" Bry: Thanks. That's funny. Even though he does, in my opinion, have a mental state, I would still hope that his health is OK.

He is an icon with the LNS, so if he is missing, that means he is either out of town, or something happened to him. "

" Bry - the only Republican candidate who CAN win in November, unfortunately, is McCain. I'm a Republican and can't stomach any of them; my hope and my vote is for the lesser of ONE evil - whoever can beat Hillary Clinton. "

" To danielh: Was Leonerdy ever okay? That is a rhetorical question. The answer is quite clear. "

" It does appear that McCain will win the Republican nomination and of course it is to the delight of all liberal Democrats. As McCain is a self minded flip flopping liberal himself, who will say and do anything to gain the vote. I guess with today's moral decline there are very few true conservatives left in America. Obviously, the Democrats will win the election and that only exacerbates America's impending demise. "

" that shut dowon the thread. "

" Brian: Is Leonard OK? "

" Thanks, Brian, I'll check out the book. "

" wtf and Danielh, I've noticed how civilized this discussion is going without Leonard throwing a wrench in the works. We all may notr always agree
but there is always a happy medium we can reach. wtf, your welcome. Incidently, you should also look into Mark Steyn's book "American Alone" It's fabulous. "

" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9At-PejXNIw "

" girard74 guess you've forgotten....you've "won" because "It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in an argument" because that is exactly what you are. "

" Edwards as well has been maintaining the same fraudulent campaign from the beginning. I've sent him messages encouraging him to stop taking money; yet he kept on with his rant of winning, winning, winning; knowing full well that he could not and would not win. That is fraud.

Now he's out - how many people have lost money for no good reason - and because of a 'message'?

It isn't just Washington that is broken. It is also the concept of stealing money from citizens in futile attempts to get to Washington. "

" An interesting concept - make a run for the presidency; take people's money; advertise that I am a viable candidate (that I actually can win); when in reality I had/have no intention or possibility of winning.

Now, in the business world if I sell stock in a business knowing that the business will fail, I would be prosecuted for fraud.

Of course I would hope to be acquitted because I was able to get my message out, yet I couldn't argue my actions were based upon any kind of 'principles' other than fraudulent ones.

Yeah, I understand now. "

" The last post is a quote from Ron Paul himself. "

" In Nevada, Ron Paul won 14% of the straw poll vote that the media reported on, but what they didn't tell you was that we may have gotten up to a third of Nevada's delegates to their county conventions! I always laughed when I heard some people say Nevada didn't matter. Nevada chooses more delegates to the national convention than South Carolina. "

" You're right, danielh, it's highly unlikely the power brokers will allow Ron Paul to be elected - in spite of what the people want; however, here's a couple items of interest.

Contrary to the impression you may be getting from the mainstream media, no national delegates have yet been won in Florida. Those delegates will only be awarded between February 6 and April 30 at delegate selection caucuses, and many of those delegates will be supporters of Dr. Paul.

"

" girard: I think most of us know that it would take a miracle to elect Ron Paul. The point is that he is campaigning for the right principles, and it gets a message to the American people. "

" So far Ron Paul has four delegates; wow - that's only four more than I have!! I think I'll run for president!!!! "

" Wait a minute, Giuliani, who received 15% of the vote in Florida, has decided to abandon his bid.

Paul, who received 3% of the vote in Florida, has decided to remain in the race.

At least Giuliani understands and accepts reality - he deserves a lot of respect.

Paul is delusional and the majority of his supporters (at least those I've encountered) are brain-dead.

I really look forward to the Inevitable Paul Implosion ('IPI'). "

" Fact:

Edwards - 15%
Huckabee - 13%
Paul - 3%

These candidates are no longer viable. "

" ooops! The nominee is McCain. It's all over. Paul [can] start printing those rebate checks!! "

" The nominee is McCain. It's all over. Paul and start printing those rebate checks!! "

" So, what I'm hearing out there is that candidates should raise lots and lots of money. And instead of spending it on things (you know, like TV ads, radio ads, flyers, telephone calls, etc., etc.), they should save it for a rainy day? $20 million won't go far over 22 states at one time.

Paul, who has been consistently at about 3%-6% in the polls doesn't use the money raised to help him garner more support during the campaign? Hopefully his supporters can expect a rebate.

Ron Paul is an absolute genius!!!! "

" http://adage.com/campaigntrail/article?article_id=123394

Let's help him keep on rolling....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcuDazE1T_U

"

" "Paul, who has raised a reported war chest exceeding $20 million, has spent, by our analysis, only around $2.5 million on TV ads thus far. The Paul campaign as of yesterday has begun buying in states such as Texas, which hold primaries after Super Tuesday. Paul could outspend his rivals on TV down the stretch of the GOP races, and the way this campaign has gone, who would really be surprised?"

Well golly gee, Ron Paul has **only** spent $2.5 million - a REAL fiscal conservative - EXACTLY what we need in America's current financial crisis. "

" Oh, and what's this?

Primary Tally So Far: 160,000 TV Spots and $141M in Spending And Be Prepared for the Ron Paul Onslaught

"There is no telling what cards the GOP contenders will have left to play post-Florida, and thus far no one is spending beyond the state except for one candidate. As it turns out, a consultant on the Republican side could take a lesson from none other than Rep. Ron Paul. Paul may have just guessed this race correctly."

"

" Gee, girard, would look at this?

And then there were FOUR....

Giuliani To Endorse McCain Wednesday

http://www.wnbc.com/news/15170777/detail.html

"

" McCain's victory appeared to be slim and political observers say such a close contest means Super Tuesday, when Utah holds it's primary along with 21 other states, will be an all-out fight for the nomination, with no clear front-runner.

"It has blown the race wide open," says KellyAnne Conway, president of the Washington-based Polling Co.Previous early state battles haven't yielded a clear front-runner.

http://origin.sltrib.com/ci_8111384

There are 50 states in the U.S. Only 5, and with Florida, now 6, states have held primaries - there are 44 more to go.

g-man you're an idiot. "

" I wonder at what point is it that a candidate needs to consider his/her own professional and personal integrity when he/she continues to ask for and actually receives Americans' hard-earned money knowing full well he/she cannot and will not succeed.
Florida -

Edwards - 15%
Huckabee - 13%
Paul - 3%

These candidates are no longer viable. "

" Ron Paul, breaking loose in the national polls, still sits at 5.2%. Obviously his current status reflects well the massive support and huge influx of cash being touted by his incredibly loyal, albeit foolish, followers. "

" Brian give your wonderful wife another BIG thank you. In the video, they mention a book by Daniel Estulin called "The True Story of the Bilderberg Group" which I ordered. Don't know if you've read "The Creature from Jekyll Island" but this Bilderberg Group sounds like the international version of that "duck hunting" group so many years ago that met to form the Fed. "

" I don't bet; but it seems from the articles I posted that the odds numbers are constantly in flux. Therefore, my bet is on the long-shot, dark horse, Ron Paul.

GO RON PAUL! "

" It's interesting that the odds went up against Ron Paul around the same time the MSM started blacking out coverage on him; however, in spite of the MSM, as of yesterday, January 28, 2008, it says:

"[O]n the eve of the Florida Primary, betting odds on Ron Paul winning the Republican Nomination have been slashed from 25 to 1 down to 10 to 1 odds at BodogLife.com."

http://www.point-spreads.com/politics/012808-ron-paul-presidential-betting-odds-slashed.html
"

" Then on October 1, 2007, it says:

"The gambling public seems to believe that 2008 Presidential candidate Ron Paul stands a very good chance of winning, so much so that this past week odds on Dr. Paul have been slashed further from 8 to 1 down to 6 to 1, with the potential payout of $600 for every $100 bet. (see betting odds at Sportsbook.com)."

http://www.gambling911.com/Ron-Paul-100107.html "

" Then on May 30, 2007, it says:

"Carrie Stroup here with some startling news concerning Ron Paul. Sportsbook.com (see website here) had experienced such a dramatically insurgence of betting action on Mr. Paul over the past two weeks they were forced to slash odds from 200 to 1 to the current 15 to 1 odds."

http://www.gambling911.com/Ron-Paul-Odds-053107.html "

" Hey Brian & danielH - might want to take a look at these articles on gambling911. In an article dated May 22, 2007, it says:

"Ron Paul still offers great value at Sportsbook.com. Two weeks ago, the 2008 Presidential candidate was overlooked on the betting odds menu. In only a 24 hour period, Paul's odds have been slashed from 200 to 1 to 100 to 1."

http://www.gambling911.com/Ron-Paul-Presidential-Odds-052207.html
"

" For anyone interested, sportsbook.com has Ron Paul running 25-1 odds against his winning the Republican nomination. While not scientific, it certainly keeps things in perspective. "

" This was found on the website for the movie "Trade"

The practice of slavery in the US is something most people think ended with the 13th Amendment in 1865, but in recent years it has returned in an even more virulent form. Fueled by...sieve-like borders, the traffic in human beings has become an epidemic of colossal dimensions. The State Department estimates that as many as 800,000 people are trafficked over
international frontiers each year, largely for sexual exploitation.

http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1809420398/details "

" "Bordertown" is based on the true events in Juarez, Mexico where all of those women were murdered. This from a section about the film:

"When women "disappear," they are easily replaced in the factories. They are victims of the unfeeling, de-humanized face of "globalization." The local authorities, the corporations, the Mexican government and the United States government are more interested in covering up these murders than in doing anything about them."

http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1808762628/details

"

" Tell your wife, Thanks! Brian. That film (just watched it) is a real eye opener. I've noticed a couple of DVDs that are being released today that also address "loose" borders. The film "Traffic" and the film "Bordertown" "

" Thank my wife for the Endgame. She is a Coasttocoastam fan. George Noory has some very interesting guests and topics.
It's good brain food. "

" Thanks for the "Endgame" link, Brian. I've been wanting to see that. "

" Ohh.... I just now saw the Bilderberg link. I was referring to the one before.

It isn't like you to acknowledge the Bilderberg's. They are more secretive than the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission.

Bilderberg's don't even divulge their membership roster.

The only way to associate a person with the Bilderberg's is to sight them at the entrance to the meeting.

One of the Clinton's was seen there. I forget which one. I think it was Bill.

Wolfowitz was also seen at a Bilderberg meeting. "

" Brian: Did you see my letter in the Tucson Citizen? Also, I'll have to follow the link after work. "

" http://www.bilderberg.org/ "

" girard: Good morning! I feel great! How are you feeling this morning? "

" girard: What difference does it make whether I asked you about an alcohol problem at 11:00, or at 11:31?

Additionally: you don't know anything about computer programming. At 11:00, LNS must've changed their file system, whereas a logical thing for a user to do is try a different browser program, in a separate window.

Duh. "

" wtf: I'll have to look at the link after work. "

" http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1070329053600562261

Danielh, This documentary caled "Endgame"
goes right in line with many people's belief that the Constitution is an endangered specie. "

" danielH: Read the following link. The resemblance to an indiviual we've both been dealing with recently is described in perfect detail.

http://www.medialens.org/articles/the_articles/articles_2002/gm_fake_persuaders.html
"

" danielH I have read "The Creature From Jekyll Island" and totally agree with you; it is an **excellent** book. Another book that might interest you is "The House of Morgan" by Ron Chernow. Halfway through, you can virtually "see" where America became a nation of debt versus assets in the early 1980s. I also recall being worried when Bill Clinton repealed the Glass-Steagall Act. The removal of this check from banking seems to be directly related to what we are now experiencing in our economy. "

" danielh - Since you have shown that you cannot debate honestly, I won't respond to you any further, on this thread or any in the future as I have with others who don't 'play' fairly, regardless of how much you attempt to bait me. I also know that you don't care, so you need not respond. "

" danielh - Your claim that a post wasn't accepted at 11:00 until a half-hour later - after TWO other posts of yours WERE accepted between 11:00 and 11:30 is proposterous!!!

You shouldn't raise the issue of 'credibility' when your deceit was already proved beyond all doubt. No one is going to believe that the system misplaced your post for half an hour, especially since the requirement for registration came into play. Prior to that, perhaps - but the system has been working flawlessly since then.

Nice try, though. "

" Again, as always, those that support Paul simply don't answer questions. Even when they're caught red-handed in flat out deception, they bob and weave. Thankfully for most of you submitting to this thread, it won't be read by too many people. But I will remember the screen names of those who lie - count on it.

And predictably, there will be an attempt to blame the Lodi News-Sentinel. Sorry, the system is working just fine. "

" LNS: Interesting bug: My post at 11:31 was actually submitted at 11:00, and it did not commit until I refreshed my screen (at 11:31). "

" girard: You act like you have an alcohol problem. If you want to threaten me for a bad reputation, at least you can show some credibility. "

" Hmmmm... I think it's a heckler shouting political slogans. "

" wtf: Whereas "Creature from Jekyll Island" is absolutely essential to understand, as a beginner's book, I can only hint at the existence of more important information. "

" danielh - Sadly, your efforts to 'endorse [someone else's] accusations against [me]' are forever useless. You've proven that you are untrustworthy causing anything and everything that you have ever 'said' to be suspect. I wouldn't want to be you, and thankfully I am not anything like you. I am a big supporter of good old basic truthfulness and those who are truthful toward me, no matter how much I may disagree with them, will always have my respect. You better change your screen name - 'danielh' can no longer be trusted. "

" wtf: I recommend you get your hands on a book called, "Creature from Jekyll Island," by G. Edward Griffin, published by American Opinion Publishing, Inc., WI, 2002, 608 pages. The most reliable link to get it is straight from the publisher, at http://aobs-store.com/store/product365.html

Dr. Griffin has accompanied Ron Paul in his campaign tour, as his guest speaker. I have never met Dr. Griffin, although my friends tell me he came to Lodi twice while I was in the US Navy.

The people who published the book have enabled me to twice meet Ron Paul. "

" danielH - obviously you must still be very tired. You're attempting to validate 'your' reference to the 16th Amendment. You made no such reference, yet you take credit for bringing it up? Wow!! Lying doesn't become you or anyone else. Beyond bigotry, liars also cause me considerable consternation. Up until now I at least respected your opinions, as you can read from my responses to you. The Ron Paul supporters that I have encountered thus far are incredibly uninformed, unintellegent, transparent and dishonest. Pity. "

" wtf: Your question about the 16th Amendment to the Constitution is of the utmost importance, because it enables our elite-class "leaders" to fund global imperialim.

I have heard several things, some of which I absolutely will not post on the public forum.

I can say that the 16th amendment was ratified by only 2 states.

The Federal Reserve is an illegal unconstitutional cartel, of the utmost corruption.

The IRS is required to partially re-pay their debt.

"

" wtf: I appologize for being unclear. I think it was the end of my work day, and before a nap that I needed. I was trying to endorse your accusations against girard. "

" danielH you mention the 16th Amendment to the Constitution. I'll have to look up the sources; but I know there are several cases that indicate this amendment was never properly ratified and this, in turn, poses the question as to its Constitutionality. What have you heard? "

" I also think girard74 protesteth too much i.e., he and his ilk - the neocons - are running scared. girard74 has revealed what he's about through his writing. The neocons have tried every way they could to marginalize Ron Paul; but he just keeps getting stronger. People like girard74 are flunkies used to give a false impression regarding the support Dr. Paul has - which is MASSIVE - hope girard74 gets paid well to spread his misinformation because he looks like such a total fool. "

" I made my initial post about Ron Paul because, to me, he would also protect America's independence in addition to the protection needed by congress mentioned in Aileen's letter.

Rather than simply ignore it; girard74 started in with his derogatory posts. It seems we are all wrong - myself, danielH and Bry - and only girard74 is right. NOT! "

" danielH you said to girard74 in your post Jan 28, 2008 2:33 PM that his skeptism is illogical.

I have to agree with you. In fact, it seems virtually all of his psuedo skeptical posts are illogical and only designed to create conflict. "

" Finally - it really doesn't matter, all of this Ron Paul stuff. His chance of becoming president (ever) is zero. I guess one has to admire him for standing on his convictions; unfortunately for his constituents in Texas, he hasn't done much for them. But, hey, they keep sending him back so they don't deserve too much sympathy.

The Ron Paulettes will sink into obscurity much the way the Ross Perot gang has drifted away. I gotta admit,though, it's been fun watching the implosion!!! "

" DanielH - The 16th Amendment to the US Constitution states, 'The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.' Without a Constitutional change, no president, including Ron Paul, has the power to abolish the income tax. Additionally, since only Congress is secured with the ability to assess and collect those taxes, only Congress has the ability to abolish the IRS.

I'm not brainwashed; I just like to have all of the facts. "

" DanielH - You stated that 'Ron Paul will abolish the Federal Income Tax.' Your response to my response was - 'Wrong: You said we cannot abolish the IRS. That is only because you have been told during your entire lifetime that the IRS is essential. You are merely agreeing with all the brainwashing.

The IRS and Federal Reserve go together. As one, so does the other.'

The major discrepancy here is that first you said that Ron Paul would abolish the IRS; yet you replace Ron Paul with 'we', in your response. Not a small distinction. Now we're limited to 100words. "

" girard74 - "It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in an argument."

I will repeat this until it sinks into your head. On another note, your phony "outrage" regarding my so-called anti-semitism is utterly ridiculous. You obviously do not know - and therefore I will inform you - being against Zionism - a POLITICAL animal like neo-cons - is NOT the same as being against Judaism - a religion. You're simply regurgitating what you hear on the nightly snooze and sound like a complete fool because you obviously do NOT know what you are talking about. In closing, I will reinforce:

"It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in an argument."

You've "won" girard74 now let it go. "

" girard74 - I will leave you with this quote that so accurately describes you:

"It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in an argument."

I told you once; you've "won" since it seems s0000 important to you. Now. Reread the above quote that fits you to a T and be done with it. "

" danielH: **BRILLIANT** posts and very eloquently put. "

" wtf - First of all, I referred to some individuals as 'dimwits,' not 'nitwits.' Try at least to get your accusations accurate (oh I see you changed your mind at the end of your latest rant, still you should have corrected the first).

'Jan 27, 2008 1:07 PM: You imply I am an anti-semite **and** a bigot.'

I view any type of bigotry as offensive and anti-American. Not only during this 'discussion' but a previous one as well, your own writings and opinions have given rise as to whether or not you are an anti-semite. During this particular session, it was YOU who first raised the issue - and it was not to deny that you may be anti-semetic, but only to warn me, '. . . before you start in with bogus "anti-semite" rants, girard74, this is NOT anti-semiticism.' Obviously you were still thinking about your previous 'thoughts' in a different discussion. Although not absolute, there is a well-known theory that when a person is accused of wrong-doing, an innocent one will vehemently deny the accusation. My references to whether or not you are a bigot have all been based upon the things that you have written. On numerous occasions I've actually asked you to clarify your position, e.g., 'I will certainly NOT ignore your anti-semitism. It comes through loud and clear. It is either that or you are completely ignorant regarding our long-standing relationship with Israel. As time goes on and I read your posts, I'm not too sure anymore which it is - bigotry or shear ignorance,' clearly providing the opportunity to choose from my list or provide one of your own, such as 'I AM NOT AN ANTI-SEMITE!!!' Yet you say nothing, except to criticize me for raising the question, valid as it is. I'm left with the conclusion that you are either an idiot or an anti-semite. Idiots I can deal with - they have an excuse. Anti-semites or any other kind of bigot don't get much of my time; after this message to you you won't hear from me again, no matter how much you try to bait me.

'Jan 27, 2008 2:48 PM: Again you called me a bigot.' See answer above.

'Jan 27, 2008 4:28 PM: Called me a "poser"' Gee, can't you take your own medicine? You referred to me as a 'shill.' What, you didn't think I'd look that one up? Shill defined: 'One who poses as a satisfied customer or an enthusiastic gambler to dupe bystanders into participating in a swindle,' as well as 'a decoy who acts as an enthusiastic customer in order to stimulate the participation of others.'

See you in the funny papers!

"

" To danielH: What allegations? "

" girard: If wtf's allegations are true, that would be inappropriate. "

" Girard: “How does he propose to convince a do-nothing Congress.” Ans: State of the Union Address in which the Nation is viewing the presidential speech. Wherever congress is noncompliant, voters have a chance to respond.

Your skeptism is illogical. You are proposing to waste a vote on a corrupt president, because an honest president can’t get congress to agree.
"

" Girard: Wrong: You said we cannot abolish the IRS. That is only because you have been told during your entire lifetime that the IRS is essential. You are merely agreeing with all the brainwashing.

The IRS and Federal Reserve go together. As one, so does the other.
"

" Girard: Misunderstanding: True you cannot abolish the promises that were granted under the social security system. But, you can abolish the system of serializing people like they are warehouse stock, each with a unique serial ID number, as property of the USA. Ron Paul suggested to make social security optional for young people. "

" girard74 you have called me names; you've called those who have the same perspective I do "nitwits" and it is *you* who has not really addressed anything that has been brought up. In fact, you appear to be unusually and purposefully obtuse. This quote by William Gibbs McAdoo sums up this "debate" with you:

"It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in an argument."

You win girard74; your ignorance guarantees it. As well as this quote by Elbert Green Hubbard:

"If you can't answer a man's arguments, all is not lost; you can still call him vile names."

Let's see how many times you've used vile names to characterize those whose posts you don't agree with, girard74:

Jan 27, 2008 1:07 PM: You imply I am an anti-semite **and** a bigot.

Jan 27, 2008 2:48 PM: Again you called me a bigot.

Jan 27, 2008 4:28 PM: Called me a "poser"

Jan 27, 2008 8:18 PM: Not content with calling me vile names; you call other posters who don't agree with you "dimwits"




"

" danielh - I appreciate your responses. I applaud your support for someone who pledges to get something done if he becomes president. There are a few problems with your logic, however.

First, every candidate promises to change what is wrong in Washington. The majority of those promises go unfulfilled. Why? I have my own idea, but I'll try and see the answer from Paul's perspective, as you have outlined it.

If Ron Paul becomes president, his ability to make law becomes incredibly limited as he will no longer be a lawmaker. Those same 'corrupt' Congressmen/women that you refer to will mostly still have their seats. How does he propose to convince a do-nothing Congress (of which he is now a member) to do something if he could not effectuate any change from within during the 11 years he was a member?

Second, and more specifically, Social Security cannot simply be 'abolished,' as you claim he will 'probably do,' unless I do not fully understand the word 'probably.' The promises made to millions of Americans (including me) with regard to the thousands of dollars withheld from my paycheck during my lifetime cannot simply be taken back.

Third, Paul will not be able to unilaterally abolish the IRS. Not to be rude, but the idea is simply absurd.

Maybe that is part of the problem. The workings in Washington and this nation are bigger and more complex than any one of us can understand or fathom. In fact, I would challenge any reasonably intelligent American to logically describe our current economic system and exactly how the dollar and or the DOW is effected by so many different events in so many different ways. From where I sit, it seems that if someone in Japan sneezes on someone who somehow has money invested in the stock market, the value of our economy may be effective in a positive or negative way depending upon the weather, the time of the day or day of the year (simplistic and silly, I know). To revert back to the gold standard, as you suggest that he will do, would take a complete overhaul of the system as it now exists. That simply isn't going to happen. I admit that it makes a good soundbite during election season, but it isn't something that can be done.

Our government has gotten so large and complicated that once a man (or woman) makes it to the White House, he/she finally realizes the enormity of it all and finds him/herself in a quagmire. Sure, they all mean well - but the reality proves that it's just too big.

My concern with Ron Paul's legislative record, as you have attempted to explain to me, still has me very concerned (as I am with all of the other congressional presidential candidates who have done little, if anything during their tenures). If Paul could not have had one of his bills at least make it out of committee (of which he is a member of several) during 11 years, how can we be confident that he will be able to be more pursuasive as president as will certainly be required? Without a doubt, the next Congress will still be controlled by the Democrats - nothing I've seen with Paul comes close to convincing me that he has the talent and intestinal fortitude to stand up to those people. Specifically, in the two Republican debates in which Paul was permitted to participate, his performance was, for lack of a better word, pathetic. He just doesn't put forth what I believe is necessary to withstand the pressure of the Oval Office.

As for the Iraq war - without writing a book I would state that as the 'war' exists currently, it does meet Constitutional standards. If it did not, as you seem to suggest, there would certainly have been many challenges made to those actions taken that brought about this conflict and one or more of those actions would have found their way to the Supreme Court - why hasn't that occurred?

There is a lot of blustering that Bush 'lied' and that he started an 'illegal' war. If this is actually believed, why haven't Articles of Impeachment been drawn up, as Kucinich seemed to desire so badly? Many people believe that Bill Clinton was impeached because of 'sex,' yet he was still impeached. Granted, the House of Representatives was controlled by the Republicans until last year, but wouldn't the day after the Democrats gained control have been the right time to move? Of course, Clinton wasn't impeached because of sex or anything else so lewd - he was brought to the Senate for reasons much more serious (but let's not get carried away with that now).

Okay, I've said enough. I'm done. I love this country as much as the next person, maybe more. I served in the Air Force for eight years (not unlike Ron Paul), and worked my butt off during my life to take care of myself and my children. I see America's greatest days ahead of her (sure, that's said a lot, but I DO believe it) and want the best possible people to lead the nation. "

" girard: Overall, Ron Paul is your only chance in 40 years to have a president who will restore the US Constitution. "

" girard: Based upon his record, why should I entrust my vote to Ron Paul?

Ron Paul’s voting record is probably 100% compliant with constitutional principles. If you want to uphold our constitution, this is the only vote that will assure constitutional principles.

Ron Paul will initiate steps to get us out of Iraq on the same day that he takes office, unless congress gives him a declaration of war.

Ron Paul will take steps to recover the national debt, and strengthen the dollar. Ron Paul will probably revert back to a precious metal standard.

Ron Paul will take steps to abolish the Federal Reserve, and request that congress do its constitutional responsibility to “coin the money.”

Ron Paul will abolish the Federal income tax.

Ron Paul will do these things with the understanding that the world is not the world policeman.

Ron Paul will probably abolish Social Security, providing for young people to refuse SS deductions and save for their own retirement.

"

" girard: I’ll take your 3:45 post, and also, your response to me, at 12:41.

First the 12:41 statement, which you repreated in 3:45:

You do not see why Ron Paul has a great record. You are measuring him by how many of his bills were approved by his colleagues. I originally said this is a corrupted measuring stick, because you are measuring his performance by the amount of agreement that he has received from a majority of congress which is comprised of corrupted House members.

So, it is wrong to say that if a majority comprised of corrupted officials fails to agree with Ron Paul, that Ron Paul was not successful. Conversely, he should be respected for standing-up for correct principles, in spite of the corrupted opposition.

Ron Paul is the only member of congress who said that we should not go into a war with Iraq unless it is authorized as a declaration of war. this truly is a constitutional principle, but congress refuses to acknowledge the constitution in spite of their oath of office.
"

" At 3:24 today (1/27) I posted a civil, logical question regarding the ongoing discourse about Ron Paul. I asked a very simple question that, so far, has gone unanswered and/or ignored.

Additionally, at 3:45 p.m. in response to another 'conversation' regarding the relationship between Reagan and Paul, I posted an additional civil, logical question. Likewise, that question went unanswered and/or ignored.

Instead, as usual, I'm treated with the same old, vitriol-laced verbiage that simply defies logic.

After a while I tire of such immaturity and realize that no matter how some people are approached and asked to support their contentions, when they have no answer they resort to what has occurred here today.

Most of the issues discussed on these types of venues are difficult and complicated. To rely on any one type of web-page, blog or other source to base one's opinion is, of course, ridiculous. Conversely, to base one's opinion on many different web-pages, blogs or other sources that are all leaning to one self-serving goal is equally as stupid. In my 'conversations' responding to this letter (which we've gotten very far away from) I referred to the legislative record website govtrack.us as it appeared to me to be the only one that supplied the facts regarding all members of Congress. While I did visit the majority of the sites offered by other writers, I found that the veracity of the information was tainted simply because they supported only one side of an issue.

To get back to the actual letter written by Aileen Boyce, my original post was simply to inquire as to where the author received her information. Unfortunately, Ms. Boyce apparently doesn't visit this website or she may be writing under a user name different from her given name. Nevertheless, I never received the information I was looking for.

So, after re-reading the slop that was thrown back and forth here, I have come to the conclusion that the majority of people really don't want to know the truth - they simply want others to agree with them, regardless of the truth.

When I asked for information regarding Mr. Paul's legislative record and why he apparently performed so poorly during his tenure in the House, I was serious - I wanted to know if there was a compelling reason why his history appears to be so lackluster. Yet, nothing of any value was brought forth. I'm left, then, to surmise that Ron Paul has simply been elevated to a position that he was first, unprepared for the job and second, that he could not overcome his lack of ability since 1997. A reasonable person could then understand why I would intelligently believe that Paul has no business becoming the next president. (I already knew about the other candidates' records - so don't repeat it. The discussion was about Ron Paul.)

Finally, since there is an apparent lack of knowledge, experience, common sense and decency here, I'll bid you all a good evening. Thanks for the ride - it's been a hoot!!!

Oh, by the way, to even suggest that 'Ron Paul is above Ronald Reagan' is only true in the sense that Reagan, currently buried in the ground, is 'below' Mr. Paul. Otherwise, I'm have a great time laughing at that one!! "

" wtf - it's also good that you've got other dimwits writing here who support your positions. Thankfully you're not too lonely. "

" wtf - and I guess you're too afraid or dishonest to answer any questions. Again, don't flatter yourself - all of my words come from my mind based upon what I know and research that I conduct.

I encourage you to support whoever you want for president; send Ron Paul your money too. Waste away. We've had half-wits running for president before and we've had a bunch of half-wits support them. Nothing changes. Best of luck to you and your 'candidate.' Again - let's see what Texas does on February 5th. My 'guess' is that Paul won't fare too well in his home state either. "

" girard74 you mean people who lie, like our current president and the 935 lies used to invade Iraq? Or lies and smears like your calling me an anti-semite? What about "ignorant" people? People like you? Guess you haven't heard of Jews for Ron Paul.

http://www.jews4ronpaul.org/advisors.html

Or Jews against zionism:

http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/

I suggest you research things before you fling out wild accusations against people. "

" Wow girard74, you are really amazing! You say, "I enjoy a healthy, spirited debate as much as anyone I know. What is frustrating for me is when I encounter people who either lie, don't know what they are talking about or don't think for themselves." And talk about me providing links to what I'm saying when this is exactly what **you** did in your post to Aileen's letter - you cited the SPP website. Oh and you want people who can think for themselves, yet you use the words I used to describe you to describe me. Real original there, girard74, real original. LOL! "

" Bry & danielh: Kudos to both of you...well said! "

" girard: Ron Paul is above Ronald Reagan.

Ronald Reagan was good at making first impressions. in fact, he did not expose his betrayal for his supporters until he announced his VP running mate.
"

" Bry: Yes, SPP is beyond traitorous. I would like to emphasize what I just wrote to girard74. SPP does is a verbal agreement. There was no signing ceremony, because there wasn’t anything to sign. instead, there was a “handshake ceremony.” "

" girard74: You wrote, “From what I can tell from both sides of the aisle in Congress and the White House, everyone agrees that before anything can be done, the borders will have to be secured.”

Conversely, SPP drops the borders. If you are good at research, or if you ask me I can provide a link, the text of last year’s two so-called “immigration reform” bills embraced the SPP in Section 413, making reference to the American govt sending money down south.
"

" girard74: I’m not trying to pick on you, but as of 4:44, you’re on top.

SPP is “softlaw,” by which I mean that it is completely by verbal agreement, and this agreement can evolve.

Freedom of Information Act obtained some transcripts out of the 2nd meeting of the SPP, but at the 3rd meeting, spectators and the free press were excluded.

The contents of the 2nd meeting were spooky, and a year ago, I submitted a letter to the LNS on this topic. The text is available upon request.
"

" Bry - you state, 'Yes, you can read what the SPP Agreement advocates, ignore the real underlying purpose and then rationalize that this Agreement does not infringe on U.S. Sovereignty. However, this is the beginning of a process that will socialize, impoverish and destroy America's sovereignty.'

It seems we have two distinct groups - those who believe we should over-expose ourselves in the global community and those who would like nothing less than to shut out the rest of the planet and pretend we're all alone.

To state that the SPP 'is the beginning of a process that will socialize, impoverish and destroy America's sovereignty,' is a tad histrionic. As I stated earlier, 'exhaustive scrutiny should be applied to this and any other agreement between the U.S. and other countries' before signatures are gathered. We're a long way from the SPP becoming law. From what I can tell from both sides of the aisle in Congress and the White House, everyone agrees that before anything can be done, the borders will have to be secured. "

" wtf - the only 'poser' on this board is you. My initial post, although posted six hours after yours, was directed at the author of the letter regarding issues raised in her letter; as was my second post posted after yours. You, on the other hand, turned the subject in the direction you wanted by stating, 'Aileen's letter is titled "Congress needs to protect our independence" - all too true, Aileen. We also need a leader, a president, who will protect our independence.' From there you move to your predictable rant about Ron Paul (authored by someone other than yourself) - completely off topic. I had no intention of engaging you until you started making your consistently ridiculous claims.

Even still, you accuse me of 'changing the subject and spinning things,' when it is obvious that that is your modus operandi. Further, you simply never answer questions - you rely upon other's quotations and websites (the majority of which are obviously pro-Ron Paul) in a vain attempt to advance your agenda - to elect Ron Paul as our next president. While you are certainly welcome to your opinions and your own agenda, you come across incredibly transparent and disingenuous.

I enjoy a healthy, spirited debate as much as anyone I know. What is frustrating for me is when I encounter people who either lie, don't know what they are talking about or don't think for themselves.

While I am still concerned about the state of our nation and who will be leading it after next November, I can rest a little easier knowing that Ron Paul won't be the president, not that that has ever been remotely possible.

Now to find a way to wake up the Republican base to keep Bill and Hill in New York or Arkansas. "

" Why would the President of the United States, or any leader with half a brain, enter into any such agreement as this Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) with Mexico. The Mexican government is not just ignoring this U.S. invasion; they are promoting, supporting and aiding its citizens to illegally invade the United States. This is nothing less than an attack on the U.S. by the Mexican government strictly for financial gain and at the expense of Americans.

Yes, you can read what the SPP Agreement advocates, ignore the real underlying purpose and then rationalize that this Agreement does not infringe on U.S. Sovereignty. However, this is the beginning of a process that will socialize, impoverish and destroy America's sovereignty.

For the U.S. to sign this SPP Agreement with any country that is supporting, supporting and aiding the invasion of America is beyond traitorous. "

" wtf - I don't know what Ronald Reagan would say about Ron Paul if he were alive today. Like me, however, he would look at his record and be puzzled as to why someone who evidently had the potential for great things, failed to live up to that potential. He might ask you the same thing that I asked you - based upon his record, why should I entrust my vote to Ron Paul? "

" wtf - actually, I have posted quite a few comments to many articles. It is only since the requirement that one has to be registered have I gone under the screen name girard74 - so don't flatter yourself. Usually I communicate via the Lodi News-Sentinel by writing letters to the editor. Unfortunately, they have a policy that only one letter per month from each author will be published.

Your question as to whether you are or are not jewish is silly. I'm not in a guessing game here. If you were or were not, why not just state it yourself? You make no sense.

I have checked the links that you posted, yet most of them are from bloggers or websites that have their own agendas. At least the website that I provided to you (which you thanked me for) provided clear and concise 'facts,' - the only agenda on govtrack.us is the truth.

Where do you get that I believe Ronald Reagan was wrong? He was the finest president in the last half of last century. Merely quoting the Great Orator doesn't make one Reaganesque. Paul lacks virtually every quality that made Reagan great. He is a whiner; is unable to get his message across; and at the very least appears weak and pathetic. No one could ever seriously compare the two.

I am from Lodi - lived here since 1989. Any more complaints? "

" girard74 you must be a PR shill. I posted links where it was Ronald Reagan endorsing Ron Paul. I also noticed that you haven't bothered posting to any other articles than the ones I posted to. For example, this one, your post shows up *after* mine; same with the letter regarding real change being needed. Your posts show up afterward. You don't comment on any other article in the paper (unless you do so after I post this). You appear to have an agenda and I really doubt you live in Lodi. I'll be watching to see if you continue your spinning and smearing in the future. It will be interesting. I'll also be watching to see if you post something *before* I do. You keep changing the subject and spinning things; you must get paid pretty good.

You call me an anti-semite; I ask how do you know I'm not Jewish? You call me ignorant and then pine for Ronald Reagan. I post what **REAGAN HIMSELF** said about Ron Paul then you come up with why you think Ronald Reagan was wrong - after wishing there was another like him. Like I said, your job here is to confuse the issues and muddy the water. I'll be keeping my eye out for your posts in the future. "

" wtf - I'll tell you what, we're just spinning our wheels here. You've got your opinion and I have mine. The only question I have left for you is actually based upon the facts. If you were to try and convince me that Ron Paul is the right guy to vote for, how would you explain to me his legislative record? Why would it be that anyone elected to Congress would have accomplished so little? Is there a reason? I'm not baiting you here . . . I really would like to know, just as the rest of the bunch need to justify their 'performances' as well. "

" wtf - I remember Ronald Reagan; I met Ronald Reagan. Ron Paul is no Ronald Reagan. "

" girard74 said, "Where or where is someone like Ronald Reagan when we need him most?!?"

Funny thing you should bring up Reagan. Wonder what *he* would say about Ron Paul?

Ronald Reagan on Ron Paul
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yuzMYIXhTE

Who would Ronald Reagan Endorse?
http://www.findinternettv.com/Video,item,95637101.aspx

Would Reagan Vote for Ron Paul?
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MattTowery/2007/12/27/would_reagan_vote_for_ron_paul
"

" wtf - my opinion regarding your bigotry is based not only on this series of arguments, but on past ones as well. You unwittingly admitted that yourself. "

" wtf - You speak of things you know little about. First, it was you who introduced Ron Paul into this 'argument,' attempting to convince all who will listen that Paul is the only candidate worthy of consideration. Yet when confronted with the 'facts' regarding his legislative resume, which by all accounts has been poor, you then state that Ron Paul, as far as his record attests, is 'pretty much on par with the rest of the presidential contenders.' Hardly a ringing endorsement, don't you think. Look at what I've written prior to your first diatribe regarding Ron Paul - I never referred to any candidate. In fact, my only comments were directly on point with the original letter to the editor. With regard to placing facts into play it seems to me that you're the one guilty of objecting to people having all of the facts. It wasn't until you learned (perhaps for the first time) about Paul's record that you retrieved information from the same website to somehow make the rest of the candidates look bad. Well, surprise, surprise - most of us already knew they were virtually worthless. When confronted with those 'facts,' you, certainly against your own will, were forced to agree that Ron Paul is just as useless.

My opinion is, and has been since this race started, that we have very little to choose from - none of the candidates in either party is worthy to assume the office of the President of the United States - including Ron Paul.

I have voted in every election since I was of age, and I won't miss this one either. But for the first time I chose to switch my registration from the Republican Party to the Democrat Party. Why? The most dangerous problem I see in this election is to allow the Clinton machine to once again take over the Executive Branch. Even though I am only one citizen with one vote, my vote went to Obama - not FOR him, but AGAINST the Clintons. Until all of the primary dust settles I won't know who I will support in November.

All of the candidates are pathetic, just as you have proved by agreeing that your guy is on the same plane as the rest of the pack. How one has conducted himself/herself in the past is usually a clear indication as to how one will perform in the future. Where or where is someone like Ronald Reagan when we need him most?!? "

" And I noticed that in your "outrage" over my allegedly being an "anti-semite" you neglected the FACT that the links I used are to Jewish news services. How do you know ***I'm*** not Jewish? Being Jewish and being a Zionist, girard74, are TWO ENTIRELY different things. Get your facts straight before you start name calling. "

" girard74: Why do you seem to object so strenuously to people having all of the FACTS about the presidential candidates? Sure, I "defend" my choice; but I don't have a problem with looking at ALL of the candidates in order to make an INFORMED decision - something you seem to have a problem with. Why is that?

Some info for those who are interested:

Alabama Republican Assembly Endorses Ron Paul for President
http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/080126/20080126005021.html?.v=1

At the time of the original January 10 deadline, Ron Paul had the largest number of delegates pledged to him. The party then changed the rules to give other candidates until January 12 to file more delegates.
http://blackhillsportal.com/npps/story.cfm?id=2422

NH Secretary of State Calls For Temporary Halt in Republican Hand Count, Candidate Albert Howard Objects
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5606

The cyber guardians of honest journalism
http://www.newstatesman.com/200711290023

The Fake Persuaders
http://www.medialens.org/articles/the_articles/articles_2002/gm_fake_persuaders.html
"

" wtf - I will certainly NOT ignore your anti-semitism. It comes through loud and clear. It is either that or you are completely ignorant regarding our long-standing relationship with Israel. As time goes on and I read your posts, I'm not too sure anymore which it is - bigotry or shear ignorance.

As far as the American people and what they do or do not want, it is very clear that they do NOT want Ron Paul. If they did, as you suggest ad nauseum, he would have won at least one caucus or primary by now. Tell you what, let's see how Texas feels about the good doctor on February 5th, shall we? "

" Some other information that is very informative is that each of the "leading" presidential contenders - Democrat and Republican - are pro-Israel with the exception of Ron Paul. We want a leader who puts AMERICA first, second and third; as for brokering peace in the Middle East, we need a leader who is objective and not "pro" any one group.

Obama:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2007/03/obama_israel_an.html

Clinton:
http://www.countercurrents.org/us-frank230107.htm

McCain:
http://www.jewishpress.com/displayContent_new.cfm?mode=a§ionid=1&contentid=17926&contentName=%3Ci%3EJewish%20Press%20Exclusive%20-%20%3C/i%3E%20McCain:%20'Proudly%20Pro-Israel'%20%20-%20%3Ci%3ESays%20Haaretz%20Article%20Left%20'Serious%20Misimpressions'%20%3C/i%3E

Huckabee:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?apage=1&cid=1196847418041&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Romney:
http://njdc.typepad.com/njdcs_blog/2007/01/romney_proisrae.html

Giuliani:
http://www.israeltoday.co.il/default.aspx?tabid=178&nid=13518

Paul:
http://www.freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=63973

And before you start in with bogus "anti-semite" rants, girard74, this is NOT anti-semiticism; these are FACTS. Many of the links above are from Jewish papers. America has far too many "dual citizens" of Israel and America in high positions in our government and this needs to stop. How many dual citizens from Mexico, the Arab nations, China, etc. are in our government?

None.

We need U.S. representatives who put AMERICA first, second and third. I am sick and tired, as are millions of others, of people like you girard74, basically telling Americans they are second class citizens in their own country. And regarding your last post - it was total BS - my allegedly "pointing the finger" as you so wrongly put it, was simply using the exact same database you used in your attempt to smear Ron Paul to show - in an objective manner - the records of ALL of the presidential candidates. You seem to have a problem with people seeing ALL of the evidence; it seems you just want people to listen to your spin. Well, that's not going to happen. Some might buy into your smear tactics; but those who truly are interested in the best representation for America will find out for themselves. They won't take either your word, or mine, on the matter. "

" danielh wrote - 'The SPP mentioned in Aileen's letter is an agreement to engage in dialog on behalf of the plan to destroy the US Constitution, using NAFTA as a foundation.' Here's a novel idea - prove it.
"

" wtf - rather than defend your 'candidate,' you do what the indefensible do - point to others. Your argument was FOR Ron Paul; the evidence indicates that for the entire tenure in Congress, Paul was ineffective, useless, unsuccessful, unproductive, and a virtual waste of space in the House Chamber. Your 'youtube' references are laughable - is this the best that you (and Paul) can do?!?!

danielh - Wow! 'corrupted measuring stick' sounds very impressive yet it makes no sense and it certainly doesn't change Paul's Congressional record. Are you saying that by being totally useless in the position that his constituents elected him to perform that that is the measure of success? Unfortunately for Mr. Paul, I can point to many members of Congress, both Democrat and Republican, who have actually produced.

Politics is a very rough and violent sport - to play you've got to either be very, very tough or coated with teflon. Paul is neither. "

" The SPP mentioned in Aileen's letter is an agreement to engage in dialog on behalf of the plan to destroy the US Constitution, using NAFTA as a foundation. "

" wtf: I agree that Ron Paul is one of the greatest candidates that we have had for decades (since Barry Goldwater), but it would be instructive for a majority of people to witness how the election and public opinion are being manipulated by the press. "

" To my enemies on global warming: Aileen Boyce said it better than me in her second paragraph. You could suffer consequences for subservience to the government that you support. "

" girard74: Your evaluation of Ron Paul is using a corrupted measuring stick. "

" Educated Reader: I suggest getting an education so that your userID could represent your character. Aileen has been studying this topic for years, and when the govt completely takes over, she will be protected with blessings for her service, in spite of people like you who oppose anyone who speaks out against the constitution, our flag, and our country. "

" Thanks for a great site, girard74. It looks to me that Ron Paul is pretty much on par with the rest of the presidential contenders. According to govtrack.us, I found the following:

DEMOCRATS:
Obama: Statistic: Barack Obama missed 179 of 1088 votes (16%) since Jan 6, 2005 (Extremely Poor relative to peers). Barack Obama has sponsored 129 bills since Jan 4, 2005, of which 120 haven't made it out of committee (Poor) and 1 were successfully enacted (Average, relative to peers). Obama has co-sponsored 535 bills during the same time period (Average, relative to peers).

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=400629

Clinton: Statistic: Hillary Clinton missed 145 of 2396 votes (6%) since Jan 23, 2001 (Poor relative to peers). Hillary Clinton has sponsored 352 bills since Jan 22, 2001, of which 305 haven't made it out of committee (Extremely Poor) and 2 were successfully enacted (Average, relative to peers). Clinton has co-sponsored 1713 bills during the same time period (Average, relative to peers).

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=300022


REPUBLICANS:
McCain: Statistic: John McCain missed 584 of 3710 votes (16%) since Jan 22, 1997 (Extremely Poor relative to peers). John McCain has sponsored 403 bills since Jan 21, 1997, of which 263 haven't made it out of committee (Extremely Poor) and 12 were successfully enacted (Very Good, relative to peers). McCain has co-sponsored 869 bills during the same time period (Average, relative to peers).

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=300071

Paul: Statistic: Ronald Paul missed 684 of 7034 votes (10%) since Jan 7, 1997 (Very Poor relative to peers). Ronald Paul has sponsored 350 bills since Jan 7, 1997, of which 345 haven't made it out of committee (Extremely Poor) and 0 were successfully enacted (Average, relative to peers). Paul has co-sponsored 1907 bills during the same time period (Average, relative to peers).

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=400311

Had to look at Huckabee and Romney's records as governors:

Huckabee: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/huckabees_fiscal_record.html

Romney:
http://www.centerforsmallgovernment.com/romney1.htm

And Giuliani as mayor:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22345820/ "

" girard74, once again, this video explains **why** Ron Paul is not receiving much, if any, coverage by the MSM.

Regarding Ron Paul's lack of visibility on the TV and in the MSM, this excellent video gives a very plausible explanation:

Orwell Rolls in his Grave
Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CJoTcYZpqE

Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAfspjCTdak

Part 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufr_a1Ym_tI

Part 4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0NXhqLoOPA

In addition to lack of MSM coverage, there are gatekeepers such as yourself who purposely muddy the waters.

Then there is this:

Cutting Ron Paul from the debate has many Republicans upset
http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080103/GJNEWS02/311959078/-1/citizen

This was **after** Ron Paul had beat both Thompson **and** Giuliani in Iowa.

Just **who** is Rupert Murdoch, FAUX News Media mogul?

http://www.americanfreepress.net/10_07_03/Media_Mogul/media_mogul.html

Why were the laws regarding ownership of media relaxed? How can U.S. citizens make informed decisions when only a handful of corporations have a monopoly on all of the media?

Answer: They can't.

Here's a partial list of what Murdoch owns:

http://www.woopidoo.com/biography/rupert-news-corporation.htm

"

" wtf - Just a little more information for you: 'Statistics: Ronald Paul has sponsored 350 bills since Jan 7, 1997, of which 345 haven't made it out of committee (Extremely Poor) and 0 were successfully enacted (Average, relative to peers). Paul has co-sponsored 1906 bills during the same time period (Average, relative to peers)' (govtrack.us)

Yeah, this guy's done real well!!! "

" Regarding Ron Paul - just for fun I decided to take a look at Ron Paul's legislative record (govtrack.us). Now, just for 2007 every single bill sponsored by Ron Paul never became law. This is probably not that significant because the Democrats decided which bills would get too far along. However, not only did no bill sponsored by Paul become law, no bill sponsored by him made it past the first step - the introduction itself. No bill was either debated or voted upon. It appears they all died in committee.

Further, many of the bills introduced by Ron Paul in 2007 were re-hashed bills from prior sessions of Congress. Some of them went back to sessions where Republicans were in control.

Additionally, Ron Paul's voting record for 2007 is described as follows: 'Ronald Paul missed 684 of 7034 votes (10%) since Jan 7, 1997 (Very Poor relative to peers)'.

Finally, currently there are no active bills introduced by Congressman Ronald Paul.

This is just for 2007. If this is any indication of the type of leadership we could expect from Ron Paul, perhaps we should simply keep looking. "

" wtf - Again with Ron Paul. For all of your blustering regarding this guy, e.g., straw polls, massive amounts of money collected, etc., why is it he can't get any traction? He had a couple shots during the debates yet he choked and came across weak and pathetic (you've got to admit that, although I doubt you have the courage). The only excuse you and the rest of his small army of supporters can point to is the media; not very original.

Where was Paul in South Carolina - 4.4%! This is what you call 'grass root' support? In every national poll he gathers at best 6% and at worst he doesn't even register 1%. C'mon, wtf, it's time to give it up. "

" Aileen's letter is titled "Congress needs to protect our independence" - all too true, Aileen. We also need a leader, a president, who will protect our independence. The following by Kemp Moyer says it quite eloquently while explaining why the best hope for America is not a household name with the video at the end being a real eye opener.

The greatest grassroots campaign in the history of American politics has been summarily ignored and shunned by the large media.

Yes, you read that right. The greatest grassroots campaign in the HISTORY OF AMERICAN POLITICS. IGNORED BY THE MEDIA.

The Ron Paul campaign is centered around a man who is not a media sensation or a media creation. The campaign is centered around an individual who does not seek power and control over others. The campaign is centered around an individual who avoids shadiness and corruption like the plague. A man who is honest, has integrity, and cares fundamentally about America and the amazing freedoms that were granted when the Revolutionaries of 1776 broke off from the yoke of oppressive, central government. These men asserted all individuals’ natural rights.

So a grassroots campaign has grown around this man who fights for the protection of our natural rights via the respect of the U.S. Constitution. The job of the president is to protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic. The Constitution protects our rights as free individuals and limits the government from oppressively entering into our lives and controlling us on a whim.

The grassroots campaign that grew around the support of Ron Paul has done everything in their power to earn a respectable place in the national consciousness. Through individual efforts, the Ron Paul grassroots campaign raised $4 million in a single day in early November. Then, in mid-December, the growing group broke the ALL-TIME SINGLE DAY RECORD bringing in $6 million in one 24 hour period. This was reported in the media, but was it reported in the amazing way it should have been? Did this vault Ron Paul into the key “front runners circle” that the large media has had such immense control over? The answer is no. The media summarily ignored Ron Paul and his campaign very soon thereafter.

Ron Paul’s supporters have organized to dominate most local straw polls around the country. They have dominated nearly every online poll and both online and text polls after every single Republican debate. Has this vaulted Ron Paul into the media “front runners circle”? No. They ignore him and figuratively spit on his hard working supporters.

When Ron Paul does get a rare interview or report, at times he is treated fairly, but most often he has been treated like a second class citizen, called a “long shot”, dismissed as a “kook” and treated generally in a way unbecoming of any respectable interviewer. Like I said, there are exceptions, but the rule is patently ugly treatment by a more and more despicable traditional media.

The mis-treatment and lack of respect have forced the grassroots campaign onto the internet and into the streets. The Ron Paul campaign dominates MySpace, Youtube, Digg, Facebook and far outpaces any other candidate in terms of Meetup groups and Meetup members. Does this get reported? No. Ron Paul has signed up over 12,000 volunteers as local precinct coordinators to walk their local neighborhoods passing out literature and getting to know their neighbors. Reported? No.

Ron Paul’s supporters have organized hundreds of marches, thousands of sign wavings, numerous other small fundraisers, as well as starting hundreds of websites dedicated to the race. Ron Paul’s website is the most visited out of any campaign in the Republican race and goes toe-to-toe with Obama’s out of any campaign period. Reported? Not much, if at all.

Ron Paul’s 2008 presidential campaign has seen a tremendous groundswell of independent support form many hundreds of thousands of very passionate, intelligent and caring supporters across the country. Lovers of America, patriots of this great country, individuals dedicated to the Constitution, restrained government, and who care about our natural unalienable rights as independent human beings. This amazing groundswell has been shunned and pushed to the side by the large traditional media. Supporters have been told “he can’t win” and he has been kept out of the big media “winner’s circle”. It is a sham and a travesty.

I am here today to tell you that the Ron Paul 2008 campaign has witnessed the greatest grassroots support in the history of American politics. I am also here to tell you that the large media has ignored and battled against this campaign.

These two facts should tell you something. If you care about your unalienable rights as a free citizen, you should seriously consider supporting Ron Paul. If you care about these rights as well as the government protecting them rather than stripping them away, you should be very annoyed and upset with the old media. I know I am amazed and pretty pissed. From what I have observed, the media do not care about your rights and they do not care about you. If you care about America, you will think about finding an alternative or demanding a change.

The future of freedom and limited government rest in your hands. So far, the media have shown what side they are on.

In liberty,

Kemp Moyer

http://www.ponderthis.net/2008/01/26/the-greatest-grassroots-campaign-in-political-history-ignored-by-big-media/



"

" I really do find Boyce's letter interesting. I would like a little clarification regarding her position that our 'freedom of choice' is in peril. Exactly which choices are being threatened? "

" Boyce gave absolutely no referential support of her contention that the SPP will, among other things, create 'an agreement with Canada and Mexico to eliminate borders among the three nations.' In fact, she gives no proof for any of her so-called 'facts', as wtf also claimed them to be. Saying or writing something doesn't necessarily make it true (or false) - you gotta prove you position!

The government should always be scrutinized and it is our duty as citizens to question our leaders; but to hear the author of the letter and others put it, perhaps it's time to do as the Declaration of Independence suggests and 'throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for [our] future security.' I still believe in our government although there certainly is room for improvement - but I don't agree with the fringe elements in our society that believe our government is evil and must be usurped. "

" As with all things, both pro and con positions should be looked at. Just because one does not agree with the government's position does not make one hysterical; quite the contrary, it shows one is more level headed and able to look at the situation in its entirety in an objective manner. Here are some links to sites that, if they don't fully support what Aileen is saying, at least ask questions while not blindly swallowing the pablum put out by the government; which, incidentally is not too trusted these days.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/SPP.shtml

http://www.canadians.org/integratethis/

http://www.canadians.org/integratethis/backgrounders/guide/index.htmlhttp://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=15233

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. - Thomas Jefferson
"

" Boyce writes - '(SPP), [is] an agreement [to create] one gigantic country with a single currency just like the European Union.'

Perhaps since the LNS only allows a certain number of words for anyone to state their cause, this is the reason why Boyce fails to offer any proof to her claims.

The SPP website states:

'The SPP is a White House-led initiative among the United States and the two nations it borders – Canada and Mexico – to increase security and to enhance prosperity among the three countries through greater cooperation. The SPP is based on the principle that our prosperity is dependent on our security and recognizes that our three great nations share a belief in freedom, economic opportunity, and strong democratic institutions. The SPP outlines a comprehensive agenda for cooperation among our three countries while respecting the sovereignty and unique cultural heritage of each nation. The SPP provides a vehicle by which the United States, Canada, and Mexico can identify and resolve unnecessary obstacles to trade and it provides a means to improve our response to emergencies and increase security, thus benefiting and protecting Americans.'

Additionally, the website offers a myth vs. fact section which includes the following:

'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.'

While I agree that exhaustive scrutiny should be applied to this and any other agreement between the U.S. and other countries, let's try and keep the hysterics and rumors to a minimum. "

" Great letter, Aileen! You are right on the money on all points. Anyone who is truly interested in educating themselves and doing the research - and not getting their information from the nightly news - regarding these facts know that you speak the truth. "

" Aileen Boyce has been crying for years about "black helicopter government conspiracies" that will strip us of our Constitutional rights and make us all part of one big global government. Maybe it's time to get that intense paranoia checked out, Aileen! "