Michigan GOP Leader Trying to Squeeze Ron Paul Out of Primary Debates

-

ronpaul.jpg
Ron Paul and I have very few things in common besides our last name. We agree on very little, and we defend those few policy positions we happen to share on very different ideological and philosophical grounds.
My namesake and I agree on one thing, though: Ron Paul has every right to participate in the Republican primary debates.
Saul Azunis, the Chairman of the Michigan Republican Party, wants Paul out of the GOP debates simply because he finds Paul’s ideas objectionable. Here’s the direct quote:

“I think he would have felt much more comfortable on the stage with the Democrats in what he said last night and I think that he is a distraction in the Republican primary and he does not represent the base and he does not represent the party.”

What nerve.
If candidates should ever be excluded from debates – and I leave that as an open question – it should be based on measured levels of support, simply so voters can get better acquainted with the more viable candidates. Interestingly, since Paul commented that the 9/11 attacks were motivated by U.S. military activity in the Middle East, interest in his candidacy has gone through the roof.
Clearly, the campaign to exclude Paul isn’t based on his waning support or viability. This effort to exclude him on the basis of his ideas is more than absurd – it’s an affront to democratic principles.
And if you’ll permit me to idealistically invoke John Stuart Mill here, shouldn’t Paul’s kooky thoughts – some far more kooky than his most recent controversial remark – be exposed in the marketplace of ideas for all to see and reject?
I would think so.
This whole fiasco makes me all the more grateful to have a forum where I can ask my own kooky questions and pose my own challenging ideas.
— Scott Paul

Comments

130 comments on “Michigan GOP Leader Trying to Squeeze Ron Paul Out of Primary Debates

  1. MP says:

    RPR writes: “So if I’m right about the Iranian wargame conclusions, the Administration might disregard its conclusions as well.”
    You’re right; the Admin doesn’t listen to facts or logic. On the other hand, the one saving grace might be this: They have the Iraq debacle staring them in the face…and GOP lawmakers, and the rest of the country, who knows, maybe even the military, threatening to desert them. Even when two situations are parallel, the fact that one preceded the other changes things the context for the second event. I think they will be hardpressed to simply repeat their mistake–on even a bigger scale–in Iran, even if they are “provoked” Tonkin-style. That’s my bet and I hope I’m right.

    Reply

  2. Sandy says:

    http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/16/fallon-carrier/
    ….While Fallon’s message may have affected the deployment of another Navy carrier, it didn’t stop Vice President Cheney from finding other ways to issue symbolic acts of provocation against Iran.
    Last week, Cheney stood aboard one of the two carriers currently in the Gulf and warned Iran that the U.S. was prepared to use its naval power to keep Tehran from disrupting off oil routes or “gaining nuclear weapons and dominating this region.”
    That was May 16.
    —————————————————
    Today, May 23:
    Huffpo…
    DUBAI, United Arab Emirates — “The U.S. Navy staged its latest show of military force off the Iranian coastline on Wednesday, sending two aircraft carriers and landing ships packed with 17,000 U.S. Marines and sailors to carry out unannounced exercises in the Persian Gulf.
    The carrier strike groups led by the USS John C. Stennis and USS Nimitz were joined by the amphibious assault ship USS Bonhomme Richard and its own strike group, which includes landing ships carrying members of the 13th Marine Expeditionary Unit.”
    —————————–
    Remembering back to
    Aug. 4, 1964.
    ……the front page of the New York Times reported: “President Johnson has ordered retaliatory action against gunboats and ‘certain supporting facilities in North Vietnam’ after renewed attacks against American destroyers in the GULF OF TONKIN.”
    But there was no “second attack” by North Vietnam — no “renewed attacks against American destroyers.” By reporting official claims as absolute truths, American journalism opened the floodgates for the bloody Vietnam War.
    A pattern took hold: continuous government lies passed on by pliant mass media…leading to over 50,000 American deaths and millions of Vietnamese casualties.
    The official story was that North Vietnamese torpedo boats launched an “unprovoked attack” against a U.S. destroyer on “routine patrol” in the Tonkin Gulf on Aug. 2 — and that North Vietnamese PT boats followed up with a “deliberate attack” on a pair of U.S. ships two days later.
    The truth was very different.
    Rather than being on a routine patrol Aug. 2, the U.S. destroyer Maddox was actually engaged in aggressive intelligence-gathering maneuvers — in sync with coordinated attacks on North Vietnam by the South Vietnamese navy and the Laotian air force.
    “The day before, two attacks on North Vietnam…had taken place,” writes scholar Daniel C. Hallin. Those assaults were “part of a campaign of increasing military pressure on the North that the United States had been pursuing since early 1964.”
    On the night of Aug. 4, the Pentagon proclaimed that a second attack by North Vietnamese PT boats had occurred earlier that day in the Tonkin Gulf — a report cited by President Johnson as he went on national TV that evening to announce a momentous escalation in the war: air strikes against North Vietnam.
    But Johnson ordered U.S. bombers to “retaliate” for a North Vietnamese torpedo ATTACK THAT NEVER HAPPENED….”
    ———————————————-
    Do Bush or Cheney ever read history?
    Chimp was seen once carrying around a book, “The History of Salt”

    Reply

  3. Carroll says:

    On the other hand, the Army did wargaming in 1999 and concluded that occupying Iraq could require 400,000 troops and could STILL be chaotic (Google “Desert Crossing” if you doubt) and the Administration disregarded those conclusions. So if I’m right about the Iranian wargame conclusions, the Administration might disregard its conclusions as well.
    Posted by RPR at May 23, 2007 09:36 AM
    >>>>>>>>>
    Seymore Hersh agrees with you….I was listening to his interview and he says…forget the “logic” of attacking Iran…..the WH isn’t operating on logic.

    Reply

  4. RPR says:

    On bombing Iran: I thought Hussein had WMDs (was still against the war though), so I’m not exactly Jane Dixon. But from what I understand, war gaming has shown that it would be pointless – the Iranian nuclear program is spread out and protected (i.e. located in underground bunkers) that bombing would have little effect and the blowback would be considerable.
    On the other hand, the Army did wargaming in 1999 and concluded that occupying Iraq could require 400,000 troops and could STILL be chaotic (Google “Desert Crossing” if you doubt) and the Administration disregarded those conclusions. So if I’m right about the Iranian wargame conclusions, the Administration might disregard its conclusions as well.

    Reply

  5. RPR says:

    Before Gonzales’s second trip to the Hill, there was a consensus that he had to do well. Even Cheney (and I believe Bush) said as much. He went up and bombed. And since he bombed there have beem more damaging revelations – for instance the hospital visit. And his possible perjury (telling Congress that he knew of no dissent at Justice regarding the wiretapping program, when Comey’s testimony indicates the opposite.) It’s amazing that he’s still around.

    Reply

  6. ... says:

    good article in poa’s 9:13pm post.. thanks poa – refreshing and affirming to see there are a few folks in the usa who still can call a spade a spade and tell it like it is.

    Reply

  7. Pissed Off American says:

    President Bush won’t fire Attorney General Alberto Gonzales… but YOU can!
    http://impeachgonzales.org/

    Reply

  8. Pissed Off American says:

    More verification of Ron Paul’s grasp of the situation in regards to “blowback”.
    http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/05/22/fmr-chief-of-cia-osama-unit-why-they-attack-us/

    Reply

  9. Shall Homme says:

    The Jew beliefs rule the world! Religious and economic. So get god damn over it! That’s how it is and how it will be. Unless you go communist which is Jew. No way out because you were a bunch of stupid bumpkin peasant goy who had no choice but fall under the dominant idea. God don’t call us the chosen for nothing. We led the way. So shut up, except for those who are pissed that our ideas dominant yours. Like our idea about attacking Iraq. Not so good, Woolfie!

    Reply

  10. Carroll says:

    Huummm..here is a current list from JTA itself and they don’t list Hoyer…but since his sister is/was AIPAC then he must be Jewish one way or another.
    NEW YORK (JTA) — The following is a list of Jewish lawmakers who will serve in the 109th Congress.
    The number of Jews in the Senate will remain at 11; the number in the House of Representatives will hold steady at 26, with two new faces.
    New members of the House of Representatives have one asterisk. Senators who were re-elected have two asterisks.
    The 37 Jews in Congress comprise 6.9 percent of the Congress’ 535 members. Jews comprise about 2 percent of the U.S. population.
    U.S. Senate
    Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) **
    Norm Coleman (R-Minn.)
    Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) **
    Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.)
    Herb Kohl (D-Wis.)
    Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.)
    Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.)
    Carl Levin (D-Mich.)
    Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) **
    Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) **
    Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) **
    U.S. House of Representatives
    Gary Ackerman (D-N.Y.)
    Shelley Berkley (D-Nev.)
    Howard Berman (D-Calif.)
    Eric Cantor (R-Va.)
    Benjamin Cardin (D-Md.)
    Susan Davis (D-Calif.)
    Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.)
    Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.)
    Bob Filner (D-Calif.)
    Barney Frank (D-Mass.)
    Jane Harman (D-Calif.)
    Steve Israel (D-N.Y.)
    Tom Lantos (D-Calif.)
    Sander Levin (D-Mich.)
    Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.)
    Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.)
    Steven Rothman (D-N.J.)
    Bernard Sanders (I-Vt.)
    Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.)
    Adam Schiff (D-Calif.)
    Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) *
    Allyson Schwartz (D-Pa.) *
    Brad Sherman (D-Calif.)
    Henry Waxman (D-Calif.)
    Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.)
    Robert Wexler (D-Fla.)

    Reply

  11. Carroll says:

    Posted by MP at May 22, 2007 05:13 PM
    >>>>>>>>>
    Well then I guess he is ‘ethnic” Jewish instead of “religious” Jewish or maybe his bio is a misprint..but it list him as Baptist. And he’s not even Southern..lol…sounds weird to me.

    Reply

  12. MP says:

    Sandy asks: “So….who is placing bets?
    Will “we” be “shocking and aweing” Iran ….before
    or during
    the Rosen/Weissman trial?”
    Sure…I’ll bet that it doesn’t happen at all. Not ever.

    Reply

  13. MP says:

    But I thought Steny’s sister was a former head of AIPAC, no?
    Hard to imagine a Baptist in that role.
    Seems that folks mostly talk about the pre-1967 borders which, I believe, encompass a larger area than the original original UN agreement.

    Reply

  14. Carroll says:

    Gee, this thread has gone on forever.
    Where is Steve? I keep checking back to see if he has any insider stuff up on the Wolfowitz firing or resigning.
    Posted by MP at May 22, 2007 11:51 AM
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    Steny is, believe it or not listed as..Baptist.LOL
    Maybe he is Jewish by heritage though and married a Baptist girl and switched. If so just substitue any other gentile politican buttering his re election bread by catering to the arms industry and right wingers at AIPAC.
    In our ongoing Isr/Usa/Pal/ME flap..I say what I had always said. It is “small” groups within both sides that do the extreme talk like “exterminate” Israel and “transfer” the Palestines or blow up Iran. But both sides do it. In Israel unfortunately they happen to be in charge of the goverment so they are more powerful, in Palestine they happen to be within Hamas. In the US they happen to be in AIPAC (and congress).
    Based on the fact that I don’t think the US is capable of “mediating” this without basis I think we need a King Soloman solution…a total hands off on the “final” settlement. Everyone goes back to the UN day one on the boarders. The only hands on will be imposing a absolute truce and holding the babies (terrorities) hostage by internationl force if necessary untill they can agree on who gets what.
    Anything not included in the original UN boarders has to be “bought” or “traded” by the sides. Bible deeds, military conquest and former history in Palestine before 1948 will get no points on either side. And no other country advocates for either side, they have to talk themselves. No “awards” of property” or boarder setting by any third party. Just lock them down and put them on ice until they come to their senses. And neither one would get any US aid, Israel aid would be cut off completley and nothing for Palestine except for food and medical or whatever it might take to keep people from starving on either side. It might take awhile but eventually, a lot sooner than another 60 years, they would see their only alternatives…and in the meanwhile the destruction and killing would be halted. So Israel could live in the limbo of their original boarders,stuffed up with all their settlers removed from settlements and Palestine could live in the limbo of their stateless position forever or the populations could get rid of the nutcases on both sides for a change.
    Israel could last longer in this stalemate because they have more money but eventually they would feel the squeeze and cave…the Palestines are already used to deprivation so they are already conditioned to hold out until the great “leveling” took place and they were both equal in their “need” for a mutual agreement.
    Nothing else has worked so why not try it?
    Or we could wait till some group “blows up” Israel or Israel “transfers” the Palestines(runs off, takes their land for “security” or whatever)or the whole ME region becomes a hot and cold war zone.

    Reply

  15. Sandy says:

    So….who is placing bets?
    Will “we” be “shocking and aweing” Iran ….before
    or during
    the Rosen/Weissman trial?

    Reply

  16. Sandy says:

    Wow. What a masterful bunch of nothing…to change the subject. Post after post after post….culminating in (in effect) “can’t we all get along”? (as A.J. repeated in The Sopranos recently.)
    The fact is Saul A. from Michigan backed down from his demand that Ron Paul be barred from the right to join the GOP debates. He backed down because no one backed him. He backed down because, in general, people overwhelmingly SUPPORTED Ron Paul’s positions and thoughts on the issues. Imagine that! An independent thinker. Is HE “in bed” with any groups? I imagine we will find out soon enough. I feel sure plenty of “folks” are working hard on that ….even as we speak.
    IN THE MEANTIME……Ron Paul is looking better and better to me.
    In another discussion elsewhere — about going to War on IRAN next — one thing led to another and the
    Trial of Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman, Larry Franklin’s friends, came up. IT BEGINS JUNE 4.
    Judging from some things that are going on in the world right now, it seems to me to be a good time for ….eh….distractions.
    Here’s a sampling of what’s up with that:
    http://www.amconmag.com/2007/2007_05_07/print/articleprint.html
    … just a few of the eye-opening paragraph):
    A recently unsealed defense memorandum details a Feb. 16, 2005 colloquy between Rosen’s lawyer, Abbe Lowell, and Nathan Lewin, AIPAC’s legal counsel, in which the latter reveals that PAUL McNULTY (emphasis mine)—then the U.S. attorney for the eastern district of Virginia and chief prosecutor in the case—“would like to end it with minimal damage to AIPAC.” Lewin told Lowell, “He is fighting with the FBI to limit the investigation to Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman and to avoid expanding it.” This is hardly the behavior one would expect of contemporary anti-Dreyfusards in the Justice Department plotting to scapegoat AIPAC and the Jews.
    …..
    Efforts to embarrass the administration go beyond accusing DOJ and extend to prominent figures such as Condoleezza RICE, who is accused by Abbe Lowell of leaking national defense information to AIPAC as Franklin did. Gen. Anthony Zinni is being targeted in a similar manner. Both have been subpoenaed, along with David Satterfield, deputy chief of the U.S. mission to Iraq, and William Burns, U.S. ambassador to Russia, to testify. If Rosen and Weissman are going down, the Israel lobby seems to be saying, then so are a lot of prominent people—some of whom, like Zinni, just happen to be their enemies.
    …..
    This isn’t greymail, it’s blackmail. It was Zinni, after all, who said of the Israel lobby and the neoconservatives: “I think it’s the worst-kept secret in Washington. Everybody—everybody I talk to in Washington—has known and fully knows what their agenda was [during the run up to the Iraq War] and what they were trying to do.”
    The intrigue thickened last October as word leaked that a proposed deal was dangled in front of Rep. Jane Harman: AIPAC would back her to become head of the House Intelligence Committee if she would urge the government to treat Rosen, Weissman—and AIPAC itself—with kid gloves.
    The Forward reported, “Several congressional sources confirmed that major donors to the Democratic Party have been lobbying Pelosi on behalf of Harman’s nomination to head the intelligence committee and that these attempts were not welcomed by the House Democratic leader.” Time named Haim Saban, the billionaire Hollywood producer and major AIPAC moneybags, as one of the supplicants. Pelosi didn’t fall for it, and Harman was rebuffed. Perhaps this was in the background when the speaker was booed as she addressed the subsequent AIPAC national conference, although
    Pelosi got back in the Israel lobby’s good graces
    after she stripped a provision from the military appropriations bill
    that would have required the president to go to Congress for
    permission to attack Iran.

    Reply

  17. RPR says:

    MP, well-written.
    …, I knew somebody would write that. For the record, I think I deblaterate much more than MP; he or she is seemingly more succinct with his or her words.
    Also, if I were also MP, I would probably find it in my interest to have one of my personalities lie low during this debate rather than pop in.
    Additionally, I don’t understand what the point of posting under multiple names would be. Perhaps MP was so thoroughly humiliated in a debate that he or she would only re-post under a different name, but since he or she is still posting under his or her original name, I doubt that this is the case. Maybe I would do it in order to provide a ‘swarming’ effect – to make my adversary was being attacked from different people; however, I’d like to take credit for my own arguments insted of attributing them to others.
    So in a nutshell, I’m not MP, and I’m not Winnepeger. Also, I’m not he, you’re not he, you’re not me, and we’re not all together.

    Reply

  18. ... says:

    what a coincidence…

    Reply

  19. MP says:

    I’m not RPR…and RPR is not me. Nor am I Winnipeger or vice versa.
    But only these two people and I know this for sure.
    POA likes to go on these witch hunts from time to time. I have no idea why.
    In general, email–words written and sent quickly, often on impulse–is easily misunderstood by others with different view points, personal situations, backgrounds, experiences.
    Some people aren’t very good writers to begin with. Others, in haste, use words imprecisely.
    Given this, people ought to be given the chance to clarify what they’ve written. They should also be allowed, even encouraged, to change or modify their views when they run into superior arguments or facts of which they were unaware before.
    When this happens, it is, IMO, a GOOD thing, because it means that new understandings have come about, minds have changed, because of honest debate.

    Reply

  20. MP says:

    Carroll writes: “Now if we asked one of the gentile dem members like Hoyer who did the same thing if they did it for Jewish votes and campaign money or pressure from the lobby as new reports have alluded to they would also get all huffy and self righeous and claim the same Israel-USA, one in the same defense or go into the Iran wants to attack the US and Muslimize the world, etc..”
    Hmm. Could be wrong, but I believe Steny IS Jewish.
    The reason the question of Israel’s right to exist keeps coming up is that large swaths of Muslim opinion–and AT LEAST two movements, Hamas and Hezbollah–and perhaps Al Quaeda– and, at various times, the neighboring and less proximate Arab states–and, until 1988, Fatah–are or were explicitly committed at the heart of their mission to the destruction of Israel and have worked and fought toward that end. The fact that they have not succeeded, and the balance of power has tilted in Israel’s favor, is cold comfort as long as this mission remains and military efforts are undertaken toward this goal.
    That said, the way forward, IMO, is a balanced approach by the US as Carroll has advocated. Whether that will work in bringing peace to those two peoples, I don’t know. The notion that Palestinian leaders just want peace and an opportunity to forge a country on the WB and Gaza if only Israel would let them (and help them) is, I think, naive. However, I hope it is true, and the US and Israel should work toward that end with the assumption and hope that it is true.

    Reply

  21. MP says:

    Carroll writes: “Huummmm…so what would be measured levels of support..money…names on a petition?”
    I thought it was names on a petition. No?

    Reply

  22. RPR says:

    POA,
    Re: name-calling and personalizing your attacks: you twisted my words without asking what I meant; you directed me to AIPAC’s website so I could be further indoctrinated (even though you knew basically nothing about my opinions); you accused me of horseshit; you implied that I don’t debate honestly. Sorry, I’m a human being; I can be dragged into the muck as well. For the record, I’ve been called far worse and it doesn’t bother me – but I was called far worse by people who at least knew where I stood.
    Re: my supposed lack of nuance vs. your usage of it: I wrote that I support Israel, which admittedly can have a number of meanings. You then took the liberty of assigning your personal meaning over what supporting Israel means; this isn’t utilizing nuance, it’s jumping to conclusions.
    I then clarified – that I support its right to exist, not necessarily its aggressive tactics. Again, instead of accepting my clarification, you gave a sarcastic rejoinder about the AIPAC site.
    Unlike you, Carroll bothered to ask what I meant, and I further discussed my opinions with him or her, and we actually seemed to reach agreement on several issues.
    Re: the difference between accepting Israel’s right to exist vs. supporting Israel: A few points. First, yet again, I clarified my position but you wouldn’t accept it. I also wrote that ‘supporting Israel’ could mean a number of things. Second, it’s MY interpretation of ‘supporting Israel’ that counts, not yours. Especially since you either know little of my opinions, or because you willfully blocked out other opinions that I mentioned that don’t fit your caricature of me (i.e. my support for a Palestinian state and my sympathy for the Palestinian people.) Third, and this is related to my previous point, I also provided opinions that are contrary to blind support of Israel, i.e. the Palestinian issue. And look at my initial post – Ron Paul’s comments and bin Laden’s fatwa. A blind supporter of Israel would probably be reluctant to note the correlation between US support of Israel and bin Laden’s fatwa. Fourth, not to brag but I’m a pretty competent debater, and if I was a strong supporter of Israel (not just its existence), I would not hesitate to say so and to defend that position.
    Re: my ‘wording in such a superficial manner’. For a second I’ll concede the point – my first post was poorly worded. Time and again you refused to accept my re-wording. Using your logic, in which I should have written what I thought more accurately, I rectified this in my response to you. You should have accepted my re-wording and this debate might have ended last Friday. But time and again you refused to accept my re-wording. I did my part.
    Re: my posting on weekdays only: At the time you wrote that, my posts had been written on two days; hardly a bountiful sample with which to work. But since you ask, I am pretty busy on weekends – I have two boys (3 and almost 7) and they consume a lot of my time. Plus my wife was traveling last weekend so I was a single dad. Anyway, on weekends I’d rather be outside working on the house or doing things with the family than sitting inside checking out websites.
    I would gather by Winnepeger’s moniker that he or she lives in Canada. I live outside of Washington DC, and work in that city. If you need proof I can probably think of some way to provide it. Can’t help you out with disproving that I’m MP though, except that I’m not.

    Reply

  23. Pissed Off American says:

    RPR……..
    We’ll see, won’t we?
    Please note that I have not engaged in calling you names. So when you accuse me of using invective, you might consider your own use of words such as “stupid”, “rabid”, etc. You also claim I do not understand “nuance”, yet you became offended at my own use of nuance, when I originally responded to your stated “support of Israel” by listing Israel’s practices that such “support” implies. In fact, you personalized it to an overblown degree, presenting it as an attack. Apparently it is YOU that doesn’t understand nuance. And you can snort and insult all you want, but the statement “Now I favor continuing to support Israel” in no way implies the mere support of “Israel’s right to exist”, and it is asinine for you to expect it to be interpreted as such. Point of fact, if that is all you support in regards to Israel, it is asinine to word such superficial support in such a manner. If you don’t want people making resonable assumptions about your meanings, I suggest you apply a little common sense to your semantics.
    BTW, how come you and MP only post on weekdays? Winnipeger had the same habit as well.
    Just curious.

    Reply

  24. Washingtonville says:

    Ron Paul also strongly believes that Bush and his henchmen should be put on trial for the crime of deceiving America into a premeditated War of Aggression under false pretenses, and that when found slam-dunk guilty they should be hanged by the neck since it would be the only just reward for what they have done.
    I wish Ron Paul would soon unequivocally and publicly state these righteous deep-seated beliefs of his so that his eventual candidacy as an Independent in 2008 develops into a landslide victory that November.
    God Bless America !!

    Reply

  25. RPR says:

    POA,
    “Take yourself pretty serious, doncha? Don’t worry about it, I’m an equal opportunity grouch.”
    I do take defending myself, especially against people like you, pretty seriously.
    “Truth is, your original comment about supporting Israel was worded “Now I favor continuing to support Israel….”. Then, furiously backpeddling, you state that you only support Israel’s right to exist. What a crock. You think you are talking to idiots?”
    First, ‘furiously backpedalling’? I clarified my comment; hardly a ‘furious backpedalling’. “Supporting Israel” can mean a variety of things – from being a militant ‘Greater Israel’ type to supporting its right to exist.
    And since you asked, however sarcastically, I don’t think you’re an idiot either, but you have shown intellectually simplistic tendencies. First, you rely much more on anger and emotion than logic. Second, in order to debate with me you simply made stuff up – that I support cluster-bombing, that I am a stooge, etc. Or you just attacked me with your AIPAC comment. Third, you seem unable to comprehend nuance. I wrote that I supported Israel’s existence; I also wrote that I supported an independent Palestinian state and felt that those people had been given the shaft. You seem unable to process this kind of argument, and instead fall back on implying that I’m a blind apologist for Israel. I invite you to prove me wrong in your future posts to me.
    “I support Israel’s “right to exist” too. But I would never dream of stating my support of that one premise by saying “I favor continuing to support Israel”.”
    Right; that’s too rational. Rather, you’d rather take what I wrote and weave it into a contrived strawman. There’s actually not a huge gulf between ‘supporting Israel’ and supporting Israel’s right to exist, depending on the context. Bin Laden doesn’t want Israel to exist; that was my reference. If the context in my mind was Israel’s aggressive tactics, I would not have written that I support Israel.
    It’s also interesting that you feel entitled to state that you support Israel’s right to exist, but when I wrote the same thing – specifically noting that I did not support land-grabbing and clusterbombing – you directed me to AIPAC’s website in order to be indoctrinated.
    “Fact is, Israel can damned well continue to “exist” without us sending them tens of billions of dollars every year. And they can damned sure “exist” without bribing our politicians, committing acts of espionage against us, launching propaganda programs aimed at Americans, and committing false flag terrorist attacks against us.”
    And this is all irrelevant to the debate, because I never mentioned that I support these activities. I wrote that I support Israel, and then clarified that I meant that I supported Israel’s right to exist. Your tacking on of Israel’s many faults has no relevance.
    “In short, I guess what I am trying to say, is that you are weaseling on your original statement. And I’m not buying it.”
    I don’t really care if you buy it or not. And let the record show – I wrote that I supported Israel, and you fabricated a bunch of nonsense about how I supported clusterbombing and the like – when I clearly stated no such thing. So I responded, “I support Israel’s right to exist”, not necessarily the policies Israel practices. You then went off on another tangent about how I should tune into AIPAC’s website so I can buy into the lies they might be spouting. So you just went off on emotional tangents in response to my comments. The fact is that twice – and now three times – you have fabricated garbage in order to sustain your contrived outrage. Now THAT’S weaseling.
    “BTW, I believe in HONEST debate.”
    From my limited experience on this site, you’re lying. As I just showed, I made a couple of comments, and instead of asking for clarification or criticizing them, you just projected a bunch of nonsense on me without any justification. Maybe you do believe in honest debate, but you have yet to show it to me. And look at one example – when you went off on your first rant I clarified that what I meant was that I supported Israel’s right to exist, not that I’m a blind supporter of Israel. Honest debate from me. How did you respond? Honest debate? Not at all; you started up some nonsense about proposing that I become an Israeli stooge by slavishly reading AIPAC’s website. You had a chance to show some qualities pertaining to ‘honest debate’ and you took the low road. Then I elaborated more on my position (to Carroll, I believe) about my feelings toward the Palestinians. Did you incorporate those comments into your assessment? Nope. Yeah, that’s honest debate. Instead, you insist that my comments mean something more than they really do, even though you know nothing about me. Honest debate?
    “And believe it or not, I can actually be quite civil when debate is offered honestly.”
    Well, I was quite honest and you were quite uncivil. Show some civility and I’ll believe you.
    “But I have no patience for bullshit, and something tells me you and I aren’t going to get along. And something else tells me its not the first time we haven’t got along.”
    Well, I’m a newbie here; if you think I’m somebody else then go for it. If we don’t get along; that’s fine. People who fabricate stuff and use emotions instead of logic are easy pickings for me.
    I’ll also note that despite this contretemps, I would gather that we hold some similar positions – accepting Israel’s right to exist but not its various activities, sympathy for the plight of the Palestinians and desire to see them have their own independent state. Etc. I would also guess that we have similar perspectives on the war in Iraq. But if you wish to see me as an enemy because of your myopia, then I’m OK with the idea of being your foil.
    “Your focused animous, based on an overblown representation of my comments, is a direct example of what you are accusing me of.”
    Twice I wrote relatively innocuous stuff. Twice you responded by fabricating invective-laden nonsense that had nothing to do with what I wrote. All you’ve done is shown unjustified hostility. And you expect me to hold off on some barbs? Grow up. Anyway, comparing my comments about your stupid tirades to your, well stupid tirades, is a bit of a stretch.
    “Claiming that you were only supporting Israel’s right to exist by saying “I favor continuing to support Israel” is pure unadulterated horseshit. Get off your high horse and find the balls to defend your original statement as you intended it.”
    There you go again, thinking that my comments mean more than they do. Don’t presume to know my worldview; it’s arrogant and ignorant. I’ve written little about my political perspectives here except that a) I support Israel’s right to exist; b) Ron Paul is somewhat right in his comments the other night; and c) I feel the Palestinians got screwed. Your attempt to turn me into an Israeli stooge is sad, but I guess that’s what you have to try to do in order to salvage whatever dignity you haven’t already discarded from your previous posts.

    Reply

  26. pauline says:

    from Devvy Kidd —
    “In my April 2, 2007, column on our sinking economy, I wrote: “Unless Ron Paul gets the nomination, you won’t be able to vote for him in 2008 and believe me, those who will work the hardest to kill his run will be the Republican power brokers who dance to the tune of the banking cartel. In other words, the Republican Party leadership will do everything in their power to see that Ron Paul doesn’t get the nomination…….”
    http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd272.htm

    Reply

  27. Sandy says:

    I’ve been following him, too, over the years, and I’ve posted this one many times over the years.
    It goes back to July 2003. He was TRYING to educate Congress about what the neo-cons really believe….so they could see how dangerous they really are.
    No one was listening then either.
    http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/july_2003/neo_conned.htm
    “Neo-Conned” – speech by Congressman Ron Paul Addresses the U.S. House of Representatives
    July 10, 2003
    Thanks for the great archives of his more recent stuff! VERY interesting. Unlike Bill Frist, this medical doctor (Ron Paul, that is) stands for something positive for his country.

    Reply

  28. ... says:

    poa- i have been following ron paul for the last 5 or 6 years approx and i really like everything i have read that he has written.. intelligent and smart and cutting out a lot of the bullshit…also, he doesn’t appear to be a bought politician, which is a rare appearance.

    Reply

  29. Pissed Off American says:

    Gads. Reading through this archive of Ron Paul’s stated positions, it becomes obvious why he scares the shit out of both parties. The guy actually gets it. They might hafta kill ‘im.
    http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul-arch.html

    Reply

  30. Pissed Off American says:

    Another Ron Paul must read….
    http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/paul16.html
    An excerpt….
    Only tyrants can take a nation to war without the consent of the people. The planned war against Iraq without a Declaration of War is illegal. It is unwise because of many unforeseen consequences that are likely to result. It is immoral and unjust, because it has nothing to do with US security and because Iraq has not initiated aggression against us.
    We must understand that the American people become less secure when we risk a major conflict driven by commercial interests and not constitutionally authorized by Congress. Victory under these circumstances is always elusive, and unintended consequences are inevitable.
    March 1, 2002

    Reply

  31. Pissed Off American says:

    This commentary is a MUST READ. Remember when Scott Paul was lauding Obama for his prewar stance? Yet, when it comes to Ron Paul, Scott Paul is less than complimentary. Well, this prewar commentary from Ron Paul, linked below, is the model we should hold up as prescient wisdom whenever some waffling ass like Hillary tells us she was duped by the intelligence, or Obama is lauded for the anti-war squeeks he occassionally whispered before AIPAC made him an offer he couldn’t refuse.
    http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/paul7.html

    Reply

  32. Pissed Off American says:

    Whats Ron Paul about?
    Here ya go…
    http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul-arch.html
    Now, try to find this much history on Obama’s past positions. Good luck.
    By the way, I caught a little Glenn Beck on CNN tonight. Amazing how close Glenn’s statements about Ron Paul are to Scott Paul’s statements.

    Reply

  33. Carroll says:

    Posted by Pissed Off American at May 20, 2007 06:26 PM
    >>>>>>>>>
    I wonder if someone’s child dies from a tainted product from China we will know about it?
    Probably not..unless we go thru the fine print in the press…the MSM won’t tell us.
    The politicans spent us into bankruptcy and now they borrow from China to keep themselves paid and just to operate day to day and in exchange they get to posion us.

    Reply

  34. Pissed Off American says:

    Chop suey, slop chewy.
    http://tinyurl.com/24wcrf

    Reply

  35. Carroll says:

    Heres another excellent piece from the World Bank, outlining how Isreal has its foot on the Palestinian jugular…
    http://tinyurl.com/ytnnnp
    Posted by Pissed Off American at May 20, 2007 03:25 PM
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    The World Bank say it straight out in this report….
    It is hard to reconcile Israel’s security needs with their continued intrusions onto Palestine territory and their settlement expansions onto Palestine land and ongoing enlargement of existing settlements and protection of settlers.
    You and I know it, everyone knows it, the politicans know it and they let it continue.
    Wanna know when this will end?…maybe when China decides to sell their dollars or Saudi decides to accept euros for oil..when the US goes bankrupt and can’t afford Israel any longer or someone gets the bomb and blows up Israel or we attack Iran and the whole region blows up…however it ends, it will end in some way bad for everyone.
    Too bad because all this could be stopped by some US president whispering in his wife’s ear…”honey, I think we need to reconsider our “unconditional” support of Israel”…it would be the whisper heard round the world and the ME would become an entirely different conversation.

    Reply

  36. Carroll says:

    Posted by Pissed Off American at May 20, 2007 02:19 PM
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    You are so absolutely right!
    I just had a door and frame replaced in my house and the guy who did it complained the whole time about what s*** the quality of current products are in home building products.
    And about the plywood imports….a relative of mine owned a hardwood/plywood manufacturing company,..mostly fancy veneer products for furniture companies and also plywood building products for 50 years. When he decided to sell it and retire a group of high end furniture manufacturers that it supplied bought it. It employed 700 or more people at that time but now employs less than 300 because it is just for that small high quality end of the market. The cheap plywood imports were decimating the market for US manufacturers anyway and I can’t count the number of furniture companies that have disappeared in this country and been replaced with junk from overseas. One of my prize possessions in the house is a coffee table made from imported black African mahogany that he gave me with the kind of craftsmanship that use to be standard but I doubt you could get without a small fortune these day.

    Reply

  37. Pissed Off American says:

    Immediately after reading Sandy’s post on the tooth paste, I grabbed my tube of Crest and for the first time in years read the entire text on the tube. The following caught my eye….
    “If more than used for brushing is accidentally swallowed, get medical help or contract a Poison Control Center right away.”
    For chrisakes, its TOOTHPASTE!!! It is SUPPOSED to be put in our mouths. What the hell is in it that we can’t eat the stuff? Geez, enough already, now our God damned toothpaste is poisonous?

    Reply

  38. Sandy says:

    And, wrt “Made in America” products….per yesterday’s N.Y.Times — toxic Chinese fake glycerin dietrylene glycol/aka antifreeze) — turned up in 6,000 tubes of toothpaste in Panama.
    What next?

    Reply

  39. Pissed Off American says:

    Gads. If you want to really get a feel for the Palestinian plight, read the entire World Bank report I linked to in the above post. It makes our old segregated south seem tame. How long will we continue to support the horrendous racism and human rights abuses of Israel?

    Reply

  40. Pissed Off American says:

    Heres another excellent piece from the World Bank, outlining how Isreal has its foot on the Palestinian jugular…
    http://tinyurl.com/ytnnnp

    Reply

  41. Pissed Off American says:

    On the Israel/Palestinian thing, its interesting how every layer of Palestinian life is affected detrimentally, one way or the other, by the Israelis efforts to exterminate them. Here is an eye opening bit from the World Bank about the Palestinian olive oil market, and how it is affected by Israeli “intervention”……..
    http://tinyurl.com/32j5kb
    An excerpt…..
    “…..However, Palestinians will need full access to water supplies, and removal of any Israeli restrictions from digging new wells or developing new irrigation projects.
    The current movement restrictions and closures have a significant impact on the cost of production and value of the olive crop. Palestinian farmers in the West Bank now face over 500 physical obstacles and closures restricting their movement; a 40 percent increase since 2005[12]. Farmers are often prevented from accessing their trees making it difficult to prune the trees, plow and control weeds, which reduces yields. More importantly, while oil will not deteriorate while awaiting shipment, high quality oil requires that the olives be harvested at the correct time and pressed immediately after harvest. Delays in harvesting or in moving harvested olives to the presses reduce the yield and quality of oil produced. Most problematic is the uncertainty caused by the closures. Producing high quality oil that is suitable for the export market requires large investments to build storage facilities, modern presses and to teach farmers proper harvesting methods. If producers are unsure that they will be able to obtain the necessary olives they will be unwilling to make the investment, and will continue the low risk strategy of producing low quality bulk oil.
    The movement restrictions also raise transport costs. Since the restrictions are constantly changing it is impossible to quantify their impact. But some idea can be obtained from the overall transport costs. One exporter estimates that a 20 foot container to Europe costs $2000, about 10 percent of the total costs of production and marketing. $400 of this is internal transportation; the cost moving the container to the port, which he believes has doubled since the beginning of the most recent Intifada. In addition, Palestinian producers have to pay a $200 per container security fee that Israeli shippers do not face. Because of the difficulty in clearing goods through Israeli security almost all Palestinian bottlers buy their packaging and machinery from Israeli suppliers. World Bank analysis suggests that relying on Israeli importers adds anywhere from 20-25 percent to the world price of industrial inputs for Palestinian producers[13].
    One of the most detrimental effects of the closures is that they prevent Palestinians from committing to specific delivery schedules. Because they are never sure when the borders or internal checkpoints will open or how long it will take to clear shipments, they are unable to guarantee specific delivery dates unless they build in generous lead times, which adds to costs.”

    Reply

  42. Pissed Off American says:

    “I have done some reading since Steve’s post on Japan and it appears that they are quite isolationist particulary in trade protection…I’am not far enough into the material to see the relationship in their isolation policies and what it has to do with their past period of deflation.”
    For those of us that are old enough to remember what it meant to have “Made In America” stamped on a product, the current state of trade is alarming from far more than a mere economical standpoint. I am absolutely convinced that the Chinese are laughing at us. The products marked “Made in China” that I am seeing in the housing industry are so remarkable substandard that it defies description.
    Does anyone here realize that we are THE ONLY nation that will allow the importation of Chinese plywoods because of the huge quantities of formaldihyde they contain? And it is becoming cost prohibitive to buy domestic plywoods, if you can even find them. Odds are, if you have a house built within the last five years, the cabinetry and sheathing are releasing amounts of formaldihyde that the rest of the world considers unsafe at a level that has made their importation illegal. And worse, not only are they poisonous, but they are of substandard quality as to overall thickness, veneer thickness, glue quality, and lay-up. Many of the cabinet grade hardwood plywoods imported from China will not even take a stain uniformly because the glue has been pressed through the outer veneer layer. This is but one example. Chinese fasteners such as screws and bolts are of poor dimension, poor plating, and driver slots are usually loose, shallow, or brittle. I could give you pages of examples. And this is no secret, or mystery. The importers of this shit are knowingly and willfully selling us substandard imported products, the very products that America’s infrastructure is being built out of, while at the same time driving the quality oriented manufacturers and retail outlets out of business by flooding the market with low priced substandard goods through outlets such as Lowes, Walmart, Home Depot, etc.. And don’t believe the Chinese are unaware of what they are doing. This recent episode of Melamine finding its way into our food chain is a perfect example. We now know the Melamine incident wasn’t an accident, but instead was a purposelly contrived plot to drive up the nutritional stats on a product.
    Call me cynical, (Who would’ve believed it? Moi?? Cynical??), but there is more than one way to bring a nation to its knees. And the truth is, we all better get out our kneepads, because these fuckers in Washington will have us ALL kneeling before this is over.

    Reply

  43. Sandy says:

    >>>”Food for thought.
    (If you are one of the apparently few Americans still capable of thought.)
    http://www.word-power.co.uk/platform/PlatformStyle-346
    Posted by Pissed Off American at May 20, 2007 12:48 PM<<<
    POA. I am. Most informative. I’ve learned a lot from you over the last few weeks. Thanks.

    Reply

  44. Carroll says:

    Well I am willing to listen to Scott further explaining his objection to Paul.
    …”On foreign policy, I would consider Dr. Paul isolationist, though he would reject that term. He advocates eliminating foreign aid, withdrawing from international institutions, and playing no cooperative role in solving global problems that I can discern. This is all in the name of protecting sovereignty. I think these positions are wrong for the U.S. in today’s interconnected world.
    I think we need to reject the presumption that there’s no other way besides isolationism and interventionism. Both are ill-conceived and dangerous, and should be rejected in favor of a more responsible global engagement.”
    ….becuase “total” isolation isn’t possible anyway…BUT…slamming the door on our politicans strutting themselves around the world as masters of the universe on our dime is the only way I see to cut them off and put their nose to attending to American interest at home.. I have done some reading since Steve’s post on Japan and it appears that they are quite isolationist particulary in trade protection…I’am not far enough into the material to see the relationship in their isolation policies and what it has to do with their past period of deflation.
    I would be interested in seeing Scott point to some concrete success stories in his field that actually had a lasting good effect and was worth the money. I am sure there are some but I question how effectively our tax money and NGO donor money is being spent all over the world and if it is mainly benefiting the people or benefiting capitalism interest.

    Reply

  45. Carroll says:

    Gravel, Kucinich and Ron Paul should get a whistleblowers award.
    Because that is what they are doing, blowing the whistle on all of it, the lies, the phonied up terrier war, Iran, the politicans lack of real representation of the people or this country, the Robber Barons,the whole sorry deal.

    Reply

  46. Pissed Off American says:

    Food for thought.
    (If you are one of the apparently few Americans still capable of thought.)
    http://www.word-power.co.uk/platform/PlatformStyle-346

    Reply

  47. ... says:

    lol poa- good idea wtih the unwrapping concept. i find myself doing that a lot with articles i read and i am not the one who has put all the wrapping on it either – they have!

    Reply

  48. Pissed Off American says:

    “at any rate, i thank you for your response and appreciate you making this post on ron paul – a candidate i feel deserves greater recognition and acknowledgement for his original ideas, however antiquated they appear in todays atmosphere. thanks!”
    Posted by …
    Actually, Paul’s comment about his reasons for not being too hot on Ron Paul closely mirror the script that Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity are reading from. Suprise suprise. Read back through Paul’s recent post where he lauds Obama for Obama’s supposed past stance on the Iraq debacle. Yet when it is pointed out to him that Kucinich has unflinchingly carried the platform he lauds Obama for, he states that he will give “props” to Kucinich when Kucinich deserves them, or something to that effect. Then, when it is pointed out to him that Kucinich has in fact earned the very “props” he was giving Obama, he scurried for Steve’s “more later” hatch, (but he forgot the customary “more later” part.)
    Gravel, Kucinich, Ron Paul; it is obvious they aren’t part of the packaging here. I am thinking about wrapping a bunch of saran wrap around my monitor, and slapping a red ribbon and a bar code on it. That way, instead of clicking on TWN, I can just unwrap it.
    Paper or plastic?

    Reply

  49. Pissed Off American says:

    Hah.
    Was there ever any doubt, Carroll? Hillary and Edwards are no different, just less transparent. But Obama is the true Trojan Horse. He’s a fucking foreign agent, as far as I am concerned. If we think we are in deep shit now, (and we most assuredly are), just wait till they put this monster in power.

    Reply

  50. ... says:

    scott paul, jojo in his may 18 1:51 pm post was more direct in asking you, which is why i worded my post >>”i would like to know why Scott Paul doesn’t agree with Ron Pauls views as well, but he doesn’t seem interested in sharing that with us.”<< i wrote that a day later when there hadn’t been any response from you on his question… at any rate, i thank you for your response and appreciate you making this post on ron paul – a candidate i feel deserves greater recognition and acknowledgement for his original ideas, however antiquated they appear in todays atmosphere. thanks!

    Reply

  51. Carroll says:

    The question of Israel surviving may be the same one the Mexicans ask of the US. Everyone does understand they are here to reconquest their lands. I get that from listening to their rallies and reading their websites. So when all Americans think Israel has no right to exist, do you feel the same way about your country? Where is the line? Why can’t Israel, Palestine,Mexico and America co exist???????? Answers anyone???????? Careful what you really support here.
    Posted by liz at May 19, 2007 05:34 PM
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    I don’t get the comparsion. But in general I would say what you refer to is a case of people wanting what legally belongs to someone else.
    Also “legally” after much less than 200 years, not to mention 2000 years, squaters rights (being people who continually inhabit the land for a period of time without notice from the owner to get off) are in effect and whoever abandoned the land doesn’t get it back. “Inhabit means “living on it”. My parking trucks or grazing cows or laying pipes to use the well on my neighbors property or putting up my fence 10 feet into his property doesn’t count as “inhabiting”.
    I am sure the laws is different in different countries but that is how it is here. For
    disputes between countries the UN rules are generally recongized.
    As for how real estate reclaiming works for ordinary whackos and crackpots who claim God deeded it to them in the Bible and other assorted nutcases, I don’t know.

    Reply

  52. Carroll says:

    If anyone didn’t click thru on POA’s Obama post, they should…to get to the juicy part in the haaretz interview in Israel.
    snip……
    “Now, he (Obama) is also becoming a leader in legislating against the regime in Tehran, making it clear that the challenge of preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons is part of his agenda – not merely a cause that he is paying a lip service to. “Clearly,” he says, “Iran made progress in its enrichment program” and this only increases a “sense of urgency.” Iran will not change its behavior without pressure, Obama says. “I’m not naive” enough to believe that they will, “or optimistic” that they will do anything without more measures taken. An Obama bill, accompanied by a similar bill in the House, sponsored by N.Y. Congressman Barney Frank (Frank and Rep. Tom Lantos had a press conference earlier Wednesday) is aimed at assisting the new trend of divestment from Iran’s energy sector. Provide for one measure of pressure-building.
    In Florida, a bill could require the state’s $118 billion pension fund to sell off stocks in companies dealing with Iran and Sudan. “There is a flurry of activity is various American states and their local legislatures” toward the same end, I wrote two months ago. In some of these initiatives AIPAC, the pro-Israel lobby, is also playing a role.
    The Obama bill will require the federal government to publish a list of companies that have an investment of more than $20 million in the Iranian energy sector, and will be updated every six months. This list will be the tool, providing investors with the knowledge they need as to divest from the right companies. It will also authorize local governments actually divest their pension funds, or any other funds, from companies on the list. Fund managers will be protected from lawsuits directed at them by investors who are unhappy with the decision to divest.
    These measures were designed to meet possible challenges to decisions both by legislators and managers. A couple of years ago the Supreme Court struck a Massachusetts law penalizing companies doing business in Burma. “The president’s maximum power to persuade rests on his capacity to bargain for the benefits of access to the entire national economy without exception for enclaves fenced off willy-nilly by inconsistent political tactics,” wrote the judges. This is one outcome of the divestment movement that the Obama bill is set to prevent. “The states need clarity on this issue, and this bill will give them such clarity,” he says.
    Divestment from Iran, Obama believes, is an “appropriate strategy.” His bill is almost identical to the House version, but has one small additional component:
    It can only sunset once the government of Iran has retracted the statements of the president of Iran calling for the destruction of Israel.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Obama = total Israeli whore. This bill will only sunset when Iran takes back their naught words on Israel????…gee how sweet. Just the kind of f****** idiot I want running my country…gawd almighty!
    I can’t wait till they publish the list of companies to disvest from….I am going to buy stock in them…Isrmerica can kiss my ass.
    Israel and their subversives in the US have siphoned off US pension funds for years from everything from the Calif and NY Teachers fund to the Unions retirement funds to investments in Israel, the last place on earth I would want my retirement money becuase Israel will eventually be blown to kingdom come and everyone’s money with it if they don’t change their ways and I don’t see any indications of them changing. BTW all that US money invested in Isr is just another form of blackmail…protect us or lose it all. Well, it never should have gone to such a chancey state constantly on the verge of war and bankruptcy anyway. Read the latest economic reports on Israel, their valuted IT industry which was actually cloned from the US has gone down the toliet.
    As for as how utterly stupid this is in reality…just go to opensecrets,org and check out the listing of all the companies you THINK are 100% American and all the familiar names you THINK are owned mostly by American interest…you will be floored at how many of what you think are American are owned by the French, the Germans, the Dutchs, Great Britian…it’s a long list.
    I am trying to figue the escape hatch on this divestment ..becuase it is “Cleary” as the puke politicans say going to be a can of worms with a lot of RESENTMENT from the Europeans and the other countries, not to mention the companies themselves, who have huge interest in these companies and how the US fund managers are going to cotton to being told they have to “sell off the stock in their portfolios….and how much the average retirement investor is going to lose on a gaint “sell off” of all companies stock. Overseas investors will just buy the stock up in a lot of these multicorps, cause that is mostly what they are, and keep right on trucking with their normal business with the ME and Iran and the US loses again. One fund group I have had for umpteen years was bought out by a Dutch investment house in 2002..so how is the US going to handle funds in this country that are actually owned by a foreign fund?
    Hell, just attack Iran..Israel will get blown away in the ensuing chaos and we can all start rebuilding America with the Isr in front of it.
    This is just pure insanity.

    Reply

  53. Carroll says:

    If anything, the Apaches, Navajos, Pima, etc., certainly have more right to Arizona and New Mexico, and in the Apaches’ case, northern Mexico, than people illegally immigrating to the U.S. from southern Mexico, and Central and South America.
    And the Native Americans have been screwed royally and continue to be screwed by both the U.S. and Mexican governments.
    To take this then to the Palestinians: the idea of a Zionist state was formed well before the Jewish Holocaust and with the collusion of the British and the French, but its execution, i.e., the “nation” of Israel’s formation, occurred within the memories of many people still alive.
    The comparison between illegal immigration to the U.S. by people whose ancestors left what is now the territorial U.S. centuries ago, and the formation of Israel with the attendant Palestinian Nabka, which again many people still alive remember all too well, is utterly specious and seems to be designed to throw both debates off.
    Posted by GoRonGo at May 19, 2007 06:25 PM
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    Well, I agree with that!
    The only people on earth (well, before we decimated Iraq that is) that Americans “actually” “owe” anything to is the native Americans and the blacks we enslaved for years.
    But we mostly ignore that debt.
    I hate to list “worse things I have seen” but the picture of a dead man’s body lying in the street for three days in New Orleans after Katrina and no one bothering to remove him or even cover his body has to be right up there.

    Reply

  54. GoRonGo says:

    Not to belabor the point, but I am a resident of two border states and I was raised in Arizona. I speak Spanish because I grew up with justifiably proud Hispanics, most of whose families never left what is now the U.S.
    Many of the illegal immigrants in the Reconquista movement are a mixture genetically of the Spanish conquistadors and native Americans, who passed through what is now the U.S. centuries ago. They have about much right to the U.S. as I do, i.e., almost none.
    If anything, the Apaches, Navajos, Pima, etc., certainly have more right to Arizona and New Mexico, and in the Apaches’ case, northern Mexico, than people illegally immigrating to the U.S. from southern Mexico, and Central and South America.
    And the Native Americans have been screwed royally and continue to be screwed by both the U.S. and Mexican governments.
    To take this then to the Palestinians: the idea of a Zionist state was formed well before the Jewish Holocaust and with the collusion of the British and the French, but its execution, i.e., the “nation” of Israel’s formation, occurred within the memories of many people still alive.
    The comparison between illegal immigration to the U.S. by people whose ancestors left what is now the territorial U.S. centuries ago, and the formation of Israel with the attendant Palestinian Nabka, which again many people still alive remember all too well, is utterly specious and seems to be designed to throw both debates off.

    Reply

  55. Sandy says:

    Speaking of the 2008 election, everyone here really ought to read — if you haven’t already — Greg Palast’s bestseller:
    Armed Madhouse: From Baghdad to New Orleans — Sordid Secrets and Strange Tales of a White House GONE WILD
    This newer edition has an added chapter: The Scheme to Swipe 2008.
    Eye-opening, really.
    And it ain’t about the machines.

    Reply

  56. Scott Paul says:

    “i would like to know why Scott Paul doesn’t agree with Ron Pauls views as well, but he doesn’t seem interested in sharing that with us.”
    “Scott Paul doesn’t seem to do well with dissenting or questioning opinions. Maybe he’ll catch on to the “more later” escape hatch that Steve enjoys using.”
    Hi folks – no need to play guessing games. No one bothered asking, so I didn’t bother to clarify.
    I disagree with Dr. Paul on many social, environmental, and economic issues. That should surprise no one because, in short, he considers himself a conservative/libertarian and I do not. There are, of course, exceptions (civil liberties, for example), but they are few and far between
    On foreign policy, I would consider Dr. Paul isolationist, though he would reject that term. He advocates eliminating foreign aid, withdrawing from international institutions, and playing no cooperative role in solving global problems that I can discern. This is all in the name of protecting sovereignty. I think these positions are wrong for the U.S. in today’s interconnected world.
    I think we need to reject the presumption that there’s no other way besides isolationism and interventionism. Both are ill-conceived and dangerous, and should be rejected in favor of a more responsible global engagement.
    None of this, of course, makes me less outraged by Azunis’s attempt to cut Dr. Paul out of the – which was, of course, the point of my post. I’m very glad it’s over.
    POA – you really think I don’t manage dissent or questions well? For obvious reasons, I can’t respond to everything written here, but I make an effort to be tolerant of everyone’s view and when I do disagree, to do so respectfully. If you have suggestions on how I can be more solicitous of other views, by all means let me know.
    On second thought, EVERYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH ME OR HAS QUESTIONS: GO AWAY!
    Ha.

    Reply

  57. liz says:

    The question of Israel surviving may be the same one the Mexicans ask of the US. Everyone does understand they are here to reconquest their lands. I get that from listening to their rallies and reading their websites. So when all Americans think Israel has no right to exist, do you feel the same way about your country? Where is the line? Why can’t Israel, Palestine,Mexico and America co exist???????? Answers anyone???????? Careful what you really support here.

    Reply

  58. Carroll says:

    Posted by Pissed Off American at May 19, 2007 11:43 AM
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    Obama is off my list….all the “front runners” are off my list.
    I think that these politicans are soooooooo far behind the curve on the very real ground rage building up out here that they don’t get that every bit of gobblyglock they utter just adds fuel to the flame.
    I don’t know if this election will the one to blow the two family mafia system to hell… probably not because of the 30% sheep that will always buy whatever they see advertised on TV… but if not, then after four or eight more years of the same old, same old, the final demolition will be more far reaching.

    Reply

  59. Carroll says:

    Posted by GoRonGo at May 19, 2007 12:17 PM
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    You know I feel for the illegals who have to leave their country to even get a job to exist on…in fact most if the time I am bleeding heart pushover for the underprivilaged and the underdogs. BUT…..eventually if you have any functioning grey matter at all, your head grabs hold of your heart and you start looking at the BIG picture.
    We could use up this whole site discussing the pros and cons and spin and myth and this and that on the issue.
    But aside from ALL that…is why have the politicans never ENFORCED our laws to begin with?
    The laws were there but they did nothing with them and now they present us with THEIR failure to enforce our laws and the Bill for their failure.
    The politicans talk constantly about our ENTITLEMENTS and how we the people who paid for these so called entitlements like medicare and ss for our older citizens and schools and etc for the younger citizens have no actual RIGHT to these entitlements and they have to be cut because we (THEY) are overspending.
    But illegals from another country have a RIGHT? to health care and schools and services set up for them to overcome the language barrier?
    What is going to happen when we have that dreaded recession and eventually we will….and when the bill comes due for Iraq? I have a friend who is an OBGYN..a good guy who goes with Doctors without Boarders every year to a different country for a month. Back here at home he sees most of the hispanics at the emergency room when he is on duty because he is one of the few doctors there who speaks spanish. No one is going to refuse care to a sick person no matter what, that’s inhuman, but he will be the first to admit the hospital emergency system is overloaded and cost are going thru the roof because of not only uninsured illegals but also regular uninsured citizens plus the ballistic drug cost associated with treatments, not to mention their balloning insurance libility premiums. It’s crazy.
    I am concerned with what is going to happen to our underpaid working class and underprivilaged children in this country, millions of whom don’t even have heath insurance or access to anything themselves but emergency room services when those “entitlements” get stretched to the breaking point or cut to cover the sticky fingers of the porky pig politicans and things start caving in.
    There isn’t one damn thing most of these politicans can say or position they can articulate that a sixth grader couldn’t take apart in a minute because there is nothing in their statements that isn’t a direct contridiction of their so called “beliefs” on another issue like minimun wage or health care for the masses, or a insult to plain common sense.
    Which is why they never have an interview or debate that last longer than five minutes, they can’t keep up the facade or gibberish any longer than that without activating the red flags in the brain cells of ordinary citizens with a I.Q. over 50 and why they want to shut up the Paul’s and the Gravel’s.
    This is Mexico’s problem and underneath all the spin about how if we “help” Mexico we can reverse the problem…is the dirty truth that the US gov cooperates with the Mexican “elite” to make Mexcio comfortable for US corps and capitalism.. while they send their leftover workers over the boarder.
    Gawd!…I am soooooo disgusted with this retarded political freak and cesspool of corruption in DC I have to carry a hanky with me to wipe the rabid foam off my mouth when I go out in public.

    Reply

  60. MadAsHeck says:

    I have done almost every single job that, “Americans won’t do” — that is, according to the Bush administration, the corporate whore Repulicans and the “liberal” Democrats.
    I have worked mowing lawns, picking fruit, as a dishwasher, in fast-food, as a nanny, as a maid, cleaning toilets. You name the crap job and I’ve done it to pay for my education and before that for food and rent.
    This amnesty is a big kiss to corporate America from the GOP, and a blatant vote grab on the part of the Democrats, who seem to think that the Hispanic vote is how they are going to retain control.
    And it is a huge, “Screw-you” to Americans who have to work for a living — including Hispanic immigrants here legally. Especially in the border states.
    It’s a huge “Screw-you” to the working poor because it means that companies don’t have to pay a living wage, much less benefits. It means their kids won’t get anything close to quality primary education, much less the chance to go to college.
    It ensures a permanent lower class for the corporations and the military/ industrial complex to exploit.
    So (thanks to the Israel lobby) we kill our own precious children and the children of others who are equally as precious to them, while spending billions a month occupying a country (Iraq) whose oil reserves we will most probably never get control of, in the meantime supporting the ex-pats of a country (Mexico) whose oil reserves we are forced to buy.
    The tie-in? Rather than go invade countries in the Middle East “for oil” ( a load of hooey because we didn’t invade for oil, we invaded for Israel — we get more oil out of Mexico than the 17% we get from the Middle East) let’s invade Mexico, because after-all Mexico has invaded us.
    I meant that as a sort of pointed joke but the bottom line is that we are doing no one, including the Mexican working class, any favors by allowing Mexicans to escape their country’s problems by making them ours.
    As it stands, our government, with the help of mushy “progressives” like the gang over at “Democracy Now” and Buzzflash, has successfully destroyed the American Dream.
    BTW Pissed Off American — I am so with you too! Boxer is close to the top of the list of Israel lobby benifciaries.
    And the so-called hero of the masses, *intrepid* Congressman Henry Waxman — well, he is an UBER-ZIONIST. He needs to go represent the Knesset because he sure as h*ll doesn’t represent the people of his district in terms of immigration or stopping the war(s) — he talks the good talk but look at his walk…

    Reply

  61. Pissed Off American says:

    “And as a resident of two border states, I am enraged at this amnesty bill, because that is what it is. With the full complicity of both the Democrats and the GOP, illegal immigration is crippling the middle and “lower” American ECONOMIC classes while the oligarchs in Mexico get even richer.”
    Along those lines, Boxer just said, in a typically misrepresentative manner, that 80% of Californians endorse an amnesty bill. She worded it around the lines of…polls show that 80% of Californians endorse a policy that enables millions of people to “come out of the shadows”. I guess this habit of just lying your ass off is contagious in Washington. I don’t know what planet this lying hack is from, but I can guarantee her that none of those 80% seem to be from my community. And, I can assure her, if she would shag her ass outdoors and open her eyes, she would find that the illegals in California are hardly “in the shadows”. In fact, they are on just about every fucking street corner and job site I see. Fortunately, I work with a general contractor who does extremely high end custom one-off homes, and he refuses to employ illegals, or use subs that are obviously doing so. But I can also assure her that this horseshit about these people doing jobs “that americans refuse to do” is snake oil. I know skilled tradespeople that cannot find jobs in their trades because they cannot afford to work for the pathetically low wages that are being paid to the illegals. And the only ones that win in this situation are the illegals, because quality of workmenship is usually substandard, Americans are put out of work, and when these illegals screw up a job, they simply dissappear, and there is no one to hold accountable.
    Add the fact that due to Home Depot and Lowes selling us pure unadulterated SHIT for building materials, (mostly Chinese goods), and running the smaller quality oriented lumber yards and hardware outlets out of business, thye housing industry is turning out a steadily declining product in terms of quality and durability.

    Reply

  62. GoRonGo says:

    After hearing of “Benito” Guiliani’s attempt to shut-down Ron Paul’s truth-telling on the blowback from U.S. (i.e., Israeli) Middle East policy we wrote out a big ol’ honkin’ check to Paul’s campaign.
    You go Ron.
    I’m going to listen to Mike Gravel this morning on the What Really Happened radio show (GCN network) and most probably send his campaign a check as well.
    Carroll — I am so with you on starting this country over. Since September 11 it’s been brought home to me that “our” government doesn’t give two sh-iiiites about we the people of the United States of America.
    Instead of stopping the flow of illegal immigrants they humiliate law-abiding CITIZENS with no probable cause by making us take off our flip-flops and confiscating our toothpaste at the airport. Because toothpaste in the arthritic hands of a wheel-chair bound 85 year old is a LETHAL WEAPON wouldn’t ya know?
    No kidding — I saw this happen.
    And as a resident of two border states, I am enraged at this amnesty bill, because that is what it is. With the full complicity of both the Democrats and the GOP, illegal immigration is crippling the middle and “lower” American ECONOMIC classes while the oligarchs in Mexico get even richer.
    Try going to an emergency room in southern California or southern Arizona, just try. And try to find a decent public school to put your kids into.
    The chattering classes in D.C. have no conception of reality because they don’t have to live in this nightmare. Nor do the squishy limosine liberals like Edward Kennedy who has little chance of Hyannisport being taken over by gangs and hordes of anchor babies.
    This has nothing to do with racism — I could care less if the illegals were purple who spoke Martian –it’s about economics. We the people CANNOT AFFORD funding millions of people whose country, in the ultimate irony, sits on a sea of oil.
    So Ron we’re with you — on illegal (and I STRESS ILLEGAL- I have nothing against legal) immigration, on restoration of the Bill of Rights, and STOPPING THIS WAR AND THE ONE TO COME AGAINST IRAN.
    I too must ask, what does Scott Paul have against Ron Paul?

    Reply

  63. Pissed Off American says:

    Michigan GOP Move To Kick Ron Paul Out Of Debates Dropped
    Another crushing victory for free speech as RNC overwhelmed with thousands of calls, 20,000+ petition signatures
    Paul Joseph Watson
    Prison Planet
    Saturday, May 19, 2007
    Freedom of speech has just registered a crushing victory after it was announced that the Michigan GOP have dropped their move to have Congressman Ron Paul kicked out of the Republican debates.
    Though we still have to be wary that other factions within the GOP could seek to bar Ron Paul, we have shot down this trial balloon for now.
    The RNC and the Michigan GOP received thousands of calls after we quickly organized a campaign and a petition in opposition to Michigan head Saul Anuzis’ action to circulate a petition calling for Ron Paul to be removed from all future debates. Others also circulated online petitions to counter the move, totaling over 20,000 signatures between all the petitions.
    Anuzis was angry that the Texas Congressman had dared to suggest that bombing Middle Eastern countries causes anger and blowback at the Republican candidate debate on Tuesday evening.
    http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2007/190507gopmove.htm

    Reply

  64. Pissed Off American says:

    “i would like to know why Scott Paul doesn’t agree with Ron Pauls views as well, but he doesn’t seem interested in sharing that with us.”
    Posted by …
    Scott Paul doesn’t seem to do well with dissenting or questioning opinions. Maybe he’ll catch on to the “more later” escape hatch that Steve enjoys using.
    (Smile Steve, I’m just teasin’ ya.)

    Reply

  65. Pissed Off American says:

    Oops, missed including this very telling paragraph. It pretty well underscores where Obama’s loyalties lie…………
    “The bill, which was also introduced in the House of Representatives by Foreign Affairs Committee chairman Tom Lantos and Financial Services chairman Barney Frank, is part of a much broader national divestment campaign spearheaded by some of the most hawkish neo-conservative groups, notably Frank Gaffney’s Center for Security Policy (CSP); the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), and the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, as well as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). I wrote about the neo-con role in driving the divestment campaign last week.”
    Well, at least the power, and the money, behind Obama’s rocket fast rise to notoriety is becoming apparent, eh? In my opinion, making sure Hillary, Edwards, or Obama DO NOT get into the White House is damned near as imnportant as getting the Bush criminal OUT of the White House.
    http://www.ips.org/blog/jimlobe/?p=20

    Reply

  66. ... says:

    i would like to know why Scott Paul doesn’t agree with Ron Pauls views as well, but he doesn’t seem interested in sharing that with us.

    Reply

  67. Pissed Off American says:

    Obama is beginning to show his true colors…
    Obama Lines Up Behind Neo-Conservative Campaign Against Iran
    Neo-conservatives, some of whom have claimed to see hopeful glimmers in Sen. Barack Obama’s foreign-policy positions of the kind of interventionism that gets them excited , should be further heartened by the presidential hopeful’s sponsorship of a new bill that, if passed, is certain to increase tensions not only with Iran, but with Washington’s European allies as well.
    The bill, the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act of 2007, would require the federal government to publish a list of U.S. overseas subsidiaries and foreign companies that have invested more than $20 million dollars in Iran’s energy sector. It would also authorize state and local governments to divest the assets of their pension and other funds from any company on that list and protect fund managers who divest from listed companies from lawsuits by investors unhappy with the results.
    “The Iranian governments uses the billions of dollars it earns from its oil and gas industry to build its nuclear program and to fund terrorist groups that export its militaristic and radical ideology to Iraq and throughout the Middle East,” Obama said in a statement released by his office this week. “Pressuring companies to cut their financial ties with Iran is critical to ensuring that sanctions have their intended result.”
    continues at…..
    http://www.ips.org/blog/jimlobe/?p=20

    Reply

  68. Kent says:

    This is all about the First Amendment. The RNC should not follow the gov’t down the path of censorship. After all, censorship is becoming America’s favorite past-time. The US gov’t (and their corporate friends), already detain protesters, ban books like “America Deceived” from Amazon and Wikipedia, shut down Imus and fire 21-year tenured, BYU physics professor Steven Jones because he proved explosives, thermite in particular, took down the WTC buildings. Free Speech forever (especially for debates). Dr. Ron Paul is the only true conservative.
    Last link (before Google Books caves to pressure and drops the title):
    http://www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/book_detail.asp?&isbn=0-595-38523-0

    Reply

  69. liz says:

    Didn’t Nazi’s take away choices and limit candidates? Republicans need to be careful not to be seen as discriminatory! The GOP limiting America’s choices…….. whoa.

    Reply

  70. Carroll says:

    Hey… let’s play “Why” with why Scott Paul thinks Ron Paul is kooky.
    I went and read thru his official positions on the issues and found some, like withdrawing from the ICC and WTO and other international orgs that I think go too far but definitely not kooky. 50 years ago this was mainstream thinking actually, among what then was mostly non corp US businessmen and business owners. Maybe Paul is catching on because people think we are due a course correction to get “non multinational corp” main street US business back on the playing field?
    He isn’t even extreme in his “conspiracy” about the US-Canada-Mexico thing….he just makes a mistake in presenting it as a conspiracy or anything that will ever be “officially” declared or “presented” to the American people as change in our NationHood…it’s a change in “American Commerce” for the benefit of corps and their politicans that already exist and is increasing…no secret there.
    I don’t disagree with his immigration position or his private property position..I don’t even disagree with his tax stand so far (need more info on what he considers an entitlement and what he considers welfare) but in general he is right… we taxpayers have paid enough in taxes to clone America seven times over already…that there are no other Americas out there to suit all the democracy promoters in the trillion agencies we funds to do that tells you how well spent or directed our money was.
    There is one thing Paul and Gravel are doing and that is talking about what they can do for Americans. Maybe people are responding to that.
    As luck would have it I am sitting here listening to the Mexican Amb speak to the US Chamber of Commerce and the chamber also discussing how they can “package” the SSP to overcome us dummies opposition. Now they are on how the US and Exxon can help Columbia..maybe send them some more money and helos to fight the druggies since they have done so well on that over the past 30 years. Not. Maybe they should have been actually fighting druggies instead of guarding Exxon faculities and shooting down US missionaries. Now they are playing the “security card”..the US must aid and cooperate and shovel money to every country that strikes the corps fancy because terrorist will get us if we don’t. (translated means make these countries safe for global capitalism) Huummm…how does this fit with in with all those illegal immigrants and now uninspected truckers coming in from Mexico. I have been listening closely and haven’t heard one f***** word on or anyone even pretend to mention if there is anything in all this for the lowly American worker or family or small business. Nope, Americans are totally a non enity in this country, how dare we presume to think our politicans should actually represent us and look after our interest.
    And yea you can say but,but,but..this is today! and things are more complicated!…well no kidding!..and who do you think complicated them and for whom?..no where written in stone they can’t be uncomplicated.
    Oh no, gag me!……cspan switched to McCain explaining how Paul blamed Americans for 911. Oh my gawd! do you suppose Falwell’s evil spirit has taken possession of McCains body?
    On the foreign policy issue if anyone thinks Paul is kooky than they also think Washington and Jefferson were kooky.
    What I hear from the politicans goes like this:
    …more “free trade this time will give you jobs/ that the free trade last time cost you…lowering coporate taxes/ will trickle down to more jobs ….cutting taxes on the extreme rich/ will trickle down…vote for me/ or terrorist will kill you….illegal workers/ keep your consumer cost lower….kill the terriers and send your children to die in Iraq/ so you won’t have to die here…LOL…don’t you love the cute way they tell us how something they are doing for someone else “first” will benefit us as a “side effect”?
    Maybe that is why Paul has supporters. Hell I may even support him. Or maybe I will vote for myself…my official policy position is Burn Washington to the Ground and Start Over.
    Yea, I realize that might cost a lot of goverment employees their jobs, but what the hey, it’s all for the greater good…they can get a new job sweeping up the ashes…and the good news for them is as a “side effect” of my policy the minimun wage increase might be in effect by then.

    Reply

  71. PissedOff America says:

    “If the fact that I wrote ‘I support Israel’ but didn’t mention Palestine (which was completely understandable because it didn’t fit in with my argument), ruffled a few metaphorical feathers, then I think the offended are a tad too sensitive. Carroll at least asked for clarification; POA went off on a stupid tirade.”
    Your focused animous, based on an overblown representation of my comments, is a direct example of what you are accusing me of.
    Claiming that you were only supporting Israel’s right to exist by saying “I favor continuing to support Israel” is pure unadulterated horseshit. Get off your high horse and find the balls to defend your original statement as you intended it.

    Reply

  72. PissedOff America says:

    “I disagree; he or she was addressing me personally. He took one phrase of mine, and rabidly developed a strawman of what I stood for and then counseled me to be an unwitting stooge for Israel. I believe in civilized debate, and from your post, I gather that you do also. From my limited experience on this board, it seems to me that POA has no such interest and instead is interested on projecting a variety of unsubstantiated innuendos on those with whom he disagrees.”
    Take yourself pretty serious, doncha? Don’t worry about it, I’m an equal opportunity grouch.
    Truth is, your original comment about
    supporting Israel was worded “Now I favor continuing to support Israel….”. Then, furiously backpeddling, you state that you only support Israel’s right to exist.
    What a crock. You think you are talking to idiots?
    I support Israel’s “right to exist” too. But I would never dream of stating my support of that one premise by saying “I favor continuing to support Israel”. Fact is, Israel can damned well continue to “exist” without us sending them tens of billions of dollars every year. And they can damned sure “exist” without bribing our politicians, committing acts of espionage against us, launching propaganda programs aimed at Americans, and committing false flag terrorist attacks against us.
    In short, I guess what I am trying to say, is that you are weaseling on your original statement. And I’m not buying it.
    Sorry.
    BTW, I believe in HONEST debate. And believe it or not, I can actually be quite civil when debate is offered honestly. But I have no patience for bullshit, and something tells me you and I aren’t going to get along. And something else tells me its not the first time we haven’t got along.

    Reply

  73. ... says:

    RPR, i am not offended as you suggest… i am pointing out how saying one thing, especially on a polarized topic such as the me issue does suggest a few possibilities as to your motive. lots of things can be read into many of the posts here, however subjective the process may be… in your initial post i did get that you agreed with ron pauls comments on why 9-11 happened using the bin laden link for greater clarity.. assuming 9-11 was done with full knowledge on the part of the arabs, with no other parties turning a blind eye to it similtaneously will remain an open unanswerable question to me, much like a number of other coincidence theories floating around.

    Reply

  74. PissedOff America says:

    “Similarly, your attempt to turn my one comment about Israel into a towering strawman of racism, genocide, and war-mongering reflects poorly on you.”
    Posted by RPR
    Why thank you. Glad I could be of service.

    Reply

  75. Carroll says:

    Posted by RPR at May 18, 2007 08:13 PM
    >>>>>>>>
    I guess I skipped over the main point on OBL and Ron Paul because I did get your point but just failed to acknowledge it.
    And I don’t find all support of Israel offensive. I just find the “motivations” and ‘tactics” of some suporters objectionable.
    No I don’t want to dismantel Israel by force since it is already there, but I do want to make them conform to and answerable to the same standards and to international laws that we (use to, sometimes do) hold any other country to, particulary as long as they are an US aid receipent and “client state” of the US which is basically what they still are.
    The biggest problem I have with the fanatic wing of Israeli supporters is that they don’t get the old truism…”Your rights end where Mine begin” and visa versa.
    I think Israel is and has been committing gross human rights violations and land theft under the “guise” of security for a long time now and that is based on me, myself and I, observing the “pattern” of what has gone on and not because of what either side of supporters in the conflict or anyone else has had to say about it. I don’t have any excessive like or dislike for, or identification with the ethnics or religion of either side. Besides reflecting badly on the US honor, it is just plain wrong…and that about sums up the roots of my objection to Israel and the US part in it.
    I think the wisest thing to do when looking at US-Isr-Pal-ME matter is to take that smart Chinaman’s advice….” to know your subject you must first divorce yourself from all love or hate of it”.

    Reply

  76. RPR says:

    “i think all these seperate ideas tie together and it makes passing statements like ‘i support israel’ while omiting any mention of palestine very pointed to some who are aware of these dynamics.”
    The issues you mentioned all tie in with the existence of Israel and Palestine, not my original point about bin Laden and Ron Paul. If the fact that I wrote ‘I support Israel’ but didn’t mention Palestine (which was completely understandable because it didn’t fit in with my argument), ruffled a few metaphorical feathers, then I think the offended are a tad too sensitive. Carroll at least asked for clarification; POA went off on a stupid tirade.
    But again, read the totality of my original post. As I wrote before, I wrote that I support the continued existence of Israel, but it was such a small and tangential part of my argument that I’m surprised that people would be so offended.
    But since the continued existence of Israel is such a controversial subject, I’d like to ask if you, Carroll, and POA if you favor dismantling Israel by force. If not, then you are basically supporting the same thing as me – the continued existence of Israel.
    Carroll, fair point on the challenge/accept thing.

    Reply

  77. ... says:

    good present day political example Carroll. that sums it up in a real context.

    Reply

  78. Brigitte N. says:

    The issue here is simply whether the powers that be respect the rules of the game in a democracy–at least so far in advance of the first causes/primaries. I do not care at all for libertarian Paul but is seems that he gets under the skin of some of his fellow competitors on the Republican side. He is perhaps the only one demanding a complete change in foreign/defense policy–after Bush.
    For more after bush and strategy changes in the so-called war on terrorism, see
    http://www.reflectivepundit.com/reflectivepundit/2007/05/after_bush_new_.html

    Reply

  79. Carroll says:

    Speaking of which:
    House rejects funding caveat on Iran
    E-mail News Brief
    The U.S. House of Representatives narrowly rejected a measure that would have prevented President Bush from using Iraq war funds to strike Iran.
    The amendment to the defense spending bill, proposed Wednesday night by Rep. Robert Andrews (D-N.J.), would have required congressional approval for such an expenditure. It failed 216-202.
    A more far-reaching amendment proposed by Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) was rejected by 288-136.
    The American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which favors a robust posture against any possible Iranian nuclear threat, strongly opposed the amendments. Two Jewish members close to AIPAC, Reps. Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.) and Gary Ackerman (D-N.Y.), had kept similar language from appearing in the bill’s original text. Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), the House speaker, allowed the amendments to go forward to placate anti-war Democrats.
    Andrews’ amendment drew the support of 196 Democrats and six Republicans, and the opposition of 187 Republicans and 29 Democrats. President Bush says he has no intention of striking Iran but won’t rule out the option.
    JTA Daily Briefing: Our free newsletter delivers breaking news & timely, topical information right to your inbox
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    As far as every poll I have seen, and 99% of all the reports and comments I see on the net and what I hear from locals…the majority of Americans want some kind of clause or definite action by congress to keep Bush&Co. from going off on Iran.
    But…”Two Jewish members close to AIPAC, Reps. Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.) and Gary Ackerman (D-N.Y.), had kept similar language from appearing in the bill’s original text.”.
    A natural question for Engle and Ackerman would be ..Why are you going against the wishes of 90% of your voter base and most of the country on this?
    Is it because you are Jewish and are considering Israel’s position first? Well if you asked them that they would get all offended and call you an anti-semitic and say something like Israel is our ally and the only democracy in the ME and Israel’s cause is America’s cause and so forth. And who knows they might really believe that delusion…that Israel and America are one in the same. But it is what it is…a delusion.
    Now if we asked one of the gentile dem members like Hoyer who did the same thing if they did it for Jewish votes and campaign money or pressure from the lobby as new reports have alluded to they would also get all huffy and self righeous and claim the same Israel-USA, one in the same defense or go into the Iran wants to attack the US and Muslimize the world, etc.. Another delusion…except maybe more a self serving spin than actual self induced delusion. They sure aren’t going to just admit it’s becuase they get lots of money from Jewish pacs and votes in Jewish districts if they cater to this issue and so they work for them first, despite that US congressman title.
    I liked Bill Richardson’s admission that he was sort of loath to jump on Gonzales because he was one of his own, meaning hispanic. He was honest in saying he wasn’t total objective on Gonzales because of his personal predilections, which is human nature after all for a lot of people. And if someone is honest he can generally overcome his personal basis and come to a fair and objective view.
    But personal predilections and tribalism are no way to run a country, especially a suppose to be melting pot this one. Too dangerous. Too susceptible to special groups and narrow interest whackos and fanatics of all kinds. Just what we have had for six years…maybe longer if we are really being honest.
    This why the politicans need to be grilled to the nth degree with no verboten WHY questions and have their feet roasted on every action they take and word they say…the honest ones will come thru the rest will trip themsleves up…and hopfully break their career necks when they do.

    Reply

  80. Carroll says:

    Posted by … at May 18, 2007 04:39 PM
    >>>>>>>>>>
    Pretty accurate but speaking for myself and most of us I know who mouth off on this subject it goes beyond just the Isr-Pal issue.
    Not that I don’t have utmost sympathy for what is happening to people in Palestine and don’t dismiss bomb victims in Israel but US support of this mostly unequal-unfair fight as come to symbolize how low the US has gone and how far we have strayed from our original principles of fairness.
    And yep…it is due to corruption in our politics.
    That’s one why we don’t have to ask, we already pretty much know that part.

    Reply

  81. Carroll says:

    Carroll, maybe I’m missing something but it seems that on one hand you write that you have no problem with people who defend the existence of certain states, but then elsewhere write that those who do just that can be asked ‘why’? Not a big issue, but it just seems somewhat contradictory, even if we’re talking about generic states. It’s just a debating point, I’ll admit…
    Again, I don’t doubt that the ‘why’ question is important, but it wasn’t the main focus of my original post.
    Posted by RPR at May 18, 2007 04:03 PM
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
    No contradiction in asking Why about something……let’s try a mundane example….I support and lobby for the state putting an interstate exchange that dead ends in a cornfield (don’t laugh, this has actually happened) because I am going to, number one, get the highway contract for it most likely since it is in my terrority and I will probably the lower bidder on it and number two, I am also going to make money because it will require that the state buy some otherwise pretty useless land I own, and number three, taxpayers will pay for this highway to nowhere.
    People in the know are going to know Why “I” support this project…and probably the state newspaper will tell everyone else of my motivation.
    Unfortunately not all “support” behind certain things is so transparent hence the need for why…especially when other people are impacted or paying the bill.
    I don’t see any contridiction in saying people can support something and others can ask them why.
    If people don’t want to explain the motivation behind their support they can just leave it to speculation.
    Trite example I admit but just internationalize it.

    Reply

  82. ... says:

    meant to say ‘i don’t think so’..

    Reply

  83. ... says:

    RPR, i think their is an issue of sensitivity towards anyone who mouths support for israel, while omiting to mouth support for palestine… american politicians do it all the time, but one has to ask the question – why? i think it has a lot to do with financial support to help their election chances.. maybe i am being too cynical, but the imbalance is extreme enough to warrant a much bigger part of the conversation in usa election warmups and movement towards electing representatives. does anyone think palestine controls congress? no, but some think israel has a very big influence on it… does anyone think aipac abilities to lobby the american political system is inferior to the arab worlds? i think so.. i think all these seperate ideas tie together and it makes passing statements like ‘i support israel’ while omiting any mention of palestine very pointed to some who are aware of these dynamics.

    Reply

  84. RPR says:

    You are a bit off base there…unless you think I should have added..Israel “or any other country” to the “Why” question. And maybe I should have included that to make it plainer.
    Carroll, maybe I’m missing something but it seems that on one hand you write that you have no problem with people who defend the existence of certain states, but then elsewhere write that those who do just that can be asked ‘why’? Not a big issue, but it just seems somewhat contradictory, even if we’re talking about generic states. It’s just a debating point, I’ll admit…
    Again, I don’t doubt that the ‘why’ question is important, but it wasn’t the main focus of my original post.

    Reply

  85. Carroll says:

    Posted by RPR at May 18, 2007 02:40
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    That’s fine and I don’t want a discussion on this even though it is “one of” my “pet” issues simply because I think it is important.
    But on this…:
    “I am grateful that you don’t have a problem with me believing in a certain state’s right to exist, although you were doing just that when you wrote “I think the pertinent questions to ask those who declare their support for Israel is…”Why?”.”
    You are a bit off base there…unless you think I should have added..Israel “or any other country” to the “Why” question. And maybe I should have included that to make it plainer.
    The “Why” factor is a valid question to examine in some supporters of certain countries or our policies toward them…our current disasters abroad have certainly unveiled that not all supporters of Israel or Cuba or Lizard Lick have human rights or wrong and right or fairness or even realism at the heart of their support…some are just pure self interest or tribal type attitudes. I think we need to make sure the US isn’t used for those purposes, that’s why I say the “Why” needs to examined before the US takes up causes or fall under the influence of certain “supporters”…supporters or “champions” of causes like the recent Chalabi-Perle Iraq Freedom cabal, the in the past US exile supporters of Cuba that brought down an airliner and killed 70 people and some others I could name should be given a little truth serum before involving the US in their ventures.
    Hope that explains why the “Why” is important.

    Reply

  86. bubba says:

    Without commenting directly on the merits, I would just like to add/ask, if no one else has already, if it is OK for this guy to call out Paul for his ‘contrary’ views, why is he not at least consistent and calling for Giuliani’s ouster from the debates as well? Hypocritical to the core today’s GOP are.

    Reply

  87. RPR says:

    “I think the pertinent questions to ask those who declare their support for Israel is…”Why?”….and “Do you also equally support other States right to exist as whatever they choose to, be it Muslim or Christian or a Democrary or Republic or Monarchy or whatever?””
    Actually, Carroll, it may be a pertinent question for you, but it’s not for me. My comments were focused on what Ron Paul said and bin Laden’s fatwa; not the existence of Israel. Pissed-Off American took one side comment of mine, and ran with it. Admittedly, I wrote it so it’s fair game, but that comment of mine was not remotely the thrust of my original argument. I don’t necessarily feel the obligation to engage you or POA in your pet issues.
    But fine, I’ll take the bait. I support Israel’s right to exist because at this point the country has been established and it basically exists. Several generations of Israelis have been born in that country and live there and consider it theirs. The state of Israel has set up institutions, libraries, universities, etc. I also support the existence of an independent Palestine, and I have a lot of empathy for the plight of Palestinians. I don’t know enough about Middle East history to say unequivocally that they got screwed, but it seems to me that they were.
    “I have no problem with anyone believing in any state’s right to exist, as long as it is belief applied to all and not as an exception for one or two states based on racism or ethnic or religious identification or political ideology.”
    I am grateful that you don’t have a problem with me believing in a certain state’s right to exist, although you were doing just that when you wrote “I think the pertinent questions to ask those who declare their support for Israel is…”Why?”.
    “Perhaps POA jumped the gun a bit on you but he and I and many others who visit here have looked at the US/Isr relationship issue and their joint behavior in depth for several years now and think it is a very big problem for America in domestic politics and in our foreign policy.”
    POA didn’t ‘perhaps’ jump the gun on me; he DID jump the gun on me.
    “So I think you can take it he was addressing that “issue”, not you personally.”
    I disagree; he or she was addressing me personally. He took one phrase of mine, and rabidly developed a strawman of what I stood for and then counseled me to be an unwitting stooge for Israel. I believe in civilized debate, and from your post, I gather that you do also. From my limited experience on this board, it seems to me that POA has no such interest and instead is interested on projecting a variety of unsubstantiated innuendos on those with whom he disagrees.
    My pleasure on the fatwa link.

    Reply

  88. Carroll says:

    Posted by RPR at May 18, 2007 09:56 AM
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    But hey, thanks for the link to OBL’s fatwa…I had read it eons ago but lost the link…there was also an interview with him I read but also lost that link, if you come across it I would love to have it back.
    Pretty clear where he is coming from. I don’t know of any people who have less understanding of human nature than Americans and the Israelis..when you push and humilate people to the nth degree for whatever reason over long periods of time you are going to get that famous Blowback.

    Reply

  89. Robert Morrow says:

    There is true and intense grassroots support for Ron Paul. He has strong appeal among independents. Ron Paul does not mind sticking with principle which is like sticking a finger in the eye of the GOP establishment.
    Hopefully, he will keep up this momentum and take up to the next level. Correct, Ron Paul is an old school, old timey conservative who emphasizes limited government and personal responsibility.

    Reply

  90. Carroll says:

    Posted by RPR at May 18, 2007 10:58 AM
    >>>>>>>>>>
    I think the pertinent questions to ask those who declare their support for Israel is…”Why?”….and “Do you also equally support other States right to exist as whatever they choose to, be it Muslim or Christian or a Democrary or Republic or Monarchy or whatever?”
    I have no problem with anyone believing in any state’s right to exist, as long as it is belief applied to all and not as an exception for one or two states based on racism or ethnic or religious identification or political ideology.
    Perhaps POA jumped the gun a bit on you but he and I and many others who visit here have looked at the US/Isr relationship issue and their joint behavior in depth for several years now and think it is a very big problem for America in domestic politics and in our foreign policy.
    So I think you can take it he was addressing that “issue”, not you personally.

    Reply

  91. jojo says:

    To Scott Paul
    My dear fellow scribe,you started your rant that you and Ron have only one thing in common. I guess you have 3 legs and 6 ears and one forehead glass eye . The problem is that you berated Ron at the start and gave no insight in you differences. This is a cheap way of framing up a noble person. Please do tell us what most you hate this man for ? Better yet compare him to Bush, Chenny or Bill Chilton and let’s see if your a shill ?
    The problem you dislike Ron is that he does not belong or tow the zionist frat agenda.
    Here is someone that has balls !
    http://www.ichblog.eu/index.php?option=com_seyret&task=videodirectlink&id=55907

    Reply

  92. RPR says:

    Pissed Off American,
    Your unhinged rant is quite weird given that I merely noted that I support Israel’s right to exist; nothing more. If you have a problem with that, fine. But your implication that I should then go full-tilt into buying into Israeli propaganda is insipid. Similarly, your attempt to turn my one comment about Israel into a towering strawman of racism, genocide, and war-mongering reflects poorly on you.

    Reply

  93. PissedOff America says:

    “I support Israel’s continued existence……”
    Oh, you needn’t worry about that. Heck, they’re not only “existing”, they are growing, with every illegally and despicably gained acre of stolen Palestinian land.
    And if they face any threats, real or contrived, have no fear, for Washington will send your neighbor’s little Bobby over there to die for them.
    My suggestion to you would be to pay careful attention to the lies and propaganda that they put up on the AIPAC website about Iran’s nuclear capabilities, and ignore any other news sources. That way, when our kids are dying in Iran, and we have murdered a few hundred thousand Iranians, you can “support Israel” with a clear conscience.

    Reply

  94. hazmaq says:

    Azunis may want to listen to his constituents a little more. Or maybe the real problem is that he did.
    C-span had open phone lines after each party’s debate.
    Ron Paul got more positive comments for his bold ideas and truthtelling than any of the candidates did, on either side.

    Reply

  95. hazmaq says:

    Azunis may want to listen to his constituents a little more. Or maybe the real problem is that he did.
    C-span had open phone lines after each party’s debate.
    Ron Paul got more positive comments for his bold ideas and truthtelling than any of the candidates did, on either side.

    Reply

  96. RPR says:

    “Not many are willing to admit they favor the clusterbombing of civilians, the destruction of farmers fields, the theft of land, blatant racism, as well as espionage and false flag terrorist attacks against the United States.”
    And if you re-read my post, you’ll note that I never wrote anything about supporting those activities either. I support Israel’s continued existence, not all of its policies or activities. Just like I’m pro-US, despite my anger over the war in Iraq and other things.

    Reply

  97. Pissed Off American says:

    “Now I favor continuing to support Israel……..”
    Posted by RPR
    Hmmm, a gutsy statement. Not many are willing to admit they favor the clusterbombing of civilians, the destruction of farmers fields, the theft of land, blatant racism, as well as espionage and false flag terrorist attacks against the United States.

    Reply

  98. RPR says:

    I’m not on the Ron Paul bandwagon, but he’s quite correct. Bin Laden issued a fatwa in 1996 (I don’t think he had the right to, but he did anyway) and he called for killing Americans because of 1) troops in Saudi Arabia, 2) our support for Israel at the expense of the Palestinians, and 3) our policy to Iraq. You can read it, in its numbing entirety, here: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1996.html
    Now I favor continuing to support Israel, and I think we need to protect our oil supply in the Middle East until we can ween ourselves off it, but let’s not kid ourselves. Bin Laden hates us not because our kids pierce their navels, but because of our presence over there.

    Reply

  99. bAkho says:

    Allowing everyone to speak at once is no different than allowing no one to speak. There are lesser nut-cases that Congressman Paul that are NOT included in the debates. There are always “non-viable” candidates that are excluded. They are correct he is a distraction. Then again, few are paying attention already.

    Reply

  100. liz says:

    The Republican party was hijacked a good while back. Chuck Hagel stole my line because I have been typing it online now for four or five years. In that process, many Republicans fell in lock step with the Neocons. These people are very confused about their personal beliefs.
    It appears Mr. Azuni is one of these people who no longer subscribe to Republican values or even know what they are!
    Mr. Paul sounds like the embodiment of Republicanism to me. He sounds old timey Republican.
    It strikes me as extremely odd that the Republicans want to dismiss their only chance at winning the White House. Mr. Paul’s numbers are very high with him ” WINNING” all the debates so far. So why can a winner??
    Because Republicans have this idea that they alone decide who is one and then they tell them exactly what to think. Discrimination is high on the list to create the Best.
    Discrimination is rampant under the Republicans and they even practice it amongst themselves. Amazing.
    Republicans are scared to death of Ron Paul

    Reply

  101. Spyre says:

    Paul is the only true conservative on the stage. Everyone else: cowardly authoritarian footstools who worship power over liberty.

    Reply

  102. Robert Morrow says:

    I am down here in Austin and helping to promote and organize a fund raiser for Ron Paul this Saturday and I can tell you it is going absolutely gangbusters the last few days. Thank-you attacks from establishment GOP – like manna from heaven.
    Ron Paul is a real threat to the establishment GOP not just on his anti-Iraq war position, which is quite popular, but also because he is anti-tax, anti-federal government and pro-USA national sovereignty. These folks would not be attacking Ron Paul if he were not gaining support.
    Ron Paul is the GOP’s strongest candidate and ironically the leadership is trying to marginalize or destroy him. Ron Paul is the GOP’s best possible candidate against Hillary. He has very strong appeal to independents. The libertarian vote deserted the GOP in 2006 and they would come back if Ron Paul is at the top of the ticket. I think Ron Paul would be a much stronger candidate than Rudy Guiliani, who is our liberal sell out option to nominate.
    Ron Paul is a long shot to be nominated for POTUS, but I feel that his campaign has only begun to shake up this race. He is running on MESSAGE not MONEY and that can be a potent appeal.

    Reply

  103. J.P. Marat says:

    An open letter to Saul Azunis:
    “I read that you, being a true upholder of democracy, want to “ban” Ron Paul’s ideas from future Republican debates. Congratulations, you’re just like a Soviet-style party boss. I hope you succeed. It will illustrate to a good share of people in this country just how corrupt this closed political system has become. Actions like this are needed to illustrate the need for revolution NOW! The two party system is no longer of use to the commoners and needs to be replaced with a parliamentary system. I realize that your well entrenched system won’t go down easily. They didn’t in 1776, 1789, 1848, or 1917, but fall they did on the weight of their own myopic arrogance. Once again, like in those earlier cases, an unpopular war leading to economic collapse will be the catalyst for awakening the usually apathetic Joe Sixpacks out there and ushering in a fresh cleansing! So keep supporting this war and work to ban Ron Paul for daring to deviate from the corporate party line. The future depends on it!”

    Reply

  104. J.P. Marat says:

    An open letter to Saul Azunis:
    I read that you, being a true upholder of democracy, want to “ban” Ron Paul’s ideas from future Republican debates. Congratulations, you’re just like a Soviet-style party boss. I hope you succeed. It will illustrate to a good share of people in this country just how corrupt this closed political system has become. Actions like this are needed to illustrate the need for revolution NOW! The two party system is no longer of use to the commoners and needs to be replaced with a parliamentary system. I realize that your well entrenched system won’t go down easily. They didn’t in 1776, 1789, 1848, or 1917, but fall they did on the weight of their own myopic arrogance. Once again, like in those earlier cases, an unpopular war leading to economic collapse will be the catalyst for awakening the usually apathetic Joe Sixpacks out there and ushering in a fresh cleansing! So keep supporting this war and work to ban Ron Paul for daring to deviate from the corporate party line. The future depends on it!

    Reply

  105. ... says:

    that is weird why it is not posting my post!@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
    anyway, last try for the paragraph that ties it all together..
    >>i wrote to the writer of the article how i thought it quite interesting how he managed to frame a story around ron pauls words which guiliani challenged without mentioning ron paul once in the article.. that is impressive. who needs censorship when you have ny times writers doing that?<<

    Reply

  106. ... says:

    don’t know why my post was chopped up, but now i see it is missing a central paragraph too!
    the beautiful thing about the backspace button is one can go back and retrieve what was supposed to be posted.. here it is and why it didn’t all go through is anyones guess.
    >>yesterday the ny times ran an article >>As Giuliani Strays From G.O.P. Base, He Sticks to 9/11>The most striking moment of the Republican presidential debate on Tuesday night may not have been the back-and-forth on abortion or immigration. It was arguably when Rudolph W. Giuliani won resounding applause for rebutting another candidate’s suggestion that American policies might have helped incite the Sept. 11 attacks.<<
    the writers response to my question was inadequete as far as i was concerned.

    Reply

  107. ... says:

    yesterday the ny times ran an article >>As Giuliani Strays From G.O.P. Base, He Sticks to 9/11>The most striking moment of the Republican presidential debate on Tuesday night may not have been the back-and-forth on abortion or immigration. It was arguably when Rudolph W. Giuliani won resounding applause for rebutting another candidate’s suggestion that American policies might have helped incite the Sept. 11 attacks.<<
    the writers response to my question was inadequete as far as i was concerned.

    Reply

  108. Matthew says:

    How could anyone suggest ringing the Muslim world with military bases, propping up Medieval monarchs, and squashing all the national liberation movements in the ME could have anything to do with terrorism?
    I, for one, would be quite happy having a dozen Chinese military bases on our border and lots of Russian missiles in Cuba.
    Sorry…I mistakenly thought Wingnut logic was generally applicable. It’s not; that’s why we call it “American Exceptionalism.”

    Reply

  109. Scott Paul says:

    Thanks for the spell check, folks. I’m editing my post so I can look smarter than I really am.

    Reply

  110. Carroll says:

    The Bloomberg-Hagel 3rd run would be verrry interesting..the Unity ’08 funding of bipartisan ticket would be verrry interesting..
    I would love to see a total mix up and half a dozen wild cards in this election..this year I am committed to not voting for the lesser of the evils, to writting in a name if no one appeals to me and I am going to keep doing that the rest of my voting life till something changes or I die whichever comes first.

    Reply

  111. Carroll says:

    Huumm…I went back read this post again….
    “If candidates should ever be excluded from debates – and I leave that as an open question – it should be based on measured levels of support, simply so voters can get better acquainted with the more viable candidates.”
    Huummmm…so what would be measured levels of support..money…names on a petition? ..what if 200,000 supporters gave Paul $20 dollars each and one New York money man gave Rudi or McCain 5 milion dollars? How are you gonna gauge support?
    Nope, let them all on stage and let the American people sort it out.
    And while I am typing this I am listening to the polyester pundits on the MSM pronnounce who is a “nationalist and who is not..Matthews says he is a good “nationalist”, who opposes the war (finally) and those like Rosie are america haters who oppose the war because they hate america. ..then another plastic pundit says she “knows” “real” americans don’t oppose the war becuase it was wrong, but only because defeatist tell us we are losing.
    Must confesss it boggles the mind, Chris the peace corp dodger and a wigged gop dollie profess to know what Americans r-e-a-l-l-y think.. when if they ever fell out of their incest pool they would need a map to find their own minds.
    So maybe the koolaide media is going to tell us who is “viable”….?
    This run democracy by party wigs and fop pundits has gotten so nutty I am actually looking forward to a good cleansing revolution.

    Reply

  112. Robert M. says:

    Actually, the THIRD PARTY movement that should be of the most concern to the GOP, as their candidate woud coming limping in a very poor 3rd, would be that of
    Bloomberg-Hagel
    because Mayor Bloomberg, whom EVERY New Yorker knows & has seen, is far far far better a leader and a manager than Rudy, can set aside out of his own pocket
    $1 billion for the run.
    Hagel would have to stop being Hamlet of course, but he’s already openly talked about this. And Bloomberg just has to let both parties whack each other up through next June and THEN make his move.
    Given that the voters’ are having no problem with a woman or a black candidate (in general), a Jewish candidate is perfectly OK especially if joined with a Heartland candidate.
    because 2008 is all about
    COMPETENCE UNDER LAW.
    COMPETENCE
    UNDER
    LAW.
    And with Ray Kelly, his NYPD commish, Bloomberg’s already been working with the defacto-Homeland Security director.
    [Sorry about that double post. I’ll get it correct soon.]

    Reply

  113. Pissed Off American says:

    And yet one more Bush Administration criminal tells Congress to go screw themselves…..
    http://infowars.net/articles/may2007/160507Probe.htm

    Reply

  114. Pissed Off American says:

    And heres Cheney, telling the American public that….
    …….the truth doesn’t matter, its alright to lie, nuthin’ to see here, move on, move on. Besides, I’m the VP, by God, and if I wanna commit treason, just what the hell are you gonna do about it? Screw you, America.
    http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003245.php#comments

    Reply

  115. Pissed Off American says:

    BTW, I see that Hagel is now in the “Gonzales oughta resign” parade. Does this mean he wants to revoke his recent vote in regards to the AG being able to bypass the confirmation process when appointing prosecutors??? I guess Hagel is saying that Gonzales oughta step down for abusing his power, but heck, lets vote to give the AG even more power.
    (With logic like that, he’d make a great President, in true Dubya form).
    All he needs now is a stake in an electronic voting machine company that he can forget to disclose. Oops, oh yeah, forgot, been there done that.

    Reply

  116. Kathleen says:

    Presidential debates were first sponsored by the League of Women Voters. A great idea and contribution to an informed electoral process. Back then, they were actual debates.
    Unfortunately, the two major parties wanted candidates to set their own rules, rather than abide by rules set by “women voters”. They also wanted to exclude minor candidates who had achieved ballot status.
    This is when we stopped having meaningful Presidential debates. What we have now are more like auditions for a part/job.
    I wish the League of Women Voters would take back the Presidential debates and invite all candidates. People would watch and learn. The majors could participate or not.
    Ron Paul is the only one who has the balls to acknowledge our part of the terrorism equation. What he said about our actions in Iraq and other places in the Middle East are the truth.
    I disagree with him about Reagan being right, that Middle Eastern politics is crazy. Seems pretty normal to me to not want invaders in your midst, no matter where on the planet you live. This is not crazy or unique to the Middle East.
    Ron Paul is asking Giuliani for an apology and best of all, has named him “Benito”.
    I’m loving it.

    Reply

  117. Kathleen says:

    Presidential debates were first sponsored by the League of Women Voters. A great idea and contribution to an informed electoral process. Back then, they were actual debates.
    Unfortunately, the two major parties wanted candidates to set their own rules, rather than abide by rules set by “women voters”. They also wanted to exclude minor candidates who had achieved ballot status.
    This is when we stopped having meaningful Presidential debates. What we have now are more like auditions for a part/job.
    I wish the League of Women Voters would take back the Presidential debates and invite all candidates. People would watch and learn. The majors could participate or not.
    Ron Paul is the only one who has the balls to acknowledge our part of the terrorism equation. What he said about our actions in Iraq and other places in the Middle East are the truth.
    I disagree with him about Reagan being right, that Middle Eastern politics is crazy. Seems pretty normal to me to not want invaders in your midst, no matter where on the planet you live. This is not crazy or unique to the Middle East.
    Ron Paul is asking Giuliani for an apology and best of all, has named him “Benito”.
    I’m loving it.

    Reply

  118. Pissed Off American says:

    Is this supposed to be a suprise? Anyone threatening to run as a third party candidate, or running to the edge of his party’s platform, doesn’t stand a chance. I find it interesting that Scott Paul laments Ron Paul’s ostracization, yet participates in the ostracization of Kucinich by his comments on a previous thread.
    Quite simply, our media, and both parties, are only willing to market those candidates that will participate in creating an illusion of separate party agendas, when in fact there is very little difference in their loyalties, financial backing, and agendas. The subservience to AIPAC and Israel is a perfect example of the parrallel agendas that drive the popularly marketed candidates of both parties. People such as Ron Paul, Gravel, and Kucinich do not stand a chance because they are truly interested in change, and are willing to tell the American people the TRUTH about why change is needed.
    The scope of this media and party control is breathtaking, as CBS’s recent firing of General Batiste illustrates, as does Pelosi’s removal of the Iran provision from a recent Iraq resolution draft.
    The status quo system of corruption, illegality, media manipulation, and massive propaganda campaigns does not just enable the power on the right, but enables the power on the left as well. It is painfully obvious they serve the same masters. There is no hew and cry for impeachment because the abuses and crimes we have seen these last six years are the same abuses and crimes that the media marketed “popular” candidates intend to engage in should they be “elected”.
    I am disgusted with the whole thing. Who woulda thought a damned blow job would have trumped treason and obstruction of Justice? If there’s any one thing you can take to the bank, its the fact that WHOEVER makes it to the Oval Office, it will be because they are the best at being a lying posturing self serving piece of shit.

    Reply

  119. Robert M. says:

    Scott,
    The word you want to use is “kooky” or “kookie”, as in “You kook!” not as in “You, cook!”. A “cooky” is how Elmo might spell what it is that Cookie Monster likes to eat.
    Of course that “kook” Paulie Wolf-nuts didn’t leave with out his “cookies” now did he? Got that extra $375K, fer shure.
    Two down. Several more to go. Fredo is next, also fer shure. Whether its resignation or impeachment. Look forward to seeing how Bush tries to invoke Article II as colored in by Johnny Yoo so as to ignore a PASSED impeachment resolution. Of course, THAT would be article 1 of a PRESIDENTIAL impeachment.
    Off the table you say? Oh sure, it is. Its just laying on the chair seat nearby, though.
    Fun times are coming. Petraeus is now not sure about things being clear EVEN by September, but then the Good General doesn’t have to go home to his district during the Congressional August break.

    Reply

  120. Robert M. says:

    Scott,
    The word you want to use is “kooky” or “kookie”, as in “You kook!” not as in “You, cook!”. A “cooky” is how Elmo might spell what it is that Cookie Monster likes to eat.
    Of course that “kook” Paulie Wolf-nuts didn’t leave with out his “cookies” now did he? Got that extra $375K, fer shure.
    Two down. Several more to go. Fredo is next, also fer shure. Whether its resignation or impeachment. Look forward to seeing how Bush tries to invoke Article II as colored in by Johnny Yoo so as to ignore a PASSED impeachment resolution. Of course, THAT would be article 1 of a PRESIDENTIAL impeachment.
    Off the table you say? Oh sure, it is. Its just laying on the chair seat nearby, though.
    Fun times are coming. Petraeus us now sure about things be clear EVEN by September, but then the Good General doesn’t have to go home to his district during the Congressional August break.

    Reply

  121. Hedley Lamarr says:

    I’m not sure what “cooky” comment Paul made during the debates. However, if everyone else is comfortable with U.S. troops remaining in the holy territories of Islam, who am I to differ?

    Reply

  122. David N says:

    Isn’t it interesting that Republicans are all for the ol’ marketplace, except when it’s inconvenient for their power-grabs and profits.

    Reply

  123. Carroll says:

    After a quick search on old Saul, it appears he is into all that zionist and Israel first stuff…so he probably wants to hush up Ron Paul who is very definitely against “entangling alliences” with a-n-y-o-n-e including and particulary Israel, much less going to war for them.
    Saul needs to be time traveled back to nazi Germany, his censorship tacitcs would be more at home there.

    Reply

  124. IMF says:

    FROM TODAY’S INTERNAL WORLD BANK STAFF EMAILS
    Strike One: In late 2000 the administration of Johns Hopkins University had determined to take significant action against Paul Wolfowitz, then Dean of the School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS), for an improper sexual relationship with a SAIS subordinate. University action was interrupted when Wolfowitz informed the University he was leaving to take a position with the Bush Administration.
    Strike Two: In early 2001 the Bush Administration was preparing to nominate Wolfowitz to be Director of the CIA. Wolfowitz’s wife, Clare, wrote the President and detailed her husband’s extramarital affairs at SAIS and with Shaha Ali Riza, whom he had met while Dean at SAIS and Riza was at NED (before she joined the Bank as an employee in 1999). Clare pointed out that her husband had a sexual relationship with a non-American citizen and that he was seeking to keep these relationships “non-disclosed.” Scooter Libby intercepted Clare’s letter which terminated the CIA appointment but the Administration then nominated him to be DOD Dep Sec. In retaliation, Wolfowitz unleashed his lawyers on his wife and forced her to sign a non-disclosure agreement or forego financial support (also see Wolfowitz’s May 3 rebuttal reference to non-disclosure agreements). Clare Wolfowitz signed. At this point, the White House was fully cognizant of Wolfowitz’s personal habits and chose to cover-up his activities. In other, similar cases, individuals are denied a national security clearance not due to the extramarital activities, but due to the possibility of blackmail stemming from “non-disclosure.” In Wolfowitz’s case, Riza was seen in his company at official Administration events (he was still married).
    Strike Three: 2003 (SAIC contract), 2005 (“assignment, not “seconded or detailed” to State Department), 2006 (Foundation for the Future). On the latter, World Bank staff need to focus more carefully on the May 2006 $21,000 World Bank contract and November 2006 speaking contract to Anwar Ibrahim–who informed Robin Cleveland in October 2006 that he was selecting Shaha Ali Riza as Director of the Foundation (while retaining her G-4 tax-free income at an ineligible organization). Ibrahim, close Friend of Wolfowitz, became Chairman of the Foundation in July 2006 after his World Bank contract ended.

    Reply

  125. Keith M Ellis says:

    Ron Paul is a chef, too?

    Reply

  126. profmarcus says:

    i completely agree… ron paul is a duly elected republican congressman from texas and a legitimate, declared candidate for the presidential nomination of his party… and the problem with that would be what, exactly…? we simply cannot tolerate this kind of overt censorship… ron paul is entitled to his views, to his party affiliation, and to his constitutional right to seek to represent his country by running for the highest office in the land…
    http://takeitpersonally.blogspot.com/

    Reply

  127. Zathras says:

    Scott might have mentioned as well — this is still true as far as I know — that Michigan is an open-primary state.
    That means the Republican primary is not restricted to registered Republicans, rendering the question of whether a particular candidate “represent[s] the base” a little beside the point. The last time Michigan’s GOP had a contested Presidential primary, the candidate who did not represent the base won.

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *