Say Anything Blog

Just because John Birchers support him doesn’t make Ron Paul a supporter of all their views.  They have some things in common, that’s all.  For example, they share a respect for the constitution.  Why don’t you just focus on Ron Paul’s message rather than try to smear him indirectly by what a supporter might believe?  You have to remember, politicians will take anyone they can get.  Believe me, Hillary Clinton would welcome John Birchers with open arms.

You say:
“Of course, Ron Paul thinks 9/11 was a plot to create an excuse for war in Afghanistan/Iraq...”

This isn’t true.  Listen to this interview to hear his position:

http://www.townhall.com/MediaPlayer/AudioPlayer.aspx?ContentGuid=88843f40-d80f-4316-aa51-48064bc0d163

Just because John Birchers support him doesn’t make Ron Paul a supporter of all their views.

From Ron Paul’s actual words:

I don’t know how many positions they would have that I don’t agree with.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

It has become historically accepted that FDR knew of the attack on Pearl Harbor in advance but did nothing to stop it (aside from sending most of the carriers out to sea ahead of the attack).

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=408

It has become historically accepted that FDR knew of the attack on Pearl Harbor in advance but did nothing to stop it

Really?  Are you kidding me?

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

It has become historically accepted that FDR knew of the attack on Pearl Harbor in advance…

Y2K; if you repeat something over and over, eventually you can regard it as “accepted”, no matter how false it might be.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

From what I have read, Ron Paul has a pretty lengthy list of things that are woefully wrong and need to be corrected.  But i don’t recall reading much of what he has proposed to actually DO about any of it.

There is already one shrew running for President on the Democrats’ side.  There’s no reason for the Republicans to offer one too.  Those who are married don’t need another nag in their lives.  Those who are divorced don’t need the reminder.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Guys,
Disagreeing with Ron Paul is one thing. Smearing him is another. He never said 9/11 was a plot. He has said that the government used it as an excuse for Iraq. I mean, research his actual views and ideas instead of tying him to his sometime-extremist supporters. Just because he respects members of the John Birch Society doesn’t mean he’s a member. You quoted him correctly about “not disagreeing” with many things, but afterwards you assume him to support their conspiracy theories. Please do a better job of being objective.

I don’t know how many positions they would have that I don’t agree with.

That statement doesn’t even mean anything. This is one of the areas where he acts like a politician. He probably doesn’t agree with them on any number of things, not least their conspiracy theories, but he doesn’t want to say that flat out and lose their support. So he hedges. He’s human, what else is new? He is still the best candidate the Republicans have to offer.

As far as what he plans to do, I would think that much is obvious: Bring the troops home, veto unconstitutional legislation, eliminate abuses of executive power and use the office of the President to bring the issues that actually matter to the forefront of public discussion. Congress will act if the President convinces the people to demand it.

Congress will act if the President convinces the people to demand it.

That’s not the President’s job; neither is it his job to surrender to the sworn enemies of our way of life, be they Dems, the MSM or Islamic terrorists.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

I notice that the author of this “piece” does not put his name on it.  That however, will not protect him.  His computer can still be traced.  This is libel, pure and simple.  It is about time someone filed a lawsuit against people who spout lies in print.  I hope you have a lot of cash because a lawsuit can get pretty expensive, especially when you have no defense on your side.  Being a “blogger” does not give you the right to print defaming lies about people.

Why is it that all of the people who are against Ron Paul can only attack him for things he did not say, or stances he does not support.  Now, I don’t say everyone has to like the guy, but if you are going to say something against him, at least let it be based on truth and facts.

Slow down, learn about the Dr. and find out WHY his supporters are so enthusiastic about him.  All he wants to do is: stop needless killing, help the poor, end monetary inflation, stop government invasions on our civil liberties, protect the economic sector from expensive wasteful regulations, bring down prices for all, protect the incoming generation from being burdened with crushing debt, protect our young people from a possible draft, and stop letting the government take billions of dollars a year from the lower and middle classes and give it to the upper 1%.  So what is so wrong with that? 

Who wants the opposite of any of that? 

If you want to learn HOW go to lewrockwell.com find the Ron Paul file and READ. 

This isn’t really that hard folks.  His supporters like him because he is trustworthy, has a great track record and will actually make changes that are great for this country.  Or do you think bombing another country will fix all our problems here? 

Before you can fix a problem you must understand it.  Show me another candidate who understands as much economics as Ron Paul does.

All he wants to do is: stop needless killing, help the poor, end monetary inflation, stop government invasions on our civil liberties, protect the economic sector from expensive wasteful regulations, bring down prices for all, protect the incoming generation from being burdened with crushing debt, protect our young people from a possible draft, and stop letting the government take billions of dollars a year from the lower and middle classes and give it to the upper 1%… Who wants the opposite of any of that?

My Goodness, that’s an impressive list!  Sounds like a cross between a Miss America wannabe and Harry Potter.  One assumes he’s saving his cures for AIDS and the common cold for a second term in office?

Before you can fix a problem you must understand it.  Show me another candidate who understands as much economics as Ron Paul does.

You’ve got to be kidding!  Congressman Paul’s rants against the Federal Reserve system are near legendary in their sanctimonious intensity, but I recall neither a detailed and cogent explanation of what he proposes to replace our current monetary system with, nor any sense that Paul comprehends even remotely what the effects of his changes would be and how he proposes to deal with those either.

The US dollar is no longer just the American’s means of storing, reporting, and exchanging value.  Like it or not, its the world’s system of exchange as well.

Dr. Paul’s economic pronouncements, such as they are, have a primitive, disjointed, almost bucolic appeal… William Jennings Bryan meets Tim Burton, with a dash of Rube Goldberg just to take the edge off.

What Ron Paul’s candidacy establishes certainly isn’t any economic or monetary policy bona fides on Mr. Paul’s part.  Quite the contrary.

No, what is established is that the Republican party is truly fair and balanced.  After all, the Democrats have their Dennis Kucinich… we have Ron Paul.  What could possible be more fair than that?

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

You say that the John Birch Society is paranoid and idiotic. What you are actually saying is that restoring the constitution is paranoid and idiotic. I see from your statements that ignorance really is bliss. Now, look at what JBS is really about: http://jbs.org/

Jeffiner,

I notice that the author of this “piece” does not put his name on it.  That however, will not protect him.  His computer can still be traced.  This is libel, pure and simple.

Try looking under the title of the post, moron.

And the truth can never, ever be libel.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Rob: If the Paulists are so righteously right, why do they need to use threats to silence dissent?

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

Ok, for the last time:  Ron Paul does NOT think 9/11 was done by anyone other than terrorists as an excuse to go to war, and anyone who claims contrary is lying or has done no fact checking.

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/120338.html

Reason: What did you mean when you told the Scholars that “the [9/11] investigation is an investigation in which there were government cover-ups”?

Paul: I do think there were cover-ups, and I think it was mainly to cover up who was blamed, who’s inept. See, they had the information. The FBI had an agent who was very much aware of the terrorists getting flight lessons but obviously not training to be pilots. He reported it 70 times or whatever and it was totally ignored. We were spending $40 billion a year on intelligence. It wasn’t a lack of money or a lack of intelligence, it was a lack of the ability to put the intelligence together. Even the administration had been forewarned that something was coming, the CIA had been forewarned. So it was a cover up of who to blame. I see it more that way.

Reason: The position of the Student Scholars is that 9/11 was executed by the U.S. government. Do you agree or disagree with that?

Paul: I’d say there’s no evidence of that.

I actually think Ron Paul’s hordes have a point about some things.  Like folks trying to exclude Paul from debates.  He’s a candidate, a Representative and a member of the GOP.  There’s no reason why he can’t be heard at these debates.

That he’s a crank with a lot of cranky things to say but few actual policies to deal with the problems we’re facing is true, in my estimation.  But he deserves to have his fair say.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Ron Paul does NOT think 9/11 was done by anyone other than terrorists as an excuse to go to war, and anyone who claims contrary is lying or has done no fact checking.

Then why does he keep appearing with that nutter Alex Jones?  If you don’t want to be accused of supporting conspiracy theories, don’t pal around with conspiracy mongers.

Ron Paul’s nuttery about the Gulf of Tonkin and some mysterious impending plot to foment war with Iran is detailed pretty well right here.

And it is absolutely true that Paul desires an investigation into the “truth” of 9/11.  Now I’m sure Paul’s minions will spin that off as simply wanting, you know, the truth, but in reality it’s tantamount to proclaiming that you want an investigation into the “truth” of the holocaust.

What’s fantastically cowardly and untruthful of Paul is that he tries to perpetuate these conspiracy canards among his faithful while donning a mainstream hat for the benefit of the public at large.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Paul: I’d say there’s no evidence of that.

He didn’t say it didn’t happen; he just said that there was no evidence of it happening.  This is just weaseling by Paul, IMO.

Interestingly enough, this is exactly the same answer Hillary gave when she was asked about her cattle futures profits; when asked if anything illegal or unethical led to those profits, she answered: “There’s no evidence of that.” As lawyers, Hillary and Paul know how to weasel out of things.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

Interestingly enough, this is exactly the same answer Hillary gave when she was asked about her cattle futures profits; when asked if anything illegal or unethical led to those profits, she answered: “There’s no evidence of that.” As lawyers, Hillary and Paul know how to weasel out of things.

So your response is to call him a liar.  You’re presented with evidence that contradicts your current opinion, and your response is to dismiss it.  You’re free to call him a liar and spin his own words, but you should back it up with something better than a weak Clinton comparison.

Mike: I didn’t call him a liar; I called him a weasel.  He gave a dishonest answer, in that if he really believed that 9/11 was a govt conspiracy, he should have said so outright, and if he really believed that the terrorists were responsible, he should have said that, but he gave a weasely answer, to cover all his bases.  You are the liar, sir.
His comment is the evidence, and I spun nothing; you lied about that, too.  I took his statement as he said it.  I realize that politics is the art of making people on both sides of an issue think that you support them, and Paul is simply another politician trying to get elected.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

I actually think Ron Paul’s hordes have a point about some things.  Like folks trying to exclude Paul from debates.  He’s a candidate, a Representative and a member of the GOP.  There’s no reason why he can’t be heard at these debates.

"Excluding" RP from the debates is no different than what the leading Democrats want (see: Hillary’s and John Boy Edwards’ whispering match, post debate), that is, a debate among the candidates who actually have a prayer of obtaining the nomination.

Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

Proof: I don’t think using Hitlary and the Breck Girl as examples for Republican conduct is such a good thing!

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

Proof: I also favor giving Paul a public forum, so that the public will see who he really is, rather than the version presented by his followers.  But then, I’m such a believer in the First Amendment that I think the NeoNazis and other real right-wingers deserve just as much coverage in the news media as the feminists, the antiwar pukes, the Dems and the invader supporters.  Silly me.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

Proof: I don’t think using Hitlary and the Breck Girl as examples for Republican conduct is such a good thing!

For better or worse, they represent 2/3 of the Dems frontrunners. The fact that they were caught in a rare moment of honesty is just icing on the cake!

I also favor giving Paul a public forum, so that the public will see who he really is,

Hell! Give him a sitcom! Even the Geico cavemen got one of those!
The point is, that if there are two serious candidates in a debate of twelve wannabees, serious debate cannot take place because of the noise and clutter of all the “vanity” candidates.

Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

The point is, that if there are two serious candidates in a debate of twelve wannabees, serious debate cannot take place because of the noise and clutter of all the “vanity” candidates.

Still, the more the public gets to hear what they have to say, the sooner the fools will be weeded out, and this goes for both parties.  There I go, being “bipartisan”.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

in a debate of twelve wannabees, serious debate cannot take place because of the noise and clutter of all the “vanity” candidates.

Well, to be honest, some thought Lincoln was a “wannabe” candidate in 1860.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Still, the more the public gets to hear what they have to say, the sooner the fools will be weeded out,

Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

Well, to be honest, some thought Lincoln was a “wannabe” candidate in 1860.

And if it had been the Lincoln-Douglas-Adams-Winken-Blinken-Nodd-Larry-Moe-Curly-Dewey-Cheatem & Howe debates, I’d have had the same argument!

Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

All this talk about Ron Paul being in sympathy with the John Birch Society and being excluded from debates begs the more critical question, the only truly important question: Let us assume every political belief of Ron Paul was 100% in harmony with conservative beliefs, which is impossible because nothing even close to 100% of conservatives agree with each other on anything; none of this matters if Ron Paul does not have the leadership qualities, communication skills and personality that excites the electorate. It is not the fault of the electorate if Ron Paul lacks the necessities to garner sufficient support among conservatives and right of center moderates to make him a serious candidate.

If we want to make an intelligent choice for the Republican Party nominee, we better stop squabbling (Making noisy arguments over a petty matters); we better push forward a serious candidate with the necessities mentioned to get the nomination with the unanimous support of the party and able to gain the White House, or be faced with the disgusting alternative of, “Ladies and Gentlemen, President Hillary Clinton.”

While at this moment I think Fred Thompson appears to have more of those necessities that any of the other Republican candidates, he needs to stop playing games, announce his candidacy and see if he is a serious contender within the party and the nation or just a Hollywood actor that absent a tightly written script is an empty suit.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Mike: I didn’t call him a liar; I called him a weasel.  He gave a dishonest answer, in that if he really believed that 9/11 was a govt conspiracy, he should have said so outright, and if he really believed that the terrorists were responsible, he should have said that, but he gave a weasely answer, to cover all his bases.  You are the liar, sir.

He has said on the house floor BEFORE 9/11 that our foreign policy would lead us into trouble.  He has said after 9/11 that our foreign policy played a significant role in bin Laden attacking us.  These two facts contradict the claim that the man thinks it was an inside job.  Yet, you perpetuate the false claim. 

He doesn’t need to state what he believes in the interview, it’s already been established that he feels our policies are to blame. 

So you said he’s a weasel, and likened him to Clinton.  I’m sorry, but the only weasel I see here is you in making such a bogus claim in defense of another bogus claim.

His comment is the evidence, and I spun nothing; you lied about that, too.  I took his statement as he said it.  I realize that politics is the art of making people on both sides of an issue think that you support them, and Paul is simply another politician trying to get elected.

You said he was weaseling (your opinion you gave), which he was not.  He frequently answers in manner he did in this interview, and even though he could answer better, I forgive him because guess what:  He’s simply not a typical politician.  His response to Guiliani during that infamous debate is evidence of this.  He could have responded directly and said “No, I’m not saying that America was to blame” like he did afterwards when he was talking to Hannity, but he instead responded went on to clarify his position.  That’s how he is.  He should work on that, I will agree on that point.

Again:  Paul does NOT think 9/11 was an inside job.  Those who state otherwise are either lying or haven’t done any fact checking.

It is not the fault of the electorate if Ron Paul lacks the necessities to garner sufficient support among conservatives and right of center moderates to make him a serious candidate.

It is true that, sometimes, a little known candidate can sweep in to victory.
Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton come to mind!

Caveat emptor!

Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

I see a lot of reactive chatter here.  Many of you are simply “media informed.” That means that you are willing to base your opinions on rumors, partial truths and innuendo. 

I see Ron Paul as consistent and honorable.  He understands history, and the banking system.  He may be the only candidate that can free the us from clutches of the fanatics currently in office that are promoting and forcing the Amero and the NAU (Not C Theories) with little relevant public knowledge. Ron Paul does this by empowering the American people, not by restricting their rights with fear based war tactics. 

Want to see truth?  Want to understand why things are the way they are?  Put all other subjects aside.  Do a Google video search for “Money As Debt” and then tell me who you think you should vote for.  I vote for Ron Paul on this one subject alone.

shpshftr
I know that there is truth where we often do not like to look; for fear of finding out something about ourselves that is ugly.  (It’s time to Empower The People)
shpshftr 2007

Even “Read-My-Lips” Bush I was a fairly unknown quantity, other than the fact that he was Reagan’s veep!

Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

shpshftr: You just don’t get it, it is Ron Paul’s job to sell his ideas and demonstrate leadership skills by winning over members of the party and the country, getting them to believe he has the necessities to win and do the job. So far he has failed miserably in that task and all of your attempts at correcting the false image is wasted energy if Paul is unable to sell himself. Even if all your assertions are true and I believe many are, Paul is not capable of inspiring people to follow him - that is his fault. You are naive if you think the Truth and facts will win the day, they won’t, not unless they are promoted by an appealing, competant messenger.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Neiman,

Actually, his grandfatherly look and sound is appealing after 8 years of Clinton and nearly 7 years of W.  His biggest problem right now is that he is basically unknown, and some right-wing media is trying to paint him as a 9/11 truther and irrelevant, not that he isn’t appealing.

No Neiman, I do get it.  Trying to convince members of a party that have long forgotten where they come from, and only cater to the special interests instead of the people, is at best futile. No Neiman, Ron Paul is exactly who we need.  No, I am not naive; I am way beyond that now. 

It is people with your understanding that has brought us to this point: Re: “Vote for most likely to win.” You guys are probably more than 90% of the electorate and haven’t been getting it right lately.  The media wins and loses elections if not Diebold.  It’s the lack of participation by disempowered people that vote like sheep or not at all that has us looking at things like NAU and the Amero.

Isn’t there a point where you must vote the truth and education instead of “The Odds?” The Bankers have us, and we are screwed if they win.

shpshftr
I woke up one morning and all of my stuff had been stolen...and replaced by exact Wal-Mart duplicates!

I love criticism of Ron Paul. Libel ("Ron Paul thinks 9/11 was a plot to create an excuse for war"), not so much

I find your Quote sort of funny after reading what you write.  lol It’s so typical of the conflict we consider to be reality and the desires we what to have as a reality. 

“It is the mission of each true knight, His duty… nay, his privilege! To dream the impossible dream, To fight the unbeatable foe, To bear with unbearable sorrow, To run where the brave dare not go; To right the unrightable wrong., To love, pure and chaste, from afar, To try, when your arms are too weary, To reach the unreachable star!”

This is one of those fights Neiman.  If you think it’s simply another day at the park, your mistaken.

shpshftr

Libel?  Hardly.  Paul has repeatedly suggested that we should investigate to find out the “truth” about 9/11.  That coupled with his ranting about an imminent staged terrorist attack to justify war with Iran tells us all we need to know about the man.

But, if you Paulites want to prove otherwise, go ahead and get yourself a reader blog and rant away.

It’ll be amusing.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Ron Paul explicitly says 9/11 was NOT a U.S. government conspiracy:

On the Mike Gallagher radio show on July 19, 2007, Paul said “Some people try to twist what I say and turn it into that, and I think some of my supporters lean in that direction, but that’s not my position. I do think government’s basically inept. I mean we were spending $40 billion a year collecting intelligence and a lot of information was out there. We had one FBI agent, I think sent dozens and dozens of memos to his superiors saying that there are people trying to fly airplanes but not land them, and nobody would pay any attention. So, I don’t think that’s a conspiracy. I think that’s a lot of bureaucracy that doesn’t work very well. And, then when we have government investigations, whether it’s 9/11 or assassinations, I think the main goal is to protect the government and to protect their ineptness - not - and that is a lot different than saying ‘Oh they conspired to do this so they can use this as an excuse to spread the war in the Middle East whether they had anything to do with 9/11 or not.’ I don’t see it that way, but I believe some who did want to spread the war would use it as an opportunity. But, it wasn’t something that was deliberately done.”

Listen to the interview yourself at http://www.ronpaulaudio.com

Stop lying about Ron Paul.

Well sure, now that Paul is getting called out on this, he’s backpedaling.

Wake me up when he isn’t a regular on that fruitcake Alex Jones’ show.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Wanting to find out what went wrong on 9/11 is different from thinking it “was a plot to create an excuse for war”. Please link or quote the “rant” you speak of; otherwise, it’s just more libel.

He never said it was; you’ve just been trying to read in between the lines and saw what you wanted to see. So has Alex Jones.

If you are responsible and have integrity, you’ll delete your blog entry now that you’ve read Paul explicitly makes it clear that 9/11 wasn’t a conspiracy.

Disregard the 9/11 position, and the Paulettes and thier “candidate” are still milquetoasty, insipid, juveniles.  Several have glorified Paul as an economic genius, a forward-thinking Nostradamus, even a “true conservative.” WTF ever.  Paulettes and their Golden Calf are fringe material, grasping at straws as they gasp in frustration about the “stupid” American public’s inability to recognize their obvious intellectual and moral superiority. 

This is funny:  “The media wins and loses elections if not Diebold.”

The first part is true, because it points to the broad ignorance of the populace.  The second half of that is proof of the ignorance of the populace, in this case, one single ignorant and unhinged poster on SAB.

Whistler, your funny.  You are missing a ton of information.  Granted, 9/11 is so convoluted at this point, it’s more like Waco than anything else.  But, in Ron Paul’s defense, knowing the potentials of people with a war for fanatical gain mentalities, with little regard for the “ordinary person,” I would not rule this one out.  It’s been done in history too many times.  Just because the scale of it is so impossible to comprehend, does not mean it’s impossible.

Follow the money and you will see why 9/11 happened.  Other wise your just spouting media hype.

shpshftr
A clear conscience is usually the sign of a bad memory.

And quit the claims of “libel,” you dumbass moonbats.  Y’all are as ignorant about what constitutes the claim as you are about the difficulty of proving such a claim against a public figure.  Your assclownery is on display, and it ain’t appealing.

Did all of you Paulette cheerleaders get your walking orders this morning from one of your widdle BBSs or Paulettes for RON! blogs?  Because, I have to tell you, you idiots appear like a cockroach invasion wherever criticism of Papa Moonbat appears.  I question the timing.

Other wise your just spouting media hype.

And you are just spouting conpiracy theories.

skh.pcola, Ok say your right.  What is your opinion on NAU and the Amero?  A conspiracy?  This will tell me somthing about you and your obviously well researched words of enlightenment. 

shpshftr
Constipated People Don’t Give A Shit.

It is wise for you to stick to namecalling and guilt by association. It makes you look desperately uninformed, but at least you can’t be sued. Whereas when you make statements that are demonstrably false, intending to hurt a public figure’s reputation, you can.

Not that RP ever would, but just in case.

What is your opinion on NAU and the Amero?

I am ideologically opposed to both.  However, I am a proponent of free trade, which we have a limited degree of now.  It is unnecessary to directly tie our economy to other NA countries, or our currency to, say, the Mexican Peso.  There is a reason that different countries have different rates of GDP growth, and we would be stunted by a union with Mexico.  Canada, on the other hand, is our #1 oil provider.  If that berg wasn’t full of socialists, I’d say we should annex the entire place.  (Just joking about that.)

And Matt, Paul has done all the damage that need be done to his reputation.  Nobody on SAB, including Rob, has said one thing that is untrue about the good doctor.  Why you unicorn-riding idiots ascribe super-powers to Paul is uncertain, but it is important for you to remember where the life rafts are.  Your ship is foundering.

Rob, many of your assumptions are unfounded.  How does “I believe 9/11 should be investigated further to uncover all those in the gov’t who screwed up” turn into “I believe 9/11 was a plot by the government to get us into war”?  Only with your voodoo logic.

How about this: Ron Paul appears on Alex Jones show, therefore, Ron Paul agrees with Alex Jones.  More voodoo.  Ron Paul has repeatedly stated that 9/11 was perpetrated by Islamic terrorists.  You can ignore it all you want, but it won’t change the truth.  The blowback theory that he asserts directly contradicts Alex Jones.  (Duh)

How can a warning of a Gulf of Tonkin-type event turn into a warning for a “staged terrorist attack” when the Gulf of Tonkin itself was not staged?  Even more voodoo!

The Gulf of Tonkin incident was one that was blown out of proportion used in a misleading fashion to get us into a war.  If you think that the government isn’t capable of blowing an event out of proportion or misleading people, look no further than… well… The Gulf of Tonkin incident, WMD, The Maine, etc. 

If you disagree with Ron Paul about the war, that’s fair enough.  But just to deride someone as a “crank” based on sophisms such as guilt by association and word-twisting is disingenuous.

Vich, how did you feel when the mad mullahs of Iran said they wanted to “investigate” the holocaust? 

Paul is calling for this investigation not to find out what went wrong (even though that’s what he claims).  There’s already been a thorough review of that.  What Paul is trying to do is pander to the conspiracy nuts he clearly wants as a constituency, which is why he goes on shows with Alex Jones.

I’m sorry, but Ron Paul doesn’t get to spread innuendo about what really happened on 9/11 and then get to file it all away with a “I just want to go over what went wrong” comment.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Vich, have you seen this video?

A little bit of inconvenient truth, no?

Do any of you Paulites ever feel dumb being part of a mob like this?  As a conservative, I’ve never been able to buy into this kind of group think.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

It should be obvious by now that they wear thier lunacy as a badge of honor.  Can you spell i-n-s-t-i-t-u-t-i-o-n-a-l-i-z-e them?

With respect to Ron Paul’s position on 9-11 conspiracy theories:

On the Mike Gallagher radio show on 7/19/07 Ron Paul said:

“Some people try to twist what I say and turn it into that, and I think some of my supporters lean in that direction, but that’s not my position. I do think government’s basically inept. I mean we were spending $40 billion a year collecting intelligence and a lot of information was out there. We had one FBI agent, I think sent dozens and dozens of memos to his superiors saying that there are people trying to fly airplanes but not land them, and nobody would pay any attention. So, I don’t think that’s a conspiracy. I think that’s a lot of bureaucracy that doesn’t work very well. And, then when we have government investigations, whether it’s 9/11 or assassinations, I think the main goal is to protect the government and to protect their ineptness - not - and that is a lot different than saying ‘Oh they conspired to do this so they can use this as an excuse to spread the war in the Middle East whether they had anything to do with 9/11 or not.’ I don’t see it that way, but I believe some who did want to spread the war would use it as an opportunity. But, it wasn’t something that was deliberately done.” http://ronpaulaudio.com/

With respect to the John Birch Society:

The modern conservative movement owes much to the ideas circulated by the John Birch Society. Many JBS graduates went on to found their own organizations and/or publish books and newsletters that were heavily influenced by JBS thinking.

FBI files pertaining to the JBS (and many of its arguments) have been released and offer a unique perspective.

For a report on the Birch Society based, primarily, upon first-time released FBI documents and files, see:

JOHN BIRCH SOCIETY REPORT:
65-page Report consisting of 7 Chapters as follows:

JBS Report Chapters 1 thru 4:  http://ernie1241.googlepages.com/jbs-1

(1) FBI Evaluations of Robert Welch and the John Birch Society

(2) FBI vs JBS on Internal Security Status of the U.S.

(3) FBI vs JBS on Communist Infiltration of Clergy and Religious Institutions

(4) FBI vs JBS on Communists in the Department of Health, Education, Welfare

JBS Report, Chapter 5:  http://ernie1241.googlepages.com/jbs-2

(5) FBI vs JBS on Dr. Harry A. Overstreet as a Communist Sympathizer or Dupe

JBS Report, Chapters 6-7:  http://ernie1241.googlepages.com/jbs-3

(6) FBI vs. JBS on Civil Rights Movement—including Alan Stang’s 1965 book, It’s Very Simple, and, Highlander Folk School as a “Communist Training School”

(7) FBI vs JBS on Persons JBS Claims To Be “Experts” on Communism
(includes discussion of Dan Smoot, W. Cleon Skousen, David Gumaer, Julia Brown, Lola Belle Holmes, among others)

BACKGROUND INFORMATION ABOUT MY RESEARCH:

http://ernie1241.googlepages.com/home

DAN SMOOT REPORT:

http://ernie1241.googlepages.com/dansmoot:casestudyofaconspiracyexpert

More info available from:

schpschftr:

No Neiman, Ron Paul is exactly who we need.  No, I am not naive; I am way beyond that now.  It is people with your understanding that has brought us to this point: Re: “Vote for most likely to win.” You guys are probably more than 90% of the electorate and haven’t been getting it right lately.

Please try and think before speaking. In essence you are saying that even though I do not think Ron Paul is the right candidate, even on the issues, I should vote for him anyway. Next, you are trying to take the onus off of Ron Paul to step up to his responsibility to win over the voters like me and saying we should vote for him even if he hasn’t won us over because you believe he is right on the issues. We should vote for Paul even though we do not think he can win and we can then feel good about voting for the loser? Does that make any sense?

We better push forward a serious candidate with the necessities mentioned to get the nomination

The above quote is what I said and it does not mean the one most likely to win no matter what they believe, the necessities are: 1. While no one will hit the mark 100%, the nominee must hold Conservative beliefs and credentials. 2. They must be able to communicate a message effectively to the voters and eventually the nation (Reaganesque). 3. They must have a personality that will appeal to a sufficient number of voters to get the nomination and win the office. Otherwise, what the hell good is there in having the right positions on issues if no one votes for you. Ron Paul, to my mind, has the personality of a wet dish rag having been in the sink a month or two, even when he says the right thing he is irritating, condescending and not at all appealing to me beyond a very few issues.

You Paulites are still missing it: All these side issue are pointless, because Ron Paul cannot communicate his message in a way that will sway enough people to vote for him to even show up as a statistic in the upcoming presidential race.  Paul is not an appealing candidate! I admit Lincoln (No I was not old enough to vote for him) had a high pitched voice, looked like a gorilla and was cut from very crude timber, but in a day when most politicking was conducted via the print media, his speeches and views made it possible for him to gain the White House. Today, we are in a multi-media generation and the sound of the voice, speech patterns, physical appearance and star qualities are necessary to win votes and in every category Ron Paul fails to make the grade. That may not get us the best elected officials, but it is reality!

I know you Paulites don’t like the truth, but no matter how you fight against false impressions and lies and try and present Paul’s message - the candidate has thus far failed to connect with conservatives, the party and the country. It is his responsibility to breakthrough, he is not making any progress so far. Keep fighting, keep trying to help him get his message out, but pray Paul gets a personality transplant or he is dead meat!

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

rob you are an idiot...along with the rest of the braindead sheep posting positive comments on your GOP ordered attack.

when will you fools learn that the more you talk about Dr. Paul, the more people who have never heard of him hear.

in the next few debates, the people you are attempting to brainwash will see and hear that what you trolls espouse is steaming bullshit.

you just cant handle the fact that Dr. Paul is the ONLY candidate that will beat the daylights out of Hillary...none of your Neocon drones can do it.

a vote for ANY “Republican” other than Paul, is in reality, a vote for Hillary.

So Ron Paul is a waffler who panders to whatever audience of kooks he is standing in front of?  Cool.  That means that he is another skanky politician who is ideologically expedient.  His supporters are the most rabid pack since, well, the Saint Sindy SheHag quit the protest scene.

Ron Paul the only candidate you can trust

If you Paulites keep trying to defend the John Birch Society and keep alive Ron Paul’s sympathies with them, you are absolutely insuring defeat for Paul. This country for good or ill, depending upon your political philosophy - WILL NEVER ELECT ANYONE AFFILIATED IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, MANNER OR FORM WITH THE JBS. That affilation, no matter how loose you think it might be takes Paul out of the running as far as I am concerned.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

...Dr. Paul is the ONLY candidate that will beat the daylights out of Hillary

Whoa there, Sparky!  Do you actually belive that?  If you do, you and your ilk are even more addled than I previously thought.  For all of the reasons that Neiman has mentioned, plus many more, you people would have to be political neophytes to believe that Paul has a snowball’s chance in Hades of garnering even a plurality of the popular vote.

skh said this:  “Nobody on SAB, including Rob, has said one thing that is untrue about the good doctor”

Rob said this:  “Ron Paul thinks 9/11 was a plot to create an excuse for war in Afghanistan/Iraq”

This is false. RP has stated many times that he does *not think this.

Unless, of course, Ron Paul is lying about what he thinks, and only Rob knows the truth about what Ron Paul thinks.

And you say we ascribe superpowers to the good doctor?

Yes, Ron Paul does believe that 9/11 was a plot to create an excuse for 9/11.  You don’t need to be Noam Chomsky to parse Paul’s statements to reach that conclusion.  Does he think that the gummint used 9/11 as an excuse for the Iraq war?  That’s a plot and an excuse all rolled up in one.  What’s your difficulty?

FEC finance reports for the 2007 July quarterly indicate that Ron Paul has topped all other presidential candidates in campaign contributions from employees of the armed services, at 26.2%. Among Republican contenders Paul has 49.5% or nearly as much as all others combined. http://thespinfactor.com/thetruth/2007/07/16/military-support-for-the-republican-candidates/

I wouldn’t put too much faith in those numbers, Darrell.

Maybe the military does support Ron Paul and/or anti-war candidates (I doubt it), but there’s not enough data in those numbers you link to say one way or another.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Looking through the FEC data, it’s clear that not every committee has the same filing frequency, nor is there a standard format for the self-supplied employer names.  Thus, the US Air Force can be listed as “Air Force,” “USAF,” “US Air Force,” etc.  Also, look at the amounts that are being crowed about here.  Giuliani has $33 million in contributions, Paul ~$3 million.  Wowee, you Paulettes are cheap bastards, aren’t you?

Again, look at the April Quarterly reports, and it is obvious that not all candidates report thier contributions uniformly.  And any conclusions derived from the data are invalid, since the “Employer” is not verified.  Instead, look at nominal total amounts.  Paul is running so far behind, that only a cash infusion from his capitalist-hating, living-under-a-bridge (or in an asylum), poor-assed supporters could help.  And like leftards everywhere, the Paulettes are cheap.

Rob, It isn’t the group I agree with most of the time.  They do tend to be somewhat, umm “verbose.” I think it comes from a long period of not being heard and disregarded as inconsequential. 

It’s the Guy that talks about empowering people, getting out of illegal wars, reversing bad foreign policies and understanding the banking and tax systems and how money motivates “The Dark Side.” These are very high priorities for me.  I no longer side with the “Wind Blown” politicians anymore.  They tend to lie a lot.

Neiman and Rob; I’m not saying you should vote for anyone.  I am just giving you my opinion. Geesh… Kinda taking this personally aren’t you?  I am all for any candidate that makes higher priorities out of these topics I’ve stated.  So far, Ron Paul is the only one openly taking about all of them.  I would love to have him pretty like Obama, Kick ass like Regan, 6’6” of Texas cowboy rated #1 by GQ and an unparalleled orator.  But I’ll take principled, honest, and well educated over any/all those any day.  Looking for someone that doesn’t exist is the same as being idle.  Maybe the standard should change.

Besides, it’s been so long since there has been truly good leadership; leadership with the rights of the people in the forefront of the discussion, not what government can give them.  I’m not so sure we would recognize good leadership even if it was staring us right in the face. 

To dislike the candidate because of people that like him, regardless of how much you agree with him or disagree with them; seems somewhat shallow to me.  If you disagree with him, all I am saying is that you and I have different priorities.  I’m am NOT saying you are wrong…maybe just a little misguided… (JOKE)

Hey Neiman, “1. While no one will hit the mark 100%, the nominee must hold Conservative beliefs and credentials.” What does that matter if what they do once they get there is the opposite?  I think RP would do exactly what he says he will do.  I do not believe that of any the other candidates.  Money rules them.

“2. They must be able to communicate a message effectively to the voters and eventually the nation (Reaganesque).” What good is that if what they DO is in direct conflict with the Constitution and hidden from the public? 

“3. They must have a personality that will appeal to a sufficient number of voters to get the nomination and win the office. Otherwise, what the hell good is there in having the right positions on issues if no one votes for you. Ron Paul, to my mind, has the personality of a wet dish rag having been in the sink a month or two, even when he says the right thing he is irritating, condescending and not at all appealing to me beyond a very few issues.”

What good is that if they are lying scoundrels that look and sound good?  So you vote for personality, looks, and large numbers of people approving of him.  Not necessarily their actions and consistency.  Ok, I have no problem with that!  I vote on the issues.  Ron Paul has, what I consider the right take on my top 5 issues.  And I believe he is as honest as they come.  That used to be popular in 1861-1865.

Shpshftr
If Barbie is so popular, why do you have to buy her friends?

As one who worked in intelligence for some time, I admire your rhetoric:  play loose on a few facts, incite the readers.  Thanks for a good laugh; I suspect the Paul supporters are wise to you.

As one who worked in intelligence for some time, I admire your rhetoric:  play loose on a few facts, incite the readers.  Thanks for a good laugh; I suspect the Paul supporters are wise to you.

I suspect Ron Paul supporters aren’t wise to much of anything.

It’s the Guy that talks about empowering people, getting out of illegal wars, reversing bad foreign policies and understanding the banking and tax systems and how money motivates “The Dark Side.” These are very high priorities for me.  I no longer side with the “Wind Blown” politicians anymore.  They tend to lie a lot.

You know, if Ron Paul understood foreign policy at all and would quit trying to take America back to the gold standard, I’d actually support him.  I’m all for a return to limited government and stricter adherence to the Constitution.

But the thing is, we’re in a war, and we can’t afford Paul’s naivete right now.  Or his archaic grasp on economics.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

...Dr. Paul is the ONLY candidate that will beat the daylights out of Hillary

He would destroy them all if more people knew about him. Hands done he would obliviate all the candidates.75% of the people heard about ron paul would vote for him. That speaks major volume of supporters if everyone knew of him.

There must be an awful lot of “moobats” out there to raise 2.4 million in private donations, right? Especially with the highest military support in donations.

It’s fascinating that behaving like the founding fathers intended and not like the current socialists we have become is “insane” to Americans. That is what is truly insane. We overthrew Britian for a 1% tax increase and arrogant government in 1776. Look at us now!

Fred Thompson was involved with Nixon during the Watergate scandal, and has been a lobbyist in washington for years. I know TV doesn’t tell you these things. You think he should run the country?

Anyone here who thinks a republican can win on a pro-war platform is the real “moonbat”. 70% + of the country oppose the war and are already angry at the repubs for thier actions. Look at the elections in the Senate last nov for proof.

Especially with the highest military support in donations.

That’s not conclusive. A lot of people don’t list their employers when making donations. I know that I don’t.

70% + of the country oppose the war and are already angry at the repubs for thier actions.

Let’s pull some more numbers out of the air.

You’re going to have to be honest if you want to win.

Neiman:  Ooops, one more thing: “2. They must be able to communicate a message effectively to the voters and eventually the nation (Reaganesque).”

If you don’t listen what is being said, or listen to the media, or disregard because “he has the personality of a wet dish rag having been in the sink a month or two, even when he says the right thing he is irritating.”

Quite descriptive, even funny, but it sounds more like something I would think when talking to a door to door salesman about buying something I didn’t really need. 

I personally want good leadership, and take it a bit more serious than shallow analogies from unhappy people describing what they don’t want.  By limiting your options and making “Absolutes” out of rumor, really only limits you.

IMHO, Making decisions based on what is wanted, instead of what is not wanted is wise, and better decisions are made.

Shpshftr
Experience is something you don’t get until just after you need it.

There must be an awful lot of “moobats” out there to raise 2.4 million in private donations, right?

When the top tier candidates are closing in on a hundred million each, 2.4 million is a drop in the bucket.  True evidence that Paul is on the margins.

Especially with the highest military support in donations.

Again, I wouldn’t put too much faith in that.  Those military contributions represent a minuscule demographic within the overall military.  Certainly not enough of a sample size from with to start making assumptions or conclusions about the overall political leanings of the military.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

There must be an awful lot of “moobats” out there to raise 2.4 million in private donations, right?

$2.4 million

I dunno. People spent $80 million on Wacky Wallwalkers (a rubber toy that sticks and wiggles on a wall.) Maybe Ron Paul is the next