2011/...sident-2012

        On the plus side, it saves me from having to call out all your bullshit myself.

        ronpaulcc2012.blogspot.com/2011....html

        If Paul gets the nomination, the only thing that will ensure an Obama win will be election fraud.
        • Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

          Tue, November 22, 2011 - 1:11 PM
          <<Whatever you say, plagiarist.

          Obviously I got the information from somewhere, if the best you got is that I forgot to post the link, then have at it buddy. It changes nothing regarding the anti-progressive agenda of Ron Paul, and in reality is not much more than a diversion from those positions. I posted the positions he holds that I disagree with, and because of these positions I would not vote for him. Deal with it.

          <<If Paul gets the nomination, the only thing that will ensure an Obama win will be election fraud.

          Is that assertion based on something other than your fervent Ron Paul worship?
          • Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

            Tue, November 22, 2011 - 1:32 PM
            Ahahaha... do they call you Jeff the Sneaker Pimp? Because you sure do spin spin, sugar.

            "Forgot to post the link..." yeah, you tend to do that now and then, plagiarist. Oddly enough I don't believe I've ever seen a follow-up post saying "oops, here's the link," unless someone calls you out on it (and I know that you know you can hit the back button and edit a post). Maybe if you weren't in such a blind hurry to demonize the only candidate that's not a bought and paid for shill (including the incumbent), you wouldn't "forget" (*wink*) such things.
            • Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

              Tue, November 22, 2011 - 1:41 PM
              <<Ahahaha... do they call you Jeff the Sneaker Pimp? Because you sure do spin spin, sugar.

              Now that is a REAL example of a trolling comment. And the insult is really sub-par being that "sneaker pimp" and "spin" or "sugar" are not even seemingly related.

              Now, if you would like to discuss Ron Pauls positions like an adult, I would be more than happy to. But if you are going to do nothing but be reflexively pissy at anyone that disagrees with your hero, then there is really no point. So how about it? Care to discuss Paul instead of constantly trying to make it about me?

              <<"Forgot to post the link..." yeah, you tend to do that now and then, plagiarist.

              Yes, it may happen a couple of times over the course of all of the years I have been on tribe, so sue me. How about addressing the subject rather than trying to personalize the discussion?

              <<Oddly enough I don't believe I've ever seen a follow-up post saying "oops, here's the link,"

              I most certainly have. You are not in a position to have seen every post of mine over the course of the many years I have been on tribe debating politics. So to pretend that you are all-knowing is rather odd, it is nothing more than a diversion from Ron Pauls anti-progressive agenda.

              <<Maybe if you weren't in such a blind hurry to demonize the only candidate that's not a bought and paid for shill

              How can I be demonizing Ron Paul by posting his actual positions? For instance, I don't give a rats ass if he would eviscerate Social Security slowly or not, I still oppose that position. Not everyone agrees with your candidate, deal with it.

              <<(*wink*)

              Are you flirting with me? Must be my eyes.....*blink blink*. :)~
              • Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

                Tue, November 22, 2011 - 5:43 PM
                >>Now that is a REAL example of a trolling comment.

                Maybe... if you're totally oblivious to what the definition of trolling is.

                >>And the insult is really sub-par being that "sneaker pimp" and "spin" or "sugar" are not even seemingly related.

                You're a musician and you don't get the reference? Wow dude.

                >>Now, if you would like to discuss Ron Pauls positions like an adult, I would be more than happy to.

                No you wouldn't. You'd rather post biased bullshit spin.

                >>Care to discuss Paul instead of constantly trying to make it about me?

                Hey bubbala... you plagiarized... sorry, I mean posted someone else's work without acknowledging the original author (there's a difference, I *swear*!), and I posted a link to a point by point rebuttal. So ball's in your court. If I spammed the whole 20-page rebuttal without crediting the author, would that make you more inclined to address said rebuttal?

                >>Yes, it may happen a couple of times over the course of all of the years I have been on tribe, so sue me.

                Now check this shit out... this is funny. So I was doing some searching to try and see if you posted this exact same thing before and didn't credit the author ("reply to this post" being an indicator), and while I didn't find an identical previous post in my 60 second search, I did find this: uspolitics.tribe.net/thread/...cf931cab

                Hm... no credit given to anyone else. Jeff must have come up with all this on his own, right? Hm...

                Well, not points 10 through 19 at least. They can be found, *verbatim,* here: peoplesworld.org/why-progr...-ron-paul/ (point 20 got a minor edit). I'm sure just another case of "forgetting" to tell everyone how you lifted someone else's essay and converted its contents word for word into bullet points, without crediting the author.

                >>I most certainly have. You are not in a position to have seen every post of mine over the course of the many years I have been on tribe debating politics.

                Well then it's a good thing I said "Oddly enough **I don't believe I've ever seen** a follow-up post saying "oops, here's the link." So claiming that I am "pretending that I am all knowing" is, what's the term... ah yes, "illogical."

                >>How can I be demonizing Ron Paul by posting his actual positions?

                Well, if that's what you call "posting his actual positions," then I assume you will agree that Barack Obama supports the murder of Americans and their children. After all, he did order the extra-judicial murder of an American citizen and his child. (hey, I'll even cut him some slack... we can just agree that Barack Obama supports the murder of Americans and the involuntary manslaughter of their children)
                • Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

                  Tue, November 22, 2011 - 5:49 PM
                  <<Maybe... if you're totally oblivious to what trolling is.

                  It is clear that you are oblivious, you can't just fling out the term at every juncture, logic be damned.

                  <<You're a musician and you don't get the reference?

                  Sorry, I am not up on the Sneaker Pimp songs.

                  <<>>Now, if you would like to discuss Ron Pauls positions like an adult, I would be more than happy to.

                  No you wouldn't. You'd rather post biased bullshit spin. <<

                  We all have our biases, including you Abraxas. Simply having a bias is not childish. Constant personal attacks are childish. Choose your path wisely, it is a reflection on you.
                • Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

                  Tue, November 22, 2011 - 5:54 PM
                  <<Jeff must have come up with all this on his own, right?

                  Obviously information does not just pop in to my head via telekenisis, it has to come from somewhere. Kudos to for finding two instances where I am lacking a link. Bravo littler feller.

                  <<Well, if that's what you call "posting his actual positions

                  I scanned your Ron Paul Propaganda site and did not find it convincing. Does the fact that he wants to end Social Security slowly mean he does not want to end social security? Of course not. He still opposes Social Security, still wants to end it, in addition to his many other varying Libertarian positions that are clearly anit-progressive. If we are talking things like war and pot, Libertarian positions are progressive. Many other issues not so much. I am not a Libertarain and I am not a conservative, deal with it.
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.

                    Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

                    Tue, November 22, 2011 - 7:39 PM
                    >>It is clear that you are oblivious, you can't just fling out the term at every juncture, logic be damned.

                    Stop trolling at every juncture, and I won't have to.

                    >>Sorry, I am not up on the Sneaker Pimp songs.

                    Well you should check em out.

                    >>We all have our biases, including you Abraxas

                    Yet one can be biased without posting bullshit spin. One can be biased and still be intellectually honest.

                    >>Constant personal attacks are childish. Choose your path wisely, it is a reflection on you.

                    Mm hmm. But all your "little feller" comments and the like aren't personal attacks, are they. No no, they're very upright and proper and all in the spirit of honest debate.

                    As far as it being a reflection on me, I'm not too concerned. There are a number of people on this tribe that have already indicated that they see through your smarmy little act, and all I've got are some people disagreeing with my positions, as well as many agreeing, which is sort of the point of any discussion group. Perhaps it's because at least I'm up front in my opinions and arguments, and show a degree of understanding and thoughtfulness on the issues I discuss, as opposed to superficial political spin, and I confront statements directly without resorting to semantic static to derail conversations, and if I want to talk shit or call someone out I do it pretty direct, not with sissy trolling bullshit and idiotic quasi-semantics (even the mod called "fail" on your "lol vs haha" foolishness). Despite whatever illusion you've built in your head, you're not really fooling anyone.

                    And of course there's my charming rapier wit. Some might even say it's the rapiest wit on the tribe.

                    Yuk yuk.

                    >>Obviously information does not just pop in to my head via telekenisis, it has to come from somewhere.

                    Via telekinesis? Would that be like Doctor Xavier using his psycho-flexitive powers to throw books at your head? Oh, maybe you mean telepathy. See, spelling, capitalization, and proper use of words and terms is also a "reflection on you," despite what the somewhat lazy grammatical culture of the internet may have you believe (not using caps at all is one thing, but improperly capitalizing stuff like Government, Democracy, and Environmental Engineering Company is just stupid).

                    Regardless, to claim that "information has to come from somewhere" is some sort of excuse for plagiarism is a pretty bold (read "pathetic") defense. Not only did you "forget" the link, you edited their essay into the second half of your own list of bullet points. A far cry from just "forgetting" a link.

                    >>Kudos to for finding two instances where I am lacking a link.

                    As you said, I haven't been able to see every post you've made over the course of the years, so the chances are that there are more such instances (and you kind of admitted as much when you said, "it may happen a couple of times over the course of all of the years," and I've just pointed out "a couple of times" in the last three months just on the one topic).

                    >>I scanned your Ron Paul Propaganda site and did not find it convincing.

                    Of course you didn't, you're an Obama shill.

                    >>If we are talking things like war and pot, Libertarian positions are progressive.

                    Non-interventionalism and personal liberty are just as often considered conservative, but whatever, that's why I generally prefer to eschew political labels.

                    >>I am not a Libertarain and I am not a conservative, deal with it.

                    Oh no, I gotcha, you're a spin doctor for the warmonger Wall Street candidate that supports the murder of American citizens and their children. No confusion here.
                    • Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

                      Wed, November 23, 2011 - 10:54 AM
                      <<Yet one can be biased without posting bullshit spin.

                      No spin involved. Does Ron Paul think Social Security is unconstitutional? Yes. Does he want to end Social Security? Yes. Where is the spin?

                      <<Mm hmm. But all your "little feller" comments and the like aren't personal attacks

                      I am not constantly barraging you with such comments, I don't rely on them to prop up my arguments. Let your arguments stand on their own two feet.

                      <<There are a number of people on this tribe that have already indicated that they see through your smarmy little act,

                      Yeah, the very same people that are the worst offenders regarding personal attacks, go figure.

                      <<as opposed to superficial political spin

                      You illogically fling out the word "spin" when you don't have an answer to my points. For instance, where is the spin on Ron Pauls position regarding Social Security?

                      <<Some might even say it's the rapiest wit on the tribe.

                      Not even close. That distinction would fall to Rockstar, you are at the bottom of that list. Snarky and vitriolic posts alone do not = humor.

                      <<As you said, I haven't been able to see every post you've made over the course of the years

                      Same goes for you, given the tools and time I am ceratain I could find similar mistakes. A lot of us are posting on the fly, and/or multi-tasking. Deal with it.

                      <<Of course you didn't, you're an Obama shill.

                      See what I mean? Your reliance on name calling and personal denigration speaks volumes. If you let your points stand on their own two feet, as opposed to propping them up with a constant barrage of insults, your arguments would collapse. Care to try?

                      <<Oh no, I gotcha, you're a spin doctor

                      Point proven.














                      • Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

                        Wed, November 23, 2011 - 5:02 PM
                        >>No spin involved. Does Ron Paul think Social Security is unconstitutional? Yes. Does he want to end Social Security? Yes. Where is the spin?

                        The spin is the scaremongering that he's going to do away with SS, when, as Marc said, he advocates an opt-out policy.

                        >>I am not constantly barraging you with such comments, I don't rely on them to prop up my arguments. Let your arguments stand on their own two feet.

                        I do. My insults are for entertainment value, and aren't used to "prop up arguments." Also, accurately pointing out instances of hypocrisy and plagiarism are not "insults," they are statements of fact, and are meant to highlight your own dishonest methods of "debate."

                        >>Yeah, the very same people that are the worst offenders regarding personal attacks, go figure.

                        Um... no nice try. Among others, I didn't know Gerbil was one of the "worst offenders."

                        >>You illogically fling out the word "spin" when you don't have an answer to my points. For instance, where is the spin on Ron Pauls position regarding Social Security?

                        You illogically fling out the word "illogical" when you don't have any answer to my points.

                        >>That distinction would fall to Rockstar, you are at the bottom of that list. Snarky and vitriolic posts alone do not = humor.

                        Pffft... yeah, he's been a real laugh riot lately. No, snarky and vitriolic posts *alone* do no = humor, but snarky and humorous posts do.

                        And obviously the whole "rapiest" pun went way over your head.

                        >>Same goes for you, given the tools and time I am ceratain I could find similar mistakes.

                        A bold claim with no basis. I DARE you to find an instance of me posting someone else's work as my own without giving credit. I dee-doodle-double-fucking-diddle DARE you. You're full of shit.

                        >>See what I mean? Your reliance on name calling and personal denigration speaks volumes. If you let your points stand on their own two feet, as opposed to propping them up with a constant barrage of insults, your arguments would collapse. Care to try?

                        It speaks to the fact that I call 'em like I see 'em. And my points always stand on their own, they do not "rely" on "name calling and personal denigration." Calling you out does not necessarily equate to name-calling. I see you conveniently failed to respond to the fact that you are a supporter of the number one Wall Street candidate, that pushed for the bank bailouts, and that supports the murder of American citizens and their children. Shill.

                        >><<Oh no, I gotcha, you're a spin doctor

                        >>Point proven.

                        Ah calls 'em like ah sees 'em.
                        • Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

                          Fri, December 2, 2011 - 12:30 PM
                          <<The spin is the scaremongering that he's going to do away with SS, when, as Marc said, he advocates an opt-out policy.

                          Sure, as a start. The simple fact remains that he thinks social security is unconstitutional, myself and most Americans disagree with that position. So why would any progressive support such regressive positions, regardless of that candidates ability to actually impliment their agenda?

                          <<I see you conveniently failed to respond to the fact that you are a supporter of the number one Wall Street candidate

                          I don't support Romney, not sure where you ever got that idea.

                          <<Ah calls 'em like ah sees 'em.

                          Your vision is clouded by your Ron Paul worship, and subsequently you lash out with a disproportionate amount of anger at any criticism of the mans policies.
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.

                    Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

                    Tue, November 22, 2011 - 10:38 PM
                    "He still opposes Social Security, still wants to end it,"

                    But he doesn't want to end it. He wants to give people a chance to opt out. Which is entirely logical considering that everyone knows SS is doomed to fail.
                    • Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

                      Wed, November 23, 2011 - 11:02 AM
                      <<But he doesn't want to end it. He wants to give people a chance to opt out.

                      In the beginning, that is how he would start out. In the long run he wants to end it altogether.

                      << Which is entirely logical considering that everyone knows SS is doomed to fail.

                      Ecept it is not doomed to fail, the CBO indicates that Social Security is currently solvent through 2038. Extending it even further can easily be remedied by changing the tax code. Namely, increasing the amount the rich pay as a percentage of income. Right now the middle class, as a percentage of income, shoulders the responsibility of SS. As it is right now, social security taxes are only taken out of income up to 200,000 dollars. Which means that a millionaire pays no SS tax on $800,000. Increase their responsiblity as a precentage of income and the solvency problem is solved. It is also important to note that Social Security does not contribute to the deficit.
                      • Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

                        Wed, November 23, 2011 - 11:27 AM
                        <<<Between 1970 and 2009, the number of people receiving DI benefits more than tripled, from 2.7 million to 9.7 million (unless otherwise specified, all years are calendar years). That jump, which significantly outpaced the increase in the working-age population during that period, is attributable to several changes—in characteristics of that population, in federal policy, and in opportunities for employment. In addition, during those years, the average inflation-adjusted cost per person receiving DI benefits rose from about $6,900 to about $12,800 (in 2010 dollars). As a result, inflation-adjusted expenditures for the DI program, including administrative costs, increased nearly sevenfold between 1970 and 2009, climbing from $18 billion to $124 billion (in 2010 dollars). Most DI beneficiaries, after a two-year waiting period, are also eligible for Medicare; the cost of those benefits in fiscal year 2009 totaled about $70 billion.

                        Under current law, the DI program is not financially sustainable. Its expenditures are drawn from the Disability Insurance Trust Fund, which is financed primarily through a payroll tax of 1.8 percent; the fund had a balance of $204 billion at the end of 2009. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that by 2015, the number of people receiving DI benefits will increase to 11.4 million and total expenditures will climb to $147 billion (in 2010 dollars; see Figure 1). ****However, tax receipts credited to the DI trust fund will be about 20 percent less than those expenditures, and three years later, in 2018, the trust fund will be exhausted, according to CBO’s estimates.**** Without legislative action to reduce the DI program’s outlays, increase its dedicated federal revenues, or transfer other federal funds to it, the Social Security Administration will not have the legal authority to pay full DI benefits beyond that point.>>>

                        www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm

                      • Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

                        Wed, November 23, 2011 - 5:03 PM
                        >>In the beginning, that is how he would start out. In the long run he wants to end it altogether.

                        Funny how when people criticise Obama on some issues, his devotees jump to the whole "he's the president, not a dictator, he has to work with congress, he can't do it all himself, etc," (regardless of his frequent use of quasi-dictatorial executive orders), but when talking about what Paul may or may not "want," it's put forth that he's going to be some kind of unassailable powerhouse that's going to ram all this through. The idea is even more ridiculous considering that Paul actually has *respect* for the Consititution and its properly executed legislative procedures, and the fact that he would be fighting an unsupportive congress, on one side of the aisle or the other, on almost every issue.
        • Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

          Tue, November 22, 2011 - 1:32 PM
          And why all these complaints about a supposed lack of coverage for Ron Paul, when Buddy Rhoemer was left off of the stage completely?

          motherjones.com/mojo/2011/...l-candidate
          • Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

            Tue, November 22, 2011 - 1:48 PM
            because ron paul polls at or over 10% in several polls, while buddy roemer probably has less than 10% name recognition among registered voters.
            • Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

              Tue, November 22, 2011 - 1:50 PM
              Oh, I agree, and do understand how this works. But by Abraxas own logic, Buddy would do better if he just got more coverage, thereby putting him in the position to be on the stage.
              • Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

                Tue, November 22, 2011 - 3:33 PM
                "Oh, I agree, and do understand how this works. But by Abraxas own logic, Buddy would do better if he just got more coverage, thereby putting him in the position to be on the stage."

                so you knew it was a faulty comparison and drew it anyway? Also, there seems to be a rather large pile of research supporting the fact that Paul is being ignored, despite the fact that he does have a measurable amount of support, and has a clear effect on the nomination process
                • Unsu...
                   

                  Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

                  Tue, November 22, 2011 - 4:42 PM
                  so you knew it was a faulty comparison and drew it anyway? Also, there seems to be a rather large pile of research supporting the fact that Paul is being ignored, despite the fact that he does have a measurable amount of support, and has a clear effect on the nomination process


                  Why do Oblame-a, big sis, mealymouth news networks (CNN, FOX, PBS, NPR etc.) , WAIL Street, elite bankers, big pharma, genociders, innocentciders, eugenic addicts, military in dust CONplex, neo-cons, warmongers, bilge n berg, cown sil of ferret affirs, tri lacerate con-mission, ill room i naughties, gobble banker dictatorship, fema resorts, owners of the feed'em reserve system and more who are choking, gurgling, and bleeding caught up in their darkness, evil, destruction, and disease NOT ignore Ron Paul?

                  They are scared sh#tless by the fact that Ron Paul is nominated by the republican party for president and is elected president by a landslide.





                • Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

                  Tue, November 22, 2011 - 5:44 PM
                  Abraxas point is that Paul would be doing better with more coverage. My point is that Buddy Roemer would aso be doing better with more coverage, as would any candidate.

                  <<, there seems to be a rather large pile of research supporting the fact that Paul is being ignored

                  Buddy Roemer is a real example of a candidate being ignored, Paul just gets less coverate than some of the other candidates on the stage. I also think that the media takes Paul less seriously because he has had so many failed runs at the Presidency.
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.

                    Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

                    Tue, November 22, 2011 - 5:58 PM
                    "Buddy Roemer is a real example of a candidate being ignored, Paul just gets less coverate than some of the other candidates on the stage.."

                    uh, can you show me any evidence of Roemer getting a significant percentage of support, like paul?



                    "Abraxas point is that Paul would be doing better with more coverage. My point is that Buddy Roemer would aso be doing better with more coverage, as would any candidate. "

                    Paul is getting a significant amount of support even though there is a clear lack of coverage of him. As has already been pointed out to you, the same can't be said of Roemer

                    So in the future make sure the TP you regurgitate are previously vetted

                    • Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

                      Tue, November 22, 2011 - 6:07 PM
                      <<uh, can you show me any evidence of Roemer getting a significant percentage of support, like paul?

                      I already recognized he does not have Paul's numbers, pay attention.
                      • Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

                        Tue, November 22, 2011 - 6:09 PM
                        "I already recognized he does not have Paul's numbers, pay attention. "

                        So why do you keep bringing him up when your entire point was invalidated?
                        • Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

                          Tue, November 22, 2011 - 6:34 PM
                          My point was never invalidated, the problem is that my point went over your head.
                          • Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

                            Tue, November 22, 2011 - 7:19 PM
                            Indeed it was. You attempted to draw a comparison between a candidate with hardly any support, and his coverage in the media, and a candidate with significant levels of support and his coverage in the media (coverage that happens at a lower rate than candidates with rather insignificant levels of support).
                            • Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

                              Wed, November 23, 2011 - 11:05 AM
                              My point is that any increase in media attention is going to increase your numbers, that is the case for any candidate. Subsequently that point is not invalidated.
                              • Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

                                Wed, November 23, 2011 - 11:23 AM
                                "My point is that any increase in media attention is going to increase your numbers, that is the case for any candidate. Subsequently that point is not invalidated."

                                Jeff, there is data noting that Paul, in relation to his poll numbers, receives significantly less media attention than those with drastically lower poll numbers. So to compare his situation, to a guy that barely registers at the polls makes absolutely no sense.
                                • Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

                                  Wed, November 23, 2011 - 12:06 PM
                                  <<Jeff, there is data noting that Paul, in relation to his poll numbers, receives significantly less media attention than those with drastically lower poll numbers.

                                  Ron Paul has years and years of name recognition and a cult-like following that helps to bolster his numbers. Now, who recieves more attention that Ron Paul and they have drastically lower poll numbers?
                                  • Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

                                    Wed, November 23, 2011 - 1:36 PM
                                    "Ron Paul has years and years of name recognition and a cult-like following that helps to bolster his numbers. Now, who recieves more attention that Ron Paul and they have drastically lower poll numbers"

                                    Jeff, please learn to read with precision: "media attention"

                                    <<The same could be said of the narrative in the news media of Texas Congressman Ron Paul, who received the least coverage of any candidate overall (although from July on, Newt Gingrich received less coverage than Paul did). The difference with Paul is that he has received, by far, the most favorable coverage of any candidate in the blogosphere—48% positive and only 15% negative.>>

                                    www.journalism.org/node/26958
                                    • Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

                                      Wed, November 23, 2011 - 4:41 PM
                                      I am reading with precision, I was explaining to you why Ron Pauls numbers are higher in spite of the fact that the media is not hot on his candidacy.

                                      You also avoided answering my question, one that speaks to the heart of the matter. What candidates numbers are currently significantly lower tha Ron Pauls, and they are currently recieving more media attention?
                                      • Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

                                        Wed, November 23, 2011 - 6:14 PM

                                        "You also avoided answering my question, one that speaks to the heart of the matter. What candidates numbers are currently significantly lower tha Ron Pauls, and they are currently recieving more media attention?"

                                        lol, are you just refusing to read what I posted?
                                        • Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

                                          Mon, November 28, 2011 - 1:04 PM
                                          You are missing the point. CURRENT numbers compared to CURRENT coverage. Not current numbers compared to coverage the entire time they have been running, which would be an apples to oranges comparision. For instance, Bachman got much more coverage in the beginning, but that was because she had such high poll numbers. But her numbers have now dropped and she is not getting the same kind of coverage. So it is true that Bachman is currently lower in poll numbers, but the fact that she was once near the head of the pack gives her more overall coverage. And as we have seen, a good chunk of the candidates have had their turn near the head of the pack. This combined with the newness of their candidacies gives them larger overall media coverage numbers. Now it is Newts turn to get a bit of coverage as he is near or at the head of the pack, which will most likely change yet again.

                                          So, which candidate CURRENTLY has significantly lower poll numbers than Paul that is CURRENTLY getting less coverage? Who is lower than Ron Paul's 7% that is currently getting more coverage. Names please.
                                          • Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

                                            Mon, November 28, 2011 - 1:19 PM
                                            Jeff, you seem completely unwilling to try and comprehend the issue here.

                                            again, the quote: <<The same could be said of the narrative in the news media of Texas Congressman Ron Paul, ****who received the least coverage of any candidate overall**** (although from July on, Newt Gingrich received less coverage than Paul did). The difference with Paul is that he has received, by far, the most favorable coverage of any candidate in the blogosphere—48% positive and only 15% negative.>>


                                            this includes Santorum and Huntman, who now average out below 3% and who have been in such political limbo since the start of campaigning





                                            • Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

                                              Mon, November 28, 2011 - 1:32 PM
                                              Paul is hovering between 7% and 8% and is at the back of the pack with Huntsman and Santorum. I don't find a 4 or 5% spread at the back of the pack to be significant as you are claiming. Be that as it may, coverage is determined by many factors, so the Cult of Paul whining that his lack of coverage is due to media bias against him personally really ignores the many factors that go in to said coverage.
                                              • Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

                                                Mon, November 28, 2011 - 1:40 PM
                                                "Paul is hovering between 7% and 8% and is at the back of the pack with Huntsman and Santorum"

                                                Jeff, being that Huntsman and Santorum are now averaging out at 2.3%, that's 3-4 times the support they receive

                                                "I don't find a 4 or 5% spread at the back of the pack to be significant as you are claiming. Be that as it may, coverage is determined by many factors, so the Cult of Paul whining that his lack of coverage is due to media bias against him personally really ignores the many factors that go in to said coverage."

                                                lol, what a well thought out explanation: people are cry babies and there are lots of factors involved. Jeeze, if I didn't know better I would think that was the birth of a doctoral thesis titled "Stuff: it happens"
                                                • Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

                                                  Mon, November 28, 2011 - 2:36 PM
                                                  <<Jeff, being that Huntsman and Santorum are now averaging out at 2.3%, that's 3-4 times the support they receive

                                                  And 2% is twice 1%, that does not mean there is any real significant difference between the two numbers polling wise. In particular when you consider the margin of error. What this does not mean is that 7% is significantly higher than 3%.

                                                  <<"I don't find a 4 or 5% spread at the back of the pack to be significant as you are claiming. Be that as it may, coverage is determined by many factors, so the Cult of Paul whining that his lack of coverage is due to media bias against him personally really ignores the many factors that go in to said coverage."

                                                  lol, what a well thought out explanation: people are cry babies and there are lots of factors involved. <<

                                                  This sentence of course ignores my primary point, namely that 3 or 4% points at the back of the pack does not = "significant" in my opinion.

                                                  Do you think there are many reasons for Pauls lack of coverage? Or do you think that it is some giant corporate conspiracy because the powers that be are afraid of his policies? What do you think?
                                                  • Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

                                                    Mon, November 28, 2011 - 7:55 PM
                                                    "Do you think there are many reasons for Pauls lack of coverage? Or do you think that it is some giant corporate conspiracy because the powers that be are afraid of his policies? What do you think? "

                                                    Jeff, you merely inventing reasons for the coverage disparity, then declaring them fact, does not actually make a meaningful case for anything. Though, personally, I'm not sure what is causing the disparity in coverage (though you seemingly have no issue suggesting a coverage conspiracy when it comes to OWS, but the suggesting in regards to Paul seems to strike you as batty?), I'm merely pointing out a significant one exists
                                                    • Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

                                                      Fri, December 2, 2011 - 10:12 AM
                                                      <<Jeff, you merely inventing reasons for the coverage disparity

                                                      What reason did I supposedly "invent"? Please be specific.

                                                      <<though you seemingly have no issue suggesting a coverage conspiracy when it comes to OWS

                                                      What coverage conspiracy did I suggest regarding OWS? Please be specific.

                                                      <<but the suggesting in regards to Paul seems to strike you as batty

                                                      You are having reading comprehension problems being that I have repeatedly recognized he is getting less coverage. So where exactly did you get this "batty" B.S.? Please be specific.
                                        • Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

                                          Mon, November 28, 2011 - 1:09 PM
                                          Or are you trying to assert that Santorum and Huntsman have got tons of coverage as of late?
                                          • Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

                                            Mon, November 28, 2011 - 1:21 PM
                                            Jeff, if you're really having that much trouble grasping that short quote, then have someone explain it to you
                                            • Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

                                              Mon, November 28, 2011 - 2:15 PM
                                              I grasp the quote just fine, it changes nothing regarding what I said. I have repeatedly recognized that Paul does not get as much coverage, the only thing left to discuss is why. Sitting at 7% at the back of the pack is one reason among many I have listed.
                                              • Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

                                                Mon, November 28, 2011 - 2:25 PM
                                                "Sitting at 7% at the back of the pack is one reason among many I have listed."

                                                yet the problem with such reasoning has been continually pointed out: people with significantly less than 7% (the average is actually 8%, but will excuse the obvious mistake) are getting more coverage than him

                                                PS and if you grasped the quote just fine, we would not still be discussing the obvious points that it *clearly* demonstrates
                                                • Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

                                                  Mon, November 28, 2011 - 2:38 PM
                                                  Sorry, but 4% is not significant, especially when you consider the margin of error.

                                                  <<PS and if you grasped the quote just fine, we would not still be discussing the obvious points that it *clearly* demonstrates

                                                  It demonstrates nothing regarding your claims that 4% = significant.
                                                  • Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

                                                    Mon, November 28, 2011 - 7:49 PM
                                                    "Sorry, but 4% is not significant, especially when you consider the margin of error. "

                                                    lol, again, it's 3-4 times the numbers for either Santorum or Huntsman, who both, at the time of the report, were getting more coverage than Paul. But you're right, lets argue over my use of significant.

                                                    Anything to avoid an actual meaningful discussion
                                                    • Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

                                                      Fri, December 2, 2011 - 10:08 AM
                                                      <<lol, again, it's 3-4 times the numbers for either Santorum or Huntsman

                                                      Those factors are virtually meaningless at the lower end of the spectrum. Again, 2 is twice as many as 1, but it is certainly not significant. Whereas 100 is twice as many as 50, but that would be significant.

                                                      <<Anything to avoid an actual meaningful discussion

                                                      It speaks to the heart of the discussion, so it is certainy meaningful.
                              • Unsu...
                                 

                                Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

                                Wed, December 21, 2011 - 12:28 AM
                                <My point is that any increase in media attention is going to increase your numbers, that is the case for any candidate. Subsequently that point is not invalidated.>

                                Ron Paul is no longer ignored :-(



                                Incredible! CNN : Ron Paul Projected Winner In Iowa with 52% 12-20-11
                                www.dailypaul.com/195060/cn...2-12-20-11
                                • Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

                                  Wed, December 21, 2011 - 3:30 PM
                                  <Ron Paul is no longer ignored :-( >

                                  what will his supporters start bitching about next? that he's getting TOO much media attention?
                                  www.slate.com/articles/ne...ucuses_.html
                                  ---
                                  Jan. 3, 2012. The ballroom of the Des Moines hotel fills faster than anyone expected. Iowa Republicans are still caucusing, but fans of Ron Paul have driven in from Omaha, Rockford, Minneapolis, Topeka, and Pittsburgh, their cars festooned with “Legalize the Constitution” stickers. They hit the cash bars early.

                                  At 8 p.m., the networks release the first scraps from “entrance polls.” Lots of first-time caucusers. Lots and lots of anti-Washington sentiment. Lots and lots of Tea Partiers. The ballroom crowd boos when some cable-news Muppet explains that “some people are saying that a Ron Paul win would mark the end of the Iowa caucuses.” Suddenly they realize why the anchor is saying that: He’s trying to explain why Paul is leading.

                                  At 9 p.m., they call it: “Ron Paul is the winner of the 2012 Iowa caucuses.” The ballroom fills up with confetti and boozy cheers. The 76-year-old candidate takes the stage, joined by the junior senator from Kentucky and the rest of his brood. Those hair-gelled media nabobs will have to report on a new Republican front-runner now.

                                  This could happen. Two weeks before the Iowa caucuses, the Republican wheel of random candidate surges has finally click-clack-clicked over to Ron Paul. A Fox News columnist says it. A CNN columnist says it. The heartless RealClearPolitics polling average says it, even if it’s goosed by an odd, one-day Insider Advantage survey. The gamblers of InTrade, who don’t often move unless they’ve got a preponderance of anecdote and conventional wisdom to work with, are now betting on Paul to win in Iowa.

                                  The groundwork for Paul’s recent surge was laid four years ago. When his campaign sputtered out in 2008—he competed in the final GOP primaries, then had his own “alternative convention” opposite the RNC—Paul set up the Campaign for Liberty and Young Americans for Liberty. Those 501c4 groups were designed as part-time organizations for his idle-hands followers, ways to keep building a movement.

                                  That plan worked. Paul’s group helped his son Rand win a Senate seat. In Iowa, it helped his campaign figure out how and where to set up, and what it needed to do win. When I visited Paul’s Iowa headquarters last week, in its cost-cutting location in the Des Moines suburbs, the power had just gone out. A devoted skeleton crew was working by candlelight; a table of campaign literature introduced the candidate as “a Conservative who lives by Faith” (capital letters in the original), a man who had “delivered more than 4,000 babies” and says “it is God Who gave Us life.” I saw devotion, and I saw a campaign willing to settle on a message that could actually win Iowans, not just make some paleolibertarian point. These guys wanted to win.

                                  How many Republicans will Paul’s camp need to win on Jan. 3? In 2008, Iowa caucus-goers cast 119,188 votes. Paul won 11,841 of them, while Mike Huckabee won by scoring 40,954. How much better do activists expect Paul to do this time? At the 2007 straw poll in Ames, the overhyped trial heat/candidate Darwinizer for the caucuses, Paul won only 1,305 votes, and Huckabee won 2,587. At the 2011 straw poll, Paul won 4,671 votes. If he multiplies his straw poll votes at the same rate he did four years ago, he he wins.

                                  That’s how Ron Paul gets to Jan. 3. On Jan. 4, he would get his headlines, and his supporters would get to watch the media squirm. In fact, that squirming has already begun. On Fox News, Chris Wallace says that caucuses “won’t count” if Paul wins. In Politico, James Hohmann noted in an aside that “Ron Paul’s candidacy might provide some wiggle room for a candidate who scores a close fourth.”

                                  But there’s only so much the political press can do to control a story like this. Paul’s victory would dominate the news. The candidate, already in the high teens in New Hampshire polls, would fly into the state as the best hope to beat Mitt Romney locally. Jon Huntsman would keep playing, but Gingrich, Perry, and whoever else was left would have start pivoting to a South Carolina/Florida strategy. And Paul would find himself targeted, for the first time, by a hostile, tackle-the-front-runner media.

                                  We don’t know what that campaign would look like. Paul is in a curious place—a three-time presidential candidate who has barely been vetted by the media. He’s been the GOP’s proudest anti-war, anti-torture voice for four years. That position has earned him soft interviews with Jay Leno, and countless segments on The Daily Show.

                                  If Paul wins Iowa, that stops. The conservative press, which has been bored but hostile to Paul all year (just see the National Review’s cover story), will remind its readers that Paul wants to legalize prostitution and narcotics, end aid to Israel (as part of a general no-aid-for-anyone policy), and end unconstitutional programs like Medicare and social security. The liberal press will discover that he’s a John Birch Society supporter who for years published lucrative newsletters studded with racist gunk. In 2008, when the media didn’t take him seriously, Paul was able to get past the newsletter story with a soft-gummed Wolf Blitzer interview. (“Certainly didn't sound like the Ron Paul that I've come to know and our viewers have come to know all this time,” said Blitzer.) This was when Paul was on track to lose every primary. It’ll be different if the man wins Iowa.

                                  Maybe all of this would drag Paul down. But would it have to? In 2008, the candidate stuck it out through every primary. In 2012, he’ll have more cash than anyone except Romney or Perry—he just raised $4 million in a weekend moneybomb. His supporters will blow off the scrutiny as just so much crap from the corporate media. (Alex Jones will quibble with this characterization: It’s really the “illuminati” media.) No, Paul will stick in the race. Mitt Romney will get to contrast himself with the new-new-new-new insurgent. In that case, the GOP base and donor class will have the easiest pick-a-door choice it’s ever had. Do you go with the guy from Massachusetts who’s not all that convincing of a Reagan clone, or do you go with the guy who wants legal heroin and a pissed-off Benjamin Netanyahu?

                                  That’s a dream scenario for Team Romney. When I asked the candidate’s adviser Stuart Stevens about how Ron Paul factored into their plans, he kicked his own campaign’s expectations through the floor. “Ron Paul could win Iowa,” he said. This is not how worried people talk. Let’s see how they sound on Jan. 4.
                                  • Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

                                    Thu, December 22, 2011 - 3:09 PM
                                    <<what will his supporters start bitching about next? that he's getting TOO much media attention?

                                    I am sure his fans are not happy about his racist/homophobic news letter scandal, they may in reality want that to be under-reported.
                                    • Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

                                      Tue, February 28, 2012 - 2:50 AM
                                      <I am sure his fans are not happy about his racist/homophobic news letter scandal, they may in reality want that to be under-reported.>

                                      Dude, that fucking pisses me off. There are all sorts of Lefties who have joined the RP camp just because of a few of his issues - but they ignore the real ISSUES that he has. This is just too much of the rule: The enemy of my enemy is my friend. The guy is a piece of shit that would ruin ALL of the things that Lefties hold dear...but because of a few of his core issues, they will sell out their whole life's beliefs system. Fucking jerk. What a fuck.

                                      <I hope he makes it and I think he'll get a lot of frustrated ex-Obama voters in the general election>

                                      Yup. The idiots that can't see the forest from the trees. The fools who will cut off their nose to spite their face. They will lose all that they hold dear for a few trinkets of expectation. Fuck that. I'll take Obama's incrementalism any day.
                                      • Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

                                        Tue, February 28, 2012 - 10:26 AM
                                        <<Dude, that fucking pisses me off. There are all sorts of Lefties who have joined the RP camp just because of a few of his issues - but they ignore the real ISSUES that he has.

                                        Exactly!
                                      • Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

                                        Wed, March 7, 2012 - 4:55 PM
                                        >>The guy is a piece of shit that would ruin ALL of the things that Lefties hold dear...but because of a few of his core issues, they will sell out their whole life's beliefs system. Fucking jerk. What a fuck.

                                        It's sad that "lefties" "whole life's beliefs system <sic>" must not include an objection to war, objection to war crimes (like indiscriminate drone bombings), objection to extra-judicial execution of Americans (and their children), objection to banker looting with government assistance, objection to gun-running ops supplying Mexican cartels, objection to the irreversible pollution of the environment through GMOs, objection to being in debt until the end of time so bankers can get richer, objection to the encroaching police surveillance state, or objection to any of the other myriad and repulsive status-quo policies that have been pushed and continued by the current Democorp puppet-in-chief.

                                        No, apparently "lefties" "whole life's beliefs system <sic>" are rooted in taxes, entitlement programs and nanny-state policies. Sad.

                                        >>Yup. The idiots that can't see the forest from the trees. The fools who will cut off their nose to spite their face. They will lose all that they hold dear for a few trinkets of expectation.

                                        While Obamanoids are busy extolling the virtues of a football-issue sapling like repealing DADT, the powers that be are content to have them distracted, so long as the they don't notice that the towering sequoias of real freedom, liberty, and any remote semblance of honest government, are rotting at the root, listing heavily, precariously close to being felled by the onslaught of globalistic neo-libera-servatism, the machine of which Obama is a willing cog.

                                        These pathetic go-alongs are too ignorant, wilfully or otherwise, too committed to the lies they've told themselves about their puppet-in-chief, to extract their heads from the pulsating sphincter of Obama's cult of personality.

                                        uspolitics.tribe.net/thread/...7bd770a1

                                        www.youtube.com/watch
                                      • Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

                                        Thu, March 8, 2012 - 11:16 AM
                                        << The guy is a piece of shit that would ruin ALL of the things that Lefties hold dear...but because of a few of his core issues, they will sell out their whole life's beliefs system. Fucking jerk. What a fuck. >>

                                        Second. Paul is so tainted that I have to suspect the actual Left credentials of anyone who would vote for him. It's worth noting that every economic downturn produces hordes of new-minted Lefter-than-thou types who were diehard Right-wingers until material reality bit them on the ass. Most of these noobs are simply green, but others retain the habits of mind of the fascism whence they sprung.
                                        • Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

                                          Mon, March 12, 2012 - 3:55 PM
                                          Does no one else see the irony in someone railing against the "Lefter-than-thou," while also purporting to be some sort of arbiter of "Left credentials?"

                                          Of course, I fail to see why someone would *want* to be labeled as "Left," as much as I fail to see why someone would *want* to be labeled as "Right."

                                          Some people seem to want to find any excuse to avoid admitting that more and more people are looking beyond the false left/right paradigm.

                                          "Once you label me you negate me."
                                          ~Soren Kiekergaard
                      • Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

                        Tue, November 22, 2011 - 10:45 PM
                        I am not getting much media coverage either, as I often daydream about being president. You forgot to mention that Jeff.
                        • Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

                          Tue, March 13, 2012 - 11:45 AM
                          << Does no one else see the irony in someone railing against the "Lefter-than-thou," while also purporting to be some sort of arbiter of "Left credentials?" >>

                          Guess not, guy. Maybe you can warm up an alt to chime in?

                          << Of course, I fail to see why someone would *want* to be labeled as "Left," as much as I fail to see why someone would *want* to be labeled as "Right.">>

                          Maybe this indicates some kind of problem with coherence? Or perhaps ethics? Maybe some don't mind being all chummy and cozy with Paul's usual constituency of fascists, racists, money cranks, Kluxers, and assorted knuckle-draggers, but others are more squeamish and particular about the company they keep.

                          << Some people seem to want to find any excuse to avoid admitting that more and more people are looking beyond the false left/right paradigm. >>

                          And some people will mouth hippie PC platitudes their whole lives only to sell their vote to some Texas Nutzi in exchange for legal dope.

                          << I am not getting much media coverage either >>

                          HAHAHA!!
      • Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

        Tue, November 22, 2011 - 1:17 PM
        <3.) Enable State Extremism: Would let states set their own policies on abortion, gay marriage, prayer in school, and most other issues.>

        as far as this is concerned, it would just signify inaction on the part of congress. besides, states already set and attempt to set their own policies on these issues. (see:mississippi's failed personhood amendment and colorado's amendment 2 from the mid-1990s(romer v evans)

        plus, those policies can always be challenged in the courts and may eventually wind up in front of the supreme court. state policies aren't absolute without a check on them.
        • Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

          Tue, November 22, 2011 - 3:32 PM
          "plus, those policies can always be challenged in the courts and may eventually wind up in front of the supreme court. state policies aren't absolute without a check on them. "

          Actually Ginsburgh (sp) has talked extensively about what she views as the failing of removing the abortion rights out of the state arena, and will often mention that the nation was trending, as a whole, to legalizing the practice. But that RvsW had a galvanizing effect on the resistance, and broadened the Scope of the issue.

          Also, to point out the obvious, Paul, if by any chance he actually won the seat, would still be constrained by the limitations of the office
      • Unsu...
         

        Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

        Tue, November 22, 2011 - 5:04 PM
        1.) Believes that Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are unconstitutional
        False
        2.) Wants to abolish half of all federal agencies, including the departments of Energy, Education, Agriculture, Commerce, Health and Human Services, and Labor.

        5 cabinet positions.

        3.) Enable State Extremism: Would let states set their own policies on abortion, gay marriage, prayer in school, and most other issues.

        FALSE he supports 9th and 10th amendments to constitution.

        4.) Protect Sexual Predators' Privacy: Voted against requiring operators of wi-fi networks who discover the transmission of child porn and other forms online sex predation to report it to the government.

        First Amendment

        5.) Keep Monopolies Intact: Opposes federal antitrust legislation, calling it "much more harmful than helpful." Thinks that monopolies can be controlled by protecting "the concept of the voluntary contract."
        FALSE


        6.) Stop Policing the Environment: Believes that climate change is no big deal and the Environmental Protection Agency is unnecessary. Most environmental problems can be addressed by enforcing private-property rights. Paul also thinks that interstate issues such as air pollution are best dealt with through compacts between states.

        FALSE

        7.) Would not have voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because it was a "massive violation of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of a free society."

        Yes, before 1964 there were 300 blacks in prison; 2011 there are 2,000,000 blacks in prison. Most were charged and convicted by Federal law. Civil rights, huh.:-D


        8.) Let Markets Care for the Disabled: "The ADA should have never been passed," Paul says. The treatment of the handicapped should be determined by the free market.

        Determined by the free market no free market do not determine?
        Federal government communist officiaters determine, pass arbitrary law,ration, incarcerate, drug and force; do you know the gugalog :-D


        Family, community, church, friends, local and state government are better able to help, support, and encourage the handicapped.

        9.) First, Do Harm: Wants to end birthright citizenship. Believes that emergency rooms should have the right to turn away illegal immigrants.
        FALSE
        • Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

          Tue, November 22, 2011 - 5:18 PM
          Ron Paul would take too much out of the coffers of the Conservative Wing of Government -- as he would the Liberal. That is one of the reasons why he is not taken as a viable candidate for most Political Factions.

          In a race between Obama and Paul -- I do not see the conservative backing him even as a "shadow puppet" of their ideals...

        • Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

          Tue, November 22, 2011 - 5:45 PM
          Demonstrate that they are false.
          • Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

            Tue, November 22, 2011 - 5:54 PM
            The burden of proof lay upon the claimant. So far all there is mostly electronically supported hearsay.

            However, think of this. If WTC7, did not collapse. I would be the fact at the CIA / FBI had offices there were protected form the conspiracy theorist controlled detonations?!
          • Unsu...
             

            Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

            Tue, November 22, 2011 - 8:13 PM
            Jeff, i will do your search for truth.

            5.) Keep Monopolies Intact: Opposes federal antitrust legislation, calling it "much more harmful than helpful." Thinks that monopolies can be controlled by protecting "the concept of the voluntary contract."

            The status quo is various monopolies comprised of federal government and crony capitalist cartels who live off welfare.

            Ron Paul wants the free market to provide the environment where monopolies are replaced by competition, supply and demand producers

            6.) Stop Policing the Environment: Believes that climate change is no big deal and the Environmental Protection Agency is unnecessary. Most environmental problems can be addressed by enforcing private-property rights. Paul also thinks that interstate issues such as air pollution are best dealt with through compacts between states.

            Now the federal goverment orders swat teams, domestic army thugs to police and enforce their arbitrary edicts over the individual home and family property and land owners.

            Jeff, do you know chemtrails? The federal government finance crony capitalists to send up jet planes that play god and that spray poisons over the air, water, plants, individuals, families from sea to shining sea, Hawaii and Alaska. Jeff, if the federal government pollutes the air, soil and water pollution that is not pollution? ha ha ha ha ha ha :-D

            Why are the national parks and the land around them now owned by the UN? You believe global, collective government ownership of land is cleaner air, soil, and water?
            • Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

              Tue, November 22, 2011 - 8:22 PM
              Indeed, Ron Paul is a mixed bag!
              • Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

                Tue, November 22, 2011 - 11:05 PM
                Another thing to considering is that of all the candidates, he is most likely to appeal to both sides of the aisle and has the most political experience, therefore having a better chance of actually getting people to agree on things. Probably not everything, but at least SOME things, which has to be much better then what we have now.
                • Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

                  Wed, November 23, 2011 - 11:11 AM
                  <<Another thing to considering is that of all the candidates, he is most likely to appeal to both sides of the aisle

                  Or another way to look at it is that there are aspects to his positions that are repugnant to both sides of hte aisle. I personally have no interest in turning back decades of social progression.
            • Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

              Wed, November 23, 2011 - 10:37 AM
              <<Ron Paul wants the free market to provide the environment where monopolies are replaced by competition, supply and demand producers

              How is it possible to prevent monopolies without regulation? How does the free market prevent monopolies?

              <<Jeff, do you know chemtrails?

              Yes, it is a conspiracy theory and certainly not one of Ron Paul's positions. How does that change the fact that Ron Paul wants to end environmental regulation thereby increasing polution? I work for ane Environmental Engineergin company and see the damage caused by industry in the form of pollution to our groundwater, soil, and rivers on a daily basis. What is Ron Pauls plan to curb such contamination without these regulations and agencies that help to mitigate the danger to the public?

              <<Why are the national parks and the land around them now owned by the UN?

              Another conspiracy theory without any basis in fact, and another view not shared by Ron Paul. You really did not address any of my points, diversions in to the realm of conspiracy theories are not going to change Ron Pauls positions. You indicated that specific positions I posted for Ron Paul are false, and you have yet to demonstrate that they are false. Whether Ron Paul wants to end Social Security slowly or quickly, he still wants to end it.
              • Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

                Wed, November 23, 2011 - 5:04 PM
                >>Yes, it is a conspiracy theory and certainly not one of Ron Paul's positions

                Perhaps you should do some research into high altitude aerosol spraying and geoengineering (and other technical terms aside from the layman's "chemtrails"), before you babble about "conspiracy theories." Funny how recent official documents and white papers regarding the high altitude dissemination of chemicals for various purposes reference barium salts and aluminum oxide, which are the same chemicals that those wacky "conspiracy theorists" were talking about over a decade ago.

                Also, this:

                Solid Proof That Weather Modification Projects Are Being Conducted All Over The United States
                endoftheamericandream.com/archi...states

                >>What is Ron Pauls plan to curb such contamination without these regulations and agencies that help to mitigate the danger to the public?

                You apparently have little understanding of his statements in regards to private property laws in this regard. You pollute my soil or water ("my" referring to either privately owned property or state/municipality-owned property), I sue the fuck out of you. Kinda like if a garbage truck pulled up and dumped its load on your front lawn.

                In my opinion, that's a better road to go down than a bloated federal agency selectively enforcing its "regulations" and trying to regulate and tax the life-gas that is exhaled by every respirating organism on the planet, and which in fact promotes the growth of every photosynthesizing organism.

                Just as one example (among many), the EPA wasn't much help in regards to the devastating BP spill, or the millions of gallons of carcinogenic, toxic dispersants that were used in the "clean up," and BP has in fact been granted even more drilling concessions. Bang up job, EPA (you too, Obama).
                • Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

                  Fri, December 2, 2011 - 12:47 PM
                  <<Perhaps you should do some research into high altitude aerosol spraying and geoengineering (and other technical terms aside from the layman's "chemtrails"),

                  <<Solid Proof That Weather Modification Projects Are Being Conducted All Over The United States

                  I have read plenty on the subject, and not only do I currently work with geotechnical engineers at an environmental/geotechnical engineering company. I was also a weather specialist for the Air Force for 6 years. I am quite aware of weather modification projects, these scientific endeavors are public knowledge.

                  <<You apparently have little understanding of his statements in regards to private property laws in this regard. You pollute my soil or water ("my" referring to either privately owned property or state/municipality-owned property), I sue the fuck out of you. Kinda like if a garbage truck pulled up and dumped its load on your front lawn.

                  Yet another horrible idea from Ron Paul. Having to take a polluter to court would not only cost you money, but it would slow down the cleanup process thereby putting the public in danger. I don't think you are aware of the sheer number of instances of pollution occurring as a result of business or industry on a daily basis. Currently we have a system whereby industry and public entities are motivated to fix their problems as they go along, in large part because the fines are more expensive than the costs of cleaning up the problems themselves. I deal with contaminated soil and groundwater cleanup on a daily basis, from leaking underground gas tanks, to steel mills, to contaminated sediment in the river, and I know for a fact that without regulation these things would not be fixed. Some sites are what you would call orphan sites and have no person that is really responsible being that the contamination was done so long ago. A creosote factory on the waterfront going out of business in the 50s would leave you with nobody to sue. I see the positive effects of our environmental laws and regulations on a daily basis, relegating it to the courts would just muddle and slow down the process. Not to mention the fact that most of the money would then go to lawyers.

                  <<selectively enforcing its "regulations"

                  What specifically do you mean by "selectively enforcing its regulations?

                  <<Just as one example (among many), the EPA wasn't much help in regards to the devastating BP spill

                  That is because there was not much that could be done, the damage was done.
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.

                    Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

                    Fri, December 2, 2011 - 5:02 PM
                    >>I have read plenty on the subject, and not only do I currently work with geotechnical engineers at an environmental/geotechnical engineering company. I was also a weather specialist for the Air Force for 6 years. I am quite aware of weather modification projects, these scientific endeavors are public knowledge.

                    So you've read plenty on high altitude aerosol spraying, yet it's a "conspiracy theory." Interesting.

                    Then I assume you can tell me why a "contrail," which by definition is nothing more than a plume of water condensation, can remain in the atmosphere without evaporating for hours, and in fact spreads out and forms into haze or cloud banks. Without nuclei, how does the condensation form into clouds?

                    And again, as standard, nice selective quoting, leaving out the fact that those kooky chemtrail conspiracy theorists picked out the exact same chemicals ten years ago that the government is only now saying it is "testing." It's certainly a lucky coincidence that Monsanto has developed aluminum-resistant genetically-modified seeds. (where's the EPA on the wanton dispersion of GMOs throughout the country and our food supply, anyway?)

                    Your assertion that all such geoengineering and weather modification programs are "public knowledge" is simply proof of your naivete (to believe that government endeavors in almost any arena are all "public knowledge" is incredibly naive). And it's funny how so much of this *is* public knowledge (or at least publicly available information), and weaponized-weather pioneer Ben Livingston has stated that they could steer hurricanes since the 1960s/70s, but if anyone dare bring it up in regards to something like Katrina, they're derided as crazy.

                    >>Having to take a polluter to court would not only cost you money, but it would slow down the cleanup process thereby putting the public in danger.

                    As opposed to the current system, where they pay their little EPA fines and go on about business as usual? Or where they pack up their operations and move them overseas to places with no regulations, and crank up their pollution by orders of magnitude?

                    Also, right now you're actually restricted from suing a polluter if their actions conform to EPA guidelines, regardless of whether they've actually caused damage to you or your property.

                    >>I don't think you are aware of the sheer number of instances of pollution occurring as a result of business or industry on a daily basis.

                    Well it's good to know the EPA is doing its job.

                    >>I know for a fact that without regulation these things would not be fixed.

                    You know NAH-SING!

                    And of course, this all ignores the fact that states would still be more than able to enact their own regulations, and in fact already do. Of course, then lobbyists wouldn't have one convenient stop in DC to do their dirty work. It's also more fear-mongering, implying that all environmental regulation would cease to exist if Paul were elected.

                    >>What specifically do you mean by "selectively enforcing its regulations?

                    Google "EPA exemption."

                    And did you know that radiation has magically become less dangerous? At least the EPA says so.
                    www.nuc.berkeley.edu/node/2162

                    Also, Rand Paul highlights some cases of the EPA ridiculousness:
                    www.washingtontimes.com/news/2...rights/

                    >>That is because there was not much that could be done, the damage was done.

                    You're ridiculous. Do some searches on the ailments cleanup workers are suffering from all that tasty Corexit and come back to me about how the "damage was done." And if these agencies were doing their jobs, how did the "damage get done" in the first place?

                    And of course we've also got the EPA that told everyone the NYC air was safe to breathe after 9/11, even though they knew it wasn't (but that's just another 9/11 conspiracy... so I'm sure it never happened). But perhaps you believe that in that case the "damage was done" as well.
                    • Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

                      Mon, December 5, 2011 - 1:23 PM
                      <<So you've read plenty on high altitude aerosol spraying, yet it's a "conspiracy theory." Interesting.

                      Clearly I stated that I am familiar with weather modification projects, which don't typically use "high altitude aerosol spraying techniques.

                      <<Then I assume you can tell me why a "contrail," which by definition is nothing more than a plume of water condensation, can remain in the atmosphere without evaporating for hours, and in fact spreads out and forms into haze or cloud banks. Without nuclei, how does the condensation form into clouds?

                      The same way as clouds can remain in the atmosphere for hours, our atmosphere is rife with particulate nuclei that both clouds and contrail vapor adhere to. Without that particulate nuclei in the atmosphere, cloulds would not be possible. Basic weather. Study up on the basics and then come back so we can have a conversation that is based on science as opposed to your amature assumptions.

                      <<Your assertion that all such geoengineering and weather modification programs are "public knowledge" is simply proof of your naivete

                      I made no such assertions regarding "all" of anything. I was just correctly pointing out that the existence of actual weather modification projects do nothing to prove or even support chemtrail conspiracy theories. These weather modification projects are public knowledge, and they use rockets to target specific areas for this sort of modification, not your "chemtrails".

                      <<As opposed to the current system, where they pay their little EPA fines and go on about business as usual?

                      You are not paying attention. As I already stated, the fines involved with not cleaining up pollution are typically more than it would cost for them to clean up after themselves. So rather than pay these fines, industry typically pays my company to clean up their problems so that they are in compliance. This results in quickly getting to the cleanup stage thereby mitigating the negative health effects to the community. Relying on litigation would only bog the process down.

                      <<And of course, this all ignores the fact that states would still be more than able to enact their own regulations, and in fact already do.

                      Of course they do, both state and federal regulations are necessary.

                      <<It's also more fear-mongering, implying that all environmental regulation would cease to exist if Paul were elected.

                      It does not matter what Paul would or would not be able to accomplish regarding his agenda, if he holds a position that is diametrically opposed to everything I believe in I will not be voting for him. Pointing out his actual positions, achievable or not, is not fear mongering.

                      <<Also, Rand Paul highlights some cases of the EPA ridiculousness:

                      There is going to be B.S. like this with any agency, the fact still remains that regulations and oversight do more good than harm. Seriously, you are out of your realm of expertise here, this is my daily job.

              • Unsu...
                 

                Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

                Wed, November 23, 2011 - 6:47 PM
                Yes, it is a conspiracy theory and certainly not one of Ron Paul's positions. How does that change the fact that Ron Paul wants to end environmental regulation thereby increasing polution? I work for ane Environmental Engineergin company and see the damage caused by industry in the form of pollution to our groundwater, soil, and rivers on a daily basis. What is Ron Pauls plan to curb such contamination without these regulations and agencies that help to mitigate the danger to the public?


                18,000 or more chemicals in food, clothes, shelter, medicine, cosmetics, newborn babies, cars. What has the Fedgovernment done about it?
                • Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

                  Mon, November 28, 2011 - 1:20 PM
                  Could the Govt. do more? Yes. Does the Govt. clean up thousands of sites with contaminated groundwater and soil on a daily basis? Absolutely. I work on these projects every day, and without these regulations and subsqequent cleanup work, you would not just be drinking water with trace amounts of chemicals, you would be drinking gasoline, or DDT, or pure TPH etc. etc.
        • Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

          Mon, December 5, 2011 - 4:01 PM
          <4.) Protect Sexual Predators' Privacy: Voted against requiring operators of wi-fi networks who discover the transmission of child porn and other forms online sex predation to report it to the government.

          First Amendment >

          forgive me for saying it, but i highly doubt the supreme court would uphold child pornography as protected speech.
      • Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

        Tue, November 22, 2011 - 11:09 PM
        "I hope he does win the GOP nomination, in large part because it will ensure an Obama win"

        I think Obama is in trouble if Paul wins the GOP. Paul will appeal to lots of ex Obama voters.
  • Unsu...
     

    Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

    Wed, November 23, 2011 - 1:43 PM
    They are scared to death now, watch for Obama~FOX to go all out attack on Ron Paul this week.
    www.dailypaul.com/188806/fo...ont-runner
    • Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

      Wed, November 23, 2011 - 4:49 PM
      His views on foreign policy go against Republican orthodoxy, subsequently it is only logical that they would vehemently disagree with his positions in that regard.

      Also, it should be noted that Ron Paul is in 5th place with 7.5% of the GOP vote.
      www.realclearpolitics.com/epoll...2.html

      And currently Obama is beating Paul by 6% in the polls, which is worse than Obama against a generic GOP candidate.
      www.realclearpolitics.com/epoll...s.html
      www.realclearpolitics.com/epoll...5.html

      So I don't think there is anything for them to "scared to death" about. 7.5% is not going to get him the nomination.
      • Unsu...
         

        Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

        Wed, November 23, 2011 - 5:27 PM
        <His views on foreign policy go against Republican orthodoxy, subsequently it is only logical that they would vehemently disagree with his positions in that regard.>


        He is go against Repubilcan orthodoxy and orthObobmadoxy?

        Oh say can you see by the Obombs early light.... :-D



        .
        • Unsu...
           

          Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

          Wed, November 23, 2011 - 5:56 PM
          Research, Jeff!
          www.publicpolicypolling.com/main....html
          www.harrisinteractive.com/NewsR...t.aspx
          thehill.com/homenews/cam...-by-debt-deal
          www.catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php

          How will Ron Paul win? Voters rEVOLution!
          Not win, no landslide!!

          30% Ron Paul voters will work and struggle and vote!
          10% Independent
          5% Obama 2008 disappointed voters
          3% Its the Economy Stupid
          5% Environmentalist, Progressives, Anti-x, Anti-y, Anti-Z, home schoolers, organic, chemical free and more.
          7% occupy wall street supporters, the debt slaved, the savers, the unemployed
          9% Union members, soldiers

          Obama voters

          10% to 20% will stay home not bother to vote!
          • Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

            Wed, November 23, 2011 - 6:06 PM
            Sorry, but people have a habit of just posting the polls that work out for their candidate. I post Real Clear Politics being that they average ALL of the polls, thereby presenting a more accurate picture. Paul has 7%, pretty shitty.
            • Unsu...
               

              Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

              Fri, December 2, 2011 - 6:07 PM
              <ALL of the polls, thereby presenting a more accurate picture. Paul has 7%, pretty shitty™>
              The ALL fraudster-pollsters are going to show pretty shitty™ on their faces January 3rd.

              Yes, Jeff, in fact, Jeff, ALL the polls, Jeff, come from the pretty shitty™ media. :-D


              In the past two weeks the American people have been subjected to nearly 120 stories about the sex life of Presidential contender Herman Cain. Yet at the same time:

              1.) Only 3 major networks covered Obama’s sending U.S. troops in Uganda.

              2.) Only 1 major news network covered the scandal of the Obama Administration sending guns to Mexican gun cartels.

              3.) No major network covered the 8th largest bankruptcy in U.S. history of MF Global, whose CEO was top Obama adviser, former Goldman Sachs CEO, and former Democratic Governor of New Jersey John Corzine.

              4.) No major network has covered the Solyndra scandal that allowed $500 million in U.S. taxpayer money to be swindled away by buddies of the Obama Administration.

              5.) No major network covered anti-drone protests in Yemen.

              6.) No major network has covered the assassination of Abdulrahman Al-awlaki, a 16 year old American citizen.

              7.) No network covered Ron Paul winning the Illinois Straw Poll.
              davidkretzmann.com/
          • Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

            Fri, November 25, 2011 - 11:44 PM
            "3% Its the Economy Stupid "

            I think Paul will get a lot of votes from people who see the economy as the single most important issue in this election. The economy is broken, this isn't a normal economic downturn and won't be fixed with through traditional means. Paul's ideas of eliminating and reforming wasteful agencies may be too extreme for some traditionalists, but many will agree that outside the box thinking is what we need.

            ---

            Ron Paul wins Bloomberg readers poll as best candidate on the economy
            Thursday, 13 October 2011 12:00
            Kenneth_Schortgen
            Kenneth Schortgen Jr
            Finance Examiner

            October 12, 2011 - On October 12th, the Republican presidential hopefuls met at Dartmouth University for a debate on economic issues which was sponsored by Bloomberg. Several questions that included taxation, job creation, housing, and welfare benefits were asked of the candidates, and in a readers poll conducted after the debates were finished, Congressman Ron Paul was voted the candidate who understands the economy best by a landslide.

            Below are the results of the poll:
            Ron Paul - 2843 votes
            Herman Cain - 342 votes
            Mitt Romney - 151 votes
            All other candidates received negligible votes.

            During the debate, two very telling issues stood out amongst the candidates, and the moderators. First, Ron Paul was once again relegated as a back of the bus candidate as the Bloomberg moderator saw fit to only ask the Congressman two questions, while everyone else received substantially more opportunities to provide their plans and opinions. Secondly, candidate Herman Cain scored very well with his 9-9-9 taxation plan, as it was mentioned and addressed over and over by other candidates, and the moderators throughout the evening.

            For Congressman Paul to be voted by Bloomberg readers as the best candidate regarding economic issues, even when he was allowed limited opportunities to speak at last nights debate, speaks highly to those in the business world who understand Paul's knowledge and abilities on finance and economics long before last nights debate. It appears that even with the other Republican candidates having ample time to provide their plans and knowledge, their opinions did not come close to unseating Ron Paul's popularity in the world of finance.

            If anything, the debate last night by Bloomberg overwhelmingly separated two candidates from the rest in regards to the economy. Ron Paul and Herman Cain have the most knowledge, experiences, and the best understanding of how finance works, and judging by the results of the readers poll after the debates, Congressman Ron Paul is the people's choice to best pull America out of our economic crisis.
            • Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

              Mon, November 28, 2011 - 1:36 PM
              "I think Paul will get a lot of votes from people who see the economy as the single most important issue in this election. The economy is broken, this isn't a normal economic downturn and won't be fixed with through traditional means. Paul's ideas of eliminating and reforming wasteful agencies may be too extreme for some traditionalists, but many will agree that outside the box thinking is what we need. "

              Though I disagree with most of Paul's positions, he's probably the only mainstream candidate that would get my vote based on the facts that he's going to be constrained by the powers of the office, and that he seems like the only one currently willing to try and address the issue in any meaningful way. And as they say, that sure beats doing nothing
              • Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

                Mon, November 28, 2011 - 7:38 PM
                "would get my vote based on the facts that he's going to be constrained by the powers of the office, and that he seems like the only one currently willing to try and address the issue in any meaningful way."

                I think Paul has a much better chance at implementing then the guy that used that as his slogan.
  • Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

    Mon, December 5, 2011 - 4:06 PM
    www.theatlanticwire.com/politi.../43747/
    John Hudson 199,254 Views Oct 17, 2011

    Ron Paul loyalists have been vindicated. After months of observations that the mainstream media was ignoring the libertarian standard-bearer, a new study by the Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism shows just that: the Texas Congressman, who has consistently polled in the high single digits -- Real Clear Politics's aggregate poll currently has him at 8 percent -- has received the least overall coverage of any candidate. From May 2 to October 9, Paul appeared as the "primary newsmaker in only 2% of all election stories."

    The study measured mainstream exposure by compiling a list of 52 mainstream news outlets across "newspapers, cable news, broadcast television, the 12 most popular news websites in the country, and radio news." To register as a story about the candidate, he/she had to be the focus of at least 50 percent of the story. Interestingly, while Paul gained short shrift from the mainstream press, the blogosphere was an entirely different story, where the tone of his coverage was more favorable than for any other candidate:

    Paul generated a good deal of attention on blogs, registering as the fifth most-discussed candidate with more than 89,000 opinions tracked about him.

    Moreover, he and his candidacy fared better than any other candidate in the tone of that conversation. In all, 48% of the blogging conversation about Paul was positive compared with only 15% negative and 38% neutral. The next highest positive rating for any Republican was 34%, for Romney, and the next lowest negative rating was 24%, for Cain.

    While complaints about a lack of media coverage are typical coming from any struggling candidate, Paul boosters, and even some independent observers, have argued that Paul's media blackout is particularly striking considering his concrete successes on the campaign trail. By our count those successes include:

    Winning the Los Angeles Country Straw Poll last week, with more votes than Mitt Romney and Herman Cain combined.

    On October 8, winning the Values Voter straw poll in Washington, D.C.

    Raising $8.3 million in the third quarter, putting his fundraising clout way ahead of other second-tier candidates such as Herman Cain, who raised $2.8 million in the quarter, Michele Bachmann, who raised $4.1 million, and Rick Santorum, who raised less than $1 million.

    Winning the California Republican Party straw poll in September.

    Taking a close second in the Ames straw poll in Iowa in August behind Congresswoman Michele Bachmann.

    As The Washington Post notes. "Paul’s support has been stable at 10 percent or 11 percent of Republican and GOP-leaning independents in the three most recent Washington Post-ABC News polls." The question is, why is that not a story for the political media?

    Want to add to this story? Let us know in comments or send an email to the author at jhudson@theatlantic.com. You can share ideas for stories on the Open Wire.
    • Unsu...
       

      Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

      Wed, December 7, 2011 - 2:29 AM
      <Ron Paul loyalists have been vindicated. After months of observations that the mainstream media was ignoring the libertarian standard-bearer>


      Ron Paul is a Republican candidate for the Republican Party nomination for president.

      Now Ron Paul will not be ignored because he now at the top. Now Ron Paul will be attacked. Unlike Bachman, Perry, Cain, Romney and Gingrich who all fell from their perches, the more Ron Paul is attacked the more Now Ron Paul will go up in the polls. "If you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen". Ron Paul is not afraid of the kitchen, if fact now Ron Paul and Mrs. Paul are selling a cookbook. :-)


      www.youtube.com/watch
      Defense Dollar Doldrums - Redistributing Spending & Neo-Wilsonian Interventionists
  • Unsu...
     

    Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

    Wed, December 21, 2011 - 12:19 AM
    Top 10 Videos of 2011
    2011 was quite a year. With the meteoric rise and fall of GOP presidential contenders, Wisconsin teachers' unions on the brink of anarchy and the unsanitary occupation of Wall Street, there's been no shortage of stories for Jon and The Best F#@king News Team to explore. Watch the year's top Daily Show moments.


    #1
    Even when the media does remember Ron Paul, it's only to reassure themselves that there's no need to remember Ron Paul.www.thedailyshow.com/collect...eos-2011
  • Unsu...
     

    Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

    Mon, February 27, 2012 - 4:57 PM


    There are reasons why the pundits and the main stream media exclude him. Ron Paul is taking on the establishment. He is seeking to reform the monetary system, including making the decisions of the Federal Reserve transparent. He wants us all to know how much money they are “printing” and to whom it is given. dougwead.wordpress.com/

  • Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

    Tue, February 28, 2012 - 12:01 PM
    except he's not ignored

    I've seen him interviewed on countless news channels. Seen him do a long interview on CNN with Piers Morgan the other night

    So in spite of the conspiracy cranks claims there's no substance
    • Unsu...
       

      Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

      Fri, March 9, 2012 - 5:13 PM
      <except he's not ignored

      I've seen him interviewed on countless news channels. Seen him do a long interview on CNN with Piers Morgan the other night

      So in spite of the conspiracy cranks claims there's no substance >

      yes, main street media are required by the fcc to give "equal time".




      • Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

        Mon, March 12, 2012 - 3:43 PM
        <<yes, main street media are required by the fcc to give "equal time".

        Wrong, Reagan ended that rule decades ago.
        • Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

          Mon, March 12, 2012 - 3:48 PM
          <<yes, main street media are required by the fcc to give "equal time".

          Wrong, Reagan ended that rule decades ago >>

          If Ron Paul's supporters want to do something constructive, they can start agitating to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine.
          • Unsu...
             

            Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

            Mon, March 12, 2012 - 4:26 PM
            <If Ron Paul's supporters want to do something constructive, they can start agitating to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine. >

            first things first --- to be the republican nominee for president.

            it is now a choice: fake reality--war, poverty, tyranny vs reality--- peace, prosperity, liberty
            • Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

              Tue, March 13, 2012 - 11:17 AM
              <If Ron Paul's supporters want to do something constructive, they can start agitating to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine. >

              first things first --- to be the republican nominee for president. >>

              HAHAHA!!

              The 2012 GOP nomination for President is all but worthless. Those poor fools will be lucky indeed to hold onto a single house of Congress. There's not a candidate in the field Obama can't turn every way but loose and all four spend a huge part of every day making sure his three opponents are completely unelectable. Any way this turns out, the top of the GOP ticket is gonna be radioactive by November. Indeed, the entire conservative movement is going down in flames as we speak thanks to El Rushbo.
        • Unsu...
           

          Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

          Mon, March 12, 2012 - 4:07 PM
          well, the fact is fox news, cnn still do follow that old Reagan ended rule they give equal time to the establishment candidates; fox news, cnn do do when they do doo interview RP :-) always they noise out the interview with split screen visual images of the other candidates and they question him to tell them that he is going to give in to the establishment and quit. :-)


          • Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

            Mon, March 12, 2012 - 5:06 PM
            <<well, the fact is fox news, cnn still do follow that old Reagan ended rule

            Except they don't, not sure where you got that false idea.
            • Unsu...
               

              Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

              Mon, March 12, 2012 - 9:56 PM
              <Except they don't, not sure where you got that false idea.>

              Jeff, It is not my idea. i don't do that. Thank you, anyway for crediting me. The fact is MSM establishment does it. :-D

              MSM cnn and fox interview Ron Paul they simultaneously show on split screen visual images of the establishment candidates: Obama, Romney, Santorum, Gingrich... or they talk about the establishment candidates superiority: Obama, Romney, Santorum, Gingrich.

              In fact, Jeff, you are right, it is not equal time, your msm establishment candidates get more space and time than does the outside-the-establishment candidate Ron Paul who is being interviewed :-D


              • Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

                Tue, March 13, 2012 - 9:48 AM
                << The fact is MSM establishment does it

                The fact is that they don't, as is demonstrated by numerous studies on the issue.

                <<MSM cnn and fox interview Ron Paul they simultaneously show on split screen visual images of the establishment candidates: Obama, Romney, Santorum, Gingrich... or they talk about the establishment candidates superiority: Obama, Romney, Santorum, Gingrich.

                That does not translate in to equal air time.

                << your msm establishment candidates get more space and time than does the outside-the-establishment candidate Ron Paul who is being interviewed

                Except Ron Paul is inside the establishment, he is a long time Washington insider and running for President under the Republican party.
  • Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

    Thu, March 8, 2012 - 11:25 AM
    I ignore Ron Paul because I see him as a Romantic and not as a realist. Virtually all of his ideas that I have heard him speak of are grounded not on science but on a vision seen through rose-colored glasses. His desire to return to the gold standard flies in the face of sound econics. It also ignores the experience that the U.K. had when it did so; English goods became too expensive for foreign trade and helped to cripple its manufacturing base as workers were paid less. This led to crippling strikes and great civil strife. Given the state of the economy now that is the last thing we need.

    That is just one example, but it frames the issue, I think. Ron Paul longs for simplicity, but the world needs a leader who can deal with complexity, because that is the kind of age we live in. Sadly, none of the candidates are very good choices.
    • Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

      Thu, March 8, 2012 - 12:12 PM
      I was unaware they tried the gold standard in the U.K., I guess you are right in that it does not work well for international trade, let alone our modern global economy. Paul wants to party like it is 1899.
      • Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

        Thu, March 8, 2012 - 4:22 PM
        England returned to the Gold standard when Winston Churchill was Chancellor of the Exchequer. This was 1924, during the so-called Roaring 20's. The Gold Standard infflated the British Pound, but had a converse effect, by making wages for hourly workers less because the British Pound was worth more. Wage slaves said they were being cheated because they were being paid less for the same amount of work as before. When they didn't see their needs addressed, they began a series of strikes which quickly spread to other industries, shuttering factories and causing great civil hardship.

        This was a tremendous advantage for the USA, which caused American industries to boom. Britain's usual trading partners turned to American manufacturers for the goods they used to get from the U.K. American industries expanded, which began the supplanting of Great Britain by American manufacturing.

        If Paul succeeded in getting America back on the Gold Standard, I can see America repeating Britain's fall, with China taking our place even faster than it is right now! I'm sure many economists have tried to point this out to him, but considering the fact that he keeps mouthing the same 19th-century platitudes it's pretty obvious that he doesn't listen.
      • Unsu...
         

        Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

        Thu, March 8, 2012 - 5:44 PM
        Jeff, why is worthless Libya gold killed for and stolen and Iran gold is now under attack. :) if gold is so worthless, Jeff, why is China buying it and why is yes we can attacking for it?. :-D

        <I was unaware they tried the gold standard in the U.K., I guess you are right in that it does not work well for international trade, let alone our modern global economy.>


        yes, it is also gold standard is Muslim.
        www.youtube.com/watch


        Well, I have the answer: Libya was refusing to bow down to the central bankers that control the currency of international exchange (The dollar) and the currencies of the major industrialized nations. Ghaddafi was in fact attempting to establish a gold backed currency for the continent of Africa. This would mean a sudden reversal in fortunes as the price of gold has skyrocketed with all of the central bank-fueled inflation. Africa could have become the richest and most prosperous economy in a matter of years had Ghaddafi been successful.itsmyblog.com/2011/11/i-k...ed-in-libya/
        • Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

          Fri, March 9, 2012 - 9:54 AM
          Nobody said gold is worthless, you are creating a straw man argument.
          • Unsu...
             

            Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

            Fri, March 9, 2012 - 5:04 PM
            <Nobody said gold is worthless, you are creating a straw man argument. >

            Jeff, who, is the straw man?

            Ben Bernanke to Ron Paul: Gold Isn’t Money

            www.myloansconsolidated.com/2011...oney/
            • Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

              Mon, March 12, 2012 - 3:41 PM
              You being that I am not Ben Bernanke. Be that as it may the concept that gold is not money is not the same thing as it being "worthless".
              • Unsu...
                 

                Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

                Mon, March 12, 2012 - 5:02 PM
                <You being that I am not Ben Bernanke. Be that as it may the concept that gold is not money is not the same thing as it being "worthless". >

                Jeff, yes, you are right, gold is not worthless it is $ that is worthless. :-)



                Lowenstein's conclusion:

                The Nixon Shock was a central cause of the Great Inflation. It also spelled the end of the fixed relationships that had governed the financial universe. Previously, people took out mortgages for set periods and at fixed rates. They had virtually no options for saving money other than in banks, and the interest rates that banks could pay were capped. Floating currencies unleashed a new world of risk and instability. For the first time, investors could bet on the direction of interest rates or the Swiss franc. New financial instruments, new speculative tools, proliferated. The world gravitated from the certainties of Bretton Woods to the dizzying market cycles we’ve lived with since. Donald Kohn, who joined the Fed in 1970 and retired last year as vice-chairman, thinks Bretton Woods was doomed. But bankers have yet to find as rigorous a standard as gold. And they have become ever more apt to please politicians, deferring recessions at the risk of inflating asset bubbles...

                The "dizzying market cycles" of the recent past are not going to be quelled by going back to the gold standard. The gold standard era is over for good. Gold is too scarce to support a new monetary standard. Instead it has become another currency on to itself, which offers a store of value.
                johnsville.blogspot.com/2011/0...rd.html

                Definition of 'Nixon Shock'
                A term used to describe the actions taken by former U.S. President Richard Nixon in 1971 that eventually led to the collapse of the Bretton Woods system. The policies imposed and the actions taken by President Nixon included imposing a 90-day wage and price freeze in America, a 10% import surcharge and, most notably, closing the gold window, effectively making the U.S. dollar inconvertible to gold.
                Investopedia Says
                Investopedia explains 'Nixon Shock'
                The ramifications of Nixon Shock rocked the global economic landscape. By closing the gold window, the United States made it impossible for other nations to peg their currency to the gold standard, which was the underlying principle behind the Bretton Woods system. As a direct result of the economic policies imposed by the United States at the time, the gold standard was all but abandoned and the world's major currencies began to float.
                www.investopedia.com/terms/n...owvmiznn


                "America is losing wealth far faster than any other nation on earth is. In fact, since the mid-1970s there has been a transfer of wealth of almost 8 trillion dollars from the United States to the rest of the world. "endoftheamericandream.com/archi...-speed
                • Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

                  Mon, March 12, 2012 - 5:10 PM
                  <<Jeff, yes, you are right, gold is not worthless it is $ that is worthless. :-)

                  Neither is worthless being both would enrich me monetarily. I can sell gold for cash which I can then use to purchase whatever I may choose.
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
                    Unsu...
                     

                    Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

                    Mon, March 12, 2012 - 10:11 PM
                    <Neither is worthless being both would enrich me monetarily. I can sell gold for cash which I can then use to purchase whatever I may choose.>



                    Jeff, you bought gold!!! ? congratulations!!!!

    • Unsu...
       

      Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

      Thu, March 8, 2012 - 5:59 PM
      <I ignore Ron Paul because I see him as a Romantic and not as a realist. >

      yes, murder, mayhem, mafiaocracy intervention is more realistic: yes we can gets what we want by our stealing and looting it from others and also, we get interest by our financing the debt. :-)

      ignore: peace, prosperity, and liberty are so dreamy; nightmare is so yummy wummy --- blood, corpses, and destruction. :-D
      • Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

        Fri, March 9, 2012 - 7:42 AM
        um, yeah, that's the point. if you want to live in a world without all of the below/above, start falling asleep. i hope the dreamworld you create is amazing.
        • Unsu...
           

          Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

          Mon, March 12, 2012 - 10:02 PM
          <um, yeah, that's the point. if you want to live in a world without all of the below/above, start falling asleep. i hope the dreamworld you create is amazing. >

          voters are awakening: peace, prosperity, liberty 41 vs. war, poverty, tyranny 42 :-D


          Mr. Paul, a Texas congressman, also stacked up well against the president, trailing Mr. Obama by 1 percentage point (41 to 42). Rasmussen Poll
  • Re: Ron Paul - why is he ignored?

    Tue, March 13, 2012 - 9:07 AM
    www.thenation.com/print/art...ds-toys-it
    Ron Paul Wants to Abolish the CIA; His Largest Donor Builds Toys for It
    | February 23, 2012

    If there’s one thing that distinguishes Ron Paul from the rest of the GOP field, it’s his principled stand against American empire and his ardent defense of individual liberties [1]. Paul’s opposition to wars, bloated defense budgets and government espionage of US citizens has made him a hero among some young conservatives. His seemingly rock-solid principles and radicalism has even drawn some on the left; unlike even left-wing Democrats, Paul has said he wants to abolish both the CIA and the FBI to protect individual “liberty.”

    So it should come as a shock and disappointment to his followers that Ron Paul’s single largest donor—his Sheldon Adelson, as it were—founded a controversial defense contractor, Palantir Technologies, that profits from government espionage work for the CIA, FBI and other agencies, and which last year was caught organizing an illegal spy ring targeting American political opponents of the US Chamber of Commerce, including journalists, progressive activists and union leaders. (Palantir takes its name from the mystic stones used by characters in Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings to spy one another.)

    According to recently filed FEC disclosure documents, Ron Paul’s Super PAC has received nearly all of its money from a single source, billionaire Peter Thiel. So far, Thiel has contributed $2.6 million [2] to Ron Paul’s Super PAC, Endorse Liberty [3], providing 76 percent of the Super PAC’s total [2] intake.

    Thiel, a self-described libertarian and opponent of democracy [4] who made his fortune as the founder of PayPal, launched Palantir in 2004 to profit from what the Wall Street Journal described [5] as “the government spy-services marketplace.” The CIA’s venture capital firm, In-Q-Tel, was brought in to back up Thiel as one of Palantir’s first outside investors. Today, Palantir’s valuation is reported [6] to be in the billions.

    A recent Businessweek profile [7] explained how Palantir makes its money—and why Ron Paul’s followers should be bothered:

    Depending where you fall on the spectrum between civil liberties absolutism and homeland security lockdown, Palantir’s technology is either creepy or heroic. Judging by the company’s growth, opinion in Washington and elsewhere has veered toward the latter. Palantir has built a customer list that includes the U.S. Defense Dept., CIA, FBI, Army, Marines, Air Force, the police departments of New York and Los Angeles, and a growing number of financial institutions trying to detect bank fraud. These deals have turned the company into one of the quietest success stories in Silicon Valley—it’s on track to hit $250 million in sales this year—and a candidate for an initial public offering. Palantir has been used to find suspects in a case involving the murder of a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement special agent, and to uncover bombing networks in Syria, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. “It’s like plugging into the Matrix,” says a Special Forces member stationed in Afghanistan who requested anonymity out of security concerns. “The first time I saw it, I was like, ‘Holy crap. Holy crap. Holy crap.’ ”

    It gets worse: the technologies and know-how acquired over years of spying on suspected foreign terrorists and threats were turned to private, political use against US citizens. In what became known last year as the “Chamber-Gate” scandal, Palantir was outed by Anonymous as the lead outfit in a private espionage consortium with security technology companies HBGary and Berico; the groups spent months “creating electronic dossiers on political opponents of the Chamber through illicit means [8].”

    According to ThinkProgress [8], Palantir “may have used techniques and technologies developed under military contracts in their pro-Chamber campaign.”

    Thiel’s Palantir and its two intelligence contractor partners—collectively named “Team Themis” [9] after the Roman goddess of law and order—proposed to the Chamber’s lawyers a plan that involved illegal cyber-espionage against the Chamber’s enemies, including targeting activists’ families and children [10]. Among those targeted: ThinkProgress, union leaders, MoveOn, Brad Friedman and Glenn Greenwald [11], whose support for Wikileaks reportedly [12] rankled Chamber member Bank of America.

    Ron Paul came out vocally supporting [13] WikiLeaks and Assange, positions that made Paul popular among young libertarians and progressives. Just weeks before PayPal announced [14] it had cut off funding for Wikileaks, Thiel’s stake in PayPal was reportedly worth $1.7 billion [15] (he sold the company to eBay in 2002).

    Thiel has funded a number of far-right-wing causes over the years: He was an early investor in conservative filmmaker James O’Keefe [16]’s career, funding a video called “Taxpayer’s Clearing House,” which shows O’Keefe duping working-class minorities [16] into believing they’d won a sweepstakes, only to stick them with a tax bill for the bailouts. O’Keefe, of course, later produced the infamous ACORN and Planned Parenthood videos and was also charged with entering a federal building under false pretenses in an attempt to wiretap the offices of US Senator Mary Landrieu. Thiel was a member of the right-wing Federalist Society while at Stanford Law School, and he co-authored an anti–affirmative action book, The Diversity Myth: Multiculturalism and Political Intolerance on Campus [17]—a book that belittles “imaginary oppressors” of minorities, blames homophobia on homosexuals [18] and attacks domestic partnerships. Thiel himself is gay [19].

    In a recent article published in the libertarian Cato Unbound, Thiel came out against democracy [4] and majority rule, and blamed women’s suffrage [4] for ending “freedom”:

    The 1920s were the last decade in American history during which one could be genuinely optimistic about politics. Since 1920, the vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women—two constituencies that are notoriously tough for libertarians—have rendered the notion of “capitalist democracy” into an oxymoron.

    Thiel also funds a libertarian project headed by Milton Friedman’s grandson, Patri Friedman, called the “Seasteading Institute,” which designs offshore “libertarian utopias.” Patri Friedman also denounced democracy as “ill-suited for a libertarian state.”

    If Ron Paul is serious about his principled defense of Americans’ individual liberties and his opposition to war-profiteering and government espionage against its own citizens, then why does his main Super PAC rely so heavily on one of the worst violators of Paul’s core principles?

    What exactly is Ron Paul talking about when he warns his followers that America is becoming a “fascist system” [1]? In his recent speech, Paul defined this “fascist system” as “a combination of government and big business and authoritarian rule and the suppression of the individual rights of each and every American citizen.” Can Paul really oppose such “fascism” while his campaign is bankrolled by one of the chief protagonists and beneficiaries of the very system Ron Paul claims to oppose?
    Source URL: www.thenation.com/article/1...ds-toys-it

    Links:
    [1] www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_1...ist-system/
    [2] money.cnn.com/2012/02/20/...el_ron_paul/
    [3] www.endorseliberty.com/
    [4] www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04...rtarian/
    [5] online.wsj.com/article/SB...984303.html
    [6] dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/05...picture/
    [7] www.businessweek.com/printer...011.html
    [8] thinkprogress.org/economy/2...-palantir/
    [9] thinkprogress.org/chamberleaks-timeline/
    [10] file://localhost/-%09http/::thinkprogress.org:economy:2011:02:10:143428:chamberleaks-target-families:
    [11] www.salon.com/2011/02/11/...d_wikileaks/
    [12] thinkprogress.org/economy/2...mberleaks/
    [13] www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/1...wikileaks/
    [14] www.thepaypalblog.com/2010/12...kileaks/
    [15] stanfordreview.org/article/...d-web-2-0
    [16] blogs.villagevoice.com/runnin...ake.php
    [17] www.amazon.com/Diversity-.../0945999763
    [18] blogs.villagevoice.com/runnin...ake.php
    [19] gawker.com/335894/

Recent topics in "! * POLITICS * !"

Topic Author Replies Last Post
ISIS svetlana 22 Yesterday, 11:25 PM
United Nations Launches Equality Campaign For Women with UN Se... K 12 October 20, 2014
Occupy Building 7 - November 19-20 Harmen 329 October 19, 2014
The Climate Wars... Harmen 228 October 18, 2014