| Author | Post |
|---|
flyrep
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 4th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1546 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 18th, 2008 04:27 pm |
|
Sure, several US planes have crashed in Mexico lately. I've heard of this before
as I used to spend over two months a year in Mexico. Planes crash or are searched
by cops who are not on the payroll. Sometimes payroll cops head them off, and sometimes the clean cops make the bust. It is the same in the US. Clean cop,
dirty cop. Clean politician, drug dealing politician.
|
gk
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Tonga |
| Posts: | 1846 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 18th, 2008 03:54 pm |
|
Don't believe the Main Stream Media
This explain why the race is still open
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/37727
|
gk
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Tonga |
| Posts: | 1846 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 7th, 2008 11:40 pm |
|
More on the US drug smuggling enterprise
Four more American-registered drug planes have been seized from the 50-plane fleet of drug running aircraft amassed by Mexico’s Sinaloa Cartel, according to documents filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
Figures of interest in the transactions, the MadCowMorningNews has learned, include financial backers of two of this year's Republican candidates for President, as well as, unsurprisingly, an aviation company in St. Petersburg, FL. which can justifiably be called "one of the usual suspects."
http://www.madcowprod.com/02072008.html
|
gk
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Tonga |
| Posts: | 1846 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 6th, 2008 01:36 am |
|
The cost of malpractice insurance for Dr.'s is out of sight. If Dr's and Ins. Co. work together I would think they could come to agreements that effect malpractice ins.
Just my guess
|
azsunshine
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jan 12th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 402 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 6th, 2008 12:04 am |
|
Just trying to learn about Ron Paul. Did click on link and read a few articles and view points.
What it said on the main About Ron Paul page is that he doesn't vote for legislation unless expressly allowed by Constitution. Then on the page that says what his ideas for issues are and what he wants to change...how are those issues directly allowed or implied in the Constitituition? IE. health care, education, veterans benefits? I wonder how he thinks by letting Doctors band together (union probably--think mafia) to negotiate with insurance companies is going to make health care costs go down? Any of you Ron Paul supporters know?
|
JJohnson
Member
| Joined: | Wed Aug 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 495 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 5th, 2008 06:49 pm |
|
| How is Dr. Paul doing in his quest to be President? Still polling in the 5-10% range? I see he got bumped out of the WV caucus since he could not muster up enough support. He sure better show some increase in interest in the next few hours or he is done.
|
flyrep
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 4th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1546 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 5th, 2008 01:33 am |
|
jj,
Murder is a crime against nature while prostitution is not. The founding fathers
would be spinning in their graves to know we made prostitution illegal. I don't
hear of too many problems in the county that has the bunny ranch. Tell me, what
issues do they face that we do not have in Pinal or Maricopa Counties?
Too many laws, too many corrupt cops. Too many laws, too many harmless
people go to prison. You can be next.
|
gk
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Tonga |
| Posts: | 1846 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 4th, 2008 09:50 pm |
|
1) I don't ever look at your links because they are all onsided and have an agenda.
2) Legalizing liquor did not reduce concuption at all. More people drink now than they did during Prohibition. It continues to rise and crime follows suit.
1. With that one statement you have eliminated any credibilty that you can reasonably debate the issue. It only shows that you don't fully know what you are talking about, but also anything that might change your belief system is off limits.
2. The problem with that statement is that the population is significantly greater now then prohibition. Personal resposibily can not be legislated by making something legal or illegal, but organized crime can be eliminated from the equation
|
JJohnson
Member
| Joined: | Wed Aug 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 495 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 4th, 2008 09:25 pm |
|
gk wrote: did you even bother to look at any of the links that I supplied?
Legalizing liquor eliminated a criminal underground that made the mafia bosses tons of money. No it did not stop drunk drivers as that is an issue of personal responsibilty........just like using drugs.
The rest of your arguments are another category. The states have not set up the proper governing authorities for those issues, but just like alcohol drugs would be pure and taxed. It would reduce drug usage and crime.
1) I don't ever look at your links because they are all onsided and have an agenda.
2) Legalizing liquor did not reduce concuption at all. More people drink now than they did during Prohibition. It continues to rise and crime follows suit.
|
gk
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Tonga |
| Posts: | 1846 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 4th, 2008 09:17 pm |
|
did you even bother to look at any of the links that I supplied?
Legalizing liquor eliminated a criminal underground that made the mafia bosses tons of money. No it did not stop drunk drivers as that is an issue of personal responsibilty........just like using drugs.
The rest of your arguments are another category. The states have not set up the proper governing authorities for those issues, but just like alcohol drugs would be pure and taxed. It would reduce drug usage and crime.
|
JJohnson
Member
| Joined: | Wed Aug 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 495 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 4th, 2008 08:54 pm |
|
gk wrote: obvious.......elimination of a vast illegal black market.
The Mexican and south American drug mafia and all of the associated killing and mayhem would stop. The elimination of a huge underground crime syndicate.
Just like legalizing alcohol has stopped drunk driving.
Just like legalized gambing has put the mafia out of business in NJ and NV.
Just like open bids for garbage collection in NYC and Chicago has taken the mob out of that business.
Just like leaving the BLC in charge of zoning in our area has stopped developers from taking advantage of our elected officials.
Making things legal does not automatically remove corruption and crime. In fact the long term affects can only make the matter worse and the solution both more difficult and costly.
|
gk
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Tonga |
| Posts: | 1846 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 4th, 2008 08:38 pm |
|
obvious.......elimination of a vast illegal black market.
The Mexican and south American drug mafia and all of the associated killing and mayhem would stop. The elimination of a huge underground crime syndicate.
The government does not want to stop drugs. Certain agencies rely on drug money.
http://powderburns.org/photos.html
http://www.madcowprod.com/index.html
http://www.narconews.com/Issue38/article1374.html
http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/special/9712/ch10p1.htm
http://www.drugwar.com/castilloollie.shtm
|
JJohnson
Member
| Joined: | Wed Aug 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 495 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 4th, 2008 08:02 pm |
|
gk wrote: Those who choose to use drugs will do so legally or illegally.
Drugs have been "illegal" for decades. Has that slowed them down any? There are more than ever. Yes they are a scourge and that will be there always, legal or illegal.
Would it not be wiser to eliminate the black market for them?
1. The druglords and drug mafias would loose that vast source of income
2. The government drug runners would have to find a new source of funding for their black programs
3. There would be less drugs available and it just might save a whole lot of new kids from gettting hooked on them
4. They could be controlled by the states, (because the US government cannot be trusted to do that) and be a source of tax revenue to the states.
If you apply some real thought to this issue and not just accept the fact that's the way it's been done forever so it must be right, you will come up with lots more positives than negatives to this position.
Old thinking has put us into this position and just won't work anymore
Using your same logic let's just legalize prostitution and murder. After all it has been going on forever and law enforcement has never been able to control it. Society must set a line in the sand as to what is acceptable and what is not. Even if it is a losing battle then we must continue to fight it.
Also the logic that the drug problem has only gotten worse so we need to accept it and legalize it so it can be controled. What makes you think that if it is legalized that it is all the sudden controlable?
|
JJohnson
Member
| Joined: | Wed Aug 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 495 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 4th, 2008 07:59 pm |
|
flyrep wrote: http://www.leap.org
Cops with IQs over 100 know that heroine is cheap and 17X strong now
than 30 years ago. A retired narc from NJ told me that. In the early
70s hard drugs were not new, but harder to get. Now it is easy.
Hey, MA has tough gun laws but you can easily get a 9mm pistol for
$150. Should we just have a federal ban on handguns?
Difference is that guns do kill people. Drugs do and take innocent people with them like children.
|
flyrep
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 4th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1546 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 4th, 2008 06:42 pm |
|
http://www.leap.org
Cops with IQs over 100 know that heroine is cheap and 17X strong now
than 30 years ago. A retired narc from NJ told me that. In the early
70s hard drugs were not new, but harder to get. Now it is easy.
Hey, MA has tough gun laws but you can easily get a 9mm pistol for
$150. Should we just have a federal ban on handguns?
|
gk
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Tonga |
| Posts: | 1846 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 4th, 2008 05:49 pm |
|
Those who choose to use drugs will do so legally or illegally.
Drugs have been "illegal" for decades. Has that slowed them down any? There are more than ever. Yes they are a scourge and that will be there always, legal or illegal.
Would it not be wiser to eliminate the black market for them?
1. The druglords and drug mafias would loose that vast source of income
2. The government drug runners would have to find a new source of funding for their black programs
3. There would be less drugs available and it just might save a whole lot of new kids from gettting hooked on them
4. They could be controlled by the states, (because the US government cannot be trusted to do that) and be a source of tax revenue to the states.
If you apply some real thought to this issue and not just accept the fact that's the way it's been done forever so it must be right, you will come up with lots more positives than negatives to this position.
Old thinking has put us into this position and just won't work anymore
|
JJohnson
Member
| Joined: | Wed Aug 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 495 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 4th, 2008 02:41 pm |
|
gk wrote: If drugs were decriminalized there would be no black market.
Drug lords would having nothing to kill others over. Certain government agencies that run drugs for black ops would have to operate legit, drugs would be marketed like alchohol and can be taxed. They would loose the alure of forbidden fruit to the younger generations.
All in all there is a lot more going for decriminalizing drugs then keeping the current system.
Holland is a piss poor example
Poor example because it contradicts your view? Be careful about denying real facts. Drugs are a scurge on our society and should be fought. Unlike GWB drugs and its lingering effects sticks around for generations not just 8 years.
|
flyrep
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 4th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1546 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 4th, 2008 08:52 am |
|
| Exactly GK
|
gk
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Tonga |
| Posts: | 1846 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 3rd, 2008 10:16 pm |
|
If drugs were decriminalized there would be no black market.
Drug lords would having nothing to kill others over. Certain government agencies that run drugs for black ops would have to operate legit, drugs would be marketed like alchohol and can be taxed. They would loose the alure of forbidden fruit to the younger generations.
All in all there is a lot more going for decriminalizing drugs then keeping the current system.
Holland is a piss poor example
|
flyrep
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 4th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1546 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 3rd, 2008 09:13 pm |
|
So what should be done with drug abusers who have hurt no one but themselves?
Alcoholics and druggies tear their families apart at times, but I mean the guy who
uses and does not break any other laws like DUI. What should we do with him?
Alcoholics get treatment, so why not do the same for the drug addict? What bothers
me is confiscating homes belonging to harmless potheads who have a few plants
or even a few dozen plants in the back yard. Also, here is one issue with this
country that is politically unforgivable for those who continue it: prohibition of
growing industrial hemp in the USA. The product is legal, but businesses cannot
grow this useful and healthy plant inside our borders. That is criminal.
Also, I hope everyone here remembers that win or lose, the struggle for freedom
has just begun. Ron Paul said it himself; he is only a focal point. More and more
people are waking up and smelling the tyranny. More and more people have
discovered the Constitution since he started his campaign. The revolution
continues.....
|
SunnyLaker
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 3rd, 2008 07:52 pm |
|
Sure let's get progressive like Holland and have government run stores to dispense free drugs. Of course it has turned into State sponsored assisted suicide, as they take their free drugs to "Needle Park" and die of overdoses.
Is that really worth reduced crime, to become accomplices to state funded murders. Ron Paul may have some good ideas but his one bad one of decriminalized drugs is not one of them.
|
Bambi
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2451 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 3rd, 2008 07:38 pm |
|
In the State of Texas, where Ron Paul is from, he is also running for another term in Congress.....just in case he doesn't win the Presidential election.....covering all his bases I guess. He's asking for donations to that fund, as he can't mix his Presidential election campaign funds with his Congressional election funds. 
|
flyrep
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 4th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1546 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 27th, 2008 03:26 am |
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcdLO3jKkPo
Here is Ron Paul asking the ignorant John McCain an economics question.
McCain sounds just like Miss Teen SC. He admitted earlier that he is
weak on economics after 25 years of public service.
|
flyrep
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 4th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1546 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 26th, 2008 05:19 pm |
|
My parents voted for Ron Paul and I was not expecting that to
happen and it had been a while since I brought the topic up.
Looks like they listened to me and others. I hear that my brother might
vote for Ron Paul as well. My sister is a socialist (married a Brit), so she
won't vote for him, but I still love her. 
|
gk
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Tonga |
| Posts: | 1846 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 25th, 2008 03:26 am |
|
Some real answers and a plan that will work.
Common sense
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/Prosperity
|
gk
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Tonga |
| Posts: | 1846 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 12th, 2008 08:21 pm |
|
When will Americans become outraged enough to band together and say "NO MORE!"
http://www.fliggo.com/video/FrvJDAUx
|
flyrep
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 4th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1546 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 12th, 2008 07:01 pm |
|
A family in Sutton said they voted for Paul, yet he had zero votes there.
My wife and I wrote in a valid write-in candidate for Corp. Commission here in Pinal
County. The two votes were not counted. This is all too common.
|
gk
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Tonga |
| Posts: | 1846 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 11th, 2008 10:09 pm |
|
again.......you missed the point!
Did you watch the second video about electronic voter fraud? It clearly shows what can happen very easily with these machines. They are open to error and open to fraud. They are NOT reliable.
The point is that no one really knows who won and by how much. The only realiable trail is a paper trail. Current elections are joke.
GET THE POINT????
|
JJohnson
Member
| Joined: | Wed Aug 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 495 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 11th, 2008 07:48 pm |
|
Well .. I am 100% convinced now that Ron Paul has in fact won the New Hampshire Primary. How can such a case of fraud be overlooked by the main stream media. Thank God for YouTube. It is going to truely save the Republic.
When will the people start rioting in the streets like they did in Pakistan. In America we do not stand for this type of fraud against the public. We must organize and demand that Ron Paul be awarded all of the primary electoral votes that he truely earned. Force the Governor and Director of Voting in NH to resign immediately. We have to have honest people put in place to handle this situation. Has the US attorney General opened an investigation yet? If not the President must step in and demand the resignation for failure to act. If the President fails to take this action then we must start impeachment proceeding.
Good Grief!!!!! When does this Ron Paul insanity end?
|
gk
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Tonga |
| Posts: | 1846 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 11th, 2008 07:08 pm |
|
DID RON PAUL REALLY WIN NEW HAMPSHIRE ?
EXPLAIN THIS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qV6qAGigGYY
WATCH THIS VIDEO FOR PROOF OF ELECTION FRAUD
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiiaBqwqkXs
Last edited on Fri Jan 11th, 2008 07:36 pm by gk
|
gk
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Tonga |
| Posts: | 1846 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 9th, 2008 04:18 pm |
|
| Of course he is........There are 50 states in America. After Iowa some people were already calling the outcome.........how silly is that?
|
JJohnson
Member
| Joined: | Wed Aug 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 495 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 9th, 2008 03:34 pm |
|
Still a viable candidate? Everything is right in line with the polling that has been shown nationally. I thought Ron Paul would be a suprise in New Hamshire because they were so "independent".
Total Votes Percentage of voters Electoral Votes
Ron Paul 18,245 8% 0
|
gk
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Tonga |
| Posts: | 1846 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 8th, 2008 05:17 am |
|
WHOO HOO! OVERSTOCK.COM FEELING THE PINCH FROM RON PAUL SUPPORTERS!!!!!!
Posted By: Freedom4ever <Send E-Mail>
Date: Sunday, 6 January 2008, 9:44 p.m.
KEEP IT UP!!!!
Bonnie
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Seems that Patrick M. Byrne, the CEO of Overstock.com is feeling the pinch from people outraged over Fox News excluding Ron Paul from the presidential debates. His message to the public appears below.
Ron Paul, Fox News, & Me
Dear Customer,
Because Overstock advertises on Fox channels, Overstock has been receiving calls and email messages about Fox News decision to exclude Dr. Ron Paul from the upcoming January 6 forum in New Hampshire, a decision that seems especially rank given the fact that in yesterdays Iowa Caucus Dr. Paul out-polled Mayor Giuliani by a factor of 2.5:1. I always enjoy hearing from our customers, particularly those who display political commitment of any flavor, and I thank them for their calls and emails.
In October Dr. Paul came to Utah, and he and I visited for an hour in my office. After that meeting, I gave him the largest donation I could under federal law: it is rare to meet a politician who understands the Constitution, and rarer still to meet one who thinks it binds the government meaningfully (I would give Dr. Paul more were there not now a federal blackout on free speech known as "McCain-Feingold"). In a television interview last week I stated that, while for the first time in my life I felt there are several candidates qualified to be president, my #1 choice would be Dr. Paul.
That said, I believe that pulling Overstocks advertising from Fox would represent an inappropriate conflation of my personal politics with my corporate responsibilities: thus, fellow supporters of Dr. Paul, my answer to you is, "no." However, I have contacted Fox and told them that, as a major advertiser, I believe it is unconscionable of them to exclude Dr. Paul from participating in this forum on January 6, thus denying our polity the opportunity to make an informed choice.
Respectfully,
Patrick M. Byrne, Ph.D.
CEO, Overstock.com
PS If you wish to join me in asking Fox to refrain from trying to warp the public discourse, email Fox Senior Political Producer Marty Ryan
|
gk
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Tonga |
| Posts: | 1846 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 7th, 2008 06:07 am |
|
Faux newz
Main stream media lying to you again
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=79365
|
winative
Member
|
Posted: Sun Jan 6th, 2008 06:11 am |
|
I think Ron Pauls popularity will increase more throughout the primaries. I have spoken with a lot of people who still have no idea who Ron Paul is. He doesn't get very good media coverage, but I have a feeling that will change.
|
gk
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Tonga |
| Posts: | 1846 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 6th, 2008 05:44 am |
|
| http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uk-T46soz8
|
gk
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Tonga |
| Posts: | 1846 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 5th, 2008 10:08 pm |
|
Polls...........they mean nothing, except to influence those with weak convictions.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/new_hampshire/election_2008_new_hampshire_republican_primary
|
gk
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Tonga |
| Posts: | 1846 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 5th, 2008 10:04 pm |
|
Reality for you, Old Media representatives and executives, is self-fulfilling. That is, the reality broadcast through the airwaves and printed on dead wood has for so long influenced the way that the general public perceives reality, it has become inconceivable that a time would come when your pictures and words would no longer drive public opinion.
I am writing this to you as a final warning. That time has already arrived. Whether or not Dr. Paul threw his hat in the ring, it was inevitable. With the advent of the Internet, people from all over the world, able to tell their own stories and reflect their own perceptions to willing eyes and ears, have provided an awakening and shake at the very foundations of what you currently perceive to be reality.
When your advertising agencies began collecting demographic information and targeting consumers as collective groups who thought as one, that was the beginning of the end for you. When our own government started aiding and abetting this collectivism through expanded census - defying the very nature and intent of a census - the demise of media influence was propelled further. Your agencies and marketing professionals kept refining the data, methods and messages you directed toward these groups until we, who were once just open-mouthed consumers, have finally slipped through your fingers.
I was there when it began as were many of my colleagues - when the "Internet" was a few land-line-connected mainframes via 300-baud modems and the government's idea of electronic mail was less timely than the U.S. Postal service. Its development began slowly. In 1986, we were still using UUCP to send each other messages over the Internet and USENET to broadcast our opinions to anyone who could subscribe. In 1991, the web browser and HTTP arrived. Your reporting of this occurred only in those papers and television programs directed toward that demographic of college-educated geeks whom you thought cared about such things. You certainly didn't cover it as the earth-shattering, reality-altering event that it was.
Tim Berners-Lee's contribution to the Internet (and those who have refined HTTP) was as important as Gutenberg's creation of the practical printing press. But you really didn't see it coming. Had the general population conformed to the reality you were broadcasting and printing at the time, we'd probably never have moved from zero to 100 billion worth of e-commerce per year in the U.S. by the time 16 years had passed.
Now, once again, we are at a time when you are witnessing history but are not aware of its significance. I'm talking about the Ron Paul Revolution.
Consider this: In 1991, the general population in the U.S. was not favorable to gun control. About 42% of the population favored a ban on handguns. But propaganda that you produced and published promoted the idea that the second amendment was an anachronism in this modern age and actually a danger to society. By 1993 53% favored gun control. Your coverage and commentary of high-profile shooting crimes and dubious opinion polls helped to solidify the view that gun control was a national desire and thus the Brady Bill finally made it through Congress. This was similar to what happened leading up to the Gun Control Act of 1934. Old Media characterization of Chicago's mob wars helped to give Congress the public support to pass, in direct violation of the constitution, the first national gun-control law. In 1993, most of the gun-crimes were committed by the hands of criminals profiting from drug prohibition but the sensational "postal" incidents were what carried the news day.
Finally, on April 19, 1993, 84 men, women and children were burned to death at the hands of Federal Police, ostensibly to enforce provisions of the 1934 law and its revisions of 1968. Most of you in the Old Media still do not realize what a galvanizing event this was. On its ten-year anniversary, you were still publishing already-rebutted stories in an attempt to justify the Federal Government's actions.
In 2007, when the Virginia Tech gunman killed so many, your polls showed that a majority of the respondents were in complete opposition to any gun control measures as a response to that tragic event. What happened? The Internet happened. Between 1994 and 2007, pro-second amendment writers, both professional and amateur, made their case for the constitution and the wisdom of the founding fathers. For many, re-doubled efforts were fueled by Waco. And Ron Paul stood alone in Congress during many of those years defying the status quo and defending the constitution.
The same sort of thing occurred in 1776. The Boston Massacre, a galvanizing, violent event, occurred six years before Thomas Paine's Common Sense propelled a small band of freedom-seekers into a formidable movement which finally freed itself from the chains of the British Empire. You can look back on the years leading up to the colonist's war with the British and see some amazing similarities to what is occurring today.
When the Old Media was new, before the collectivist targeting of people as "consumers" and when ordinary colonists were printing their own newspapers, a Revolution had begun. The colonists were the subjects of a tyrannical empire which continued to erode their liberties and fortunes in order to prosecute unnecessary and belligerent wars; enriching Rulers who had little or no concern for their subject's interests.
Men, women and children from varied political and religious backgrounds grew tired of the tyrants who wished to rule them and banded together to promote liberty and independence. They produced an amazing variety of artifacts to promote these ideas and to turn public opinion to their way of thinking. Silver flatware engraved with pro-Liberty images, paintings, drawings, poems, songs, tea sets, signs, pamphlets, letters, quilts and flags. The ingenuity, optimism and apparently inexhaustible enthusiasm made the revolution's success possible.
And so, while you keep scratching the surface and proclaiming that we are just a bunch of kooks and geeks who spend all of our time on the Internet, we, the modern revolutionaries, are also engaging in the same sorts of activities as did our predecessors. We've written poems, songs, and pamphlets. We've produced videos, radio shows and newspaper ads. We've launched a blimp, painted signs on barns, houses and cars. We've raised 10 million dollars in two one-day fund raising events. We've put our candidate in the top-tier of fund raising. We've voted him the top contender in almost every Internet poll, in more than half of the straw-polls held around the country and have mobilized over 80,000 volunteers (and growing) for the cause of liberty.
We've organized rallies in every state, many of which have been attended by thousands of real-life individuals who crave freedom and still you keep pretending that we're going to fizzle out or simply go away, embarrassed by defeat, when in fact we're enjoying a healthy and steady rate of growth.
While you've rejected change and cling to your old ways, we've embraced change. When you tried to tell us about the "new economy" we recognized it for what it was: The old Federal Reserve-driven boom-and-bust centrally-planned economy. We're not buying what you have to sell and in some cases, we're even shorting your stock and profiting from your demise.
We're young, old, Republican, Libertarian, Democrat, Anarchist, Green, Constitutionalist, Christian, Muslim, Jews, Atheist, Pagan, homeschooling, no-TV-watching, TV-watching, raw milk-drinking, pasteurized milk-drinking, farmer's market-shopping, alternative building, single, divorced, 2.5 kid-having, 3-car-having, bicycle-riding, fitness-fanatic, farmer, no-car-having, sedentary, public school-attending, Gay, Straight, Black, Yellow, Red, Brown, White, Man, Woman, child. We're the demographic group to whom you have never marketed. We believe that we're smart enough to manage our own affairs and don't need government hand-outs.
We're tired of being told about a Social Security trust fund that never existed, a government that is here to help us and an income tax that really, really does make us liable to pay - cross our hearts and hope to die (just don't read the law please). We're tired of being treated like children. We treat our own children much better than the bureaucrats, whom you constantly claim have our best interests at heart, treat us.
We're tired of being told that we should live our lives in fear of people six thousand miles away; who hate us because we're free, when we aren't actually free. We're tired of being told that every encroachment upon our freedoms is justified because the world is "different now." Different from what? Does our dictator wear a different brand of suit than the one whose country was bombed into oblivion on his orders?
Whether you are yourselves frightened, or you just want us to be frightened, we're giving up fear.
We. Are. No. Longer. Afraid.
If there is just one message beyond what you find at the surface, take that with you. We're past fear, we've gone beyond cynicism and our apathy has been cured.
Perhaps you could understand if you would only allow yourself one moment to take Dr. Paul's utterances seriously. However, if you won't move beyond the surface and won't take even a moment to imagine what it would be like to live in a truly free society, then you will see your fortunes reversed.
As much as we'd love you to join us, we understand that you may want to cling to the status quo. We apologize for the inconvenience but the status quo just will not do. Allowing a continuance of the status quo will render us all penniless and at the mercy of the same people who are now managing us into bankruptcy.
Yours in Freedom,
January 4, 2008
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." - John F. Kennedy
Rody Martin
Marblemount, WA
|
gk
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Tonga |
| Posts: | 1846 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 5th, 2008 09:59 pm |
|
The New Hampshire Republican Party dropped their affiliation with a Republican debate sponsored by Fox News tomorrow night because they have limited the number of candidates that can participate.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/politics/primarysource/2008/01/nh_gop_drops_sp.html
Party Chairman Fergus Cullen said he has failed in attempts to get Fox to include candidates Ron Paul and Duncan Hunter in Sunday's forum.
"Only in New Hampshire do lesser known, lesser funded underdogs have a fighting chance to establish themselves as national figures," Cullen said. "Consistent with that tradition, we believe all recognized major candidates should have an equal opportunity to participate in preprimary debates and forums."
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2004109215_aponthe2008trail05.html
Last edited on Sat Jan 5th, 2008 10:01 pm by gk
|
bobthebuilder
Member
| Joined: | Sat Mar 11th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 449 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 5th, 2008 07:40 pm |
|
For what it is worth, I don't plan to change my vote based on either polls or election results. On February 5th, I'm definitely voting for Ron Paul. It's a principle thing, not a numbers game. So a vote for Ron Paul is a vote for real change, not a vote for his opponents.
That said, I hope he does better. He's a good man and I just don't think enough people know who he is or realize the importance of the issues that he has been talking about.
But even if he doesn't win the Republican nomination, it will be a very loud and clear message to the Republican party that we are tired of the nonsense. I personally plan to get more involved around here. What they need is change and only we can do that. And for those who are Democrats, even they can use all the help they can get. This is a GOOD thing that is happening here.
And GK is right, the media really doesn't like him.
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org is a great place to read more about what he is saying.
As for the polls, Rasmussen is pretty accurate so far.
Last edited on Sat Jan 5th, 2008 07:46 pm by bobthebuilder
|
gk
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Tonga |
| Posts: | 1846 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 5th, 2008 07:33 pm |
|
Now, if you want to discuss the fossil record, then let's go. Only most Christians don't believe in the fossil record, because it counters their belief in the Bible, where time began only a mear 6500 years ago. Or lets discuss man's evolutionary journey thru time.
Actually the fossil record does not conflict with the BIBLES content. What does conflict is the translations of certain Hebrew words and their meanings. When Genesis is translated from the Hebrew using the Hebrew words as they can also be translated there is no conflict.
Evolution is widely accepted by science but has NEVER been proven. Microevolution does exist within species........but not species to species. Theres a big problem with transitional fossils being absent. Even Darwin admitted his theory was lame.
Anthropology is a bogus science. Anthropologists have found nothing more than a molar and recreated and entire manlike creature, along with drawings etc. Now that is lame! Also if they find evidence that conflicts with their so called "science" they ignore it or cover it up.
Constantines Christianity was only the beginning of the Catholic Church. A partial understanding of any religion is of little value in understanding. A partial understanding by it's adherents creates most of the problems with any religion. I've been studying the worlds religions for well over 30 years and am still amazed at what I continue to learn.
This is not a subject for discussion for those who are easily offended, but the history of earth and the fossil record is very interesting.
Don't give up on Ron Paul. The lame stream media is trying their damnest to marginalize him but his supporters will not let them. His message is what is important.
|
Bambi
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2451 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 5th, 2008 04:53 pm |
|
Bob. I searched for more info. on the results and came up with CNN's site.
I'm starting to get confused by all these polls showing different results. I guess we'll once again just have to wait and see what the People of New Hampshire are "made of". Live Free or Die. That's a McCain mindset.
Also, I still like Ron, but if he doens't pick up speed here pretty soon, JJ is right...a vote for him is a vote for his opponent. My confidence is shrinking. You poll shows him up there, yet others I've checked show him down.
And Obama. Great intelligent human being. But, I'm bothered by his lack of experience, coupled with his youth. And I get uncomfortable tinges in my gut when I hear his full name....Barack Hussein Obama. Why the strong Muslim name, or no effort to change or alter it's impact on the rest of us, as people used to do when they came to America to become citizens for instance.....My mothers maiden name is Nelson.....only because it was easier to say/write than Nissen, so they changed it...Her aunts name was Beyntya so for ease, they changed it to Bernice..which means to me that maybe he or his father/mother have some deep down memories of Islamic influences perhaps, and is proud of the association, or it may be just innocent choosing? But after 9/11, I have a hard time accepting a President with a Muslim name. I'm older, and analyze everything to be sure there are no pitfalls out there.
I draw from my life's experiences to form my opinions, and I've got a ton of life experiences. Therefore, I have to know each candidates platform position on issues, both today and yesterday, which allowed me to rule out Mitt Romney, the Flip Flopper. Also their characters and life's experiences. This is a very important Election and position during these difficult times, and will call for a President and Administration that are excellent problem solvers, critical thinkers and competent in their field, which allowed me to rule out the cross dresser, Gulianni. We don't need anymore evangelist, who feel they were preordained to fullfil prophecy, yet we're entertaining a Baptist Minister, with the same beliefs, but more intelligence at least. Here's CNN's site for results and for information of their positions on each issue.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/candidates/
Last edited on Sat Jan 5th, 2008 05:01 pm by Bambi
|
bobthebuilder
Member
| Joined: | Sat Mar 11th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 449 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 5th, 2008 03:54 pm |
|
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/
Saturday, January 05, 2008
John McCain: 31%
Mitt Romney: 26%
Ron Paul: 14%
Mike Huckabee: 11%
Rudy Giuliani: 8%
Fred Thompson: 5%
The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in New Hampshire shows John McCain leading Mitt Romney by five percentage points. It’s McCain 31% Romney 26%. The survey was conducted Friday night, the night following the Iowa caucuses. As noted yesterday on Rasmussen Reports, McCain was one of the big winners on Thursday in Iowa. The current poll is a reversal from a pre-Christmas survey when Romney had a slight advantage.
Ron Paul earns 14% of the vote and Mike Huckabee gets 11% as the only other candidates in double digits. Rudy Giuliani attracts 8% of the vote, Fred Thompson 5%, some other candidate 2%, and 3% are not sure.
McCain and Romney are tied among Republicans likely to vote in the Primary but McCain has an advantage among Independent voters. Independents are still more likely to participate in the Democratic Primary. Still, the survey suggests that 32% of voters in the GOP Primary will be unaffiliated with either major party.
The Republican race remains fluid as nearly a third of GOP voters say they could still change their mind. Sixty-four percent (64%) of McCain’s voters say they are “certain” they will vote for him. Sixty-two percent (62%) of Romney supporters are that certain along with 83% of Ron Paul voters and 66% for Mike Huckabee.
New polling data for the New Hampshire Democratic Primary will be released at 10:30 Eastern today.
Nationally, in both the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll and the Rasmussen Markets data, there is no clear frontrunner for the Republican nomination.
In New Hampshire, McCain is now seen as the most electable Republican. Seventy-six percent (76%) of GOP voters say the Arizona Senator is at least somewhat likely to win the White House if nominated. Sixty-eight percent (68%) have that confidence in Romney and 60% say the same of Rudy Giuliani. Just 42% believe Huckabee would be even somewhat likely to win; 25% hold that view of Thompson, and 18% believe Paul would have a chance.
Among New Hampshire’s Likely Republican Primary Voters, National Security Issues are deemed Very Important by 78%. Immigration is seen as Very Important by 65%, government ethics and corruption by 64%, Iraq by 64%. Sixty-one percent (59%) say the economy is Very Important in determining how they will vote.
McCain, Romney, and Giuliani are the only Republican candidates viewed favorably by even a plurality of GOP voters. McCain is viewed favorably by 71% and unfavorably by 27%. Romney and Giuliani are each seen favorably by 64%. Romney earns unfavorable assessments from 33%, Giuliani from 35%. Ratings for all three men are down slightly since our previous survey.
Huckabee is viewed favorably by 47% and unfavorably by 50%. Thompson’s numbers are 45% favorable and 49% unfavorable. His numbers are now similar to Ron Paul’s—42% have a favorable opinion of the Texas Congressman while 53% voice an unfavorable opinion.
Rasmussen Markets data at 9:00 a.m. on Saturday morning suggest that John McCain has a 73% chance of winning in New Hampshire. Mitt Romney is given a 24% chance of winning (current numbers: McCain 76.0 %, Romney 20.5 %)
These numbers reflect results from a prediction market, not a poll. RasmussenMarkets.com is a “futures market” that harnesses competitive passions to becomes a reliable leading indicator of upcoming events. Using a trading format where traders "buy and sell" candidates, issues, and news features, the markets correctly projected both Obama and Huckabee as the winners in Iowa. We invite you to participate in the Rasmussen Markets. It costs nothing to join and add your voice to the collective wisdom of the market.
Rasmussen Reports will be releasing new polling data on the New Hampshire race each morning until Tuesday.Last edited on Sat Jan 5th, 2008 03:55 pm by bobthebuilder
|
Bambi
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2451 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 5th, 2008 02:29 pm |
|
Religion is a personal matter. The minute you open your mouth and announce your view, it is usually a free for all. I could counter your view and really anger you, just by stating my view to what you just posted.....but i won't. Besides, I'm an agnostic, or that's what society calls it, so this subject is moot with me. I believe the writings are those of the ancients, but the content is meant to guide and teach the Jews. Christ was a Jew when he was crucified....he died a Jew. It was the Emperor Constantine, that "legalized" and recognized the teachings as Christian, and thus it was born and accepted.....300 A.D. A Roman Emperor. Then a council of men decided to say what to accept and what not to accept from the many writings about Christ,by others as he wrote nothing, so what you have is a man made selection of writings about Jesus and man, written many years after Christ's crucification by man......all man made, not divine.
Now, if you want to discuss the fossil record, then let's go. Only most Christians don't believe in the fossil record, because it counters their belief in the Bible, where time began only a mear 6500 years ago. Or lets discuss man's evolutionary journey thru time....Christians don't believe that either. So, we have a conflict. It's Adam and Eve or nothing. And every war fought was either for territory or religion, or both.
I believe the Bible's teachings are good for "man" to know and abide by, for the most part. Parables are great ways to demonstrate one's point of view. But, be open to others points of view and beliefs, but there begins the journey of mine's right your's wrong.....ye must be born again in order to enter the kingdom of God...Huckabees view. Mitts view? Ye must be baptized as a Mormon to enter the Kingdom of God. Thompsons view? Ye must be an actor on Law and Order. Guiliani's view? Ye must be a cross dresser to enter the...... Ron Paul's point of view? Ye must abide by the Constitution of the United States of America.
Last edited on Sat Jan 5th, 2008 02:37 pm by Bambi
|
gk
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Tonga |
| Posts: | 1846 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 5th, 2008 05:12 am |
|
You either accept the BIBLE as GODS word or you don't. And yes...it is exclusionary. A perfect and righteous GOD does not accept only a partial compliance of the things that we want to comply with and forget the rest.
There are two options, accept it totally or don't. People like Jim Jones and other wackos no doubt interpreted it in their own way. Somehow he must have rationalized murder. He rationalized the sixth commandment.
When people interpret the BIBLE their own way they are saying "I know better than GOD! He really didn't know what todays world would be like."
Just my opinion......
P.S. This is a topic of debate if kept civil and friendly......unfortunately some people have a hard time discussing religion......but it can provide a lot of insight
Last edited on Sat Jan 5th, 2008 05:15 am by gk
|
Bambi
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2451 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 5th, 2008 02:19 am |
|
|