World News: Sep 22, 2011

Thursday, September 22, 2011

Re: Ron Paul says he'd consider putting Dennis Kucinich in his Cabinet

RP, put the consideration aside:
Kucinich is currently drafting legislation that includes a ban on the
purchase, sale, transfer, or possession of handguns by civilians.

then again ...
Kucinich was one of the dissenters in a 390-5 vote with 22 abstentions
for a resolution reaffirming the U.S.'s support for Israel.

On Sep 22, 1:48 pm, Bruce Majors <majors.br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Viktor
>
> The whole left-right paradigm needs to be jettisoned. I see no reason to
> even bring it up in discussion, as it only serves to entrench beliefs and
> file people into pre-conceived bins. For example, I do not consider
> libertarianism as a "far right belief system," where in my mental map I
> place fascism. I would argue that's what most people think as well, and
> when you claim libertarianism is far right, you will get a knee-jerk
> reaction that will categorize you together with fascists.
>
> I think Ron Paul was merely expressing his friendship and admiration for
> Kucinic, who, unlike most other Democrats, occasionally exhibits some
> principles and stands for peace. This seems to me like the media latching
> onto some off-the-cuff remark and trying to make a controversy out of it. I
> wouldn't worry about it too much. Also, I don't think Ron is confused about
> his personal principles at all. Don't get so hung up on labels. No two
> libertarians will agree on everything (well, maybe unless they are both
> committed market anarchists :).
>
> In terms of voter confusion, if someone would reject Ron Paul because of
> this one remark, that person is a lost cause IMHO. You will not be able to
> covert everyone, and there will be those who do not look too deeply into
> things. You can't cater to that crowd. That is exactly the kind of
> pandering I would hope Ron stays away from. Let him speak his mind, because
> that is what got him where he is now. We just have to hope that a large
> enough percentage of people are ready to hear his message.
>
> Let me paraphrase Thoreau: "It has been said that the government that
> governs best is the government that governs least. Well, I say that the
> government that governs best is the government that governs not at all. And
> someday, when people are ready for it, that is the kind of government they
> shall have."
>
> Someday, people will be ready for it. Ron Paul is guiding them in the right
> direction. Whatever happens, that, in the long run, is an accomplishment
> more worthy than any election.
>
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 10:56 AM, Ed Donegan <eddone...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > This causes me some doubts, NOT that he is considering Kucinich in, but
> > rather is there message confusion, identity confusion, or even ideological
> > confusion in the candidacy that is preventing a clear choice being available
> > to voters.
>
> > I view libertarianism little"l,' Libertarianism big "L," classical
> > liberalism, liberty of the individual protected against the collectivist
> > State, and libertarianism in the sense of John Stuart Mill of On Liberty it
> > the general property rights, civil liberties (upholding the liberties of the
> > people defined in the Bill of Rights against government intrusion,) and more
> > generically, freedom for the individual, including property rights, under a
> > consistent theme of protection that is generally defined as liberalism and
> > libertarianism.
>
> > It is generally perceived as a far right wing belief system, with the left
> > wing preferring the Social Collective represented through a collectivist
> > state who will dictate through a nanny state for the social harmony and good
> > as Government defines it, running roughshod over individual hooligans who
> > oppose the State imposed order causing disorder.
>
> > They are entirely polar belief systems. The Collectivist State rights or
> > the Individual "natural" rights of the citizen.
>
> > Yet while Ron Paul seems to speak quite openly about libertarianism, as
> > classic liberalism, quite openly, the campaign, and imho opinion, the
> > campaign message, and possible the candidacy as a whole is split and torn
> > over what libertarianism, or more technically, liberalism is.
>
> > The confusion in the campaign, at least I perceive, and I suspect many
> > potential volunteers and voters will feel it too, and perhaps impeed
> > support.
>
> > I see warps and twists and potholes around the issue of social
> > conservatism, and even some religious/family values issues.
>
> > Quite frankly, and I may be in the wrong place here, this is an issue of
> > impurity to me, and one that creates even finer orthogonal axis or branches
> > of existing axis on matters important to voters.
>
> > Classic social conservatism, say for instance from the Neo-Cons, has roots
> > in law and order family values reaching such extremes as to invite police
> > states and bible puritanicalism in Government promote value systems that
> > can call into question the separation of Church and State, among our
> > religious liberty protections of the First Amendment and the
> > Non-Establishment Clause, as well as other civil liberty protections such as
> > right to public trial, especially on treason allegations, protections from
> > unreasonable search and seizure Rand Paul has gone to such great lengths to
> > defend re: the Patriot Act problems, etc.,
>
> > In this regard, imho, the social conservatism heavily advocated now in the
> > campaign has inconsistent ideology.
>
> > As best as I can understand it, this is the breakdown.
>
> > Ron Paul is a religiously guided man, not at all a problem in its own
> > right, we all are entitled to our belief system and to be guided by it, but
> > he splits with social conservatives over civil liberties issues such as
> > excess police power of the State, and the State in rather Socialistic
> > Collectivist ways violating the Peoples' property rights through State
> > seizure and interventionism, and regulation of property and commerce.
>
> > This violation of property rights is another huge no no as far as classic
> > liberalism goes.
>
> > I know that
>
> > 1. When the left wing demanded their free speech rights and other civil
> > liberties/political rights of the First Amendment against Government
> > repression, the left got branded "liberals" forever creating confusion about
> > what liberty is and which party supports it. This is not Ron Paul's fault.
> > 2. There seems to me to be a great deal of confusion, and sometimes
> > even debate, about whether Ron Paul is a Libertarian, libertarian, a classic
> > social conservative, a classic liberal, or something else or something
> > unique to him.
>
> > I think in seeing his candidacy I see where he fits and why, but it seems
> > to me there could be some room for improvement in the vocabulary in defining
> > his social conservatism as different from other police state friendly law
> > and order at any cost type social conservative.
>
> > Part of the problem may lie with me as the listener, since I tend to be
> > more of a social liberal. I also agree with Ron Paul that being very far to
> > the right often means being in a circle rather than an axis, and fining out
> > you meetup with the left on a lot of issues, the center being in the center
> > instead of out at the perimeter of the circle.
>
> > So while I do agree conceptually with he is stating, I also find some
> > in-clarity about what the specific message of philosophy is defined as, in
> > some kind of nutshell that cab be gotten across to voters.
>
> > Again, while this may be my own issue of confusion about the message or
> > demographic, and I may not be a Ron Paul true purist, I wanted to let you
> > know about my impressions because I think it is possible other reachable
> > potential voters may be experiencing some ill-definition problems in the
> > message too.
>
> > I do hope I have not offended anyone with this.
>
> > --- On *Wed, 9/21/11, bruce <majors.br...@gmail.com>* wrote:
>
> > From: bruce <majors.br...@gmail.com>
> > Subject: [ronpaul-30] Fwd: [NEWS] Ron Paul says he'd consider putting
> > Dennis Kucinich in his Cabinet
> > To: ronpaul...@meetup.com
> > Date: Wednesday, September 21, 2011, 7:42 PM
>
> > **
>
> > **
> > *Ron Paul says he'd consider putting Dennis Kucinich in his Cabinet*
> > **
> > *< another "over the top comment" that makes me scared as hell of the
> > goofy one >*
> > **
> > *
> >http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/182939-ron-paul-says...
> > *
>
> > Click here: Ron Paul says he'd consider putting Dennis Kucinich in his
> > Cabinet - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room<http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/182939-ron-paul-says...>
> > **
>
> > Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) says he would consider putting the liberal
> > congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) in his Cabinet if he were to win the
> > presidency in 2012.
>
> > Paul said his libertarian political philosophy helps him connect with some
> > on the far left ? including Kucinich, who shares Paul?s general anti-war
> > stance.
>
> > Paul joked that if he brought the Ohio congressman aboard in his
> > administration, he might have to create a "Department of Peace."
>
> > "You've got to give credit to people who think," he said.
>
> > "Being pragmatic is about forming coalitions," Paul said at a breakfast
> > sponsored by *The Christian Science Monitor*. "I probably work with
> > coalitions better than the other candidates. I don't think I've said
> > anything negative here about the president."
>
> > Paul?s bid for the GOP nomination has yet to catch fire, though he enjoys
> > perhaps the most passionate following in all of politics. He has had
> > difficulty elevating himself to the top tier of candidates and complained
> > that the media is not taking his campaign seriously.
>
> > But the congressman said he?s playing the long game, and values bringing
> > political change over winning the presidency.
>
> > "Politics doesn't drive me as much as economic policy," Paul said. "We're
> > in a big mess, personal liberty is under attack."
>
> > Paul said his presidential campaign is more about an "educational effort"
> > of libertarian philosophies than a reflection of his personal ambition.
> > ------------------------------
>
> > *More from The Hill:*
> > *? Video: Paul says country, GOP have shifted towards his views*<http://thehill.com/video/campaign/182967-ron-paul-country-gop-have-sh...>
> > *? Video: Jon Stewart 'made our case' for lack of media attention*<http://thehill.com/video/campaign/182971-ron-paul-jon-stewart-made-ou...>
> > *? Ron Paul: Obama cuts to veterans' health 'unjust and immoral'*<http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/politics-elections/182607-paul-b...>
> > *? Ron Paul money bomb raises $1 million*<http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/164879-paul-raises-o...>
> > *? Opinion: Ron Paul wins big in Calif., media ignores him*<http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/182281-ro...>
> > *? Vince Vaughn introduces Paul at libertarian event*<http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/gop-presidential-primary/182153-v...>
> > *? Perry ad slams Obama as 'president zero'*<http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/182877-new-per...>
> > *? New poll finds Palin in striking distance of Obama*<http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/182963-as-palin-flir...>
> > ------------------------------
>
> > "There are a lot of people who just don't want to hear this," Paul said.
> > "Very few people understand this, they don't have an understanding of how
> > free markets work."
>
> > The congressman said the fact that other Republican candidates are talking
> > about the Federal Reserve or rolling back entitlement programs like Social
> > Security and Medicare are victories for his campaign. Paul also says his
> > campaign ? coupled with a financial crisis that has brought into question
> > the stability of the American economic system ? is changing the prevailing
> > attitudes of voters.
>
> > "It requires a lot more education and a lot more inroads," Paul said. "But
> > absolutely, I think the whole country has come this way."
>
> > But Paul continues to struggle in the polls, hovering around 9 to 10
> > percent of likely Republican primary voters. While his showing is
> > consistently better than some candidates who have garnered more attention,
> > he is unsure of how he will propel himself to the top of the field.
>
> > "The supporters believe it's possible, I don't know," Paul said. "There's
> > no reason to rule out the fact this can explode. Something has to give
> > here."
>
> > Paul attributed some of the problem to the media, arguing that significant
> > campaign milestones and rallies were underreported. And he acknowledged that
> > as a candidate, he is responsible for delivering his message in a way that
> > voters can appreciate.
>
> > "It partially is my fault, and I think that's what I work on most, refining
> > my message," Paul said.
>
> > But Paul rejected the idea that he should adopt a more pragmatic or
> > conciliatory strategy that would enable him to either grow his base among
> > those skeptical of some of his views ? particularly in terms of
> > non-interventionist foreign policy ? or achieve smaller pieces of his
> > domestic policy goals legislatively.
>
> > "If you give up your principles, you're not being very pragmatic," Paul
> > said.
>
> > **
>
> > **
>
> > **
>
> > **
>
> > **
>
> > **
>
> > **
>
> > **
>
> > **
>
> > **
>
> > **
>
> > **
>
> > **
>
> > **
>
> > *.*
>
> > __._,_.___
> > Reply to sender<http://mc/compose?to=AzGOPG...@aol.com&subject=Re%3A%20Ron%20Paul%20says%20he%27d%20consider%20putting%20Dennis%20Kucinich%20in%20his%20Cabinet%20>| Reply
> > to group<http://mc/compose?to=Gathering_Conservatives_News_Gr...@yahoogroups.com&subject=Re%3A%20Ron%20Paul%20says%20he%27d%20consider%20putting%20Dennis%20Kucinich%20in%20his%20Cabinet%20>| Reply
> > via web post<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Gathering_Conservatives_News_Group/post...>| Start
> > a New Topic<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Gathering_Conservatives_News_Group/post...>
> > Messages in this topic<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Gathering_Conservatives_News_Group/mess...>(
> > 1)
> > Recent Activity:
>
> > Visit Your Group<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Gathering_Conservatives_News_Group;_ylc...>
> > Gathering_Conservatives_News_Gr...@yahoogroups.com<http://mc/compose?to=Gathering_Conservatives_News_Gr...@yahoogroups.com>
>
> > .
>
> > MARKETPLACE
>
> > Stay on top of your group activity without leaving the page you're on - Get
> > the Yahoo! Toolbar now.<http://global.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=15oocjgkl/M=493064.14543979.14562481....>
> > [image: Yahoo! Groups]<http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJlMmdrNm9vBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycEl...>
> > Switch to: Text-Only<http://mc/compose?to=Gathering_Conservatives_News_Group-traditio...@yahoogroups.com&subject=Change+Delivery+Format:+Traditional>,
> > Daily Digest<http://mc/compose?to=Gathering_Conservatives_News_Group-dig...@yahoogroups.com&subject=Email+Delivery:+Digest>?
> > Unsubscribe<http://mc/compose?to=Gathering_Conservatives_News_Group-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com&subject=Unsubscribe>? Terms
> > of Use <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>
> > .
>
> > __,_._,___
>
> > --
> > Please Note: If you hit "*REPLY*", your message will be sent to *everyone*on this mailing list (
> > ronpaul...@meetup.com <http://mc/compose?to=ronpaul...@meetup.com>)
> > This message was sent by bruce (majors.br...@gmail.com) from The
> > Arlington/Alexandria Ron Paul Meetup Group<http://www.meetup.com/ronpaul-30/>
> > .
>
> > To learn more about bruce, visit his/her member profile<http://www.meetup.com/ronpaul-30/members/10075860/>
> > To unsubscribe or to update your mailing list settings, click here<http://www.meetup.com/ronpaul-30/settings/>
>
> > Meetup, PO Box 4668 #37895 New York, New York 10163-4668 |
> > supp...@meetup.com
>
> > --
> > Please Note: If you hit "*REPLY*", your message will be sent to *everyone*on this mailing list (
> > ronpaul...@meetup.com)
> > This message was sent by Ed Donegan (eddone...@yahoo.com) from The
> > Arlington/Alexandria Ron Paul Meetup Group<http://www.meetup.com/ronpaul-30/>
> > .
> > To learn more about Ed Donegan, visit his/her member profile<http://www.meetup.com/ronpaul-30/members/14588934/>
>
> > To unsubscribe or to update your mailing list settings, click here<http://www.meetup.com/ronpaul-30/settings/>
>
> > Meetup, PO Box 4668 #37895 New York, New York 10163-4668 |
> > supp...@meetup.com
>
> --
> Please Note: If you hit "*REPLY*", your message will be sent to
> *everyone*on this mailing list (
> ronpaul...@meetup.com)
> This message was sent by Viktor (not.vik...@gmail.com) from The
> Arlington/Alexandria Ron Paul Meetup Group<http://www.meetup.com/ronpaul-30/>
> .
> To learn more about Viktor, visit his/her member
> profile<http://www.meetup.com/ronpaul-30/members/4203988/>
>
> To unsubscribe or to update your mailing list settings, click
> here<http://www.meetup.com/ronpaul-30/settings/>
>
> Meetup, PO Box 4668 #37895 New York, New York 10163-4668 |
> supp...@meetup.com

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

how to greet illegal alien/criminal protesters

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_aJWkhRe70&NR=1

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Ron Paul says he'd consider putting Dennis Kucinich in his Cabinet

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Viktor

The whole left-right paradigm needs to be jettisoned. I see no reason to even bring it up in discussion, as it only serves to entrench beliefs and file people into pre-conceived bins. For example, I do not consider libertarianism as a "far right belief system," where in my mental map I place fascism. I would argue that's what most people think as well, and when you claim libertarianism is far right, you will get a knee-jerk reaction that will categorize you together with fascists.

I think Ron Paul was merely expressing his friendship and admiration for Kucinic, who, unlike most other Democrats, occasionally exhibits some principles and stands for peace. This seems to me like the media latching onto some off-the-cuff remark and trying to make a controversy out of it. I wouldn't worry about it too much. Also, I don't think Ron is confused about his personal principles at all. Don't get so hung up on labels. No two libertarians will agree on everything (well, maybe unless they are both committed market anarchists :).

In terms of voter confusion, if someone would reject Ron Paul because of this one remark, that person is a lost cause IMHO. You will not be able to covert everyone, and there will be those who do not look too deeply into things. You can't cater to that crowd. That is exactly the kind of pandering I would hope Ron stays away from. Let him speak his mind, because that is what got him where he is now. We just have to hope that a large enough percentage of people are ready to hear his message.

Let me paraphrase Thoreau: "It has been said that the government that governs best is the government that governs least. Well, I say that the government that governs best is the government that governs not at all. And someday, when people are ready for it, that is the kind of government they shall have."

Someday, people will be ready for it. Ron Paul is guiding them in the right direction. Whatever happens, that, in the long run, is an accomplishment more worthy than any election.

On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 10:56 AM, Ed Donegan <eddonegan@yahoo.com> wrote:

This causes me some doubts, NOT that he is considering Kucinich in, but rather is there message confusion, identity confusion, or even ideological confusion in the candidacy that is preventing a clear choice being available to voters.

I view libertarianism little"l,' Libertarianism big "L," classical liberalism, liberty of the individual protected against the collectivist State, and libertarianism in the sense of John Stuart Mill of On Liberty it the general property rights, civil liberties (upholding the liberties of the people defined in the Bill of Rights against government intrusion,) and more generically, freedom for the individual, including property rights, under a consistent theme of protection that is generally defined as liberalism and libertarianism.

It is generally perceived as a far right wing belief system, with the left wing preferring the Social Collective represented through a collectivist state who will dictate through a nanny state for the social harmony and good as Government defines it, running roughshod over individual hooligans who oppose the State imposed order causing disorder.

They are entirely polar belief systems. The Collectivist State rights or the Individual "natural" rights of the citizen.

Yet while Ron Paul seems to speak quite openly about libertarianism, as classic liberalism, quite openly, the campaign, and imho opinion, the campaign message, and possible the candidacy as a whole is split and torn over what libertarianism, or more technically, liberalism is.

The confusion in the campaign, at least I perceive, and I suspect many potential volunteers and voters will feel it too, and perhaps impeed support.

I see warps and twists and potholes around the issue of social conservatism, and even some religious/family values issues.

Quite frankly, and I may be in the wrong place here, this is an issue of impurity to me, and one that creates even finer orthogonal axis or branches of existing axis on matters important to voters.

Classic social conservatism, say for instance from the Neo-Cons, has roots in law and order family values reaching such extremes as to invite police states and bible puritanicalism in Government promote value systems that can call into question the separation of Church and State, among our religious liberty protections of the First Amendment and the Non-Establishment Clause, as well as other civil liberty protections such as right to public trial, especially on treason allegations, protections from unreasonable search and seizure Rand Paul has gone to such great lengths to defend re: the Patriot Act problems, etc.,

In this regard, imho, the social conservatism heavily advocated now in the campaign has inconsistent ideology.

As best as I can understand it, this is the breakdown.

Ron Paul is a religiously guided man, not at all a problem in its own right, we all are entitled to our belief system and to be guided by it, but he splits with social conservatives over civil liberties issues such as excess police power of the State, and the State in rather Socialistic Collectivist ways violating the Peoples' property rights through State seizure and interventionism, and regulation of property and commerce.

This violation of property rights is another huge no no as far as classic liberalism goes.

I know that
When the left wing demanded their free speech rights and other civil liberties/political rights of the First Amendment against Government repression, the left got branded "liberals" forever creating confusion about what liberty is and which party supports it. This is not Ron Paul's fault.

There seems to me to be a great deal of confusion, and sometimes even debate, about whether Ron Paul is a Libertarian, libertarian, a classic social conservative, a classic liberal, or something else or something unique to him.
I think in seeing his candidacy I see where he fits and why, but it seems to me there could be some room for improvement in the vocabulary in defining his social conservatism as different from other police state friendly law and order at any cost type social conservative.

Part of the problem may lie with me as the listener, since I tend to be more of a social liberal. I also agree with Ron Paul that being very far to the right often means being in a circle rather than an axis, and fining out you meetup with the left on a lot of issues, the center being in the center instead of out at the perimeter of the circle.

So while I do agree conceptually with he is stating, I also find some in-clarity about what the specific message of philosophy is defined as, in some kind of nutshell that cab be gotten across to voters.

Again, while this may be my own issue of confusion about the message or demographic, and I may not be a Ron Paul true purist, I wanted to let you know about my impressions because I think it is possible other reachable potential voters may be experiencing some ill-definition problems in the message too.

I do hope I have not offended anyone with this.

--- On Wed, 9/21/11, bruce <majors.bruce@gmail.com> wrote:

From: bruce <majors.bruce@gmail.com>
Subject: [ronpaul-30] Fwd: [NEWS] Ron Paul says he'd consider putting Dennis Kucinich in his Cabinet
To: ronpaul-30@meetup.com
Date: Wednesday, September 21, 2011, 7:42 PM

Ron Paul says he'd consider putting Dennis Kucinich in his Cabinet

< another "over the top comment" that makes me scared as hell of the goofy one >

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/182939-ron-paul-says-hed-consider-putting-dennis-kucinich-in-his-cabinet

Click here: Ron Paul says he'd consider putting Dennis Kucinich in his Cabinet - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room

Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) says he would consider putting the liberal congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) in his Cabinet if he were to win the presidency in 2012.

Paul said his libertarian political philosophy helps him connect with some on the far left ? including Kucinich, who shares Paul?s general anti-war stance.

Paul joked that if he brought the Ohio congressman aboard in his administration, he might have to create a "Department of Peace."

"You've got to give credit to people who think," he said.

"Being pragmatic is about forming coalitions," Paul said at a breakfast sponsored by The Christian Science Monitor. "I probably work with coalitions better than the other candidates. I don't think I've said anything negative here about the president."

Paul?s bid for the GOP nomination has yet to catch fire, though he enjoys perhaps the most passionate following in all of politics. He has had difficulty elevating himself to the top tier of candidates and complained that the media is not taking his campaign seriously.

But the congressman said he?s playing the long game, and values bringing political change over winning the presidency.

"Politics doesn't drive me as much as economic policy," Paul said. "We're in a big mess, personal liberty is under attack."

Paul said his presidential campaign is more about an "educational effort" of libertarian philosophies than a reflection of his personal ambition.

More from The Hill:
? Video: Paul says country, GOP have shifted towards his views
? Video: Jon Stewart 'made our case' for lack of media attention
? Ron Paul: Obama cuts to veterans' health 'unjust and immoral'
? Ron Paul money bomb raises $1 million
? Opinion: Ron Paul wins big in Calif., media ignores him
? Vince Vaughn introduces Paul at libertarian event
? Perry ad slams Obama as 'president zero'
? New poll finds Palin in striking distance of Obama

"There are a lot of people who just don't want to hear this," Paul said. "Very few people understand this, they don't have an understanding of how free markets work."

The congressman said the fact that other Republican candidates are talking about the Federal Reserve or rolling back entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare are victories for his campaign. Paul also says his campaign ? coupled with a financial crisis that has brought into question the stability of the American economic system ? is changing the prevailing attitudes of voters.

"It requires a lot more education and a lot more inroads," Paul said. "But absolutely, I think the whole country has come this way."

But Paul continues to struggle in the polls, hovering around 9 to 10 percent of likely Republican primary voters. While his showing is consistently better than some candidates who have garnered more attention, he is unsure of how he will propel himself to the top of the field.

"The supporters believe it's possible, I don't know," Paul said. "There's no reason to rule out the fact this can explode. Something has to give here."

Paul attributed some of the problem to the media, arguing that significant campaign milestones and rallies were underreported. And he acknowledged that as a candidate, he is responsible for delivering his message in a way that voters can appreciate.

"It partially is my fault, and I think that's what I work on most, refining my message," Paul said.

But Paul rejected the idea that he should adopt a more pragmatic or conciliatory strategy that would enable him to either grow his base among those skeptical of some of his views ? particularly in terms of non-interventionist foreign policy ? or achieve smaller pieces of his domestic policy goals legislatively.

"If you give up your principles, you're not being very pragmatic," Paul said.

.

__._,_.___

Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic

Messages in this topic (1)

Recent Activity:

Visit Your Group

Gathering_Conservatives_News_Group@yahoogroups.com

.

MARKETPLACE

Stay on top of your group activity without leaving the page you're on - Get the Yahoo! Toolbar now.

Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest ? Unsubscribe ? Terms of Use

.

__,_._,___

--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list (ronpaul-30@meetup.com)
This message was sent by bruce (majors.bruce@gmail.com) from The Arlington/Alexandria Ron Paul Meetup Group.

To learn more about bruce, visit his/her member profile
To unsubscribe or to update your mailing list settings, click here

Meetup, PO Box 4668 #37895 New York, New York 10163-4668 | support@meetup.com

--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list (ronpaul-30@meetup.com)
This message was sent by Ed Donegan (eddonegan@yahoo.com) from The Arlington/Alexandria Ron Paul Meetup Group.

To learn more about Ed Donegan, visit his/her member profile

To unsubscribe or to update your mailing list settings, click here

Meetup, PO Box 4668 #37895 New York, New York 10163-4668 | support@meetup.com

--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list (ronpaul-30@meetup.com)
This message was sent by Viktor (not.viktor@gmail.com) from The Arlington/Alexandria Ron Paul Meetup Group.
To learn more about Viktor, visit his/her member profile

To unsubscribe or to update your mailing list settings, click here

Meetup, PO Box 4668 #37895 New York, New York 10163-4668 | support@meetup.com

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: HEY KIDS! Do not attempt to carry out this microwave terror attack unless there is a 7th Century throwback in the room

muzzy terrorists didn't attack the US because it's xian

On Sep 22, 11:03 am, Travis <baconl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> **
> <http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/author/barenakedislam/> HEY KIDS!
> Do not attempt to carry out this microwave terror attack unless there is a
> 7th Century throwback in the
> room<http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2011/09/22/hey-kids-do-not-attemp...>
> *barenakedislam <http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/author/barenakedislam/>
> * | September 22, 2011 at 2:44 AM | Categories:
> IslamoMania<http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/?cat=8843274>| URL:http://wp.me/peHnV-zVn
>
> Mooselum artist wackjob is so horrified by what he calls the 'Islamophobic'
> 9/11 Coloring Book, that he decided to put it in a microwave oven and turn
> it into an 'AntiBigotSLUG' for sale on Ebay. Muslim artist Kenny Irwin In
> response to Wayne Bell's islamophobic coloring book geared at impressionable
> young children called "The We Shall [...]
>
> Read more of this
> post<http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2011/09/22/hey-kids-do-not-attemp...>
>
> Add a comment to this
> post<http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2011/09/22/hey-kids-do-not-attemp...>
>
> [image: WordPress]
>
> WordPress.com <http://wordpress.com/> | Thanks for flying with WordPress!
> Manage Subscriptions<http://subscribe.wordpress.com/?key=5d39acfd19218362d540a3fc3dc3315d&...>|
> Unsubscribe<http://subscribe.wordpress.com/?key=5d39acfd19218362d540a3fc3dc3315d&...>|
> Express
> yourself. Start a blog. <http://wordpress.com/signup/>
>
> *Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:*http://subscribe.wordpress.com

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Perry’s Faith-Based Foreign Policy Directive

Who just stood in front of the UN and said the US will veto any bid
for Palestinian statehood?
---
On May 19, 2011, Obama made a foreign policy speech in which he called
for a return to the pre-1967 Israeli borders with mutually agreed land
swaps. Obama was criticized by many on the right in the U.S. for the
proposal.
The Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, a Republican think
tank, reports that Obama has imposed a virtual arms embargo on Israel.
Obama blocked all major Israeli weapons requests, including key
projects and upgrades, linking arms sales to progress in the peace
process. At the same time, Obama approved $10 billion in arms sales to
Arab states, including fighters, missiles, helicopters, and fast
attack craft. Israel did not protest, despite reports that its
qualitative military edge was being eroded.

According to a classified U.S. State Departmment cable from October
31, 2008, released during the United States diplomatic cables leak,
the U.S. embassies in Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, and Saudi
Arabia, as well as the CIA and Defense Intelligence Agency, were
directed by the Bush administration to conduct espionage operations
against Israel, targeting all aspects of Israel's political system,
society, communications infrastructure, and military. Diplomats and
spies were asked to gather intelligence on planned Israeli military
operations, military units, equipment, maintenance levels, training,
morale, operational readiness, tactics, techniques and procedures for
conventional and unconventional counterinsurgency and counterterrorist
operations, and Israeli assessment on the impact of reserve duty in
the occupied territories on its military readiness. Information was
also sought on government plans, potential ways Israeli politicians
could be influenced, how politicians decide to launch military
strikes, the attitude of politicians towards the U.S, the official and
personal phone numbers, fax numbers, and e-mail addresses of military
and civilian leaders, Israeli military, intelligence, and civilian
communications infrastructure, and coded means of producing passports
and government ID badges.

which political party does US support to Israel come from?

yep ... it's complicated yet clear ... jewish influence on our
politicians is widespread

---
Ron Paul:
Madame Speaker, I strongly oppose H. Res. 34, which was rushed to the
floor with almost no prior notice and without consideration by the
House Foreign Affairs Committee. The resolution clearly takes one side
in a conflict that has nothing to do with the United States or US
interests. I am concerned that the weapons currently being used by
Israel against the Palestinians in Gaza are made in America and paid
for by American taxpayers. What will adopting this resolution do to
the perception of the United States in the Muslim and Arab world? What
kind of blowback might we see from this? What moral responsibility do
we have for the violence in Israel and Gaza after having provided so
much military support to one side?

As an opponent of all violence, I am appalled by the practice of
lobbing homemade rockets into Israel from Gaza. I am only grateful
that, because of the primitive nature of these weapons, there have
been so few casualties among innocent Israelis. But I am also appalled
by the longstanding Israeli blockade of Gaza — a cruel act of war —
and the tremendous loss of life that has resulted from the latest
Israeli attack that started last month.

There are now an estimated 700 dead Palestinians, most of whom are
civilians. Many innocent children are among the dead. While the
shooting of rockets into Israel is inexcusable, the violent actions of
some people in Gaza does not justify killing Palestinians on this
scale. Such collective punishment is immoral. At the very least, the
US Congress should not be loudly proclaiming its support for the
Israeli government's actions in Gaza.

Madame Speaker, this resolution will do nothing to reduce the fighting
and bloodshed in the Middle East. The resolution in fact will lead the
US to become further involved in this conflict, promising "vigorous
support and unwavering commitment to the welfare, security, and
survival of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state." Is it really in
the interest of the United States to guarantee the survival of any
foreign country? I believe it would be better to focus on the security
and survival of the United States, the Constitution of which my
colleagues and I swore to defend just this week at the beginning of
the 111th Congress. I urge my colleagues to reject this resolution.

On Sep 22, 9:04 am, GregfromBoston <greg.vinc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Who just stood in front of the UN and said the US will veto any bid
> for Palestinian statehood?
>
> However, I not only don't like Perry's reasoning, I think it borders
> on illegal. "Borders"
>
> But then, would you rather him not tell us?
>
> Try and sort that out. I'm not sure I can
>
> On Sep 21, 3:36 pm, plainolamerican <plainolameri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > the idea that a US President's religious convictions will compel him
> > to support a foreign government, regardless of whether that support
> > serves specifically American interests, is appalling – and dangerous.
> > ---
> > and very unAmerican
> > Perry, like Bachmann, is a zionist and should be seen as the enemy.
>
> > otoh - Ron Paul:
> > - would not stop Israel from defending her interests in any way she
> > saw fit - but without US support
> > - has also been criticized for wanting to "end foreign aid to Israel."
> > He had in fact called for an end to all foreign aid in general.
> > - will not allow American lives to be sacrificed for Israeli interests
>
> > Interviewer: [...]"Why do you think that so many US officials,
> > Congress, Senate, show overwhelming support to involving the US over
> > there?"
>
> > Ron Paul: [...] "It's been going on for more than 50 years, because
> > there has been a pretty strong case made for the Jewish people being
> > treated quite badly, and emotionally there was an argument for having
> > a place they can call their homeland, and people bought into this. But
> > even then there was no justification for us to be using our money for
> > doing that.
>
> > On Sep 21, 1:43 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
>
> > > Perry's Faith-Based Foreign Policy DirectiveGod says: 'Put Israel first'byJustin Raimondo, September 21, 2011
> > > If Rick Perry makes it to the White House, what will American foreign policy in the Middle East look like? We got a clear indication of that, recently, whenhe stated:"As a Christian I have a clear directive to support Israel, from my perspective its pretty easy both as an American and a Christian. I am going to stand with Israel."
> > > Earlier, inan interviewwith theWeekly Standard, he was even more emphatic, averring that "My faith requires me to support Israel."
> > > What kind of faith requires knee-jerk support for a foreign country? Apparently, Perry is a follower of a Protestant brand of Christianity known as "dispensationalism," which holds that the End Times are approaching – and thatone of the signsof the imminent apocalypse is the gathering of the Jews in the land of Israel, as supposedly foretold in the Bible. Some dispensationalists equate this with the founding of the Israeli state, in 1947, and the subsequent migration of many Jews to that country. According to dispensationalist theology, this phenomenon prefigures the start of an earth-shattering war, one that will pit Israel against the Forces of Darkness, herald the rise of the Anti-Christ, and ignite a battle that will take place on the field of Armageddon – after which Christ will return to earth and the faithful will be "raptured" up into Heaven.
> > > Now, I don't intend to disparage anyone's religious beliefs, nor do I want to engage in the kind of snickering that usually accompanies commentary on this subject: everyone is entitled to their own faith, and, aside from that, there is something a little unsavory about the smugness and self-righteousness that is usually attached to discussions of the impact of Christian fundamentalism on American politics. There isno religious testfor holding office in these United States, and it seems to me that some liberals have been trying their best to establish one – a test ofirreligion– in order to marginalize millions of Americans. This kind of intolerance is mirrored, on the right, by some – like GOP presidential aspirantHerman Cain, for example – who have raised questions about the ability of religious Muslims to have their voices heard, or even to hold office.
> > > However, the idea that a US President's religious convictions will compel him to support a foreign government, regardless of whether that support serves specifically American interests, is appalling – anddangerous. And we can see how dangerous it is by looking at Governor Perry's attacks on the Obama administration for supposedly not kowtowing to Tel Aviv with sufficient obeisance. At a press conference held in New York City, where heappearedwith an Israeli government official, Perrydeclared:"It is time to change our policy of appeasement toward the Palestinians to strengthen our ties to the nation of Israel, and in the process establish a robust American position in the Middle East characterized by a new firmness and a new resolve."What, exactly, does this "policy of appeasement" consist of? The Obama administration isdeterminedto veto the Palestinian statehood proposal being advanced in the UN Security Council, and hasmade it clearthat the US government stands behind the Israelis in their attempt to grab as much land – via theconstructionof "settlements" – as they can, all of it funded bygenerousdollops of American "foreign aid."
> > > Who is being "appeased" here – the Palestinians, or the Israelis?
> > > Perry supports continued "settlements" of Palestinian lands, and also says he wants to move the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem – a symbolic affirmation of Israel's claim to the "undivided" capital of the Jewish state. This contradicts the policies of two Republican presidents – both named George Bush. It also violates the essential meaning and function of US foreign policy – to protect specifically American interests. We gain nothing by weighing in on where the capital of the state of Israel shall be – although I'll note that nearly every successful presidential aspirant madesuch a promiseduringthe campaign season. That this promise was summarily broken once they got in the White House speaks volumes about the politics – and the reality – of this issue.
> > > Perry says we should "stand by Israel," our faithful ally and the only state in the region with a long democratic tradition, and this proposition seems reasonable enough – until one begins to examine it a little more closely. Because the Israel of yesteryear – the Israel ofExodus, of the "peace process," of theliberal humanistic traditionout of which Labor Zionism sprang – is not the Israel of today.
> > > The foreign minister of the Jewish state is oneAvigdor Lieberman, a fanatic whose bigotry and aggressively nationalistic views have made him an embarrassment even to the hardline government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. For example, when relations with Turkey soured, Liebermanthreatenedto arm the PKK – a Kurdish terrorist group that has been attacking the Turks for years. Netanyahutriedto distance his office from such irresponsible ranting, but when I awoke, this morning, to the news thata bombhad gone off near government offices in Ankara, I wasn't all that surprised.
> > > This raises serious questions about who, exactly, is in charge in Tel Aviv – the crazies, represented by Lieberman and the "settlers," or Netanyahu?
> > > However, a larger question needs to be raised: what has Israel become in the years since the signing of theCamp David Accords? Since that time, the Israeli electorate has moved so farto the right– that is, in the direction of expansionist nationalism – that there seems to be no room for moderates of any stripe. After years ofnurturing,subsidizing, and otherwiseencouragingthe "settler" movement – which is imbued with the ultra-Zionist dream of establishing a "Greater Israel" – the chickens, so to speak, have come home to roost. The settler movement represents almost as great a threat to the stability and authority of the Israeli government as the radical Palestinianfactions– greater, perhaps, because the danger is coming from within.
> > > Perry is encouraging this tendency in Israeli politics: he appeared at the press conference with Israeli Knesset memberDanny Danon, an ultra-nationalist rival to Netanyahu whowants to revokethe citizenship of Arab Knesset members on dubious grounds, and heads up the wing of Likud that considers even a hardliner like Netanyahu asell-out. Danon is the darling of the settler movement, and enjoys more support outside of Israel than he does on his home turf. He headed up the ultra-extremistBetar group– an organization which has its origins in an early wing of the Zionist movement thatmodeled itselfon the example of Italian fascism, merely draping a "Zionist" façade over an authoritarian vision of a homogenousvolkishstate. He is a regular on America's "Israel First" circuit, lecturing to groups of born-again dispensationalists – Perry's crowd – as well as more mainstream venues, updating Betar's authoritarian stance bycalling for legal sanctionsagainst those who organize "anti-Israel" boycotts, which apparently also means boycotts of "settler" products.
> > > By appearing on the same stage with Danon, Perry is legitimizing and encouragingthe worstimpulses in Israeli society – and puttingour own interestsat risk. If Israel should implode in civil war – and, with the settlers getting increasingly militant, and inopen rebellionagainst the Israeli government – it is numbskull opportunists like Perry who will bear a large part of the blame. By egging on the Israeliequivalentsof the Aryan Nations, they will wind up with blood on their hands.
> > > Aside from that, it hardly seems all thatpresidentialfor the would-be Republican nominee to be onstage with Bibi's rightist rival in the Likud party – not someone who came in second in the bid for the party leadership, but Danon, who came inthird!
> > > What gets me is that these people actually believe they are helping Israel, when their actions are the quickest way to destabilize that
>
> ...
>
> read more »

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Perry’s Faith-Based Foreign Policy Directive

which political party does US support to Israel come from?

yep ... it's complicated yet clear ... jewish influence on our
politicians is widespread

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Fwd: [New post] Deregulated Lawyers and Regulatory Spread

HEY KIDS! Do not attempt to carry out this microwave terror attack unless there is a 7th Century throwback in the room

barenakedislam | September 22, 2011 at 2:44 AM | Categories: IslamoMania | URL: http://wp.me/peHnV-zVn

Mooselum artist wackjob is so horrified by what he calls the 'Islamophobic' 9/11 Coloring Book, that he decided to put it in a microwave oven and turn it into an 'AntiBigotSLUG' for sale on Ebay. Muslim artist Kenny Irwin In response to Wayne Bell's islamophobic coloring book geared at impressionable young children called "The We Shall [...]

Councilman names dog Muhammad, Muslims & dhimmis pounce

creeping | September 22, 2011 at 11:02 AM | Tags: cair, Creeping Sharia, islam, law, Legal, Media, Muslim, Politics, Random, Religion, Sharia | Categories: Alerts, California, Creeping Sharia, Media, News, Politics, Religion, Sharia, Stealth Jihad | URL: http://wp.me/pbU4v-9D0

Muslims continue stifling the freedoms of Americans. They won't stop. Will sharia law prevail or will Reeve? via Reeve Explains 'Muhammad' as Dog's Name - San Juan Capistrano, CA Patch. H/t to reader Mary M. Naming his dog Muhammad, and later announcing it during a public meeting, was not meant to be disparaging to Muslims, [...]