Indexes
November 21st, 2009
November 20th, 2009
November 19th, 2009
November 18th, 2009
November 17th, 2009
November 16th, 2009
November 14th, 2009
The following stories have received the most reader comments during the last 7 days.
- The country's mess is our fault (165)
- Obama is not a moderate (130)
- Sarah Palin's book hits the shelves: Locals react (71)
- Lodi City Council plans to cap number of taco trucks at 22 (49)
- The haves should help the have-nots (30)
- Public health care is a Christian option (30)
- Tokay in, traveling to unbeaten No. 3 Grant for football playoffs (25)
- Government-run health care is a bad idea (17)
- Young woman fatally shot at Acampo home (17)
- Sierra Adventure store to close after four years in Downtown Lodi (16)
ADVERTISEMENT
Ron Paul is a good choice
Monday, December 31, 2007 6:41 AM PST
I am writing in hopes of informing those who don’t know about Congressman Ron Paul’s current campaign for the Republican nomination for the presidency.
Ron Paul is a 10-term congressman from Texas and also a licensed doctor. I would like to encourage people who are looking for a change in America to look into him.
He has never voted to raise taxes; he voted against the Iraq War; against regulation of the Internet; against the very unpatriotic, undemocratic Patriot Act; against an increase in executive power; wants to erase the Federal Income Tax and IRS; wants to revamp U.S. foreign policy; and voted against an unbalanced budget.
These are only a few items on Ron Paul’s record, and he could very easily be considered the most conservative of Republicans running for the nomination this election.
Because mainstream media seldom cover him, discrediting him as a “long-shot candidate,” much is left to his ever-increasing grassroots campaign of millions of Americans across this country. He has been credited by many for “curing” their political apathy, presenting them with different, yet very realistic change for a better, more free America.
Ron Paul supporters made records by raising more than $4.5 million in a 24-hour period Nov. 5 and staged another mass fund-raiser Dec. 15, in memory of the Boston Tea Party, the event that was a catalyst to our first American Revolution.
I urge citizens from all political parties to look at this man and what he can do for America. Please visit his Web site for more information.
Thomas Pazo
Lodi
Search for Ads 
Today’s Print Ads 
RSS Feeds
Reader Feedback
Leonard wrote on Jan 11, 2008 4:46 AM:
danielh wrote on Jan 11, 2008 12:32 AM:
danielh wrote on Jan 11, 2008 12:17 AM:
danielh wrote on Jan 11, 2008 12:16 AM:
Leonard wrote on Jan 10, 2008 3:26 AM:
The reason why your "story" has drawn such attention is because it is an affront to basic human decency. You would have attracted the same sort of attention if you had said that you like to torture kittens or that you like to collect kiddie porn. The sort of filth that you are putting forward naturally draws revulsion and disgust. "
danielh wrote on Jan 10, 2008 12:07 AM:
danielh wrote on Jan 10, 2008 12:06 AM:
you'd have a hecka lot more to say. The picture is pretty much unmistakable, and you'd have to do a lot of talking because you'd know you are backed into a corner. "
danielh wrote on Jan 9, 2008 10:56 PM:
danielh wrote on Jan 9, 2008 10:54 PM:
If I really did have a false story, you wouldn't be offended by it, and you would just lose interest.
This story only had about 50 hits, until I offended thee. If you look at Arne Aasen's story, he only got 50 hits, because his story was not credible. "
danielh wrote on Jan 9, 2008 10:45 PM:
danielh wrote on Jan 9, 2008 10:44 PM:
"
Leonard wrote on Jan 9, 2008 5:26 PM:
"
Ivan Dixon wrote on Jan 9, 2008 4:30 PM:
What part of that don't you understand? "
danielh wrote on Jan 9, 2008 2:41 PM:
I promise the pod is marked in a perfect rectangle. There is no way out, unless you don't look at the website. "
nylodian wrote on Jan 9, 2008 7:27 AM:
danielh wrote on Jan 9, 2008 6:48 AM:
you would have to be blind, or an accessary to the crime to not see the pod. You'll be so offended that you'll talk to me again.
"
robotsworld wrote on Jan 9, 2008 6:01 AM:
He says you HAVE to find their "motives." Just like when a murderer commits a murder...we find his MOTIVE.
READ the following quote, please read the entire article online:
http://hnn.us/articles/45967.html
"Those who think that Paul's noninterventionist outlook somehow amounts to a "weakness" on the terrorism issue might examine the view of the former chief of the CIA's bin Laden Unit, Michael Scheuer the man whose team gave the Clintons ten separate opportunities to capture or kill Osama bin Laden before September 11th."
"After a debate last May, when Congressman Paul tangled with former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani over his view that we're threatened by suicide terrorists due to our bombings, occupations and support for dictatorships in the Middle East, Scheuer released a statement defending him."
"Of [all] presidential candidates now in the field from both parties, only Dr. Paul has had the courage to square with the average American voter." He continued, "[Y]ou can safely take one thing to the bank. The person most shaken by Dr. Paul's frankness was Osama bin Laden, who knows that the current status quo in U.S. foreign policy toward the Islamic world is al Qaedas one indispensable ally."
THIS coming from Michael F. Scheuer the former CIA employee. In his 22-year career, he served as the Chief of the Bin Laden Issue Station (aka "Alec Station"), from 1996 to 1999, the Osama bin Laden tracking unit at the Counterterrorist Center. He then worked again as Special Advisor to the Chief of the bin Laden unit from September 2001 to November 2004. "
Boomer wrote on Jan 9, 2008 3:24 AM:
danielh wrote on Jan 8, 2008 10:46 PM:
http://www.lodinet.com/danielh/911/popMech_911.asp
"
danielh wrote on Jan 8, 2008 9:26 PM:
Perhaps it takes an eye for details on aerospace hardware.
Did you look on the right side of the fuselage, along the right, bottom edge, starting at the leading edge of the wing? "
Ivan Dixon wrote on Jan 8, 2008 8:27 PM:
danielh wrote on Jan 8, 2008 8:23 PM:
danielh wrote on Jan 8, 2008 8:22 PM:
danielh wrote on Jan 8, 2008 8:21 PM:
A tiny source of white light can be seen at the leading edge of the pod.
I have my own ideas of how this whole system is integrated, and how it works, but I don't think this crowd could cope with life if I told them. "
Ivan Dixon wrote on Jan 8, 2008 7:23 PM:
Ivan Dixon wrote on Jan 8, 2008 7:15 PM:
danielh wrote on Jan 8, 2008 6:32 PM:
1) Refuse to answer questions or participate in the discussion until Leonard returns from vacation.
2) Don't look at the photo. Change the line of questioning to something else.
3) State that a conclusion cannot be made from the photograph, except by reference to a qualified aerospace engineer. (Even if the person they are addressing is such a qualified aerospace engineer, they can pretend he is not qualified because they dont like his qualified conclusions.)
4) Deny a human instinct not to accept a suitcase from a stranger if it ticks.
2) After a prosecution introduces exhibit A into court, the prosecution challenges the defense for its authenticity. They lack the intelligence to see that it is their own photograph.
3) Deny the fact that they are doing their own internet research to find another photograph, in hopes that they can find one that does not have the same strap-on pod.
4) Learn Photoshop to remove the strap-on pod, to generate another photograph.
5) So occupy the conversation with insanity, so as to avoid presentation of additional eye-witness testimony of the aircraft having no windows.
"
danielh wrote on Jan 8, 2008 6:07 PM:
Ivan Dixon wrote on Jan 8, 2008 5:00 PM:
Heck no! "
danielh wrote on Jan 8, 2008 11:25 AM:
danielh wrote on Jan 8, 2008 11:21 AM:
nylodian wrote on Jan 8, 2008 7:49 AM:
Ivan Dixon wrote on Jan 8, 2008 6:26 AM:
This story just doesn't make any sense. Occams Razor tells us that the simplest answer is almost always the best answer and, based on that, I am with Boomer on this one. "
danielh wrote on Jan 8, 2008 5:48 AM:
danielh wrote on Jan 8, 2008 5:46 AM:
danielh wrote on Jan 8, 2008 5:44 AM:
danielh wrote on Jan 8, 2008 5:38 AM:
jeffreydahmer wrote on Jan 8, 2008 4:38 AM:
Boomer wrote on Jan 8, 2008 3:00 AM:
"
Boomer wrote on Jan 8, 2008 2:55 AM:
joemonty wrote on Jan 7, 2008 6:06 PM:
To paraphrase Brian - fiat money is good as long as we are alive.
Brian, This is a riduculous economic argument for the purpose of the Federal Reserve.
Anyways, I found a quote from Bernanke on the federal reserve web site in which Bernanke says the Fed caused the Great Depression. I had to check it out myself, and sure enough it is in a Bernanke speech on their web site.
It's amazing! The Federal Reserve chief admits they caused the Great Depression.
Check it out.
http://curedmyapathy.blogspot.com/2008/01/federal-reserve-admits-causing-great.html
"Regarding the Great Depression. You're right, we did it. We're very sorry."
Thank you. "
joemonty wrote on Jan 7, 2008 5:58 PM:
"Torture is an issue for many governments. Our covert military operations are very effective."
John McCain had experience with torture. Maybe you can do some research McCain's disagreement with using torture.
Thank you. "
John Galt wrote on Jan 7, 2008 5:46 PM:
nylodian wrote on Jan 7, 2008 5:40 PM:
danielh wrote on Jan 7, 2008 5:20 PM:
danielh wrote on Jan 7, 2008 5:19 PM:
NYC_Subway Rat wrote on Jan 7, 2008 2:04 PM:
Say "No" to the NAFTA Super Highway. "
Leonard wrote on Jan 7, 2008 10:05 AM:
Brian wrote on Jan 7, 2008 8:30 AM:
nylodian wrote on Jan 7, 2008 7:24 AM:
nylodian wrote on Jan 7, 2008 7:16 AM:
Brian wrote on Jan 7, 2008 7:00 AM:
Danielh, It's apparent you feel your theory could be welcomed by the JBS.
And on that note, you share many of the sentiments the JBS has on 9/11. It's quite obvious you consider yourself a spokesperson for the JBS. "
danielh wrote on Jan 6, 2008 11:35 PM:
Leonard wrote on Jan 6, 2008 7:14 PM:
Leonard wrote on Jan 6, 2008 7:08 PM:
danielh wrote on Jan 6, 2008 7:00 PM:
Brian wrote on Jan 6, 2008 6:34 PM:
danielh wrote on Jan 6, 2008 6:23 PM:
I am saying that passengers don't board aircraft that look like that.
I am well aware of the 1993 bombing. As I was in the US Navy in 1993, I don't recall how I learned of the bombing. I recall reading a scary story about how a terrorist intended to destroy the main support columns within the parking garage below the building.
Subsequently, when I joined the JBS, they identified the terrorist that coodinated the plot. Occasionally, they update the story with their latest findings on either the whereabouts of this terrorist, or how the government has allowing him to go free.
The JBS source is of the opinion that terrorists attacked the WTC. However, it is their position that the govt had full knowledge of the attacks, in advance, and took steps to assure that the attacks would actually succeed. I am hoping someday that we can put our two versions together and come to a common understanding. "
Leonard wrote on Jan 6, 2008 6:07 PM:
Boomer wrote on Jan 6, 2008 5:59 PM:
Leonard wrote on Jan 6, 2008 5:55 PM:
Leonard wrote on Jan 6, 2008 5:54 PM:
Leonard wrote on Jan 6, 2008 5:53 PM:
danielh wrote on Jan 6, 2008 5:51 PM:
danielh wrote on Jan 6, 2008 5:50 PM:
danielh wrote on Jan 6, 2008 5:49 PM:
Leonard wrote on Jan 6, 2008 5:33 PM:
Leonard wrote on Jan 6, 2008 5:31 PM:
Boomer wrote on Jan 6, 2008 3:33 PM:
danielh wrote on Jan 6, 2008 3:23 PM:
danielh wrote on Jan 6, 2008 3:21 PM:
nylodian wrote on Jan 6, 2008 3:14 PM:
danielh wrote on Jan 6, 2008 3:11 PM:
Particularly, I recall a few people making jokes about them. That is OK, because they can't take my degrees away from me, and because it shows that I am important.
People like Ron Paul get debated, and I was aware of him 3 years ago. Conversely, I never heard of Huckabee until people started voting for him for president.
If a person never gets criticized, they aren't trying to inspire anybody for new thinking. "
danielh wrote on Jan 6, 2008 3:07 PM:
The only personal stuff was the reference to weather in Rochester. "
nylodian wrote on Jan 6, 2008 3:06 PM:
danielh wrote on Jan 6, 2008 3:03 PM:
Leonard wrote on Jan 6, 2008 12:39 PM:
Lodian wrote on Jan 6, 2008 12:27 PM:
Lodian wrote on Jan 6, 2008 12:17 PM:
Leonard wrote on Jan 6, 2008 10:19 AM:
In many ways, I pity the man but I can not allow my compassion to cloud the duty I feel to condemn these outrageous lies. "
Leonard wrote on Jan 6, 2008 4:08 AM:
This is not a game. It is not an amusing pass time to fill the empty hours of an otherwise meaningless life. This is a real event that happened to real people and those people who lost their lives deserve to be acknowledged and accorded respect.
People like Daniel are no better than Rev Phelps and the protesters who attack the grieving family members at military funerals.
Despicable! "
Leonard wrote on Jan 6, 2008 4:02 AM:
I have to admit that I am appalled to see otherwise decent posters legitimate such revolting nonsense. "
Lodian wrote on Jan 5, 2008 11:43 PM:
danielh wrote on Jan 5, 2008 9:33 PM:
Additionally, I don't care if LNS deletes my statements to you. I wouldn't be insulted. "
danielh wrote on Jan 5, 2008 9:30 PM:
danielh wrote on Jan 5, 2008 9:28 PM:
In bias, usually a person has some sort of conflict of interest.
My salary is low, and unconnected to anything that I promote. I also don't hold any kind of political power.
Conversely, global warming politics is driven by a lot of political power, which is better than money. That is where the bias lies.
One reason I am able continuously to oppose political pseudo-science is because of my having nothing to lose. Nobody can threaten to take my salary or contract away from me. "
danielh wrote on Jan 5, 2008 9:22 PM:
"
danielh wrote on Jan 5, 2008 9:21 PM:
I have been into the Sierras in the dead of winter, but never on a daily basis.
In Rochester, we had 0-degrees, but with blistering wind. Wind chill was -45 degrees, for about a week.
One time I flew through Chicago, and the temperature was -70 degrees. I got off the airplane and walked through the tunnel. It was just about that cold inside the tunnel.
Police stopped all cars, asking them what was their emergency that necessitated their driving. "
danielh wrote on Jan 5, 2008 9:15 PM:
nylodian wrote on Jan 5, 2008 8:27 PM:
nylodian wrote on Jan 5, 2008 8:24 PM:
Leonard wrote on Jan 5, 2008 8:20 PM:
danielh wrote on Jan 5, 2008 7:54 PM:
danielh wrote on Jan 5, 2008 7:53 PM:
excellent photography reveals that it is not a hyjacked aircraft.
If you look on the starboard side of the forward fuselage, you'll see an extra cigar-shaped pod mounted onto it. It begins at the leading edge of the right wing, and runs alongside almost to the pilot area. This feature is conclusive.
My further suspicions of the rear fuselage would not survive a jury, if it were the only piece of evidence by itself. But, since the forward section of the aircraft is conclusive, I will take liberties of saying that the rear fuselage has a double-cylinder cross-section, not circular.
"
danielh wrote on Jan 5, 2008 7:37 PM:
danielh wrote on Jan 5, 2008 7:29 PM:
If you want to say genocide, let me also ask, can Homeland Security not satisfy the same objective as the SS, if it does not commit genocide?
So, what's the difference? "
danielh wrote on Jan 5, 2008 7:23 PM:
danielh wrote on Jan 5, 2008 7:22 PM:
Personally, about 20 times, I have mixed my own private mixture of thermite, and set it off just for good show. In terms of safety, I know full well that it has burned a person's hand "off." It burns at 6000 deg-F, in about 1 second. I also know that my own private blow torch will not ignite the mixture. In fact, I am so certain that I know the behavior of thermite that I am not afraid accidental ignition when I hit it with a blow torch (temperature of burning jet fuel). I have to use my blow torch to ignite the fuse, which is very close to the mixture.
I can recite the temperatures of the WTC situation. "
Leonard wrote on Jan 5, 2008 7:21 PM:
Leonard wrote on Jan 5, 2008 7:19 PM:
danielh wrote on Jan 5, 2008 7:15 PM:
Thanks to the Clinton and G.H.W. Bush (Sr) administrations, both of their justice departments, and engineering treason from Space Systems/Loral, in Palo Alto, CA, the Chinese advanced their nuclear delivery technology, and they obtained sensitive cryptology codes for commanding our military space satellites.
Clinton's tolerance for this compromise in America's security, is nothing short of treason. Additionally, Clinton's acceptance of Chinese cash in his political campaign, and in the Clinton library, constitutes bribery. These are the real reasons why he should have been impeached. Basically, the House's reduction of charges down to "lying to a federal grand jury" assured that Clinton would never be impeached for bribery and treason, and the senate would reduce the charges down to sexual dysfunction.
You may recall that Space Systems/Loral gave its finest engineering expertise on some problems to the Chinese Long March II Intercontinental Ballistic Missile. If you are talking to Loral, ICBM is not politically-correct. You are supposed to say "space launch vehicle (SLV)." SLV's are used to launch INTELSAT-VII satellites. Nuclear warhead delivery is easier than SLV engineering. Hence, Loral provided critical engineering for China's nuclear delivery capability.
If you are talking to the Chinese, 20 of these ICBM's are fitted with America's finest technology in MIRV'd nuclear warheads, capable of targetting with USA/Loral accuracy any target within the USA.
I visited my friends at Loral after a launch failure, and we talked about their experience which resulted in China stealing a cryptology code box from a Loral satellite. "
Leonard wrote on Jan 5, 2008 7:12 PM:
Leonard wrote on Jan 5, 2008 7:10 PM:
danielh wrote on Jan 5, 2008 7:00 PM:
I am not exaggerating to say that my personal values against big business is precisely what kept me out of oil companies for which I am qualified by my scientific knowledge and engineering talent.
I denied myself a career path that was baited by extreme salaries, on account of moral values against big business.
If this does not earn me some respect, it certainly does demonstrate my personal values. "
danielh wrote on Jan 5, 2008 6:52 PM:
In my M.S. degree, I had option A, which requires a research project, a thesis, and a defense. I had a board of 5 professors who read my thesis, heard my public defense, and approved my degree.
I am quite qualified to distinguish philosophy and politics from true scientific method. Accordingly, in any scientific claim, I can classify it, and if it truly is science, I can determine if the conclusion is supported by the experiment.
If a subject is science, but lacks a scientific control, which is often the case in medicine, I can at least observe controversies, even if not understanding them completely, as would be the case in medicine or dentistry. In medicine, it is unethical to inform a critically ill patient that they are involved in a scientific experiment, and then treat them as a control or give them placebos, without notification, if they have a terminal illness.
In the case of global warming, which is not science at all, any scientific experiment would need to address a control for comparison. This is difficult, but if it's not discussed, it's not science.
"
danielh wrote on Jan 5, 2008 6:41 PM:
I have never complained, not ever, when you addressed me at an inferior age. It is irritating, but I just consider the source, and I continue communications. You have had more than a clue about my age. You do know that I am at least of age to be a military veteran, and also add enough years to have a graduate degree.
If you want better respect, you might try addressing me as an adult, no matter how much you object to my posts and my letters, and certainly, you will address me as a male gender. "
Ivan Dixon wrote on Jan 5, 2008 1:10 PM:
Brian wrote on Jan 5, 2008 7:53 AM:
Brian wrote on Jan 5, 2008 7:50 AM:
I seriously doubt we are are at risk
of getting marshall law in this country.
I cannot stress enough the significance of the last sentence in paragraph above.
It is the ACLU's intention to smear the Homeland Security Act based on insinuations that it is the American form of the German SS. POPPYCOCK!!!
"
Brian wrote on Jan 5, 2008 7:35 AM:
Readers Beware! Danielh takes his views very seriously even though Ron Paul would probably be committed to an insane asylum if he were to share this view.
"
nylodian wrote on Jan 5, 2008 6:56 AM:
Boomer wrote on Jan 5, 2008 5:51 AM:
Leonard wrote on Jan 5, 2008 4:53 AM:
Leonard wrote on Jan 5, 2008 4:52 AM:
Leonard wrote on Jan 5, 2008 4:48 AM:
danielh wrote on Jan 4, 2008 11:17 PM:
1)I was born in the USA (5th-generation Woodbridgian-Lodian), and my objective are to uphold the US Constitution.
2)On scientific grounds, I can defend any aspect of the theory, and in 15 seconds, I was able to convince a former ATF agent of the same. The theory is based upon the presence of thermite at the scene, the dynamics of the failure, the melting point of iron, and a very large body of corroborating evidence from eye witness survivors, and film. Moreover, there has not been a public trial or hearing to report the evidence. YouTube reporting is excellent.
3)This topic is of extreme importance because it identically resembles Adolf Hitlers false flag attack against his own Reich building. The German emotions that followed resulted in a unified German endorsement for their leader, and the dissolution of German Parliament. The formation of the German SS is equivalent to Americas formation of Homeland Security.
4)I am willing to concede that it was the Israeli Mossad, in collaboration with insider Americans; but, I cannot perceive why they would do it. It appears that there werent any Jewish victims inside the WTC, and Israeli spectators flew to NYC to witness the attacks. I also have some additional information on the Mossad acting in other parts of the world. It was very bad.
5)Barbara Walters: I think it was on 9/12 that The View commenced programming to encourage Americans to surrender their inalienable rights. The women discussed their willingness to carry a National ID to combat terrorism. Barbara Walters is a member of the Council on foreign Relations*, of which National IDs is within the scope of their agenda.
6)Within 1 week, Bush lied to the American people when he presented the Hart-Rudmann Act to the American people. He stated that it was prepared because of the attacks, whereas he did not reveal that Senators Hart and Rudmann had drafted the legislation two years prior to the attacks. Neither did Bush mention how the Hart-Rudmann Act would establish an elaborate system for government to spy on its own citizens.
7)Rosie ODonnell: I was amazed at what she said about 9/11, but I still dont like her anyway.
* The hidden agenda of the CFR is revealed by the purpose of its creation when President Wilson received word of the Senates rejection of the League of Nations. "
danielh wrote on Jan 4, 2008 10:30 PM:
danielh wrote on Jan 4, 2008 10:12 PM:
Whether I get an appology or not, I am not going to give you permission to address me as such. I have a userID, and you can use it. I will also accept DH, or Daniel. If you make up anything else, it might be OK if it does not pertain to disrespectful innuendos, or change of age or gender. "
nylodian wrote on Jan 4, 2008 7:28 PM:
nylodian wrote on Jan 4, 2008 7:24 PM:
Leonard wrote on Jan 4, 2008 5:19 PM:
Leonard wrote on Jan 4, 2008 5:18 PM:
Thus, according to the rules of this forum, it must have been deleted by accident. I fully expect that, once they realize their error, the censors will repost the blog in question. "
Boomer wrote on Jan 4, 2008 4:10 PM:
danielh wrote on Jan 4, 2008 3:27 PM:
Leonard wrote on Jan 4, 2008 3:01 PM:
nylodian wrote on Jan 4, 2008 12:48 PM:
nylodian wrote on Jan 4, 2008 12:43 PM:
Leonard wrote on Jan 4, 2008 11:56 AM:
It seems to me that some posters here are using the pretext that their blogname has been abbreviated to get posts which, by force of argument, make them look foolish deleted. "
Leonard wrote on Jan 4, 2008 11:52 AM:
danielh wrote on Jan 4, 2008 11:35 AM:
Leonard wrote on Jan 4, 2008 10:17 AM:
Leonard wrote on Jan 4, 2008 10:09 AM:
danielh wrote on Jan 4, 2008 9:28 AM:
You don't know what is "disgusting language" because it is acceptable to you.
In your vacation absense, while we were having a conversation.
If you don't want to know what is my opinion about 9-11, then don't ask, and certainly, don't express your opinion about my theory in the middle of the conversation where I was involved.
As for Ron Paul having a contrary opinion, notice that I didn't take it personally. I am not offended. I am also grateful for nylodian giving me the advice of his statements.
Additionally, I am not going to change my theory, which I have based upon scientific forensic analysis, because a politician makes a statement to the contrary. That is how poeple get into political quagmires.
Instead, I will look for an opportunity to discuss my theory with one of Ron Paul's friends, and there is a good chance that I will have a 5-minute conversation with one of them within the next couple of years.
"
Leonard wrote on Jan 4, 2008 7:56 AM:
Leonard wrote on Jan 4, 2008 7:54 AM:
Brian wrote on Jan 4, 2008 6:50 AM:
Bill's sexual addiction and Hillary's compulsive enabling would again be a dangerous combination when partnered with the power of the presidency if the Hildabeast became president. "
Leonard wrote on Jan 4, 2008 4:41 AM:
Leonard wrote on Jan 4, 2008 4:40 AM:
In any case, I am not quite sure what this all has to do with Ron Paul who also dismisses your position as nonsense. "
danielh wrote on Jan 4, 2008 3:03 AM:
As such, you miss a lot of offerings. "
danielh wrote on Jan 4, 2008 2:45 AM:
Truth is: you can't cope. "
Leonard wrote on Jan 3, 2008 6:55 PM:
wtf wrote on Jan 3, 2008 6:42 PM:
http://www.libertybroadcastnetwork.org/default.aspx
"
Leonard wrote on Jan 3, 2008 6:33 PM:
Leonard wrote on Jan 3, 2008 6:18 PM:
Leonard wrote on Jan 3, 2008 3:52 PM:
Your argument is garbage.
End of story. "
danielh wrote on Jan 3, 2008 3:35 PM:
1) you need a grammar check.
2) "thermite" obeys the laws of chemistry. you can't argue with it.
3) Newton's 2nd Law is a law. Ignorance will not escape you from it. "
Leonard wrote on Jan 3, 2008 1:37 PM:
Leonard wrote on Jan 3, 2008 1:35 PM:
wtf wrote on Jan 3, 2008 1:30 PM:
danielh wrote on Jan 3, 2008 1:26 PM:
danielh wrote on Jan 3, 2008 1:22 PM:
danielh wrote on Jan 3, 2008 1:22 PM:
Voters think their own voice would be wasted if they express their own personal opinion at the polls.
Actually, since I can remember (which started after Goldwater), candidates popularized by the news media were identical. "
wtf wrote on Jan 3, 2008 11:56 AM:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080103/ts_alt_afp/usvote2008campaigntruth
Hmmmm....could be why RON PAUL has so much support - he tells the truth! "
wtf wrote on Jan 3, 2008 11:51 AM:
http://voanews.com/english/2007-12-31-voa49.cfm
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! LOL! "
wtf wrote on Jan 3, 2008 11:02 AM:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/01/should-ron-paul.html
"
wtf wrote on Jan 3, 2008 10:57 AM:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFYqtDL50AM
However this is what's **really** going on behind the scenes:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8ac_1193762666
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e97_1196926151
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7b0_1196281884
But the question is WHY?
Rupert Murdoch and William Kristol: Using the Press to Advance ***Israel's*** Interests
ISRAEL!!!???! What about the UNITED STATES?
http://www.wrmea.com/archives/june2003/0306024.html
Rupert Murdoch is the owner for FAUX News. And then there's this:
Pre-Iowa Israel Factor: We know Clinton, we want Clinton
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/941084.html
WHAT!!!???!? What does **Israel** have to do with the elections in the United States??!!? And note that Ron Paul isn't even on their list.
And why is an Israeli Defense contractor counting the votes for a U.S. election?
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/19098
And why is Israel and the U.S. integrating their missile defense systems?
http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/breaking/105895.html
Geez! I thought this was the UNITED STATES of AMERICA not a territory of Israel. Take our country back!
GO RON PAUL!
"
nylodian wrote on Jan 3, 2008 6:45 AM:
Leonard wrote on Jan 3, 2008 6:37 AM:
Leonard wrote on Jan 3, 2008 6:30 AM:
Brian wrote on Jan 3, 2008 6:11 AM:
jeffreydahmer wrote on Jan 3, 2008 2:14 AM:
danielh wrote on Jan 2, 2008 8:50 PM:
If you want to refute my side of the story, you have to take a look at "thermite" chemistry, and start looking at temperatures that are required to ignite thermite, and the melting point of iron and/or steel.
Additionally, I suggest you take a look at Newton's Second Law.
You can't say something is wrong with the conclusions without understanding these forensics.
Finally, there is a large body of people in the scientific community who agree. "
danielh wrote on Jan 2, 2008 8:20 PM:
I also have a sense to investigate authenticity and chase footnotes. I've done a lot of reading. I am here because I am trying to share with all "regular-class" people.
The phrase "conspiracy" cannot be used because it requires the plan must be held secret. In this case, the plan to establish a NAU is public information. Moreover the intentions of (David?) Rockefeller to establish a New World Order is not a secret, openly declared in his book, "Memoires."
Additionally, the Council on Foreign Relations makes no secret of its ententions to establish a NAU, although they lie about the means that they adopt to establish the NAU. Conversely, the architect of the NAU, Dr. Robert Pastor, was forced to admit under questioning to a plan to establish a North American "community."
"
Leonard wrote on Jan 2, 2008 7:57 PM:
Leonard wrote on Jan 2, 2008 7:56 PM:
Brian wrote on Jan 2, 2008 7:30 PM:
A: 1000: one to think of it and 999 to pass it off as their own. "
Leonard wrote on Jan 2, 2008 7:02 PM:
Leonard wrote on Jan 2, 2008 6:56 PM:
danielh wrote on Jan 2, 2008 6:52 PM:
Brian wrote on Jan 2, 2008 6:50 PM:
Brian wrote on Jan 2, 2008 6:45 PM:
danielh wrote on Jan 2, 2008 6:33 PM:
danielh wrote on Jan 2, 2008 6:30 PM:
FYI #1: I am no longer a conservative. I am a constitutionalist. I didn't read to the end of your joke, but I agree that "conservatives" are not conservative at all, and that they are more dangerous than liberals who give advance warning of their opinions.
FYI #2: If you ever wanted to blame jbs for my opinion on 9/11, mine is contrary to theirs. In fact, they have a publication stating that there are basically some crazies out there who believe the pentagon was attacked with a missile.
FYI #3: I'm going to disqualify one of your statements, because you just don't know. You said, "Islamic Terrorist Murderers." I am beginning to wonder if it was the Israeli Mossad. There is only some weak circumstantial evidence, and I don't have anything strong that I can hang my hat on.
The evidence is indisputable. The WTC being an inside job, with missile decoys disguised as airliners.
"
Leonard wrote on Jan 2, 2008 5:55 PM:
Leonard wrote on Jan 2, 2008 5:52 PM:
A: 1,000: One to think of it and 999 to copy it and pass it off as their own. "
danielh wrote on Jan 2, 2008 4:03 PM:
wtf wrote on Jan 2, 2008 3:35 PM:
Paul 29%
Huckabee 18%
Giuliani 17%
McCain 14%
Romney 13%
Thompson 8%
Hunter 1%
"
wtf wrote on Jan 2, 2008 3:31 PM:
"The blind bio question was also posed to a larger pool of 1,009 likely voters nationwide, including Democrats and independents, and Paul was the big winner among that universe of voters, winning 33%, compared to 19% for Giuliani, 15% for Romney, and 13% for Thompson."
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1391
Looking at the current numbers on AOL's "spam proof" straw poll, they are:
Mike Huckabee 36%
Ron Paul 33%
Mitt Romney 13%
Fred Thompson 7%
John McCain 6%
Rudy Giuliani 4%
Duncan Hunter 1%
http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2007/12/21/straw-poll-dec-21-jan-4/?ncid=NWS00010000000001
And FAUX news isn't inviting Ron Paul to their debate because he's polling low? Hey! If you believe that, I have a bridge in the Mojave you might want to buy.
"
Leonard wrote on Jan 2, 2008 3:30 PM:
Brian wrote on Jan 2, 2008 3:28 PM:
in a government class because I would not do it in school. I am guilty as are many other of copy and pasting. Now tell Danielh his position on 911 is kooky and without any evidence. "
voter wrote on Jan 2, 2008 3:16 PM:
wtf wrote on Jan 2, 2008 2:54 PM:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0102/p01s08-uspo.html
"
Leonard wrote on Jan 2, 2008 2:40 PM:
wtf wrote on Jan 2, 2008 2:36 PM:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/31/debate.limits.ap/index.html?section=cnn_latest
This appears to have been the wrong move as those with stock in the FAUX News Corp have started dumping their stock. Ron Paul supporters tend to put their money where their mouth is i.e., supporting Ron Paul with donations and not supporting those who are attempting to put this country into a fascistic lock-step with the Frat Boy In Chief and his ungodly band of thugs.
http://www.nolanchart.com/article844.html
Of course, there will be those apologists for this mess we call our current administration; most likely avid FAUX news viewers; those who only *think* they're informed. Too bad they don't know what the owner of FAUX news, Rupert Morlock, thinks about them.
http://assimilatedpress.blogspot.com/2006/09/rupert-murdoch-calls-fox-news-viewers.html
"
danielh wrote on Jan 2, 2008 2:00 PM:
nylodian wrote on Jan 2, 2008 12:10 PM:
wtf wrote on Jan 2, 2008 11:48 AM:
Who Are These Kooks?
by Chuck Baldwin
December 18, 2007
According to the Associated Press, "Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul's supporters raised over $6 million Sunday to boost the 10-term congressman's campaign for the White House."
The AP report also said, "The [Paul] campaign's previous fundraiser brought in $4.2 million."
According to the Paul campaign website, "In a 24-hour period on December 16, the campaign raised $6.026 million dollars, surpassing the one-day record of $5.7 million held by John Kerry.
"During the day, over 58,000 people contributed to Dr. Paul's campaign, including 24,940 first-time donors. Over 118,000 Americans have donated to the campaign in the fourth quarter.
"The $6 million one-day total means the campaign has raised over $18 million this quarter, far exceeding its goal of $12 million."
Now, if one listens to most of the political pundits in the major media, Ron Paul is some kind of "kook," and his supporters are also a bunch of "kooks." So, the question must be asked, Just who are these kooks that are supporting him, and why are they giving Ron Paul all this money?
First, let's take a look at this "kook" who is receiving all this money. Ron Paul was born the third son of Howard and Margaret Paul, and was brought up with a work ethic in which one worked six days a week and went to church on Sunday. His first job was at age 5 helping his uncle wash bottles. He worked all the way through his youth mowing lawns, delivering newspapers, working in a drug store, delivering furniture and laundry, etc.
In high school, Ron was a track star, winning state as a junior in the 220-yard dash and running 2nd in the 440. His time in the 100-yard dash was 9.8. That's pretty good. I was never able to break 10-flat in the 100. Although, I bet I could have beaten him in the 50-yard dash. He also wrestled in high school. Coincidentally, so did I. But here Ron leaves me: he was president of the student council and an honor student. I never accomplished that. I was just glad to get promoted to the next grade. Even as a senior statesman, Ron Paul keeps himself in terrific shape. Have you seen him lately? He still maintains a rigorous exercise regimen.
Ron's two brothers are both ministers, and he became a medical doctor. He graduated from Duke University School of Medicine. When the Cuban Missile Crisis arose, Ron became a flight surgeon in the U.S. Air Force. He also served in the Air National Guard.
As an OB/GYN physician, Dr. Paul has delivered more than 4,000 babies, and he and his wife, Carol, have been married for more than 50 years. They have 5 children, 18 grandchildren and 1 great-grandchild. Ron Paul is currently in his 10th term as a congressman from Texas.
As a congressman, Ron Paul has never taken a government-paid junket. He is not accepting a government pension. He returns a portion of his office budget every year to the taxpayers. As a member of Congress, he has never voted a raise for himself. Do you know any other member of Congress that can make such a claim? Of course you don't, because Ron Paul is truly one-of-a-kind.
Former President Ronald Reagan said this about Ron Paul, "Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country."
Perhaps this helps explain why many of the "kooks" supporting Ron Paul are active-duty military personnel. In fact, Ron Paul has received more campaign contributions from active-duty military personnel than any other Presidential candidate from either party.
But who are the other "kooks" supporting Ron Paul? What kind of people give more than $18 million in a quarter-year to a Presidential candidate that is almost universally ignored by the mainstream press? What kind of people give record contributions to a Presidential candidate that is lampooned by his fellow Republican Presidential contenders?
For example, Mike Huckabee recently said he could support any of the other Republican Presidential contenders (including Rudy Giuliani), except Ron Paul. That means, Mike Huckabee would rather support a pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, pro-gun control liberal such as Giuliani than support the pro-life, pro-traditional marriage, pro-Second Amendment candidacy of Ron Paul. Why is that?
Furthermore, why are the entire major media and establishment Republican machine either ignoring or lampooning a distinguished Air Force veteran, medical doctor, and ten-term Congressman? What is it about Ron Paul that the elite are so afraid of?
Here is something else: while Ron Paul's contributions have exploded, Mike Huckabee is all but broke! How can that be? How can a political "front-runner" be out of money, while a man who "doesn't have a chance" is breaking fundraising records?
So, who are these "kooks" who are sending Ron Paul so much money? And just why are they sending him so much money? I will tell you who they are, because I am one of them. They are rank-and-file, tax-paying citizens who are sick and tired of out-of-control federal spending and deficits. They have had it with an arrogant federal government that runs roughshod over both the Constitution and the liberties of the American people. They are people who have had enough of the IRS, the BATFE, and a thousand other federal agencies that have "erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance." (Declaration of Independence)
They are people who see through the phony, disingenuous federal politicians who only want to fleece the American citizenry for the purpose of building their own personal fortunes. They have had it with the Military-Industrial complex that desires to build international empires at the expense of the blood and sacrifice of the American people. They have had it with David Rockefeller and his Council on Foreign Relations. They have had it with the arrogance of George W. Bush and Nancy Pelosi.
They are sick and tired of paying outlandish taxes for a public education system that produces high school graduates who cannot read and write. They are sick and tired of working for 30 years to pay off a mortgage, only then to be forced to pay extortion money (a.k.a. property taxes) for the rest of their lives to the feudal state. They are sick and tired of the government telling them what they can and cannot do with their own property. They are sick and tired of watching people with food stamps buy T-bone steaks and expensive Nike tennis shoes while they are forced to buy fatty hamburger and cheap sneakers.
They are sick and tired of watching their manufacturing jobs go to China and India. They have had it with money-hungry businessmen who hire illegal Mexicans at slave labor wages. They have had it with labor unions promoting politicians who support NAFTA, CAFTA, and the FTAA. They are sick and tired of being bled dry at the gas pump.
They have had it with this phony "war on terrorism" that sends trillions of dollars to nations throughout the Middle East, but refuses to close our own borders to illegal immigration. They have had it with the "war on drugs" and the "war on terror" being used as excuses to trample people's freedoms. They have it with Vicente Fox and Felipe Calderon. They have had it with Bush's North American Union. They have had it with Joel Osteen and Rick Warren. In short, they have just had it!
They also know that a vote for any other Presidential candidate is a vote for more of the same. Democrat or Republican: it is more of the same. Ron Paul, and Ron Paul alone, will bring a revolution of freedom and independence to America. Believe me, the Ron Paul revolution is bigger than Ron Paul. This is the beginning of a movement.
No matter what ultimately happens to Ron Paul's candidacy, the fight to return America to its roots of freedom and independence has started. The fire is lit. There is no putting it out. There will be other Ron Pauls, other campaigns, other spokesmen, other fundraising. The people supporting Ron Paul will not be silenced; they will not be ignored; they will not be intimidated. In truth, Ron Paul's campaign may just be the beginning of the end of the elitist, globalist, stranglehold over America.
As one who is also fed up with the globalist goons that dominate the two major parties, I join the Ron Paul revolution and vow to fight for the rest of my life for the freedom and independence of these United States. This means I will never again support a business-as-usual, millionaires-club, globalist toady from either party ever again! I will only support candidates who are fully committed to restoring constitutional government. If that makes me a kook, so be it.
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2007/cbarchive_20071218.html
"
wtf wrote on Jan 2, 2008 9:46 AM:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFjM1ZzZSE8&feature=related
Ron Paul - An idea whose time has come
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GahDESc5zFw&feature=related
Ron Paul Rising
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hy5u7C4x0A&feature=related
"
danielh wrote on Jan 2, 2008 9:19 AM:
wtf wrote on Jan 2, 2008 8:43 AM:
I totally agree with you, danielh. Many are concerned with vote tampering occurring given that 2000 and 2004 appeared to have been tampered with. Many, many eyes (and video recorders) will be watching the upcoming caucuses. "
Brian wrote on Jan 2, 2008 8:11 AM:
Paul's theory on the , "blow back, " effect concerning 9/11 finds one major flaw in its premise setting aside the contention that we not Al Qaeda are at fault for the attacks. His theory does not take into account the fanaticism of radical Islam.
Radicals like bin Laden and other leaders in this Jihad against The United States are much smarter that they are given credit. They know the American mind set much more than we know and understand theirs. They realize that by claiming that US interventionist policy is the cause for their anger and attacks against us will strike a note in America and especially those who see this country as the worlds, "big bully."
This is the cord that has stricken Paul and those who agree with him. What they and many do not understand or accept is the religious fanaticism that actually and factually drives Islamic radicals and especially their hatred for the US and our people. This hatred is not for our policies it is because we do not embrace their form of Islam therefore we are Infidels who deserve death and it is their holy duty to see to it that we die and our way of life no longer exists.
The United States is also the major obstacle both in our power and influence to preventing Islamic radicals from converting and controlling the world as they do many areas in the Middle East. Our presence in that region is a constant reminder of the power of the Infidel and of our disobedience to Allah and their form of Islam. This religious fanaticism from radical Islam drives their Jihad and promotes their fighting and attacks which includes 9/11.
Paul's contention that 9/11 was a result of US interventionist policy fails the historical test also. If one believes that 9/11 was a result of US intervention and brought on by The United States then in the same context one must conclude that Pearl Harbor was a result of our own intervention.
Prior to the attack of December 1941, United States policy had us intervening in Far East countries like the Philippines and China as a stop gap for Japanese expansion. We also had a major oil embargo against Japan which hampered the country who was totally dependent on imported oil. Other sanctions were also in effect against Japan.
"
Brian wrote on Jan 2, 2008 8:01 AM:
wtf wrote on Jan 2, 2008 6:35 AM:
Again, look at the AOL poll and click on each state where someone other than Ron Paul is shown as the front-runner; you'll find Ron Paul is TIED with this person or only 1-2% points behind.
http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2007/12/21/straw-poll-dec-21-jan-4/?ncid=NWS00010000000001
http://www.thecaseforronpaul.blogspot.com/
On the following link, make sure to look at the Debate Poll and Straw Poll links.
http://thecaseforronpaul.com/default.aspx
"
nylodian wrote on Jan 2, 2008 5:35 AM:
danielh wrote on Jan 1, 2008 9:55 PM:
danielh wrote on Jan 1, 2008 9:52 PM:
Prior to 9/11, the WTC was closed in sections, thus giving an opportunity for the explosives to be rigged. Additionally, the demolition abounds with evidence, including thermite. FDNY and bystanders remarked of repetitive internal explosions. Inside WTC, surviving FDNY remarked it was like foundary.
REVERSE: The US State Department has not conducted a public investigation. Hence the official Bush Administrations position on an hijacked airliner attack has not been cross-examined in a public forum.
"
Brian wrote on Jan 1, 2008 9:04 PM:
and gives me the impression that the supporters of this repeal are more concerned about the slight inconvenience
the Patriot Act has wrought them then the nations security. "
Brian wrote on Jan 1, 2008 8:49 PM:
danielh wrote on Jan 1, 2008 8:40 PM:
danielh wrote on Jan 1, 2008 8:39 PM:
Dont get me wrong. I disagree with Islamic religion and their way of life. Additionally I despise how they treat their women. Not only do they make them cover their face and not show their skin, but they also kill their women. This is horrible.
However, Osama Bin Laden rose to power by American CIA influence. Inside Pakistan, CIA supported Bin Laden so that he could oppose the expansion of communism within Afghanistan. This is the root of the problem. We supported Bin Laden. Isnt he the source of power behind the Taliban?
What about the expansion of communism? you might ask. The Soviet Union could not have established itself without American support, and we continue to send money and support them.
How about Saddam Hussein? you might ask. He rose to power, again, by CIA intervention.
Ron Paul is not trying to isolate in the sense that he is blocking diplomacy. He wants to curtail foreign aid to everybody, but especially to our enemies.
There is nothing kooky about this. Ron Paul has been studying American politics abroad for many years, and he is extremely intelligent. I recommend trying to understand all this stuff.
I persist in posting comments and letters in spite of peoples objections, in spite of people like tara, because these issues affect us all so dearly, and I dont see what else is more important.
"
danielh wrote on Jan 1, 2008 8:26 PM:
Consequently, if the jailer wished to perform any means of torture, such as waterboarding, they would need to violate habeas corpus to prevent word from leaking out of the jail.
This occurred at Guantanamo Bay. The subject of Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez is related to his tolerance for the Bush Administration to conduct this violation of habeas corpus. In his testimony before a Senate committee, Gonzalez argued that the constitution does not grant a right of habeas corpus. Gonzalez was unaware of the inalienable rights that are declared in the Declaration of Independence, and protected under the constitution. "
Brian wrote on Jan 1, 2008 8:23 PM:
Ron Paul wants to dig up old dirt about the CIA overthrowing the democratic government in Iran over 50 years ago. He is alleging that the whole cause of all this Islamic Jihad is because of this. Give me a break! Given that the Jihadists have nothing more better to do than base their whole agenda on this overthrow is a slap in their face at the least. Their agenda goes much deeper
than that. What about the Ottomans? Oh, you forgot. Ron Paul is as kooky as they get. He should just come out and say Islam is driven by American imperialism. Again, this is offensive to the Islamists. We shouldn't really care how the Islamists feel, Actually.
However, if you're gonna lay the blame,
at least try to have the facts straight.
We're not doing ourselves any service by handing the victim card to the Islamists time and time again. Ron Paul has made it quite clear that the Islamists shouldn't be held accountable. He wants to tie the hands of the military up even tighter. Repealing the Patriot Act is just the tip of the iceberg. We do the Islamists a disservice by not pointing out their failings. "
danielh wrote on Jan 1, 2008 8:17 PM:
danielh wrote on Jan 1, 2008 8:15 PM:
danielh wrote on Jan 1, 2008 8:11 PM:
Someone showed me "loose change" on their laptop. On Loose change, I saw evidence that the pentagon was attacked by a passenger airliner. I had difficulty accepting this, because the evidence was not proof. The pentagon is difficult to prove, so I avoid talking about it.
However, there is a multitude of corroborating evidence from the WTC, all showing controlled and engineered demolition.
When I saw thermite in the WTC, inside YouTube, that was all I needed to know. Ask anybody from ATF, if you can find such a person. (Actually I have a friend who is former ATF, and he agreed with me instantly.)
That understood, without a doubt, now I accept the pentagon attack as a missile attack. "
danielh wrote on Jan 1, 2008 8:00 PM:
danielh wrote on Jan 1, 2008 7:57 PM:
tara wrote on Jan 1, 2008 6:59 PM:
wtf wrote on Jan 1, 2008 6:54 PM:
with the author to drop this debate because you can't hold a candle to me."
OK, Brian, whatever you say....you obviously are a legend in your own mind and I've learned not to attempt debating with drunk and/or delusional people - of which you fit the description perfectly! You won, Brian! There! Doesn't that make you feel all better? LOL! "
wtf wrote on Jan 1, 2008 6:51 PM:
Brian wrote on Jan 1, 2008 6:37 PM:
with the author to drop this debate because you can't hold a candle to me.
Now we have Daniel implying that those who support Ron Paul are more likely to support the loose change crowd. I knew it to be true that many Ron Paul supporters are way out in left field.
You and Daniel take the cake. "
wtf wrote on Jan 1, 2008 5:33 PM:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9WMdFhRAQM
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/endorsements
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/endorsements/acclaim
And the best for last, veterans and military for Ron Paul.
http://people.ronpaul2008.com/endorsements/category/veterans/ "
Tara wrote on Jan 1, 2008 4:57 PM:
Brian wrote on Jan 1, 2008 4:38 PM:
You're a loose changer. I thought you had more sense than that. All I can say is you must redeem yourself before it's too late. Now you're starting your ad-hominem attacks on me as a desperate attempt to discredit me. It seems to me you are the desperate person grasping at anything for personal help. I wish Leonard was here. He despises anyone belonging to the "loose change" crowd. How is habeas corpus suspended? Because you swear you've got a wire tap on your phone? You're pathetic sir! "
danielh wrote on Jan 1, 2008 4:21 PM:
danielh wrote on Jan 1, 2008 4:17 PM:
danielh wrote on Jan 1, 2008 4:14 PM:
tompazo wrote on Jan 1, 2008 4:11 PM:
Brian wrote on Jan 1, 2008 4:01 PM:
Brian wrote on Jan 1, 2008 3:59 PM:
Brian wrote on Jan 1, 2008 3:45 PM:
you don't want us to have the ability to
get terrorists without clogging up the court system. You're pro-abortion, You can't stand the fact that our covert operations overseas uses torture and it is very effective. Last time I looked habeas corpus hasn't been suspended. This probably has something to do with the patriot act denying americans their civil rights, a myth. And you're quite clear that you believe what the "loose change" crowd says about 9/11. I have so much more to comment on your liberalism.
I'll let you digest this for now.
"
wtf wrote on Jan 1, 2008 3:17 PM:
http://www.pr-usa.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=55589&Itemid=9
This is an excellent article, but the last sentence should read:
"If he fails to produce a top tier finish right before your very eyes, it will only demonstrate that the prodigious conjuring of the American media has trumped him with a spellbinding illusion that he was simply no match for...and the vote was rigged."
Diebold and all voting systems have been proven, repeatedly, to be extremely hackable and unreliable for a proper vote count. Then there's this:
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/19098
and, once again, this:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/rosnerPage.jhtml
We need a presidential candidate who puts AMERICA first, second and third and Ron Paul is that man. "
danielh wrote on Jan 1, 2008 3:04 PM:
wtf wrote on Jan 1, 2008 1:51 PM:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7164898.stm
And NAFTA? Part of what you seem to endorse just makes things worse for all parties involved. Not only are the Mexican workers harmed, Americans will have to pay for it.
http://www.plenglish.com/Article.asp?ID=%7B9C5E8E64-CC78-4D38-909C-C3CFADDDEFD4%7D&language=EN
As 2008 begins, here are SOME of the issues that have endangered our democracy and the lives of so many around the world. For all of 2007, there was no action, nor were there any plans to:
Impeachment against George W. Bush and Dick Cheney
End the illegal and immoral wars against Iraq and Afghanistan
Challenge the lies about a nuclear buildup in Iran
Investigate what really happened on 9/11
Repeal the Patriot Act
Investigate official misconduct by Alberto Gonzalez
Investigate the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame
Charge those who allowed the torture of Iraqis
Investigate rendition and torture of detainees
Close Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay Prisons
Challenge the abuse of signing statements by George Bush
Investigate the administrations spying on Americans before 9/11
Challenge the constitutionality of the Military Commissions Act
Challenge directives giving George Bush dictatorial powers
Demand accountability for billions misspent and lost in Iraq
Demand accountability for billions paid to private contractors
Expose the influence of PNAC members on US foreign policy
Challenge the lies to minimize the dangers of global warming
Restore the constitutional division of church and state
Protect a womans right to privacy
Restore habeas corpus and the Fourth Amendment
and on and on and on
You support **that**???!!? You want more of that? With the current crop of politicians running for president, this is what we'll get.....more of the same.
As the following linked article shows, this is a list of who is good for Israel. Israel!!???! What about America? And please note that RON PAUL is NOT in the list.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/rosnerPage.jhtml "
danielh wrote on Jan 1, 2008 12:39 PM:
WRONG: "The north american union does not involve erasing the borders." It most certainly does. In fact, the constitution would become an irrelevant museum piece.
wtf was CORRECT: "[He] insists on alleging these politicians don't consider our sovereignty important.
FACT: They don't. "
danielh wrote on Jan 1, 2008 12:34 PM:
danielh wrote on Jan 1, 2008 12:33 PM:
danielh wrote on Jan 1, 2008 12:29 PM:
The cartel relationship is concealed. Consequently, congress approves the Feds appointment of a chairman. The appointment is purely a theatrical display and a waste of time: if congress disapproves, the Fed could keep the chosen chairman anyway.
Historically, honest banks have a vault of silver or gold, and they issue paper notes that are redeemable for silver or gold when they are presented back to the bank. Such honest banks were located in Carthage (ancient Africa), Constantinople, Venice (about 1000 A.D.), and Hamburg (which fell at the hands of Napoleon who pillaged the bank vault).
By comparison, the Federal Reserve notes are not derived form a single ounce of precious metal. If Fort Knox serves any function, it might be for our elite leaders to control wealth, and to assure that the regular-class citizens do not have that gold. Hence, FDR confiscated the gold.
The Federal Reserve uses debt as a basis to back-up the currency. If a bank shows a debt of $100, there is a shell game of about 30 confusing steps. Put simply, the Fed uses a ratio to calculate the amount of money return. I believe the ratio is 3:1. Accordingly, $300 is eventually returned to the bank that can show that it is owed $100.
Banks hate to have their loans paid off, because the 3:1 ratio causes the Federal Reserve to take money back away from the bank. This is very much contrary to the thank you note, and the congratulations that the bank gives. People think that banks are in the business of earning interest on the value of the loan they borrow. This is only a small part of the truth. When someone takes out a loan, the bank earns interest on 3:1 of the amount that they borrowed.
During WW-I, the treasury campaigned for citizens to buy war bonds, to help the war. The purpose of this campaign was to create the appearance of money coming out of citizens, not out of thin air as a magician trick. Every time someone bought a war bond, the Federal Reserve destroyed 3:1 times the value that was borrowed, and it actually depleted money from congresss storehouse of money. Although congress considered it a hindrance, the deception was very important.
"
danielh wrote on Jan 1, 2008 11:28 AM:
danielh wrote on Jan 1, 2008 11:26 AM:
voter wrote on Jan 1, 2008 10:03 AM:
Brian wrote on Jan 1, 2008 9:31 AM:
voter wrote on Jan 1, 2008 9:25 AM:
Brian wrote on Jan 1, 2008 9:21 AM:
Brian wrote on Jan 1, 2008 9:19 AM:
BY: Edward Flaherty, Ph.D. Department of Economics College of Charleston, S.C.
The constitution does not give Congress the specific right to create a central bank. Unless the specific power is spelled out, according to a strict interpretive philosophy, then Congress does not have it. Therefore, the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 is unconstitutional. Moreover, paper money itself is unconstitutional for the same reason. Only gold or silver coin is permitted by the constitution.
The Constitutional Basis for Central Banking
First, the constitution grants the Congress the rights to regulate money. Specifically, it has the right to coin money and regulate its value. It is not clear from the constitution or the Federalist Papers what the authors meant by the term 'value.' Traditionally, it has meant the weight and metallic content of the coin. No one challenges this interpretation. On the other hand, the only relevant meaning of 'value' in the context of money is its value in trade, also known as its purchasing power. This a government cannot regulate merely by an Act of Congress. The government's only tool for regulating this latter value is altering the money supply.
Second, Congress has the right to regulate interstate commerce. Banking and other financial services clearly involves interstate commerce as the courts have come to define it.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Congress has the right to make any law that is 'necessary and proper' for the execution of its enumerated powers (Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 18). A law creating a Bureau of the Mint, for example, is necessary and proper for the Congress to exercise its right to coin money. A similar argument may justify a central bank. It facilitates the expansion and contraction of the money supply and it serves as means to regulate the banking industry.
Is this a reasonable use of the necessary and proper clause? I do not know, but a test of its meaning came early. The history of central banking in the United States does not begin with the Federal Reserve. The Bank of the United States received its charter in 1791 from the U.S. Congress and Washington signed it. Secretary of State Alexander Hamilton designed the Bank's charter by modeling it after the Bank of England, the British central bank. Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson believed the Bank was unconstitutional because it was an unauthorized extension of federal power. Congress, Jefferson argued, possessed only delegated powers that were specifically enumerated in the constitution. The only possible source of authority to charter the Bank, Jefferson believed, was in the necessary and proper clause. However, he cautioned that if the clause could be interpreted so broadly in this case, then there was no real limit to what Congress could do.2
Hamilton conceded that the constitution was silent on banking. He asserted, however, that Congress clearly had the power to tax, to borrow money, and to regulate interstate and foreign commerce. Would it be reasonable for Congress to charter a corporation to assist in carrying out these powers? He argued that the necessary and proper clause gave Congress implied powers -- the power to enact any law that is necessary to execute its specific powers. A necessary law in this context Hamilton did not take to mean one that was absolutely indispensable. Instead, he argued that it meant a law that was needful, requisite, incidental, useful, or conducive to the primary Congressional power which it supported. Then Hamilton offered a proposed rule of discretion: Does the proposed measure abridge a pre-existing right of any State or of any individual? (Dunne, 19). If not, then it probably is constitutionally proper on these grounds. Hamiltons arguments carried the day and convinced Washington.
The Supreme Court had its say on the matter as well. In McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) the Supreme Court voted 9-0 to uphold the Second Bank of the United States as constitutional. The Court argued with the doctrine of implied powers, stating that to be necessary and proper the Bank needed only to be useful in helping the government meet its responsibilities in maintaining the public credit and regulating the money supply. Chief Justice Marshall wrote, After the most deliberate consideration, it is the unanimous and decided opinion of this court that the act to incorporate the Bank of the United States is a law made in pursuance of the Constitution, and is part of the supreme law of the land (Hixson, 117). The Court affirmed this opinion in the 1824 case Osborn v. Bank of the United States (Ibid, 14).
Therefore, the historical legal precedent exists for Congress' power to create a central bank. It formed the Federal Reserve system in 1913 to perform many of the same functions as its predecessor. As before, the courts have agreed that a central bank, and the Federal Reserve in particular, is constitutional.
"
Brian wrote on Jan 1, 2008 9:11 AM:
It seems to me this is a reputable site.
Let's see anyone try to refute any of the info on this site. I challenge you Ron Paulers. The fact of the matter is, this is a government site. Many of those democrats now supporting Paul probably visit the moveon.org site for their daily dose of propaganda. It's not even a government site. "
Cogito wrote on Jan 1, 2008 8:46 AM:
nylodian wrote on Jan 1, 2008 5:40 AM:
wtf wrote on Jan 1, 2008 1:54 AM:
"
danielh wrote on Jan 1, 2008 1:21 AM:
danielh wrote on Jan 1, 2008 1:18 AM:
danielh wrote on Jan 1, 2008 1:17 AM:
danielh wrote on Jan 1, 2008 1:14 AM:
danielh wrote on Jan 1, 2008 1:10 AM:
danielh wrote on Jan 1, 2008 1:09 AM:
danielh wrote on Jan 1, 2008 1:07 AM:
Cogito wrote on Jan 1, 2008 1:05 AM:
danielh wrote on Jan 1, 2008 1:02 AM:
Fact: What the SPP seeks to do, is unify Canada, USA and Mexico. Unification of economics must preceed unification of governments, so the SPP seeks to unify econoomics first. Consequently, jobs will flow not only into Mexico, out of Canada and USA, but more importantly, from the private sector into the large business sector.
The purported myth is almost true. US Standards of economics will diminish. We will see diminishment of both quality and jobs. "
wtf wrote on Jan 1, 2008 12:59 AM:
danielh wrote on Jan 1, 2008 12:58 AM:
Brian wrote on Dec 31, 2007 10:01 PM:
Brian wrote on Dec 31, 2007 9:53 PM:
Myth vs. Fact
Myth: The SPP was an agreement signed by Presidents Bush and his Mexican and Canadian counterparts in Waco, TX, on March 23, 2005.
Fact: The SPP is a dialogue to increase security and enhance prosperity among the three countries. The SPP is not an agreement nor is it a treaty. In fact, no agreement was ever signed.
Myth: The SPP is a movement to merge the United States, Mexico, and Canada into a North American Union and establish a common currency.
Fact: The cooperative efforts under the SPP, which can be found in detail at www.spp.gov, seek to make the United States, Canada and Mexico open to legitimate trade and closed to terrorism and crime. It does not change our courts or legislative processes and respects the sovereignty of the United States, Mexico, and Canada. The SPP in no way, shape or form considers the creation of a European Union-like structure or a common currency. The SPP does not attempt to modify our sovereignty or currency or change the American system of government designed by our Founding Fathers.
Myth: The SPP is being undertaken without the knowledge of the U.S. Congress.
Fact: U.S. agencies involved with SPP regularly update and consult with members of Congress on our efforts and plans.
Myth: The SPP infringes on the sovereignty of the United States.
Fact: The SPP respects and leaves the unique cultural and legal framework of each of the three countries intact. Nothing in the SPP undermines the U.S. Constitution. In no way does the SPP infringe upon the sovereignty of the United States.
Myth: The SPP is illegal and violates the Constitution.
Fact: The SPP is legal and in no way violates the Constitution or affects the legal authorities of the participating executive agencies. Indeed, the SPP is an opportunity for the governments of the United States, Canada, and Mexico to discuss common goals and identify ways to enhance each nations security and prosperity. If an action is identified, U.S. federal agencies can only operate within U.S. law to address these issues. The Departments of Commerce and Homeland Security coordinate the efforts of the agencies responsible for the various initiatives under the prosperity and security pillars of the SPP. If an agency were to decide a regulatory change is desirable through the cooperative efforts of SPP, that agency is required to conform to all existing U.S. laws and administrative procedures, including an opportunity to comment.
Myth: The U.S section of the SPP is headed by the Department of Commerce.
Fact: The SPP is a White House-driven initiative. In the United States, the Department of Commerce coordinates the Prosperity component, while the Department of Homeland Security coordinates the Security component. The Department of State ensures the two components are coordinated and are consistent with U.S. foreign policy.
Myth: The U.S. Government, working though the SPP, has a secret plan to build a "NAFTA Super Highway."
Fact: The U.S. government is not planning a NAFTA Super Highway. The U.S. government does not have the authority to designate any highway as a NAFTA Super Highway, nor has it sought such authority, nor is it planning to seek such authority. There are private and state level interests planning highway projects which they themselves describe as "NAFTA Corridors," but these are not Federally-driven initiatives, and they are not a part of the SPP.
Myth: The U.S. Government, through the Department of Transportation, is funding secretive highway projects to become part of a NAFTA Super Highway.
Fact: Many States in the American Midwest are proposing or undertaking highway projects to improve or build roads as Federal-aid and State or private sector revenue becomes available. All projects involving Federal-aid funds or approvals are subject to normal Federal-aid requirements, such as review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), including public involvement. This public involvement, the common thread among all these activities, makes them anything but secret. In addition, Congress directs Department of Transportation funding for specific highway projects.
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) will continue to cooperate with the State transportation departments as they build and upgrade highways to meet the needs of the 21st century. Rather than evidence of a secret plan to create a NAFTA Super Highway that would undermine our national sovereignty, the FHWAs efforts are a routine part of cooperation with all the State transportation departments to improve the Nations highways.
Myth: U.S. Government officials sponsored a secret SPP planning meeting in Banff, Alberta in September 2006.
Fact: The U.S. Government did not sponsor the meeting in Banff. The North American Forum, a private initiative that is separate from the U.S. Government, hosted the September 12-14, 2006 conference Continental Prosperity in the New Security Environment. Academics, businesspersons, private citizens, and government officials from the U.S., Mexican, and Canadian governments attended the conference. The North American Forum is not a product of the SPP.
Myth: The SPP will cost U.S. taxpayers money.
Fact: The SPP is being implemented with existing budget resources. Over the long-term, it will save U.S. taxpayers money by cutting through costly red tape and reducing redundant paperwork. This initiative will benefit the taxpayers through economic gain and increased security, thereby enhancing the competitiveness and quality of life in our countries.
Myth: The working groups and SPP documents are a secret and not available to the public.
Fact: The SPPs initiatives and milestones with timelines can be found by clicking the Report to Leaders link at www.spp.gov. The Web site contains a section to enable interested persons to provide input directly to the various working groups.
Myth: The SPP seeks to lower U.S. standards through a regulatory cooperation framework.
Fact: The framework will support and enhance cooperation and encourage the compatibility of regulations among the three partners while maintaining high standards of health and safety. Any regulatory changes will require agencies to conform to all U.S. administrative procedures, including an opportunity to comment. Enhanced cooperation in this area will provide consumers with more affordable, safer, and more diversified and innovative products.
Myth: The SPP is meant to deal with immigration reform and trade disputes.
Fact: Immigration reform is a legislative matter currently being debated in Congress and is not being dealt with in the SPP. Likewise, trade disputes between the United States, Canada, and Mexico are resolved in the NAFTA and WTO mechanisms and not the SPP.
Myth: The SPP will result in the loss of American jobs.
Fact: The SPP seeks to create jobs by reducing transaction costs and unnecessary burdens for U.S. companies, which will bolster the competitiveness of our firms globally. These efforts will help U.S. manufacturers, spur job creation, and benefit consumers.
Myth: The SPP will harm our quality of life.
Fact: The SPP improves the safety and well-being of Americans. It builds on efforts to protect our environment, improves our ability to combat infectious diseases, such as avian influenza, and ensures our food supply is safe through the exchange of information and cooperation ─ improving the quality of life for U.S. citizens. Americans enjoy world class living standards because we are engaged with the world.
Myth: The SPP creates a NAFTA-plus legal status between the three countries.
Fact: The SPP does not seek to rewrite or renegotiate NAFTA. It creates no NAFTA-plus legal status.
"
Brian wrote on Dec 31, 2007 9:49 PM:
wtf wrote on Dec 31, 2007 9:01 PM:
On page 8, it states, "Establish a common security perimeter by 2010. The governments of Canada, Mexico and the United States should articulate as their long-term goal a common security perimeter for North America" What was that you were saying about, Brian, about Ron Paul spreading a North American Union "conspiracy"? Hmmm...like jimh said, there's NO conspiracy, it's in the works. You want some politicos with that? Here are some notable members of the CFR you might recognize: Dick Cheney
John Kerry
Bill Clinton
Al Gore
Ronald Reagan
George H. W. Bush
Gerald Ford
Richard Nixon
John, David & Nelson Rockefeller
Condolezza Rice
Paul Wolfowitz
Alan Greenspan
Colin Powell
Henry Kissinger
Angelina Jolie (Yes, the actress has a five year term membership as an ambassador) "
wtf wrote on Dec 31, 2007 8:38 PM:
wtf wrote on Dec 31, 2007 8:33 PM:
Brian wrote on Dec 31, 2007 8:15 PM:
Brian wrote on Dec 31, 2007 8:09 PM:
jmh wrote on Dec 31, 2007 8:03 PM:
jmh wrote on Dec 31, 2007 7:59 PM:
Brian wrote on Dec 31, 2007 7:56 PM:
"
jmh wrote on Dec 31, 2007 7:51 PM:
Ron Paul has no intention of having "the government to seize all the gold and silver from us." He actually believes that people have a right to their property. The goovernment does not have a right to peoples property, that is one reason that he opposes property taxes. Property taxes essentially require the people to pay rent on their property, and effectively the government thereby owns the property. He wants you to own your peoperty .. all of it, including any gold or silver you have. "
Brian wrote on Dec 31, 2007 7:48 PM:
Brian wrote on Dec 31, 2007 7:46 PM:
Brian wrote on Dec 31, 2007 7:42 PM:
wtf wrote on Dec 31, 2007 7:36 PM:
Brian wrote on Dec 31, 2007 7:26 PM:
Brian wrote on Dec 31, 2007 7:17 PM:
unlimited power to print money as the economy grows. As long as people are being born and growing up and entering the workforce it would be counterproductive to go back to gold or silver standard. Perhaps you are right that the federal reserve is unconstitutional. But then, I'm not ready for the government to seize all the gold and silver from us. This is what Ron Paul may be proposing. He's behind the times and longing for days of old. And you want his as president? "
John B wrote on Dec 31, 2007 7:09 PM:
>>>If he had it his way, all of our
>>>troops would be home singing carols
>>>around the fire. All their hard work
>>>in other countries protecting the
>>>people from corrupt governments
Brian, protect us from corrupt govt like the democratically elected govt in Iran in the early 1950s which our CIA overthrew? This caused more problems like the hostage taking and the current nuclear development issue.
Iran had a democratically elected govt that we overthrew. Ron Paul would have left that govt in place and expand free trade with them. Brian could you imagine that we would now have better relations with Iran if we had followed Ron Paul's path?
Also consider Cuba and what good/bad has come in the last decades of our embargo. Canada, Latin America, Europe all trade with Cuba. Why shouldn't America promote free trade with Cuba?
Brian, please let me know your thoughts on our military progress in the past several decades with Iran and Cuba.
Thanks. "
wtf wrote on Dec 31, 2007 7:01 PM:
Brian wrote on Dec 31, 2007 7:00 PM:
jmh wrote on Dec 31, 2007 6:17 PM:
Your alegation that Ron Paul "has a liking for the Nazi party" is barely worth responding to, however for clarification for those that are uninformed, Ron Paul has never supported the Nazi party in any speech, writing, legislation, or any other fasion either directly or indirectly and any alegations to the contrary are nothing more than baseless ad hominem attacks by persons unable to factually find fault with his official Congressional record.
Oh, and "All their hard work in other countries protecting the people from corrupt governments"?!?! How about some protection from our corrupt government? And don't try to tell me it's not corrupt.
When people fear the government there is tyranny. When the government fears the people there is liberty. - Thomas Jefferson
"
Brian wrote on Dec 31, 2007 4:55 PM:
Cogito wrote on Dec 31, 2007 2:11 PM:
wtf wrote on Dec 31, 2007 11:18 AM:
http://www.opednews.com/articles/1/genera_bev_harr_071230_new_problems_identif.htm
Bev Harris doesn't know who tabulates the final vote; but look at my last post, a very good indication of who that is. This is very important when you look at AOL's "spam proof" poll. Where Ron Paul is not listed as the leader, he's tied with the person AOL has listed or just 1% point behind in second place.
http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2007/12/21/straw-poll-dec-21-jan-4/?ncid=NWS00010000000001
"
wtf wrote on Dec 31, 2007 11:05 AM:
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/18410
Here's why:
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=116052
"
wtf wrote on Dec 31, 2007 10:48 AM:
http://www.nolanchart.com/article813.html
http://rattube.com/blog1/2007/12/31/fox-news-bans-ron-paul-from-forum/
"
danielh wrote on Dec 31, 2007 9:04 AM:
After a failed impeachment drive, Bush would be more powerful than before. "
danielh wrote on Dec 31, 2007 8:55 AM:
danielh wrote on Dec 31, 2007 8:54 AM:
danielh wrote on Dec 31, 2007 8:51 AM:
Comments on this story are now closed.