US: Is Ron Paul in with a fighting chance?

[Disco_Destroyer]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5VPNupY0Bw[/youtube]
Ron Paul Raises $500,000 online in 3.5 days...

Yesterday afternoon when I checked the RP website, he had $531,000. We're up to $631,000 in about 8 hours. $100,000 isn't bad for one shift.

[Disco_Destroyer]

This was posted in the comments of the above video

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZGTbA2s-mE[/youtube]

[GazeboflossUK]

Hannity's comments at the beginning of the second video make me want to smash his head in.

I remember hearing him say it live and I couldn't believe how angry he seemed when it appeared Paul had won the poll.......he was making all kinds of excuses. His argument was basically "um, well, Ron Paul has many supporters who have just sent in a lot of text votes - and they all get eachother to vote by using that Internet" - Erm, yes Shaun Hannity that is how polls are won....more people vote for one person than the others! (excuding US Presidential Elections of course )
All this from a station who has a "Fair and Balanced" motto. Yeah, ok...whatever they say.

As I heard Alex Jones say once - they are cartoon propaganda - it's almost laughable, yet very sickening at the same time.
I think FOX NEWS lovers must really be seriously messed up.

[Thermate911]

To answer your question; IMO Ron Paul has not one snowball's chance in Hell - for that is where the US & UK are at.

This is nothing like the Nader contention in 2000 - 8 years of Rovian scheming has seen to that.

It doesn't matter how much money R Paul gets, it won't be enough to offset the new opium crop's windfall.

What does matter is what Ron Paul is saying. If you hear him clearly you will recognise a sustained plea for Americans and British to awake to their responsibilities as citizens. You will hear him calling for a revolution of the sort Orwell envisaged 'in time of deceit'.

As clearly as he can he, and a very few like him, are warning us all that it is entirely up to US to change the present course.

As matters stand in both the US & UK, changing parties means nothing until the oligarchy behind the charade are neutralised.
.

[GazeboflossUK]

To answer your question; IMO Ron Paul has not one snowball's chance in Hell - for that is where the US & UK are at.

This is nothing like the Nader contention in 2000 - 8 years of Rovian scheming has seen to that.

It doesn't matter how much money R Paul gets, it won't be enough to offset the new opium crop's windfall.

What does matter is what Ron Paul is saying. If you hear him clearly you will recognise a sustained plea for Americans and British to awake to their responsibilities as citizens. You will hear him calling for a revolution of the sort Orwell envisaged 'in time of deceit'.

As clearly as he can he, and a very few like him, are warning us all that it is entirely up to US to change the present course.

As matters stand in both the US & UK, changing parties means nothing until the oligarchy behind the charade are neutralised.
.

I agree almost entirely. Ron Paul is helping to build the resistance.

If Ron Paul was any bigger - and was cleary going to be in a position to win - I feel he either would be killed or something pretty major would happen to cancel the election.

[Thermate911]

As reported in Raw Story:-
http://rawstory.com//news/2007/Ron_Paul ... _0926.html

"When asked what he would do with his growing support if he is not the nominee, [Ron Paul] he answered, "I guess the question is, what are they going to do with me?"

"They've sort of joined me spontaneously, and I'm delighted, but I would work hard to keep them together and to continue the process," Paul continued. Though he cautioned that he had no interest in a third party candidacy, he emphasized that "this group of people now can be very influential. ... I don't think this is going to be just put away. I don't think we can close these ideas off.""

---

There's yet another article on Fascist America that reinforces your comment (and my pessimism) at http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/10121 wherein:-

"We must realize that the full machinery of outright fascism is already in place. Private security firms like Blackwater are ready and willing to serve as the new Blackshirts. Patriot Act II has been written and provides the full "legal" framework for completely revoking the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and establishing martial law. The Pentagon has established Northcom to organize military operations in the United States and Canada. The Posse Comitatus Act has been gutted to allow the National Guard to serve in police actions all across the country. And detention centers have been built across the land and plans have been laid to intern millions of Americans.

History teaches that there is a point of no return in the evolution of a fascist state. Once that line is crossed, there is no turning back until the country lies in ashes and millions lie dead both inside and outside the country. If you don't think it could happen in the United States of America, then you don't remember how easily Americans let themselves be robbed of their precious civil liberties in the aftermath of 9-11."

.

[karlos]

Ron Paul is the real deal and hopefully a peoples revolution can bring him into power.
Chavez and the Bolivian guy have shown what can be done.
Ofcourse it wil be very hard but it is possible and as long as we have hope we should keep faith in the basic goodness of most American people

[chek]

I may be wrong, but isn't Ron Paul essentially a Friedmanesque lo-tax small government neo-Thatcherite?

I'd need to know how he intends to deal with the millions who have been marginalised into poverty and worse by the Right over the past 25 years.

[karlos]

Well, to answer that you have to accept that socialism is a failed system. Ron Paul's low tax even zero tax system is the best for achieving peace and prosperity.
Look at the examples of the most prosperous and best places to live in the world.
norway, singapore, new zealand, switzerland, monaco, dubai, etc
all of these are vlow tax economies.
but none of them invade other countries and waste money the way our government does.
Labour have spent £75 billion on trident which firstly doesnt work and is totally a white elephant. That is why we live in a high tax economy.
Labour invaded Iraq, Afghanistan, Sierra Leon, and in the past also took part in many other adventures too.
Labour is the party of targets and red tape, just think about how much tax is wasted on consultants and contractors and admin?

The USA under Bush/Clinton/bush has been the same. Trade deficits month on month. The USA is now so heavily in debt that debt is now over 300% of annual GDP. No wonder the US citizens have to pay so much tax. But also the USA has the CIA, Pentagon, Dept of Homeland Security and so many military quangos that as Ron Paul is preparing to abolish them that expenditure will be saved.
America and Britain also bankroll Israel and the EU so our taxes would be cut drastically if our electorate was given the chance to declare Independence.

Tax is bad, that money is better in my pocket than somebody elses.

[blackcat]

http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=11723

October 8, 2007
The Ron Paul Breakthrough
His antiwar message is the key to Paul's burgeoning success
by Justin Raimondo

Ron Paul is breaking through. His call to return to the vision of the Founders, and the principles embodied in the Constitution, is piercing the wall of silence that surrounds the conduct of our disgraceful foreign policy. Andrea Mitchell proclaims him the new Howard Dean, network television takes note of his fundraising prowess and the resonance of his message, and then we have this very favorable piece on CNN, not to mention this, this, and this – all of which points to the appearance – or, rather, reappearance – of a resurgent political movement on the horizon: an anti-interventionist wing of the GOP.

Commentators, including those who most definitely look on Paul's success with a very jaundiced eye, are baffled. Why is this happening? How could a mere blip on the electoral screen, a man nobody thought was worth even a footnote in the story of this presidential campaign, suddenly catapult into prominence?

The answer is illustrated in a recent poll, which shows that the majority of Iowa Republicans want us out of Iraq in six months – a far more radical proposition than any of the major Democrats has yet to offer. It's no accident that Paul's political breakthrough is occurring just as the dissatisfaction of the GOP rank and file over the Iraq war issue reaches the breaking point. As the sole antiwar candidate in the Republican field, it makes perfect political sense that Paul's campaign is in the ascendancy.

Yes, of course, there are other issues in this race: the sellout of the conservative agenda on fiscal policy, a wholesale and unrelenting assault on the Bill of Rights, the immigration mess, the spectacle of a "socially conservative" party with a putative presidential front-runner whose private life is neither private nor an example of Christian virtue. Paul has some appeal to GOPers who can't stomach one – or any – of these ideological anomalies.

Yet most of these issues would not be relevant without the single most important question in this election, the answer to which underlies the basic approach of all the presidential candidates, and that is the war – not just the war in Iraq, but the one to come in Iran, as well as the broader "war on terrorism" that has eaten up so much of our attention and resources since 9/11.

For surely Giuliani would have been considered a long shot for the GOP nomination in a world where 9/11 never happened. What would he have run on, without his status as the vaunted hero of 9/11 to constantly fall back on and refer to? His entire campaign is based on the synchronicity of his being in Gracie Mansion as the Twin Towers fell: without that, he'd be somewhere between Mike Huckabee and Tom Tancredo in the polls.

The massive erosion of our civil liberties, the fiscal crisis staring us in the face, and even the immigration quandary have all been either brought to the fore out of relative obscurity or else greatly exacerbated by the post-9/11 hysteria that has so deformed the national consciousness and, consequently, our politics. Underlying all these disparate issues is the foreign policy question, and only Ron Paul is giving Republican voters an answer quite different from, say, Giuliani's – to take a cartoonishly extreme example of the pro-war view.

The media-anointed "front-runner" has problems other than having to explain himself to social conservatives. After all, how many Americans, even including Republicans, really want to see Norman Podhoretz ensconced in the Department of State? Once they hear Poddy's plea to President Bush to please, pretty please start bombing Iran, I'd venture to say not many.

As for the other GOP hopefuls, McCain has run out of gas, with his campaign stalled and his fundraising in free-fall. Why? McCain has been dragged down by the albatross of his more-royalist-than-the-king position on the Iraq war, his signature issue and the one he – mistakenly – built his entire campaign around. Fred Thompson has proved a dud, even less inspiring than the Stepford candidate, with all of Reagan's vagueness and none of his charm or acumen. The second- and third-tier candidates display an alarming lack when it comes to having either a clear ideological message or any particular brand of charisma (except for Alan Keyes, whose brand of charisma, like his ideology, is so idiosyncratic that it cancels itself out). Huckabee should announce he's running for vice president and be done with it, and the others amount to little more than vanity campaigns. By means of a simple process of elimination, Republicans are left with Ron Paul as the only alternative to ideological bankruptcy and looming political disaster.

The approach the chattering classes have taken to the Ron Paul phenomenon has been classic, rather along the lines of Gandhi's famous aphorism: first they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win.

The "let's ignore him and maybe he'll go away" phase ended right after the contretemps with Giuliani over the theory of "blowback." Giuliani's verbal assault on Paul condensed the ridicule-fight-victory process into a single, signal incident. What Giuliani and his enablers in the media failed to realize is that Paul's calm, considered, and thoughtful answer resonated with many voters.

The Iraq war has opened this entire question up as it relates to 9/11, a subject that was previously taboo, as Susan Sontag, Bill Maher, the Dixie Chicks, and any number of Andrew Sullivan's enemies, both real and imagined, learned to their sorrow. The war dramatized exactly what the critics of American foreign policy had been pointing out, to little effect, for years: that hostility toward America and the gathering terrorist threat were blowback from our actions overseas.

Rudy Giuliani is going around the country hectoring audiences with his Podhoretzian message of a civilizational war between the U.S. empire and international Islam: They hate us, he yells, they really hate us for who we are! Yes, but who are "we," exactly? If we're starting with the speaker of those words, then no wonder they hate us, but, aside from that, what's the problem? Is it our obsession with Britney Spears – or is it the bombs raining down on the Arab world, the propping up of killer regimes like Hosni Mubarak's in Egypt and the House of Saud, and our unconditional support for Israeli aggression (and not just against the Palestinians)?

Ron Paul has an answer quite different from the one usually given – or, I should say, the one allowed – by the self-appointed arbiters of political correctness: the debate "moderators," the pundits and television talkers, the "analysts" and "experts" who, like ancient seers examining the entrails of goats, interpret the meaning of political actors and events for us.

We have, however, outgrown such superstitions and no longer need or want the guidance of the gatekeepers, who have traditionally guarded the door to social and political "legitimacy" with jealous vigor. All their vigor and jealousy failed against a technology that simply outflanked them, took them by surprise, and laid siege to their journalistic fortress. These mandarins hid behind the Times-Select wall to the bitter end but couldn't keep it up indefinitely: there is no better symbol of the gatekeepers' fall. It was only a matter of time before that wall came down – and, with it, the whole concept of "mainstream" thought presided over by guardians of the permissible. The leveling of the playing field, made possible by the cybernetic revolution, has ended the intellectual and political monopoly of the elites. It's no wonder that the Paul campaign has such a massive online presence.

Furthermore, the existence of the Internet, far from destroying journalism, as predicted by some die-hard dead-tree'ers, has forced the "mainstream" media to be more responsive and flexible. That's why they're now paying attention to the Paul campaign: Ron is news, big-time political news. He's drawing thousands to his campaign rallies, a boast not many presidential candidates of either party can credibly make. And he's raking in the money. This quarter, he's brought in almost as much as McCain, and he's third – behind Giuliani and Romney – in the cash-on-hand sweepstakes. Money talks – and now they have to take him seriously.

The establishment has fallen back on their second line of defense: they ridicule him as a "kook," a "loon," and even a "bigot" – in short, they're trotting out the same attack strategy they used to target another rebel against the party establishment, true-blue conservative-slash libertarian Barry Goldwater.

Back in 1964, when the electorate was still in thrall to the gatekeepers' media machine, this tactic was quite effective. Today, however, this ploy has the effect of underscoring the depth of Paul's challenge to the political status quo, thereby enhancing his appeal. It works rather like the concept of blowback in the foreign policy realm: just as U.S. military intervention invites an equal and opposite reaction from its overseas victims, so the intervention of our political elites against the rising Paulian grassroots insurgency guarantees his base of support will expand.

Ignore, ridicule, attack – we're about into the third phase, and I expect that will commence shortly. Perhaps as shortly as the next GOP debate, and certainly right after. The neoconservatives have been the target of Paul's scorn on several occasions, and he is likely to receive it back in kind before long. Aside from Jonah Goldberg's ill-informed renunciation of Robert A. Taft and a few bouts of snickering at The Corner, National Review has so far kept its trap shut tight about the Texas troublemaker, even going so far as to exclude him from their daily compilation of stories about the GOP primary campaign. I have the feeling, however, that their silence is about to end, and Ron is about to join the ranks of the "unpatriotic conservatives." After all, the neocons have to somehow stop the erosion of their base at the hands of someone who so clearly understands the role of neoconservatism as a cancer eating away at the heart of the GOP and the conservative movement.

In their view, Paul is falling for the line of the "Left" that America is fighting a futile war against forces it neither understands nor has any hope of controlling, and yet if this was truly a "leftist" idea one would imagine that the Left would come to Paul's defense – but, no. The same "Ron is nuts" meme being spread by neocon snarkers on the right side of the blogosphere is being echoed by the "center" liberal-left. You see, anyone who opposes the system that makes imperialism possible – the mercantilist, state-capitalist system of corruption that enriches the few at the expense of the many – is "crazy."

Maybe he's just crazy enough to think our rulers will let him, or anyone with a major public platform, get away with exposing the full extent of their corruption – and thank God for that.

The Good Doctor is not alone in prescribing a change – a radical change – in our stance toward the rest of the world. You're hearing it not only on the Washington cocktail party circuit, but around the office water cooler: it's time to start disengaging from the mess our interventionist policymakers have created, starting in the Middle East. In carrying this stance into the arena of GOP presidential politics, Ron is a libertarian-noninterventionist gladiator taking on several lions at once. The resulting knockdown drag-out battle, regardless of its outcome, is going to be fun to watch.

[karlos]

I may be wrong, but isn't Ron Paul essentially a Friedmanesque lo-tax small government neo-Thatcherite?

I'd need to know how he intends to deal with the millions who have been marginalised into poverty and worse by the Right over the past 25 years.

Please dont tell us you support high tax?
What makes a barrister who went to a public school a better person to spend my wages than me myself?
Most of the Labour cabinet are ex barristers the others all have law degrees why should they take my money and use it to invade countries and murder people to buy £75 billions worth or nonsense non functioning nuclear bombs from the USA.
i wish Ron Paul was here in the UK running for election

[TmcMistress]

I may be wrong, but isn't Ron Paul essentially a Friedmanesque lo-tax small government neo-Thatcherite?

Basically. He comes off like a non-Ayn Rand-ish Libertarian. I believe Paul supports the abolition of federal income tax in favor of a consumption tax across the board. This sounds good on the surface, but one has to wonder the end results of a 30%+ price hike on everything from cars to groceries. Such a move could result in a severe hit to recreational purchases. That might not be entirely bad depending on how you look at it, but it certainly wouldn't do our economy any wonders.

Paul's stance on gay rights is also slightly bothersome, in that he would leave it completely up to the states. Now, I happen to be of the mind that GLBT rights are definitely not something that should be in the hands of the states, as there are several that would outlaw our existence given the chance. Don't believe me? Take a look at how short a time it was ago that cro-magnon anti-sodomy laws were struck down.

More in a couple nights when I'm not completely exhausted.

[Ravenmoon]

Paul's stance on gay rights is also slightly bothersome, in that he would leave it completely up to the states.

'Mom' and 'Dad' banished by California
Schwarzenegger signs law banning anything perceived as negative to 'gays'

"Mom and Dad" as well as "husband and wife" have been banned from California schools under a bill signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who with his signature also ordered public schools to allow boys to use girls restrooms and locker rooms, and vice versa, if they choose.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/artic ... E_ID=58130

[chek]

I may be wrong, but isn't Ron Paul essentially a Friedmanesque lo-tax small government neo-Thatcherite?

Basically. He comes off like a non-Ayn Rand-ish Libertarian. I believe Paul supports the abolition of federal income tax in favor of a consumption tax across the board. This sounds good on the surface, but one has to wonder the end results of a 30%+ price hike on everything from cars to groceries. Such a move could result in a severe hit to recreational purchases. That might not be entirely bad depending on how you look at it, but it certainly wouldn't do our economy any wonders.

I'm sceptical about all 'flat' taxes that have everybody paying the same regardless of income. 'Fraid I'm just an old fashioned progressive who sees ability to pay taxes as being a factor that needs to be part of the equation of maintaining the social fabric.

A case could be made that the unravelling of parts of western societies could be laid directly at the feet of the rolling back if not outright abolition of the progressive tax ideal over the past 30 years.

Paul's stance on gay rights is also slightly bothersome, in that he would leave it completely up to the states. Now, I happen to be of the mind that GLBT rights are definitely not something that should be in the hands of the states, as there are several that would outlaw our existence given the chance. Don't believe me? Take a look at how short a time it was ago that cro-magnon anti-sodomy laws were struck down.

I'd make a guess that RP's stance has more to do with cowardice in the face of the perceived power of reactionary forces than any principle he might have sacrificed on their altar.

But certainly equal rights for all are an integral part of a just and equal society - and that includes losing the petty bureaucratic version of PC that AS proposes.

More in a couple nights when I'm not completely exhausted.

Rest up, cheer up and look on the bright side -you're most likely helping make somebody else very rich

[Dogsmilk]

Paul's stance on gay rights is also slightly bothersome, in that he would leave it completely up to the states.

'Mom' and 'Dad' banished by California
Schwarzenegger signs law banning anything perceived as negative to 'gays'

"Mom and Dad" as well as "husband and wife" have been banned from California schools under a bill signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who with his signature also ordered public schools to allow boys to use girls restrooms and locker rooms, and vice versa, if they choose.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/artic ... E_ID=58130

Well at least the terminator has done one positive thing at a state level - Thanks for posting it up.
Once you look beyond the hysterical rhetoric of the 'family values' cretins, this is good stuff. I haven't read the whole bill (I suspect the article posted exaggerates), but even on their homophobic terms -

"Because no textbook or instruction in California public schools currently disparages transsexuality, bisexuality, or homosexuality, the practical effect of SB777 will be to require positive portrayals of these sexual lifestyles at every government-operated school," CCF noted.

Good - I hope that's the case. If heterosexual households are regarded as the norm with just a simple absence of actively discriminatory portrayals of lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgendered households then this reinforces a tacit notion that heterosexuals are 'normal' and others 'abnormal'. There is no rational reason why LGBT households/individuals should not be as positively portrayed as hetero ones.

CCF noted that now on a banned list will be any text, reference or teaching aid that portrays marriage as only between a man and woman, materials that say people are born male or female (and not in between), sources that fail to include a variety of transsexual, bisexual and homosexual historical figures, and sex education materials that fail to offer the option of sex changes.

Further, homecoming kings now can be either male or female – as can homecoming queens, and students, whether male or female, must be allowed to use the restroom and locker room corresponding to the sex with which they choose to identify.

Great. If the kids are being taught ignorant nonsense, out the window it should go. I think focusing on gay figures in history is an excellent idea - finding out someone like, say, Alexander the Great was something of a poofter is a great way to overcome crude stereotyping of gay men and, as a historical fact, should not be omitted unless we want to lie to our children.
And why shouldn't a transgendered male use the ladies? It's not like a hetero stud is going to don a frock and live as a woman just to get a crafty butchers at some boobies.

It is kinda heartening to see a chump like Arnie do at least something positive. Maybe Ron Paul would be as well to adopt it as a template.

Stelios - I suspect you may actually want to check the tax rates for some of the countries you cite as low tax havens. Particularly Norway, a country with an excellent state benefits system. Good old Scandinavia with its affinity for socialism. If only we were as civilised instead of opting for the soulless dog-eat-dog world of Thatherism - I'm ok so screw you jack.
Taxes spent on war and corporate welfare are bad. Taxes used to redistribute wealth and give us stuff like universal free healthcare, public libraries and state benefits are another matter entirely. Assuming you give a damn about your fellow, less fortunate, human beings that is.

[karlos]

Stelios - I suspect you may actually want to check the tax rates for some of the countries you cite as low tax havens. Particularly Norway, a country with an excellent state benefits system. Good old Scandinavia with its affinity for socialism. If only we were as civilised instead of opting for the soulless dog-eat-dog world of Thatherism - I'm ok so screw you jack.
Taxes spent on war and corporate welfare are bad. Taxes used to redistribute wealth and give us stuff like universal free healthcare, public libraries and state benefits are another matter entirely. Assuming you give a damn about your fellow, less fortunate, human beings that is.

my goodness, you Labour people really have your heads up your backsides dont you?
Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate who wants to scrap the CIA he wants to bring ALL american troops home from EVERYWHERE he wants an end to colonialism.
but that aint good enough for you is it you would rather have that total biatch Hilary who will make even more wars than Bush did.
Ron Paul is telling you he wants to take LESS money off you and spend none of it on invading other countries - please take off your Rothschild blinkers and look into your heart and tell me that Ron Paul is not the best thing since sliced bread.

If we compare this to the UK what have we got? Labour, Liberals and Conservatives all sayinga nd doing exactly the same thing. We need a UK Ron Paul. The guy is an absolute hero. He gave free medical treatments when he was a doctor, he worked 3 jobs to pay his own way through University and is so squeaky clean that he is ranking at over 80% in most opinion polls.

The world is on the verge of armageddon and martial law and world war 3 and there is a potential saviour who can bring us back from the brink.
i cannot believe any sensible american will not vote for Ron Paul.

[chek]

my goodness, you Labour people really have your heads up your backsides dont you?

Possibly, but certainly nowhere near to the same depth as yourself.

Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate who wants to scrap the CIA he wants to bring ALL american troops home from EVERYWHERE he wants an end to colonialism.

Which is precisely why he'll never be elected.
Welcome to the world of realpolitik.

but that aint good enough for you is it you would rather have that total biatch Hilary who will make even more wars than Bush did.

Another of your increasingly common non-sequiturian assertions. You don't moonlight as Indubitably, do you?

Ron Paul is telling you he wants to take LESS money off you and spend none of it on invading other countries - please take off your Rothschild blinkers and look into your heart and tell me that Ron Paul is not the best thing since sliced bread.

There's more to being a citizen than paying less..

If we compare this to the UK what have we got? Labour, Liberals and Conservatives all saying and doing exactly the same thing. We need a UK Ron Paul. The guy is an absolute hero. He gave free medical treatments when he was a doctor, he worked 3 jobs to pay his own way through University and is so squeaky clean that he is ranking at over 80% in most opinion polls.

The world is on the verge of armageddon and martial law and world war 3 and there is a potential saviour who can bring us back from the brink.
i cannot believe any sensible american will not vote for Ron Paul.

The sensible americans (imho) will be the ones that elect Al Gore (again).
He's the only credible and capable threat to the neocon agenda.

[blackcat]

i cannot believe any sensible american will not vote for Ron Paul.

And the other 99.9%?

[karlos]

Al Goremless?
You are ahving a laugh arent you?
Al 'your pal' Gore is busy peddling the lies about global warming taxation and he will never get elected either. isnt he a skull and bones man too and wasnt he there when clinton was bombing sudan and somalia and other places?

Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich are the two best canidates from left and right. I naturally prefer Ron Paul but i will be happy with either becoming president. Hilary and Guiliani are the two NWO candidates and Guiliani will give Hilary a shoe in because he is only there to make up the numbers.

People were saying 8 years ago that it was already preordained by the NWO that Hilary would win in 2008. Dont forget apart from Jimmy Carter that will mean since Kennedy till today ALL the leaders have come from the same cabal.

[chek]

Al Goremless?
You are ahving a laugh arent you?
Al 'your pal' Gore is busy peddling the lies about global warming taxation and he will never get elected either. isnt he a skull and bones man too and wasnt he there when clinton was bombing sudan and somalia and other places?

Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich are the two best canidates from left and right. I naturally prefer Ron Paul but i will be happy with either becoming president. Hilary and Guiliani are the two NWO candidates and Guiliani will give Hilary a shoe in because he is only there to make up the numbers.

People were saying 8 years ago that it was already preordained by the NWO that Hilary would win in 2008. Dont forget apart from Jimmy Carter that will mean since Kennedy till today ALL the leaders have come from the same cabal.

Gore is the only potential candidate with the intelligence and the connections to play the system as it actually exists, to counter the neocon agenda which is the most current pressing problem.

He's not the whole way by any means, but he's provenly electable and a step away from the abyss.

Paul and Kucinich, while having their qualities, are minority candidate nobodies and will never be President, although they might well be very decent Secretaries.

[karlos]

You are correct that there is little chance of paul or kucinich getting nominated and there is therefore not chance of them winning.
But in an ideal world they are the best ones.
Al Gore is like a Gordon brown character.
Bill Clinton did not endorse nor did he campaign for Gore at all. Clinton was very popular and his lack of an endorsement cost Gore dearly.
Gore also conceded too soon.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvXu9fSV6xE[/youtube]

[chek]

You are correct that there is little chance of paul or kucinich getting nominated and there is therefore not chance of them winning.
But in an ideal world they are the best ones.
Al Gore is like a Gordon brown character.
Bill Clinton did not endorse nor did he campaign for Gore at all. Clinton was very popular and his lack of an endorsement cost Gore dearly.
Gore also conceded too soon.

Clinton's lack of support back then could work in Gore's favour when the time comes.

And as for conceding too soon, we all know it was a coup, don't we?

[karlos]

Members of WeAreChange Oakland confronted Hillary Clinton during a campaign event on her involvement in the secretive Bilderberg group. Clinton snapped quickly away from statements that "We know you're with Bilderberg, Hillary" and "We know about Roger Ailes and Fox News. Rupert Murdoch's got your back."

Clinton made no direct acknowledgment to hearing the statements, but moved on quickly after turning away, as a secret service agent stepped in behind her.

Hillary attended the 2006 Bilderberg meeting in Ottawa, Canada, according to reports from inside the Brookstreet Hotel. Attending the meeting while a New York Senator was in violation of the Logan Act.

Hillary also attended Bilderberg in 1997 at Lake Lanier, Georgia, the only time a first lady has ever attended, and Bill Clinton attended in 1991, just before his election as president.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SVyn1FR-20[/youtube]

Activists have confronted Hillary Clinton on her Bilderberg association at least two other times, including during a forum in Las Vegas and at a hotel in New York.

But the Bilderberg kingmakers aren't the only ones backing Hillary for the whitehouse. Supposedly-conservative Rupert Murdoch, CEO of NewsCorp, Fox News' parent company, made headlines when he hosted a fundraiser for Clinton and had been reportedly meeting with her weekly.

http://www.jonesreport.com/articles/121 ... onted.html

[TmcMistress]

Yes yes, Hillary is hypocritical and evil. Gasp, what a shocker. A hypocritical politician. What's next, a panda that refuses to have sex?

Back to Ron Paul. There was a minor flare-up here in the states (I'm not sure how well it penetrated the news overseas) about Paul making a few decidedly racist statements in one of his newsletters from '92.

Under the heading of Terrorist Update, Paul noted the following:

"If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged(sp) male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."

"I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

After the story broke on a local level in '96, Paul claimed that the comments came in light of "current events and statistical reports of the time," and that he opposes racism.

However, when the story broke again, this time on a decidedly more national level, Paul blamed the writing on a disgruntled ex-staffer and said he attached his name to it without actually knowing what was on it.

[karlos]

You have already made it clear that you are not interested in Ron Paul. Please dont try and smear him at the same time though because even his most rabid critics acknowledge that he is Mr Clean.
I can guess your reason for opposing him and i think that is being very narrow minded of you. But i cannot believe you are rooting for Hilary surely you would have gone for Kuchinic?
Unless i am mistaken?

[Dogsmilk]

Stelios - I suspect you may actually want to check the tax rates for some of the countries you cite as low tax havens. Particularly Norway, a country with an excellent state benefits system. Good old Scandinavia with its affinity for socialism. If only we were as civilised instead of opting for the soulless dog-eat-dog world of Thatherism - I'm ok so screw you jack.
Taxes spent on war and corporate welfare are bad. Taxes used to redistribute wealth and give us stuff like universal free healthcare, public libraries and state benefits are another matter entirely. Assuming you give a damn about your fellow, less fortunate, human beings that is.

my goodness, you Labour people really have your heads up your backsides dont you?
Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate who wants to scrap the CIA he wants to bring ALL american troops home from EVERYWHERE he wants an end to colonialism.
but that aint good enough for you is it you would rather have that total biatch Hilary who will make even more wars than Bush did.
Ron Paul is telling you he wants to take LESS money off you and spend none of it on invading other countries - please take off your Rothschild blinkers and look into your heart and tell me that Ron Paul is not the best thing since sliced bread.

If we compare this to the UK what have we got? Labour, Liberals and Conservatives all sayinga nd doing exactly the same thing. We need a UK Ron Paul. The guy is an absolute hero. He gave free medical treatments when he was a doctor, he worked 3 jobs to pay his own way through University and is so squeaky clean that he is ranking at over 80% in most opinion polls.

The world is on the verge of armageddon and martial law and world war 3 and there is a potential saviour who can bring us back from the brink.
i cannot believe any sensible american will not vote for Ron Paul.

What Labour people are you referring to? I have a certain amount on time for some of the achievements of old Labour (the NHS, the welfare system etc) but New Labour are just neo-Thatcherites and that 'woman' should have been buried in coal mine years ago. Gordon Brown and Tony Blair should have been chucked down the same shaft. Though there is also a good argument that Blair should be throttled with his own entrails.

I was simply questioning the accuracy of your discription of some of your countries as low tax havens. And exactly how terrible tax is. If tax is used for the benefit of the poor and disadvantaged or for the maintenance of an infracstructure that benefits us all (like an old style national rail network as opposed to an overpriced, publicly subsidised corporate money making network) I personally have no problem paying it.
Mind you, taxes pay my wages so I couldn't really consistently be against them. And as I'm writing this at work, your taxes have funded me writing this post. How d'ya like those apples!

(It's actually my lunch break, but that kinda kills the irony)

I don't believe in saviours. Especially not political ones.

By the way, I don't have an opinion on whether Ron Paul is racist - what some guy who's going to lose the election in America thinks isn't on my priority list of stuff to look into - but there's a lot of discussion about alleged racism on t'internet.

[karlos]

Since when is tax used to benefit the poor?
In Britain we have one of the highest overall tax rates in the world and have a look around you does it look like we are spending that tax money on the poor?
Tax money is being paid to wage wars, to buy Trident, to pay consultants fees and to pay over priced contracts and over priced PFI agreements.

If Britain scrapped Trident which doesnt work anyway, if we withdrew from America's and Israel's wars, if we got rid of all the consultants and PFIs well we probably would not have to pay any income tax at all.

Dont forget VAT, NI, tax on most goods and services, tax on fuels, corporation tax, council tax, BBC tax, etc
Income tax is part of the overall take and can and should be abolished in favour of a reduced state.

[Dogsmilk]

Since when is tax used to benefit the poor?
In Britain we have one of the highest overall tax rates in the world and have a look around you does it look like we are spending that tax money on the poor?
Tax money is being paid to wage wars, to buy Trident, to pay consultants fees and to pay over priced contracts and over priced PFI agreements.

If Britain scrapped Trident which doesnt work anyway, if we withdrew from America's and Israel's wars, if we got rid of all the consultants and PFIs well we probably would not have to pay any income tax at all.

Dont forget VAT, NI, tax on most goods and services, tax on fuels, corporation tax, council tax, BBC tax, etc
Income tax is part of the overall take and can and should be abolished in favour of a reduced state.

The problem is, expenditure is cut from areas that help the poor and money used to buy useless nonsense like trident. This is not an argument against tax, it is an argument against what tax is spent on. I agree without trident etc we may pay less tax, but on the other hand maybe social services could be functioning on proper staff levels, with adequate resources and without tight-fisted means testing and service rationing.

[karlos]

We dont have good social services because of Government policy.
Health costs over £100 million yet people are treated like dogs when they go to hospital. If you call a doctor you have to wait about a week to be seen and people are doing dental work with pliers at home.
You visit hospital and you are more likely to get ill.

Look i know 100% of these problems are because of Labour. Firstly they have done these stupid PFIs which rob the money. They have awarded no bid contracts to american and swiss firms like United Healthcare and Accenture for billions and billions.
It is a robbery, do you not think that much of this money is recycled in bungs and swiss bank accounts?
Britain wasted £2 billion on tamiflu, money which went to Donald Rumsfeld to an extent. How many people caught bird flu exactly?

Why is it that councils pay three or four times the market rent to private landlords and accomodation agencies. Because many council staff take bungs and because central government pays 75% of housing benefits.

they give pensioners rises of 90p a week yet they spend £400 million to provide ADVICE on keeping warm.

why do companies send so many staff on meaning less courses? Because the government refund the full cost and a bit extra on top off their annual tax bills.

[Dogsmilk]

Look i know 100% of these problems are because of Labour.

Well over the last 10 years they are cos they've been in power. But the rot was well underway under Margaret 'sell off the nation' Thatcher who Labour simply copied. I am eternally mystified at your doe-eyed worship of the Tory party. They are all c*nts. Simple as.

Though, to be fair, on the rare occasions I see a doctor I have always got an appointment on the same day since our practice did away with advance appointment booking.

Why is it that councils pay three or four times the market rent to private landlords and accomodation agencies. Because many council staff take bungs and because central government pays 75% of housing benefits.

I have no idea what you're on about here.

why do companies send so many staff on meaning less courses? Because the government refund the full cost

Please point me towards the government regulations regarding this; given our budget goes ever down, we could do with any help with the cost of staff training which we get no specific funding for.