Letters to the Editor
-
Kucinich - Farrakhan
Not very on topic but so many responders have mentioned Kucinich that it is not entirely off topic either.
Here is a ticket: Kucinich - Farrakhan, endorsed by Art Bell.
Sweeping to victory by some "unexplainable force".
Capital of US moved to Roswell, with a new federally administered territory surrounding it called Beamup Site heretofore referred to as Roswell, BS.
... and so on, make up your own wisecrack.
Maybe the aliens will save us.
-
North American Union, NAFTA Superhighway video
Once and for all, for you Ostriches who believe this is some sort of fiction or "conspiracy", here is a video with news clips - meetings with the Mexican President, detailed plans for the highway, etc.
Listen carefully. It will make you want to throw up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cBEFJAq7-M
-
OMG!!!!
They're building a highway!!!! Heaven forfend!!!!
You know what else I just realized? There are *gasp* ALREADY highways connecting Mexico, the US, and Canada! The conspiracy is complete!
-
Paul 2008 v. Dean/Clark 2004
I see some parallels between Paul's current candidacy and those of Dean and Clark in 2004.
I did volunteer work in '04 for Clark traveling a few hundred miles to New Hampshire to advocate for his nomination. First time I had really actively participated in any political campaign at any level (a common experience with other volunteers). I also had friends who were Dean enthusiasts -- who gave time and energy to Dean's nomination effort -- so I recognize some of the energy behind these campaigns. Edwards had some of this support as well in 2004.
I think there's a natural human tendency to trust people who we identify with. And for a Paul supporter they probably identify very strongly with Paul's genuine outsider status (not unlike the Dean and Clark candidacies). He shares their idealism in a more "real" way than a more polished and jaded political candidate does. Voters do indeed crave "authenticity" -- especially when they feel that the political status quo is not working for them. This is certainly part of the bond between the candidate and supporters.
Long-term a key difference that I see between Paul and Dean is that the Democratic party was able to channel this idealistic energy in a constructive manner after the primary. Dean was brought on as DNC Chair after the 2004 election (something that the GOP will never do on Paul's behalf). That energy was given an outlet in several House and Senate races in 2006 as the national party gave party activists, former Dean and Clark supporters, a voice in the selection process (thinking in particular of Jon Tester, Jim Webb, Joe Sestak, and Patrick Murphy. Paul Hackett was another prospective candidate who had strong grass roots/netroots support who did not receive the same kind of party support in 2006 -- so there was some give and take).
I don't think the GOP will be able to constructively capitalize on this energy any time soon. I just don't see how this will happen. The strongly centralized nature of the GOP's national political structure seems at odds with this possibility. Too much top-down control. Too many irreconcilable differences between the mainstream GOP and Paul supporters. Not much overlap at all in terms of agendas and national priorities. Stranger things have happened, but I think fragmentation, rather than renewal is the more likely outcome for the GOP right now. The GOP front-runners in particular seem to have completely lost their capacity for articulating a positive vision for America. Mostly it's just pandering and demagoguery.
-
Small goverment, big corporations?
Ron Paul is the best republican candidate, but as he is a basically 'no-government' conservative, how does he propose we oversee out of control large corporations of the Enron persusausion? If we have no government oversight of business, what's the stop them from being even more criminal than they already are? Pitchforks and torches?
Will we just trust that agribusiness will provide us with e-coli free meat? Or will we let the market decide by saying, "Hey, 3,000 people just died from e-coli tainted meat..." I'll exercise free market choice and won't buy from Archer Daniel's Midland anymore!" What about clean water, what about the EPA?
Shall we put Dow Chemical on scouts honor to not dump toxic waste into our rivers? "I've had with you Dow, from now on, I'm making my own roach spray!"
I'm just asking questions. I appreciate Ron Paul's frankness, especially about the disasterous Iraq Occupation and our unnecessary foreign entanglements, but I want to know what he really means by "small government."
-
20 percent voted for Perot in 1992
Remember, Perot had a scary weird attitude, a weirder VP, was short and had big ears, and the country was in much better shape than it is today
and he STILL got 20 percent of the vote.
today, a record number of people are pessimistic about the future of our once great nation, perpetual recession is taking a toll as an expensive illegal war rages on, our debt is spectacularly high even though it was supposed to be the republiscum who were the 'small government' folk, our Constitution is all but dead, gone evaporated the next government manufactured tragedy that strikes this nation, 47.2 million illegals over the border since Bush the Second entered office illegally, and to top it off, this year the Democraps roll into town on a public mandate only to pick up fresh pork for themselves instead of throwing the criminals out.
I dunno, you think a cogent, SANE, intelligent, calm, honest man, in the age of the internet, and in this dire time can't get more than 20%?
I suspect Paul will not get the Republican nomination, because of course, the ELITES control this process.
I suspect Paul will then, despite his current protestations, enter as a new party and garner a healthy 25-27%. I hope it is more than that, enough to make him president. I suspect if he does win, the ELITES will rig the system against him-- but that is another level of disaster altogether.
While this nation is all but doomed to collapse in the next decade, I do feel it is possible that the US population can make Paul our hero president if only enough people pull their heads out of their asses in time.
I would rather have a US on a healthy, cautious isolationist path than on a reckless, money losing, fascistic, kamikaze, style degeneracy.
But maybe it is all that the US, the loser emigrants from the home countries that rejected their ancestors, deserve-- to show off their piggish violent drunken ways everyone else suspected the US was always capable of.