The Iowa presidential debate failed to invite Ron Paul, the only candidate that honestly addresses the war on terror.
Few examples of the behind-the-scenes power exerting its authority over the people are more impactful than the deliberate stranglehold on the free speech of candidates running for office. Today, Ron Paul finds himself in the chokehold of a couple of Iowa organizations that have refused to allow his message to be heard on the same stage as other Republican candidates. Ironically, one of the groups claims to be Christian.…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - Thomas
When the organizers snub Ron Paul, they might be representing their organizations. Or they might have personal incentives. In either case, action is mostly intramural.
Those within the organization who feel like they are not represented well might want to seek Ron Paul information. Perhaps local Ron Paul supporters will be able to help them out.
27 - goldenequity
Audio Just Posted: Ron Paul's Campaign Chairman Kent Snyder
faces off with Ed Failor Chairman of Iowa Tax Relief org. on WHO Newsradio Jan Mickelson's call-in.
28 - Jacob
"Christian extremist"
dave, what exactly is your definition of extremist? that's like calling tiger woods a golfing extremist. ron paul would force his religion on others no more than tiger woods forces his golfing on others.
29 - Dave Nalle
A christian extremist - to me anyway - is anyone who believes in the Christian god and thinks that belief should in any way play a role in setting national, state or local government policy. Ron Paul has supported prayer in schools. Ergo he is a christian extremist. Maybe not the worst of the lot, but it's something to consider.
Dave
30 - BuckinOhio
Stop the lieing about 911 questions being on the fringe. Nobody believes it anymore.
The latest nationally recognized polls show on 16% believe the so-called official lie-story about 911.
31 - Clavos
BuckinOhio says:
"The latest nationally recognized polls show on 16% believe the so-called official lie-story about 911."
Here's what Angus Reid (which he cites) really said:
"Only 16 per cent of respondents say the government headed by U.S. president George W. Bush is telling the truth on what it knew prior to the terrorist attacks, down five points since May 2002. (emphasis added)
For the record.
32 - Mike Green
For the record. The personal experience I provided in the article is true. The candidate was running for a wide open seat. The district was profoundly and historically Republican. Thus, the winner of the primary would be seated in the California Assembly. I personally knew many of the leaders in San Diego County, as did my candidate. In fact, the former incumbent endorsed my candidate. I do not toss allegations of discrimination and prejudice around lightly. In fact, you can read any of my writings over the past decade (much are online) and you will not find me whining about prejudice and discrimination despite the fact that I experience it regularly as a black man making a living in a society and field of work where I am a small minority with a very small voice.
I find it a bit insulting that the implication was made that I perhaps am viewing my experience through a colored lens that discounts it somehow. I did not name names nor did I charge anyone with a crime. People have the right to vote for whom they please for whatever reasons they desire. The organizations that support candidates have the same right. I just happen to have been on the indise of this particular incident and witnessed first-hand a bit of under-handedness that persuaded me to leave both the Republican Party and politics.
mike green
33 - Dave Nalle
Which is quite a bit different from what the Buckeye claimed it said. He needs to read my brief explanation of how polls can be misrepresented over on the other Ron Paul thread.
And BTW, in the latest LA Times/Bloomberg poll 63% of Americans believe illegals should be given amnesty.
Oh, and 75% of Americans believe in angels.
Dave
34 - Mike Green
Dear Dave,
Regarding the inference you made, that my experience may have been perceived through a colored lens in order to draw a conclusion that racism motivated particular actions, may I offer you a little more information. Without chronicling the entire experience and providing you background on the individuals and leaders who both me and my candidate knew personally, perhaps you ought to know that the district race was wide open since the incumbent had reached term limitation. The incumbent actually endorsed our campaign, which was the catalyst that sparked a visit from the national office.
I do not feel a need to explain further. I do not arbitrarily accuse folks of acting out of racial prejudice. If I, or my candidate, were such people, we would never have had even a remote chance in a district consisting of a very high percentage caucasion population.
As it were, we had not only a remote chance, but the best chance until a series of decisions and subsequent actions taken by the party sunk our vessel. Yet, consider how strong our vessel actually was. It took a flooding of the campaign with candidates and a number of wealthy latecomes that outspent us handily with their own money. These were individuals who had decided previously not to enter the race.
We did our homework. We knew who would be in and who would be out. We also had a number of insiders in the party leadership circles who knew exactly why the actions were taken. I do not lightly charge anyone or any group with discriminatory practices.
And given that these actions were not against the law, there was no need for us to do anything other than to recognize how things were and fight to win as best we could. We did. We lost. We moved on.
My revelation of the experience in this blog was due only because it relates to the point I was making regarding the ulterior motives behind the scenes that motivate organizations to act in a nefarious manner toward candidates, in particular Ron Paul.
Additionally, may I add that my perception of the media is also due to more than 13 years working in the industry. I am well aware that scholars and amateur sleuths aren't the only ones capable of asking really tough questions and analyzing statements and events objectively. Journalists can and often do exactly that ... except in the case of 9/11.
Step away form the notion of conspiracy and just focus solely on the information provided by the government. Then ask the questions that easily come to mind when analyzing the events that occurred and the numerous conflicting and contradictory explanations offered by our government leaders. The questions you may come up with, however many or few they may be, were not asked by the national media or Congress. And to this very day the anamolies and contradictions have not been addressed by either the mainstream media or Congress.
If you want to discount conspiracy theorists, I will join you ... only if you begin with the ones in the White House and Pentagon who provided the first conspiracy theory to explain 9/11.
Start there and we'll be on the same page.
Respectfully,
mike
35 - Dave Nalle
For those of you who want all the details on what's going on here, check out this audio from WHO radio in Iowa where Paul's campaign chair discussed it with the guy in charage of the candidate forum.
Dave
36 - StrawDog
Excellent article, I wish it weren't so lonely.
I'm not positive I'll vote for Paul yet, but I am positive I want him in the debates! Anyone who pays attention to the online and phone polls knows there is a snow job against Paul. It's pretty clear to me who really hates my freedom - and they fear Paul. Huh.
And to Dave Nalle, resident Paul detractor with the random angel statistic: I believe in angels, and I know better than to judge people's intelligence based on their spiritual beliefs or lack thereof. People are a little more complicated than that.
37 - Chris Lawton
GO RON PAUL! GO RON PAUL! GOD BLESS RON PAUL! RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT 2008!
Ron Paul in CNN debate on June 5, 2007!
"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and he carries his banners openly. But the traitor moves among those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the galleys, heard in the very hall of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor---he speaks in the accents familiar to his victims, and wears their face and their garment, and he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation---he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of a city---he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to be feared.
--- Cicero: orator, statesman, political theorist, lawyer and philosopher of Ancient Rome.
38 - The O T H E R Dave
Ron Paul is walloping the "status quo" which has been and is dominating the political process in Presidential elections for a number of years. Our candidates were hand picked by the Party and promoted or condemned by the Media with virtually predictable results. Issues were determined for us, likewise. Everything has been timed and weighted with precision to obtain a predictable result. Think about it! Isn't this what really sticks in the craw of the Democrats having lost the last two elections? The formulae was followed but the "guaranteed " result was not achieved. When I read the above and in other venues, the negativity towards Ron Pauls candidacy I can smell the fear exudeing from the words. Both Democrats and Republicans, Party hacks and their fellow travellers, view Ron Pauls candidacy as another monkey wrench thrown into the gears of their machinations to manipulate the Presidential election for their own purposes and the Public be damned.
39 - The O T H E R Dave
Ron Paul is walloping the "status quo" which has been and is dominating the political process in Presidential elections for a number of years. Our candidates were hand picked by the Party and promoted or condemned by the Media with virtually predictable results. Issues were determined for us, likewise. Everything has been timed and weighted with precision to obtain a predictable result. Think about it! Isn't this what really sticks in the craw of the Democrats having lost the last two elections? The formulae was followed but the "guaranteed " result was not achieved. When I read the above and in other venues, the negativity towards Ron Pauls candidacy I can smell the fear exudeing from the words. Both Democrats and Republicans, Party hacks and their fellow travellers, view Ron Pauls candidacy as another monkey wrench thrown into the gears of their machinations to manipulate the Presidential election for their own purposes and the Public be damned.
40 - Dave Nalle
Excellent article, I wish it weren't so lonely.
Lonely? Since I first started writing about Ron Paul a couple of months ago we've published more than a dozen articles about him. We're doing what we can.
I'm not positive I'll vote for Paul yet, but I am positive I want him in the debates! Anyone who pays attention to the online and phone polls knows there is a snow job against Paul. It's pretty clear to me who really hates my freedom - and they fear Paul. Huh.
This is more or less the position I've taken from the beginning. I'm not sure Paul has what it takes to be an effective president, but if he gains some mainstream support (not the crazies he mostly has right now), then his ideas may influence the other characters in a positive way. He's also make a great VP.
And to Dave Nalle, resident Paul detractor
While I'm realistically critical of Paul, I wouldn't call myself a detractor. I've supported his candidacy from the very beginning as the publicity and promotion vehicle which it has the potential to be. The fact that I don't think he's a viable candidate is just realism.
with the random angel statistic: I believe in angels, and I know better than to judge people's intelligence based on their spiritual beliefs or lack thereof. People are a little more complicated than that.
When their 'complexities' take them away from reason then they are delusions.
This is part of what's wrong with Ron Paul. The fact that he has these religious ideas which clearly run counter to the Constitution and he's willing to let them trump the Constitution raises the question of what other circumstances he'd be willing to abandon his principles under.
Dave
41 - bret
What religious ideals that run counter to the Constitution? Specifics.
It's like you're digging for ANY REASON to disqualify him. Can't you just accept that he's a decent guy, and the best one for the job, and move on to the real task of getting the message out there to the rest of the country?
42 - future_primitive
Ron Paul belongs in the Iowa debates. The Iraq war is a spectacularly bad idea, entered into with the foreknowledge that it would be an abysmal policy failure that would wreck political debate for years to come. That said, it should also be noted that a broken clock is right twice a day, and that Ron Paul can afford to be the only real GOP critic in the campaign process. He has nothing to lose and no chance of election. Rabid support for Paul even in far left circles indicates a myopic and amnesiac vision of current events in the US. Outside his stance on the war, Ron Paul is still (and always has been) a paleocon fringe figure that draws core support from disturbingly far right entities like the Christian Identity movement and Posse Comitatus. He carries a 100 per cent favorable rating from the John Birch Society to the present day. His kind of freedom and liberty is code for unchecked corporate hegemony over the individual and a civil society reduced to bellum omnium contra omnes, the war of all against all.
43 - Dave Nalle
What religious ideals that run counter to the Constitution? Specifics.
He supports a constitutional amendment promoting school prayer and posting of the ten commandments on public property. Both of those are completely unacceptable on constitutional grounds.
It's like you're digging for ANY REASON to disqualify him.
No, I'd love to support Paul. I supported him when he ran as a Libertarian. Voted for him and campaigned for him. But at this juncture we need a canddiate who can govern effectively and doesn't have severe ideological liabilities.
Can't you just accept that he's a decent guy, and the best one for the job, and move on to the real task of getting the message out there to the rest of the country?
There are LOTS of decent guys who I don't want to see as president. As I've said before I support his campaign and his right to be in every debate and I'd love to see him as VP.
Dave
44 - Garry
Dave said: A christian extremist - to me anyway - is anyone who believes in the Christian god and thinks that belief should in any way play a role in setting national, state or local government policy. Ron Paul has supported prayer in schools. Ergo he is a christian extremist. Maybe not the worst of the lot, but it's something to consider.
Dave, he supports ALLOWING prayer in schools, not mandating them. There is a difference. Allowing prayer is not "extremist". That is a pro-freedom and pro-constitution position. Paul's principles are against mandating either prayer or non-prayer.
Here is the summary of the bill he supported: Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to prohibit individual or group prayer in public schools or other public institutions. No person shall be required by the United States or by any State to participate in prayer . Neither the United States nor any State shall compose the words of any prayer to be said in public schools.
In fact, that students are not allowed to pray in schools is evidence of extremism on the other side.
Anyway, he is also against a federal ban on gay marriage. Further, he was against the government having schools set aside a time for prayer in school after 9/11. Some "Christian extremist" eh?
45 - Dave Nalle
Gary, I'm afraid that the way things are in the schools today even allowing prayer would end up violating the rights of an awful lot of students. I had to take my kids out of public school because of the constant assaults by religious recruiters.
Read up on the National Day of Prayer sometime. Check out some of the ideas that James Dobson has about prayer in schools. Even better, check out some of the ideas you see from people like Marvin Olasky who have been working for decades to train Christian activists to move into the public school system as teachers. All they need is for the door to be open a crack and the schools will become the next best thing to the Christian version of an Islamic Madrassa.
Dave
46 - Stephen Dupont
The author is absolutely correct! Politics have become a disgusting business. But this is their strategy as it is easier to manipulate less people than more people. What they are doing is deliberately turning good people away from the political process out of disgust. This way here they can swoop in and manipulate the few 20% that actually turn out to vote.
But here's the catch, Ron Paul supporters will have less people to defeat now that the lower turnout is in place, so it will backfire on these scumbag corporate elite in the long run.
47 - Stephen Dupont
This is hilarious, Do you think a terrorists just wakes up one day and decides he has a thirst for American blood because we let women vote or are jealous of our freedoms? C'mon people, I refuse to believe that you are this easy to manipulate.
If you want to understand why they hate us you have to look back at what caused this hatred. Think of the people in your life that you dislike for whatever reason. I bet you can trace these feelings back to an incident where you feel you were betrayed or humiliated or whatever reason you formed this opinion. Do you think it's any different for these people? Did you just wake up one day and decided to hate sally or jim or is it because sally stole your boyfriend and that pissed you off or maybe jim cheated on you and that pissed you off.
So maybe we pissed them off or have been pissing them off for a hundred years and they are sick of us fucking with their lives. How come they don't attack freedom in places much closer to themselves? This would be logistically easier correct? Why attack us all the way across the world? If they attack us merely for our decadent way of life blah ,blah,blah then why not attack other countries with similar lifestyles as us? That's what is wrong with this hypothesis of it being an unprovoked attack! our foreign policy has been an overwhelming contributing factor to their hatred towards America and not some religious sicko's who hate Christianity so much they would travel half way across the world to attack us here rather than hit someplace closer to themselves. Complete nonsense indeed.
Maybe it has to do with something our former leaders or CIA operatives have done to destroy their country or their way of life. Kinda like what Dr. Paul tried to state in his 30 seconds at the debate(which that scum Ghouliani ingratiated himself once again over the deaths of 3000+ of our fellow American's lives, truly a disgusting man) when he mentions "blowback" Go look on the CIA's own website they explain how they overthrew Iran's DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED GOVERNMENT a very popular person with the people of Iran. They fail to explain that the CIA was blowing up school buses full of children and blaming it on Iran's government.(the ends always justify the means for these sick neo-con bastards) Then we installed the Shaw which for the people of Iran meant 25 years of a very oppressive regime that included torture, martial law etc. etc. our CIA even taught the Shaw how to crush the peoples spirit with their version of the gestapo secret police and the like (all in the name of spreading our goodness around the world).
If you were Iranian, are you getting pissed yet?
So, why install the Shaw and destroy the democratically elected government, hmmm, let's see. Maybe it was because Iran was sick of the Oil profits, from their oil was being siphoned off by B.P. British Petroleum and of course us here in the righteous U.S. of A. to the tune of about 90% for us and 10% for Iran and he dared to nationalize the Oil refineries to allow the profits from his countries natural resources to be used for his own countries infrastructure.
Oh,ummm, I don't know, it's just another one of those pesky conspiracy facts that always get in the way of us Americans that want to bury our heads in the sand and pretend that we are good and they are evil, case closed have a nice day. Pssssst here's a little tip for ya davey boy, reality dictates, we ain't all that goodie good ya know.
"Don't the victors get to write the history", somebody famous said that, Napoleon or Julius Caesar.
The historians and revisionists have distorted the true nature of our history and left us with this picture of righteousness and roses at our feet, the great faultless American dream. WAKE UP SON, BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE.
Take care all
48 - Dave Nulle
Dave N: "Who is Ron Paul?"
49 - bret
VP candidate for who? Mickey Mouse? WTF?
The rest of those yahoos want to nuke Iran. The Democrats maybe not, but they thirst for war.
Dave, it's absurd to base your decision to support or not support RP on the basis of whether he's for allowing Christian prayer in school or not. Prayer in schools, or gay marriage, or whatever is NOT KILLING PEOPLE ON A DAILY BASIS. The wars on Iraq, drugs, poverty, etc are killing people on a daily basis. Get your priorities straight, man. Seriously!
50 - Dr Dreadful
Stephen (comment #47):
While I do agree that a lot of people are ignoring the 500-lb gorilla of American Middle Eastern policy as a possible factor in the rise of "Islamic" terrorism, I'm not entirely sure what world you're describing when you talk about:
religious sicko's who hate Christianity so much they would travel half way across the world to attack us here rather than hit someplace closer to themselves.
On this planet, there have been no major terrorist incidents on US soil since 9/11/01. In that same time period, there have been thousands of attacks in the name of Islam in Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Spain, the United Kingdom, Pakistan, India, Thailand, Indonesia, the Philippines...
Almost all perpetrated by citizens or legal residents of those countries. Close enough to "home" for you?
51 - StrawDog
Just to be clear about my other post: This article on the exclusions of Paul in these upcoming debates is a rarity on the web - I've seen no similar mainstream commentary.
Dave, thanks for responding to my comments. Honestly, I think this kind of being "realistic" is more "fatalistic", which is exactly what it takes to stop everything in its tracks. Also, I've seen how Paul responds to the loaded questions against him - Wow, if that guy isn't presidential material, who is?
Like Bret said: Is the possibility of school prayer really a pressing issue right now? I don't like every platform of Paul's or any other candidate's, but in the big picture, who else offers the real chance for change here? That is a HUGE deal, to me. Anyway, even Bush couldn't get prayer into school or revoke abortion, and now we have a Dem majority in both houses.
For the record, Dave, I'm responding to you - even though your view (that spiritual belief is delusional) strikes me as arrogant, narrow minded, and inflexible - because maybe I misjudge you, or maybe you are also bigger than that.
52 - Dave Nalle
Dupont. You might want to learn how to SPELL 'shah' if you're want to talk about him and not sound like an idiot. You also might want to ask some actual Iranians how they feel about the Shah and the current Iranian administration. The Shah gets rave reviews from most of those I've asked, especially when compared with the current band of butchers who killed more people in their first two weeks in power than the Shah killed in his entire tenure in office.
The Shah was a positive and liberal influence in Iran and the whole region, and the stories of his 'oppression' are laughable propaganda mostly manufactured by the current band of religious bigots who rule in Iran.
Dave
53 - Dave Nalle
Dave, it's absurd to base your decision to support or not support RP on the basis of whether he's for allowing Christian prayer in school or not. Prayer in schools, or gay marriage, or whatever is NOT KILLING PEOPLE ON A DAILY BASIS. The wars on Iraq, drugs, poverty, etc are killing people on a daily basis. Get your priorities straight, man. Seriously!
The introduction of religion into our government and our public schools is the first step towards the further erosion of our constitutional rights and leads us down the path to a theocracy. That seems like a pretty serious concern to me.
I do agree that the Waro n Drugs and some of these other issues are quite important, but I have no reason to believe that Paul would be able to end them. It doesn't work that way. If it did then Bush would have been able to implement tax reform and privatize social security, and those ideas are a lot less radical than getting rid of the war on drugs.
dave
54 - JERRY MCGUIRE
RON PAUL AMERICAS #1 CHOICE BY A LAND SLIDE THE ZIONEST JEWS /NEOCON /ISRALI MOSS IS IN CHARGE OF IOWA TO THEY SAID REPUBLIAN WITH OUT RON PAUL THEY HAVE NOTHING THE TELL THOSE HILLBILLY IDIOTS AMERICA USES COMPUTORS AND RON PAUL HAS LOTS OF FREINDS OUT THEIR WORKING FOR HIM WE WILL MAKE OUR STAND WITH RON PAUL AND WE,LL STILL BY CALLING THEM HILLBILLY IDIOTS AFTER THE ELECTIONS
55 - Dave Nalle
There you go. #54 is EXACTLY why Ron Paul is being unfairly marginalized in this campaign.
Dave
56 - Adam
Dave, it seems to me that banning prayer in school is a violation of our constitutional rights. Ron Paul is in favor of allowing it not making it mandatory. I'm a Christian though so obviously I see this issue differently.
It does seem like you're looking for reasons not to support him. Things like foreign policy are much bigger issues. Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate that doesn't find it reasonable to launch a preemptive nuclear strike against a country that has no nuclear weapons and has not attacked us because they might eventually get some which they have the right to do under international law. The run on sentence was intentional to emphasize how insane our foreign policy has become. It makes my head spin just thinking about it.
Also, people like #54 could be trolls trying to hurt Dr. Paul's campaign on purpose. I can't see any real supporter being stupid enough to think thats helpful.
57 - Clavos
"I can't see any real supporter being stupid enough to think thats helpful."
Read the thread here.
And here.
58 - Mike Green
Regarding post #40
"This is part of what's wrong with Ron Paul. The fact that he has these religious ideas which clearly run counter to the Constitution and he's willing to let them trump the Constitution raises the question of what other circumstances he'd be willing to abandon his principles under."
Considering the fact that each of the presidents elected since FDR have chosen to use their power to exert force through clandestine means based upon expansion of U.S. power and influence, I would welcome an individual whose religious principles direct him his decisions regarding life and death. The notion that U.S. values, which prioritize "vital economic interests" (see several U.S. presidential speeches across three generations), are the driving force behind CIA operations that seek to murder leaders, overthrow governments, undermine governance both here and abroad, and violate principles of jurisprudence as well as moral laws, it seems to me that a change in ideology is also needed at the highest echelons of our society.
Ron Paul represents a voice of peace and reason. Compared to those he is running against, as well as those who have been elected president in the past, Paul is far and away the most honest, forthright candidate we can hope for. If integrity holds any weight when voting, there is no question that just one candidate fits the bill, Ron Paul.
Pauls' personal beliefs not only do not run counter to the constitution, they shore it up in the same manner that the framers of the document had in mind. While protecting the freedoms of the people, Paul recognizes the limitations placed upon government. That includes, but is not limited to acts of war without proper justification and support from the people. Contrived and concocted reasons sold to the Congress is well outside of the constitutional boundaries of the executive branch, yet that is what has occurred through the past half-dozen presidents.
I welcome a man of integrity, whose fellowship with the Lord of Lords provides him a moral guidepost that dissuades him from making the very decisions we've been subjected to by numerous presidents and congresses. I doubt if the CIA, FBI, Dept of Homeland Security and a host of other agencies operating in the darkness of unaccountability will find Paul a leader that supports the secrecy to which these organizations (and others) have grown accustomed.
And I believe America would be a better nation for having a president like Paul, who would pull our troops from the Middle East " a feat Congress seems to be unwilling or unable to do.
Certainly Paul is the only candidate that seeks to save the lives of our troops. And while he is running on a platform that brings the troops home immediately, all the other candidates are hedging their bets on Iraq, knowing full well the current policy is set to maintain a permanent force there. Yet, which one of the liars will admit that? None.
It is time to make saving the troops the mantra of the 2008 campaign. Support saving the lives of U.S. troops " kill the current foreign policy in the Middle East. Vote Ron Paul.
59 - Passenger57
Why is there even a discussion on why a candidate is invited or not? If you are running for President,you should be AUTOMATICALLY invited to every debate.Of course, if THE CANDIDATE chooses not to participate,that's their decision.Whenever I see someone is being marginalized,I wonder why-and I start listening to THAT candidate.
Tha 9/11 attacks? Please. Three words- IN. SIDE.JOB. Condi Rice perjured herself before the 9/11 Commission-which I think was a whitewash, but she was under oath.Never imagined terrorists would use planes as wepaons? Look up G8 Summit/Genoa/2001 and you'll see why she was lying.
And I'd STILL like to know what Bush and Cheney told the 9/11 Commission about the worst attack on America in its history that NO ONE CAN KNOW ABOUT IT.It's kind of incredible when you think about it...four jets hijacked over American airspace,nearly 3,000 people dead,two of the tallest buildings in the world destroyed,a third destroyed,the Pentagon attacked(with an AFB ten miles away)...WHAT did they tell THEM that they couldn't tell US?
60 - Dave Nalle
passenger57 - 3 words - TIN FOIL HAT. Oh, and another 3 LUN A TIC. To believe 9/11 is an inside job you'd have to accept motivations from hundreds of national leaders so bizarre that they'd be showing other symptoms of insanity, and a method for enforcing secrecy along the lines of surgically implanting micro-bombs in the brains of all of our elected leaders. Please be real.
As for the exclusion of Paul from the debate, it's a matter for discussion because it happened. And it happened because this particular debate is privately run - as are all the debates when you get down to it. They all have mechanisms for excluding people, particularly 3rd party candidates when it comes to the major debates.
Dave
61 - Clavos
9/11 was an inside job, alright.
All those A-rabs were inside those aircraft, hijacking them when they crashed.
62 - Neil
Seems like their explanation is that initially they didn't invite him because they didn't invite him (looks to me like circular reasoning). Since he's a candidate who is well respected and desired by people, and most likely the only one who really has this status, they ought to go ahead and invite him. It's not too late right now. So-now, if they still won't invite him, then they should provide an acceptable reason; and if they don't provide one then it should be plainly obvious to anyone that they have an ulterior agenda and that would be the end of that.
63 - Shaun
To Dave Nalle:
You're hilarious man. Anyone who is critical of the government is a loony.
But if we let people decide for THEMSELVES whether or not they want to pray in schools... That's the crack in the door that lets Christian evangelists brainwash little children...
Who's wearing the tin foil hat?
(PS: I'm atheist - [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor])
64 - Shaun
PPS: If a teacher starts trying to pull children into prayer, you can be damn sure the parents (like you) would hopefully bring it up, right?
On 9/11 - Pearl Harbor ring a bell Dave?
Look for impartial information and you'll find a lot of evidence to support the government's prior knowledge of 9/11 (no not that we did it ourselves, but that's still bad enough)
Couldn't they have warned employees? Secured NYC? Nah, that'd be too much work - better to let a few thousand people die, sway the American opinion to support war, and let banks push our country further into debt...
65 - Clavos
"On 9/11 - Pearl Harbor ring a bell Dave?"
Oh shit. Not that old chestnut again...
66 - PQ
Dave writes, "This is part of what's wrong with Ron Paul. The fact that he has these religious ideas which clearly run counter to the Constitution and he's willing to let them trump the Constitution raises the question of what other circumstances he'd be willing to abandon his principles under."
Neither of your examples, supplied in a later message, held much water. But let's assume for the sake of argument Paul is not *perfectly* consistent on the Constitution. Where is the candidate who is? Are you saying we should abandon Paul due to his lack of perfection, while all the other candidates cannot even hope to hold a candle to him, in terms of adherence to the Constitution?
And this business about fringe elements... The last thing I am going to do is worry about who the fringe (however conveniently defined) supposedly prefers. Otherwise, I am letting the fringe influence my choices! Everyone holds opinions, of one sort or another, that are based on bad or incomplete information, or information created by propagandists. Everyone is "fringe" in some respect. Forget all that, look at the issues and the character of the men running for office.
67 - Buck
"It was sponsored by congress but it was run by independent investigators and it did a pretty damned thorough job with the hundreds of pages of report to prove it. Congress doesn't push for an independent investigation because they already HAD one and they're not going to second-quess the report they sponsored."
Shill.
68 - Estrella Eguino
Great Article! Congratulations and thank you for your effort to open the eyes of the public. Those people who have lived in the United States for say...more than ten years understand what is going on. The trouble is that we have millions and millions and millions of quickly naturalized citizens that barely know how to read and write in their own language, let alone English. They are the ones that are being manipulated by the media. And yes, the manipulation is Real.
I have friends in Europe that had been telling me already for a very long time that our news is corrupted and skewed and the dumbing down of America by keeping Paris Hilton, Michael Jackson, Britney Spears, OJ, and all the other people that NOBODY in America gives a crap about will be our downfall.
Estrella
69 - Earnest A. Peal
I'd like to know whether Paul supporters think he can get the backing of Christian groups? Any reaction to this article (mine, which is a spoof, but raises some issues I'd like your opinions on)?
70 - Shaun
To Earnest A. Peal: I hope what Ron Paul does is preach the problems we really have and persuade us to dissolve ridiculous ideological differences and realize that these petty issues are meant to divide us. We need to fix what's really wrong...
Do you realize that when we print money, it not only inflates the value, but also is LOANED after printing, at interest? What kind of retarded system is that... THAT'S THE ISSUE OF OUR GENERATION. It should have been done with after Andrew Jackson, but things that should not have been forgotten were forgotten (and history became legend, haha).
71 - Dave Nalle
You're hilarious man. Anyone who is critical of the government is a loony.
If you say so. I certainly wouldn't go that far. Criticizing the government is a good thing. Making crazy shit up instead of criticizing their real misbehavior is loony.
But if we let people decide for THEMSELVES whether or not they want to pray in schools... That's the crack in the door that lets Christian evangelists brainwash little children...
I've got no problem with silent, individual, non-demonstrative prayer in school. But can you actually limit it to that? The people promoting school prayer like James Dobson want it to be groups of people engaging in full-prostration prayer. That's not a private prayer, it's a revival meeting, or close to it.
(PS: I'm atheist
And this makes you special because...
On 9/11 - Pearl Harbor ring a bell Dave?
Quite a few, and still no proof of a conspiracy there either.
Look for impartial information and you'll find a lot of evidence to support the government's prior knowledge of 9/11 (no not that we did it ourselves, but that's still bad enough)
Well of course. There's no question that people in the employ of the government had big chunks of information about the 9/11 attack in advance and either didn't act on it, or bungled it, or didn't put the pieces together to draw the right conclusions. But none of that is a conspiracy, it's just unfortunate coincidences.
Couldn't they have warned employees? Secured NYC? Nah, that'd be too much work - better to let a few thousand people die, sway the American opinion to support war, and let banks push our country further into debt...
The evidence is that those who knew the possible targets and those who knew the possible perpetrators and those who knew the possible methods were all working separately and not communicating. Any of them could have put out a blanket warning, like 'look out for plane attaks' or 'keep an eye on the WTC' - but those who tried were stopped because their concerns were too vague and alarmist. They were sent back to work out more details. And pretty soon it was too late.
Again, not a conspiracy, just unfortunate circumstances.
Dave
72 - EEKman
Ok guys, we all know that 9/11 was a lie. Problem is we dont yet have the political will to get the new investigation on 9/11 and it wont happen until after the election cycle. Just let Ron Paul think what he wants about who caused 9/11 and we can educate him after hes elected. Keep the 9/11 political will building but keep it on its own turf for now.
73 - EEKman
Btw to break my own rule, I thought 9/11 truth was tinfoil moonbat zone until I read 'Crossing the Rubicon' by Mike Ruppert. Then I woke up and things suddenly made sense.
74 - Anthony Grande
When is everyone going to stop taking Ron Paul as a serious canidate?
Maybe these groups aren't anti free speech or anti Ron Paul or anti anything but they don't want to waste the spotlight on such a nothing canidate.
With one less canidate in the debate we will get a chance to hear real canidates like Giuliani, Romney and... is Fred Thompson going to be there?
AG
75 - Dave Nalle
Ruppert is an utter nutjob. I started to read his book and it was so poorly documented and full of blatant false assumptions that it was essentially worthless. He attempts to create a perfect storm tying every coincidence and potential conspiracy together and the result is just ridiculous.
His book is so bad that other conspiracy freaks have accused him of being a plant designed to discredit the 'truth' movement. The irony is that he's perfectly typical of their rat-brained, paranoid scaremongering and they're just jealous that he's slightly crazier than they are.
Dave