Ron Paul on the Verge of Going Third Party?

Bill R wrote:

<quoted text>
Is it any wonder he is outside the building
this evening?

Tell us, why did the McCain's people disrespect the ten term congressman by not even allowing him on the floor without supervision ? Let alone the snub from the GOP leadeship to a candidate with more delegates than Rudy,Thompson and uuhm...the Democrat Lieberman, all allowed to pander to McCain.

This convention is protected, for it is an institution fundamental to our government. Or is it a coming out party / roast for our single party thinker, no others welcome.

If Paul advocated anything that was not a traditional value at the GOP convention a case could be made, but Paul advocates the values that have been in the party longer than Palin and Obama have been alive and longer than the neo conservative movement.

Last thing - The GOP is arrogant as heck to be getting beat election after election and close their tent to ideas.

VoteVets org wrote:

<quoted text>
The Nut cases are in the building believing all the propaganda.
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/

Propoganda is the blog you referenced, poorly, from this Dan Reilly fellow, who got it wrong.

Did you even qualify this "usefull information" before you posted it, with referenced commentary ?

VoteVets org wrote:

<quoted text>
The Nut cases are in the building believing all the propaganda.
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2003...

LORAX wrote:

<quoted text>
What happens when a power position is vacated?

We either have to leave it at that or find someone else to fill it.

Bill R wrote:

<quoted text>
Choosing Alex Jones as a venue for the airing of
these kinds of opinions is at least in part one
of the reasons why Ron Paul was judged by so many
to be less than qualified for the presidency.
Ron Paul knew his views would find a ready and
willing audience on the Alex Jones circus show
and he pandered to them just as he did in previous
appearances at organizations with members also
inclined to believe such things.
I am fully aware that L.B.J. essentially created
the Gulf of Tonkin incident, but to publicly
insinuate that one's president would do such a
thing was irresponsible. At best it showed his
extraordinary bad judgment. At worst it
unintentionally put him in league with the
goofy conspiracy nutcases that felt comfy in
his company.
Is it any wonder he is outside the building
this evening?

I do not share your view, Bill. I can't find it in me to care about Ron Paul's choice for a venue, as it has nothing to do with what he said. To publicly insinuate that one's president is capable of doing what he/she is obviously capable of doing is not irresponsible in any way, just the opposite. Would you rather we didn't admit it to ourselves, hide from it and pretend it isn't a concern? This is exactly why FedUp came up with the theory that you are being paid for what you say, nothing you said has any substance. It's just the assumption that no one can listen to Ron Paul no matter how right he may be because of his choice of venue and because he has the courage to admit what our president is capable of doing. No I don't think it's in any way irresponsible, Bill, please tell me why it is.

LocalBoy wrote:

<quoted text>Tell us,VV, what is the problem with pauls positions ?
Come out and play, dont sit in the shadows.

Nothing, Ron Paul's just not mature enough for the media. He isn't getting with the program, you know.

RonPauler wrote:

<quoted text>
Nothing, Ron Paul's just not mature enough for the media. He isn't getting with the program, you know.

Here he is again on the floor of the peoples house - October 25, 2001
You'll like this one RP

Anybody else care to join in on REAL coverage of Ron Paul ?
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2003...

Bill R wrote:

<quoted text>
You asked. I provided a few principles and ideas
that I think are worthwhile. That's all. If you
wish to dismiss the particulars using the same
cynicism and nihilism toward history and biography
that you employ in casting judgment on anyone
in the political process, that's your privilege.
You seem to believe that generations before you
owe you some kind of an apology. Is that how you
expect life to work; each generation apologizing
to the next for whatever discomfort or injustice
that gets passed along? I'm sure you've been
disappointed thus far and equally sure that dis-
appointment will continue. While you are waiting
you can begin composing your apologies to those
children getting on the school bus this morning,
as you seem intent on leaving them with the gifts
of nihilism and cynicism, sprinkled with a heavy
dose of self pity and Noam Chumpski.

Cut part of your post. LOL! Yes i'm cynical if generation after generation keep on making the same mistakes over and over again. Ideas are old and stale and the few principles you provided i'd heard so many times.
Billr you have no idea; seems like you miss the basics tenets of being good leader must be "Be moral, Be Responsible, Be Accountable, Be truthful..." for all actions that may have grave future consequences for a anation/world if not corrected. This is not a game Billr, as a world leader, she/he must be held accountable and be reponsible to the masses.
Moral Ethics vs Political Ethics!
No Apology asked or needed. All, We, the people" is asking most of previous generation of leaders should own up to being "RESPONSIBLE" for their mistakes and find solutions to fix it! Why do the American people put you into office? Our Livilihoods are on the line. Actually do you care about our lowly rights from civil to human rights, the economy, jobs outsourced and plant closing, failing infrastructure, weakening dollar, do we want to goto war ...?
Instead most corrupted forget about basic tenet of being a moral leader/public servants : That's Responsibilty and accountabilty to America people? Why can't your generations of corrupted world leaders speak up about your evil agendas such as: war-for-profit enterprise, corporatism...that have families, brother and country(s) pit against each other ? Why make more world enemy(s)? All Leaders should take courses on Responsibilty/ETHICS 101, do you agree? Should we not prevent wrongdoing from arising in any institution in today's very crucial scandal-laden atmosphere so to prevent from wrongdoing and resolve ethical issues and with ethical audit in gov't. From evaluating character in hiring to dealing with political influences and the media, it's the ideal introduction to developing a meaningful and sustainable ethical culture, what you think?
Let me ask you do you want your future generations of children childrens to go through same mistakes and to live in fear Billr? You enjoy that?

LORAX wrote:

<quoted text>
What happens when a power position is vacated?

Lorax, Localboy, RP...

See my previous post to Billr. What we need is new set of world leaders with virtues of moral and ethic, responsibilty... and update to political system by peaceful changes will be great But, they ain't going to like it.

Bill R wrote:

<quoted text>
You asked. I provided a few principles and ideas
that I think are worthwhile. That's all. If you
wish to dismiss the particulars using the same
cynicism and nihilism toward history and biography
that you employ in casting judgment on anyone
in the political process, that's your privilege.
You seem to believe that generations before you
owe you some kind of an apology. Is that how you
expect life to work; each generation apologizing
to the next for whatever discomfort or injustice
that gets passed along? I'm sure you've been
disappointed thus far and equally sure that dis-
appointment will continue. While you are waiting
you can begin composing your apologies to those
children getting on the school bus this morning,
as you seem intent on leaving them with the gifts
of nihilism and cynicism, sprinkled with a heavy
dose of self pity and Noam Chumpski.
One thing my wife and I passed along to our
children is to avoid one of the "games" found
in a popular book a generation ago called "Games
People Play." It was called "Yes, but". The
game consisted of the person coming to another
asking for help or advice or guidance, then
listening in rapt attention as the other person
offered their answer. After a pause the response
would be, "Yes, but (followed by an objection or
explanation as to why the help, advice, or guid-
ance would not work).
The problem with "Yes, but" is that it becomes a
game of self-deception in which the player truly
believes they are seeking answers when, in fact,
they are opting to do nothing or remain forever
in neutral. The game becomes a means to postpone
decision or commitment. Beware.
You see, you are playing it safe. You have no
commitments, preferring instead to say "Yes, but"
to each of us, whether we support Obama, McCain,
Paul, or anyone else. There is no art in that
and, I would suspect, not much satisfaction
either. Except, of course, when any one of them
commits the mortal sin of being human and
fallible .... then you can say, "See, I knew it."
But there can't be much joy in that either.

No pity required!

Confucian quotes:

"A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step."

"When you have faults, do not fear to abandon them."

"What you do not wish for yourself, do not do to others"

"With coarse rice to eat, with water to drink, and my crooked arm for a pillow - is not joy to be found therein? Riches and honors acquired through unrighteousness are to me as the floating clouds"

I told you so!

Why political ethics seems stronger than moral ethic, why is that? We are seeing it in this corrupted adminstration the tenets of Political Ethics, McCain is no different, do you see it?

LocalBoy wrote:

<quoted text>Left / Right is well short of it, IO
There is still up/ down and front / back.
THe assumption a lean left will move up or a move right will move is up is the stuff of fairy tails.
The elites did not make life hard, they tried to make life easier. THe question is why blame the elites when the people asked them to make life easier.
When the people stop asking for help and start helping themselves the elites are without a
job.

As to Up/down that is politics and religion should not mix, you know that already.

I did not say all elites are corrupted but most are I.m talking about the unelected power ruling elites and their sycophants the world ruling elites and immoral soldiers of any nation. But they give us more headache then good like evil agendas going to war(s) for land, pilferage for material resources those are the war-for-profit enterprises, Corporatism without no bounds... these are atrocities i'm talking about crimes against humanity, the political/relious atrocities etc.,

RonPauler wrote:

<quoted text>
No I believe that if I support Ron Paul he will eventually win.

If believe vote for him, it's in your mind. But he do have few OK examples that next administration should examine.

LocalBoy wrote:

<quoted text>Two things Bill
And we should start with the usual...Yes, but
I listened to this interview and did not advocate conspiracy, in fact he said policy was creating the danger, again. But on with the show...
1) Earlier you had mentioned the fairness of our press for excluding Paul. He is left with whatever medium he can find that has a voting audience and THIS you say is the reason he has "lacked mainstream support". If this logic is played out it reads...if mainstream media does not deem you profitable then dont go to any other smaller player for they are less than adequate, your campaign is finished.
2)If you had researched the post you would have found that Paul did not say the president was willing or even capable of a Gulf of Tolkin event. The GoT event was framed in the question Jones had ask Paul right off the bat on this interview. Paul did not advocate this position in his reply and in the end he said the danger was created by POLICY, not conspiracy. Your rant was based on a blogger that got his facts messed up.
Now I admit that Jones is fringe
I understand at some point Paul needed to go mainstream, but this article and jones interview was 7-07. Early in the race when candidates like Paul need exposure and are looking to find an audience, even if they have to educate them first.
You been in politics before, you understand why Paul used Jones for some chance against an entrenched incumbant.
And if you look at Pauls actions since campaign ended and going into this "counter convention" you would agree he has mellowed the message since the weight of the support has humbled him.

Localboy - I do not know if Ron Paul was simply
naive and didn't know the demographics of the
Alex Jones audience ... I find it hard to believe
he was not ... but in reading his response to
Jones my interpretation was that Paul was being
coy, using insinuation and playing to an audience
which revels in the possibility of a conspiracy
on just about anything.

If I might digress just a bit, I believe one of
Ron Paul's personal flaws as a politician is one
shared by most politicians when playing before an
audience ... even when sitting in a radio control
room with an Alex Jones ... that being a desire
for approval. In its worst form it consists of
blatant pandering, but in its most subtle forms
it is an almost unconscious thing that is scarcely
different from merely wishing to be liked.

Personally I believe Paul now knows this and would, if he could do it all over again, take
a different course in expanding his base and
avoid those venues which unintentionally perhaps
wound up appearing as a kind of trolling for
the terminal social outcasts. Paul's use of
language itself was presumed to be code for his
support of any number of positions ranging from
blatantly racist to rabidly anti-semitic to
gun-wielding survivalist. Fair or not, his choice
of venues brought them along with him and made
him a pariah. Toss in his newsletters and ever-
changing names to attract a different segment of
the voluntarily disenfranchised (ex. The Ron Paul
Survivalist newsletter) and it is no wonder he
expresses regrets today.

To be continued ... trying to avoid being "timed
out"

Bill R wrote:

<quoted text>
Localboy - I do not know if Ron Paul was simply
naive and didn't know the demographics of the
Alex Jones audience ... I find it hard to believe
he was not ... but in reading his response to
Jones my interpretation was that Paul was being
coy, using insinuation and playing to an audience
which revels in the possibility of a conspiracy
on just about anything.
If I might digress just a bit, I believe one of
Ron Paul's personal flaws as a politician is one
shared by most politicians when playing before an
audience ... even when sitting in a radio control
room with an Alex Jones ... that being a desire
for approval. In its worst form it consists of
blatant pandering, but in its most subtle forms
it is an almost unconscious thing that is scarcely
different from merely wishing to be liked.
Personally I believe Paul now knows this and would, if he could do it all over again, take
a different course in expanding his base and
avoid those venues which unintentionally perhaps
wound up appearing as a kind of trolling for
the terminal social outcasts. Paul's use of
language itself was presumed to be code for his
support of any number of positions ranging from
blatantly racist to rabidly anti-semitic to
gun-wielding survivalist. Fair or not, his choice
of venues brought them along with him and made
him a pariah. Toss in his newsletters and ever-
changing names to attract a different segment of
the voluntarily disenfranchised (ex. The Ron Paul
Survivalist newsletter) and it is no wonder he
expresses regrets today.
To be continued ... trying to avoid being "timed
out"

What "Age" does RP live in, i love to know, what was he thing? Confederacy, Civil war ERROR!

Localboy - The fact of the matter is that it IS
difficult for a political candidate to achieve
access to the venues which are most likely to be
helpful in gaining an audience and support. That
is true whether you are running for president or
making a shot at county commissioner. I know this
personally from my years as a Democrat and as a
Republican ... and now, as an independent. With-
out name recognition or a notable achievement it
is next to impossible.

This is why aspiring politicians bring in con-
sultants, strategists, public relations people,
advertising people, and more when they are in
need of getting their name and ideas out to the
public beyond their constituencies. It is here
that Paul was least effective, failing to under-
stand the differences between running a
congressional campaign and running for the
highest office in the land. Fair or not, one
must risk moving beyond one's immediate friends,
associates, and true believers who are capable
of seeing ... in this instance ... the Ron Paul
candidacy as an outsider. Paul did not do this.
His campaign was dominated by long time associates
and friends.

These people I've just mentioned ARE capable of
getting a candidate exposure IF the candidate is
willing to listen, take advice, and retool or
strengthen some of his weaknesses or liabilities.
Paul's weakness is in his presentation and an
air, sometimes apparent and sometimes not, of
believing it is the listener's responsibility to
get on the same page as he is when, in fact, it
is the responsibility of the speaker to know
how to put himself in his audience. The first
works in a room of true believers, the already
committed. It doesn't sell anywhere else.


Paul's chief mistake wasn't with his ideas per
se, but with his unwillingness to be coached.
Had he figured that out I believe he would have
found a more eager media, as the media is always
looking for something different.

I hope you take this is the spirit with which
it was written, not to be negative, but to be
as objective as possible given my agreement with
Paul on some of the symptoms ailing our naiton.

RonPauler wrote:

<quoted text>
I do not share your view, Bill. I can't find it in me to care about Ron Paul's choice for a venue, as it has nothing to do with what he said. To publicly insinuate that one's president is capable of doing what he/she is obviously capable of doing is not irresponsible in any way, just the opposite. Would you rather we didn't admit it to ourselves, hide from it and pretend it isn't a concern? This is exactly why FedUp came up with the theory that you are being paid for what you say, nothing you said has any substance. It's just the assumption that no one can listen to Ron Paul no matter how right he may be because of his choice of venue and because he has the courage to admit what our president is capable of doing. No I don't think it's in any way irresponsible, Bill, please tell me why it is.

I didn't expect you would agree with me.

Tell you what, Ron Pauler, when you go to work
tomorrow and have a chance to chat for a moment
at the water cooler, point out that the general
manager or whatever he or she is called, is
capable of embezzlement, fraud, or sexual
harassment. Spread the word a bit, not even
suggesting that you would like his job, just
for effect.

Then ask yourself why, if you still have a place
to go to work a week from now, ask why you aren't
invited to the guy's house for the Christmas
party.

Bill R wrote:

Localboy - The fact of the matter is that it IS
difficult for a political candidate to achieve
access to the venues which are most likely to be
helpful in gaining an audience and support. That
is true whether you are running for president or
making a shot at county commissioner. I know this
personally from my years as a Democrat and as a
Republican ... and now, as an independent. With-
out name recognition or a notable achievement it
is next to impossible.
This is why aspiring politicians bring in con-
sultants, strategists, public relations people,
advertising people, and more when they are in
need of getting their name and ideas out to the
public beyond their constituencies. It is here
that Paul was least effective, failing to under-
stand the differences between running a
congressional campaign and running for the
highest office in the land. Fair or not, one
must risk moving beyond one's immediate friends,
associates, and true believers who are capable
of seeing ... in this instance ... the Ron Paul
candidacy as an outsider. Paul did not do this.
His campaign was dominated by long time associates
and friends.
These people I've just mentioned ARE capable of
getting a candidate exposure IF the candidate is
willing to listen, take advice, and retool or
strengthen some of his weaknesses or liabilities.
Paul's weakness is in his presentation and an
air, sometimes apparent and sometimes not, of
believing it is the listener's responsibility to
get on the same page as he is when, in fact, it
is the responsibility of the speaker to know
how to put himself in his audience. The first
works in a room of true believers, the already
committed. It doesn't sell anywhere else.
Paul's chief mistake wasn't with his ideas per
se, but with his unwillingness to be coached.
Had he figured that out I believe he would have
found a more eager media, as the media is always
looking for something different.
I hope you take this is the spirit with which
it was written, not to be negative, but to be
as objective as possible given my agreement with
Paul on some of the symptoms ailing our nait
on.

After character analyzing, I give Ron Paul credit, you know what Bill, at least he's truthful and honest to a fault. Not like other candidates who seem lacking integrity and somewhat deceptive. How you see it?

Billr, just curious, why did you leave the bi-partisan shop?

And, why did you made fun of Noam, you spell his last name wrong?

LocalBoy wrote:

<quoted text>Tell us, why did the McCain's people disrespect the ten term congressman by not even allowing him on the floor without supervision ? Let alone the snub from the GOP leadeship to a candidate with more delegates than Rudy,Thompson and uuhm...the Democrat Lieberman, all allowed to pander to McCain.
This convention is protected, for it is an institution fundamental to our government. Or is it a coming out party / roast for our single party thinker, no others welcome.
If Paul advocated anything that was not a traditional value at the GOP convention a case could be made, but Paul advocates the values that have been in the party longer than Palin and Obama have been alive and longer than the neo conservative movement.
Last thing - The GOP is arrogant as heck to be getting beat election after election and close their tent to ideas.

What do you mean when you say "this convention
is protected?" The Republican Party or any other
political party are not governmental agencies.
What's this "protected" concept you are suggesting
exists out there?

I know you won't like my answer here, Localboy,
but Ron Paul did irreparable damage by doing
3 three things. First, he refused to support
any Republican but himself for the office he
sought. Second, his methods as demonstrated by
the behavior of his campaign organizations at
state caucuses and state conventions understand-
ably ended any possibility of trust. These
methods were endorsed by those working for him.
Third, his graceless demeanor from the time he
was eliminated as a contender up to and including
the "alternative" events outside the convention
hall eliminated any possibility of his being
welcome inside the hall.

Localboy, in reference to the state delegate
selection process, do you believe those who
voted Libertarian in the primary and then
attended the state Republican delegate selection
process were entitled to consideration as
McCain delegates when, outside the meeting room,
they vocally supported Ron Paul? Or does this
integrity thing only work one way ...

In sum, it was not Ron Paul beliefs that kept
him off the floor, it was his narcissism.
There is a time to can the conceit and self-
importance. Paul doesn't get that part at all.

The Republicans have lost "election after
election?" My records indicate they have won
5 of the last 7 presidential elections.

WORLD IDIOTS RACE-WAKE UP wrote:

<quoted text>
After character analyzing, I give Ron Paul credit, you know what Bill, at least he's truthful and honest to a fault. Not like other candidates who seem lacking integrity and somewhat deceptive. How you see it?
Billr, just curious, why did you leave the bi-partisan shop?
And, why did you made fun of Noam, you spell his last name wrong?

While Ron Pauler is telling his coworkers at the
water cooler that his boss is capable of
embezzlement, why don't you go into your boss's
office tomorrow and tell him he's ugly? I
think you'd agree afterwards that honesty can
be overrated.

Long story on why, but it came down to the
evangelical/fundamentalist takeover of the state
Republican Party at the county level and its
attempt to impose their beliefs and infuse
their theology into the political system.
When 2 or 3 such churches decide to attend a
routine meeting of a political party mob rule
soon follows. Frankly, it was not unlike the
experience of many who watched carloads of
Ron Paul supporters pull into the parking lot.

When that happens and motions are passed which
aren't just lousy but make a massacre at the
polls inevitable, you move on. I don't go to
their church and choose not to have their church
brought to me.

Chomsky is on the other end of the spectrum.
I've read him and heard him speak when I was in
Berkeley a couple of years ago. I also know of
2 teachers who were asked in interviews if they
agreed with Chomsky (unrelated, incidentally, to
their specialties). When they answered affirma-
tively and explained they did not agree with
him, they mysteriously did not get the job they
applied for. One was a former "teacher of the
year" 3 times in her state and had moved to a
new district, where she applied for a position
establishing the specialty in the classroom.
Privately she learned support of Chomsky was
"essential" in the district. At any rate, from
what I have read and what I have heard, Chomsky
is an ideologue.

Yeah. He should go Third Party. He has a lot of very loyal supporters. He should team up with Jesse Ventura.

I am a Jesse Ventura fan. He just needs somebody to keep him on track. He gets mad too easy.