Wtf is wrong you with you people?

[kirkblitz]

I have been here a long time and it amazes me at what some of you say? You wont support Sanford because he had to be asked to talk about ron paul instead of scheduling a interview to talk about him. You wont support Sanford because the GOP doesn't like him. You will support palin because she is hot, you will support ghouliani because he has a chance, some of you say the stupidest things. God i am sure you would eat your own young :mad::mad::mad::mad:

MY GOD PEOPLE THERE ARE NO PERFECT CANIDATES, RON PAUL WASNT PERFECT NO ONE IS.

Go back to voting for McCain if your going to wait for a perfect candidate :mad::mad::mad::mad:

[ArrestPoliticians]

I have been here a long time and it amazes me at what some of you say? You wont support Sanford because he had to be asked to talk about ron paul instead of scheduling a interview to talk about him. You wont support Sanford because the GOP doesn't like him. You will support palin because she is hot, you will support ghouliani because he has a chance, some of you say the stupidest things. God i am sure you would eat your own young :mad::mad::mad::mad:

MY GOD PEOPLE THERE ARE NO PERFECT CANIDATES, RON PAUL WASNT PERFECT NO ONE IS.

Go back to voting for McCain if your going to wait for a perfect candidate :mad::mad::mad::mad:

#1 Bilderberg

#2 McCain Supporter


We don't need to settle for less, we have Gary Johnson and Jesse Ventura.

[Jeremy]

who exactly are you talking to? =o

[The One]

Somebody needs a hug.

[kirkblitz]

who exactly are you talking to? =o

the guy above you and his many clones

btw mr arrest politicians: sanford voted with ron paul almost every time, who else did that? Not mister I wanna be a mexican ventura

[SeanEdwards]

Settle down Sparky.

[nate895]

I have been here a long time and it amazes me at what some of you say? You wont support Sanford because he had to be asked to talk about ron paul instead of scheduling a interview to talk about him. You wont support Sanford because the GOP doesn't like him. You will support palin because she is hot, you will support ghouliani because he has a chance, some of you say the stupidest things. God i am sure you would eat your own young :mad::mad::mad::mad:

MY GOD PEOPLE THERE ARE NO PERFECT CANIDATES, RON PAUL WASNT PERFECT NO ONE IS.

Go back to voting for McCain if your going to wait for a perfect candidate :mad::mad::mad::mad:

Since when has any significant percentage of people in the movement supported Palin, the Ghoul, or McCain? Johnson is the most popular potential candidate here. He has won the poll on who to draft, and while I like Sanford and would campaign for him should he jump in and Johnson doesn't, I would prefer Johnson over him. Johnson has no less chance than Sanford does at the moment. Absolutely anything can happen in four years.

[torchbearer]

I like sanford from what i've seen.
I have one question, why was he invited to bilderberg meeting.

[gls]

This rant makes no sense. Who here supported Giuliani "because he has a chance"?

"Go back to voting for McCain"...I doubt many people here did that, but Sanford probably did.

I like Gary Johnson because he is a principled advocate of limited government.

[Agent CSL]

I have no opinion on him, yet.

[RPIdeaMan08]

I have been here a long time and it amazes me at what some of you say? You wont support Sanford because he had to be asked to talk about ron paul instead of scheduling a interview to talk about him. You wont support Sanford because the GOP doesn't like him. You will support palin because she is hot, you will support ghouliani because he has a chance, some of you say the stupidest things. God i am sure you would eat your own young :mad::mad::mad::mad:

MY GOD PEOPLE THERE ARE NO PERFECT CANIDATES, RON PAUL WASNT PERFECT NO ONE IS.

Go back to voting for McCain if your going to wait for a perfect candidate :mad::mad::mad::mad:


i have been here for a longer time...if your a **** i am prop 8. honestly i could care less it this whole system breaks down to anarchy in which case i would [redacted by moderator] you and your children!!!!!

im sorry, i will retract my statement. but please give me an example of this "you" you talk of.

[Maverick]

Yeah, wait....who here said they'd vote for the Ghoul?

And Palin? No one here is seriously considering her for anything either, except for TONES, but she's been shilling for McCain/Palin ever since she got here.

[kirkblitz]

i have been here for a longer time...if your a **** i am prop 8. honestly i could care less it this whole system breaks down to anarchy in which case i would [redacted by moderator] you and your children!!!!!

im sorry, i will retract my statement. but please give me an example of this "you" you talk of.

the yous know who i am talking about. They are to fucken pansy ass to respond.

[Alawn]

I have been here a long time and it amazes me at what some of you say? You wont support Sanford because he had to be asked to talk about ron paul instead of scheduling a interview to talk about him. You wont support Sanford because the GOP doesn't like him. You will support palin because she is hot, you will support ghouliani because he has a chance, some of you say the stupidest things. God i am sure you would eat your own young :mad::mad::mad::mad:

MY GOD PEOPLE THERE ARE NO PERFECT CANIDATES, RON PAUL WASNT PERFECT NO ONE IS.

Go back to voting for McCain if your going to wait for a perfect candidate :mad::mad::mad::mad:

I would forgive Sanford for supporting McCain because he is a republican. That was expected. I don't expect or need him to bring up Ron Paul all the time. I WILL NOT ever support Sanford because he went to Bilderberg in 2008. His name was on the official list from them so don't argue with me about whether he actually went. He cannot ever be trusted again no matter how good he acts. He has sold out and will screw us if he got into office. Sanford can go to hell.

And I don't support McCain, Palin, Ghouliani, Huckabee, Gingrich or any of those other aholes. Johnson I would trust and would fully support. He was a popular 2 term governor and would be just as qualified as anyone else running in 2012.

[RSLudlum]

I like sanford from what i've seen.
I have one question, why was he invited to bilderberg meeting.

maybe because he was one of the possible VP picks,,,or maybe, maybe, maybe that's the plan all along: get Obama elected let everything go to shit then run Sanford against him in 2012 to secure a former Goldman Sachs employee as POTUS therefore sealing the Goldman Sachs Fascist takeover, that Paulson masterminded!!!!!! :eek:

:rolleyes:

[ClockwiseSpark]

I have been here a long time and it amazes me at what some of you say? You wont support Sanford because he had to be asked to talk about ron paul instead of scheduling a interview to talk about him. You wont support Sanford because the GOP doesn't like him. You will support palin because she is hot, you will support ghouliani because he has a chance, some of you say the stupidest things. God i am sure you would eat your own young :mad::mad::mad::mad:

MY GOD PEOPLE THERE ARE NO PERFECT CANIDATES, RON PAUL WASNT PERFECT NO ONE IS.

Go back to voting for McCain if your going to wait for a perfect candidate :mad::mad::mad::mad:

http://www.oswald.us/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/bunny-pancake.jpg

[RPIdeaMan08]

just for you i did some research and yes mark Stanford is someone i would consider voting for but holy crap it's still 08. lets focus on 2010 first because before we go national we have to get local. and never mind you been an official member for about a month longer than I.

[nate895]

just for you i did some research and yes mark Stanford is someone i would consider voting for but holy crap it's still 08. lets focus on 2010 first because before we go national we have to get local. and never mind you been an official member for about a month longer than I.

We are trying to combine those efforts into one in the Draft Johnson movement.

[WRellim]

I would forgive Sanford for supporting McCain because he is a republican. That was expected. I don't expect or need him to bring up Ron Paul all the time. I WILL NOT ever support Sanford because he went to Bilderberg in 2008. His name was on the official list from them so don't argue with me about whether he actually went. He cannot ever be trusted again no matter how good he acts. He has sold out and will screw us if he got into office. Sanford can go to hell.

And I don't support McCain, Palin, Ghouliani, Huckabee, Gingrich or any of those other aholes. Johnson I would trust and would fully support. He was a popular 2 term governor and would be just as qualified as anyone else running in 2012.


What if you found out that he had discussed with Ron Paul whether he should accept the Bilderberg invite and Ron told him "go digging"?

I'm not saying that IS what happened, but given Sanford's LOUD and CLEAR stands on a lot of important liberty issues and his relationship with RP (and voting history while in Congress PLUS his record as SC Governor), I don't think its beyond probability.

In fact, I think the "ditch him because he went to a conference" is throwing a GOOD man overboard without any serious thought.

[Lord Xar]

I WILL NOT ever support Sanford because he went to Bilderberg in 2008. His name was on the official list from them so don't argue with me about whether he actually went. He cannot ever be trusted again no matter how good he acts. He has sold out and will screw us if he got into office. Sanford can go to hell.


You are making a lot of assumptions here. So what that he went. He is a high ranking official. Maybe he went to "check it out", maybe he is unaware of the globalistic intentions of the bliderberbers etc... Maybe he just went to see. I think you are making huge assumptions here. I am not saying it shouldn't be addressed, all I am saying is --- lets see if there is something to be learned here.

The same antoganists that brought Ron Paul low and splintered us will no doubt try it all over again. They don't like that we have 4 years to take this liberty and freedom message forward.

I think there is still enough time to vet things out a bit. Relax a little.

[WRellim]

We are trying to combine those efforts into one in the Draft Johnson movement.

I watched Johnson's speech from the Rally for the Republic -- and while he's a GOOD speaker and said a lot of solid things...

The CHIEF thing I came away with from that video is "Boy this Gary Johnson guy sure is overflowing with admiration for ...HIMSELF." IMO that is a major ego problem, and a potentially very dangerous character flaw.

He could have made a LOT of those same points in a different (and much less egotistical) manner... either he is aware of this and doesn't care, or he's so egotistical that he doesn't see it; neither one would be a good sign.

[ArrestPoliticians]

the guy above you and his many clones

btw mr arrest politicians: sanford voted with ron paul almost every time, who else did that? Not mister I wanna be a mexican ventura

Sure, but when push came to shove, he couldn't vote FOR Dr. Paul, could he.

[WRellim]

You are making a lot of assumptions here. So what that he went. He is a high ranking official. Maybe he went to "check it out", maybe he is unaware of the globalistic intentions of the bliderberbers etc... Maybe he just went to see. I think you are making huge assumptions here. I am not saying it shouldn't be addressed, all I am saying is --- lets see if there is something to be learned here.

The same antoganists that brought Ron Paul low and splintered us will no doubt try it all over again. They don't like that we have 4 years to take this liberty and freedom message forward.

I think there is still enough time to vet things out a bit. Relax a little.

I agree and don't see WHY everyone is so anxious (at this point) to put ALL of our proverbial "eggs" behind ONE candidate.
To me that does not seem wise on ANY level.

MUCH better to have MULTIPLE potential liberty candidates out and about speaking and pushing the ideas of LIBERTY and SOUND MONEY forward. (Especially in the coming months of the Obama "honeymoon/lovefest" we NEED to have as many voices out there as we can.)

So I see no reason to discard ANY viable Liberty candidates at this point -- whether it be Johnson, or Sanford, or someone else who is not yet even on our radar screens. (Hell, Obama JUST became a Senator in 2005... who's to say we might not succeed with someone NEW on the scene in 2010? It's a stretch, but it IS possible.)

[kirkblitz]

Sure, but when push came to shove, he couldn't vote FOR Dr. Paul, could he.

In south carolina ron paul was NOT on the ballot and we can NOT write in for president so no he couldnt poo head :mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

[RPIdeaMan08]

We are trying to combine those efforts into one in the Draft Johnson movement.

thats why i joined the facebook group

Gary is a much better choice, but then again i want Ron in it again...

[LibertyEagle]

I don't recall. At what point did Sanford come out for McCain? Was it before or after the primary in South Carolina?

[itshappening]

I have an issue trusting Sanford, he speaks the language but you got to wonder if he was "made" at Bilderberg, if i'm a controlling elitist he would be a good candidate because he's from the SC crucial primary state and if he could get through New Hampshire (which I dont think he could anyway but maybe with enough money) he would have a great shot at winning the nomination

that's a good thing right, well it is he's in your back pocket

[WRellim]

We are trying to combine those efforts into one in the Draft Johnson movement.

Good luck with that (and I DO mean it seriously and sincerely, he seems like a solid candidate.)

But I see ZERO reason to put everything behind someone who is at this point an "unknown" non-contender (that's what "draft" means... he hasn't made any moves himself -- he could easily just say "nah" and then all of your efforts will leave the movement back at square zero).

[itshappening]

also Sanford has 1.7 million on hand and has raised a lot of money

how has he done that? where is it coming from? it certainly isnt coming from us in the past has it? I know it's silly to say it but it makes me suspicious of who his backers are.... and what they want from him

[trey4sports]

i remember when we kept trying to get him to stick his neck out for Dr. Paul and he wouldnt do it during the primary season.

[WRellim]

I don't recall. At what point did Sanford come out for McCain? Was it before or after the primary in South Carolina?

Before... IIRC, it was right before, as in a couple of days.

But strangely it was very shortly AFTER he had a private meeting with Ron Paul. (Which is why I think it was a mutually acceptable thing to Ron -- a calculated political move -- because McCain was at the time supposedly considering Sanford for the VP slot... consider if it had been a McCain/Sanford ticket... and they won with McCain croaking a few weeks into his first term; that would be something "worth" the little {rather unimportant} "endorsement" especially fairly late in the primary race, when it was McCain versus Romney.)

[itshappening]

ALSO Sanford is a former Goldman Sachs employee... try and get him to talk about the fed...

[Paulitical Correctness]

Too manys a yous folks got ridiculous standards.

Ron Paul spoiled us, it's true, but move on...

For lack of a better analogy, it's like losing your virginity to a sex icon like say, Jessica Alba.

[WRellim]

also Sanford has 1.7 million on hand and has raised a lot of money

how has he done that? where is it coming from? it certainly isnt coming from us in the past has it? I know it's silly to say it but it makes me suspicious of who his backers are.... and what they want from him

My understanding is that it is mainly "leftover" from his last Gubernatorial race (he raised something like $8 million and didn't need anywhere near that much).

Apparently there has only been like $1,000 dollars donated to his fund this year, the rest is just interest on the balance he's held in reserve.

[nate895]

But I see ZERO reason to put everything behind someone who is at this point an "unknown" non-contender (that's what "draft" means... he hasn't made any moves himself -- he could easily just say "nah" and then all of your efforts will leave the movement back at square zero).

If he doesn't jump in (which I doubt he won't) the plan was to enter his name into the New Hampshire primary anyway. That's how Eisenhower was drafted.

[RPIdeaMan08]

we have four years... who's to say we cant change the republican party enough to have someone we can trust 100% or at least as Dr. Paul would say 99.99%

[WRellim]

ALSO Sanford is a former Goldman Sachs employee... try and get him to talk about the fed...

Try this link:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=168442

Sure doesn't seem like a Goldman Sachs patsy to me.

And of course this one SURELY shows that he's just another spineless GOP crony (NOT!):
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=168423


But hey, he wasn't at the Rally for the Republic shouting "I love you guys" and therby kissing every RP supporter's backside --- so that means (by default) that he just absolutely MUST be a neocon, CFR, Bilderberger, Masonic, Illuminati, Rockefeller patsy style Manchurian "Conspiracy" candidate. (Oh, and he's a LEO and Mars was in the third house of Jupiter when he was born!)

Which is, of course, the KEY reason why Ron Paul likes the guy.

[WRellim]

i remember when we kept trying to get him to stick his neck out for Dr. Paul and he wouldnt do it during the primary season.

I was waiting for that too... and was sorely disappointed when it didn't happen (and totally PO'ed when he "endorsed" the inevitability of McCain).

But whose to say Ron Paul didn't tell him NOT to waste it, to keep his powder "dry" and save it for another day?

(That's sheer supposition, I know, but at the time RP was sitting on MILLIONS of campaign money that he CHOSE not to use... which indicates to me RP had by that point abandoned hopes/plans of actually achieving the nomination -- provided he ever seriously wanted it to begin with -- Ron Paul was {and is} thinking LONG TERM CHANGE, so it would make sense to hedge bets with someone like Sanford.)

[inibo]

So I see no reason to discard ANY viable Liberty candidates at this point -- whether it be Johnson, or Sanford, or someone else who is not yet even on our radar screens. (Hell, Obama JUST became a Senator in 2005... who's to say we might not succeed with someone NEW on the scene in 2010? It's a stretch, but it IS possible.) You're a smart man. I'm liking Johnson a lot, but the night is still young (sort of). A year or so from know I'll be saying its time to stop playing the field and pick someone already, but it's not that time yet.

[StateofTrance]

Before... IIRC, it was right before, as in a couple of days.

But strangely it was very shortly AFTER he had a private meeting with Ron Paul. (Which is why I think it was a mutually acceptable thing to Ron -- a calculated political move -- because McCain was at the time supposedly considering Sanford for the VP slot... consider if it had been a McCain/Sanford ticket... and they won with McCain croaking a few weeks into his first term; that would be something "worth" the little {rather unimportant} "endorsement" especially fairly late in the primary race, when it was McCain versus Romney.)


"AFTER he had a private meeting with Ron Paul. "

: Citation needed :

[WRellim]

"AFTER he had a private meeting with Ron Paul. "

: Citation needed :



Go fetch for yourself on Google -- this isn't wikipedia -- and I'm not your houseboy!

[tggroo7]

I have been here a long time and it amazes me at what some of you say? You wont support Sanford because he had to be asked to talk about ron paul instead of scheduling a interview to talk about him. You wont support Sanford because the GOP doesn't like him. You will support palin because she is hot, you will support ghouliani because he has a chance, some of you say the stupidest things. God i am sure you would eat your own young :mad::mad::mad::mad:

MY GOD PEOPLE THERE ARE NO PERFECT CANIDATES, RON PAUL WASNT PERFECT NO ONE IS.

Go back to voting for McCain if your going to wait for a perfect candidate :mad::mad::mad::mad:

I don't know of anyone that said they liked Guiliani, he's like the definition of evil IMO and probably the opinions of many others here. I'm sure there are far fewer people here that supported Guliani, Palin, or even McCain combined than there are, say, truthers. My point is that, like with the truthers, the Guliani- or Palin-supporters do NOT represent the entire group (or even anywhere close to a majority of the group).

[gls]

I don't know of anyone that said they liked Guiliani, he's like the definition of evil IMO and probably the opinions of many others here.

“Freedom is not a concept in which people can do anything they want, be anything they can be. Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do.” - Rudy Giuliani

[StateofTrance]

Go fetch for yourself on Google -- this isn't wikipedia -- and I'm not your houseboy!

Let's see --

http://www.google.com/search?&q=Mark+sanford+met+Ron+Paul

NADA


http://www.google.com/search?&q=Mark+sanford+meeting+with+Ron+Paul

NADA


http://www.google.com/search?&q=Mark+sanford+secret+meeting+with+Ron+Paul

NADA


Guess what? EPIC FAIL!!! Unless I'm blind...May be you can help me?

Lesson? DO NOT claim something if you CAN'T back it up.

[Xenophage]

I like sanford from what i've seen.
I have one question, why was he invited to bilderberg meeting.

Because the Bilderberg conspiracy theories are all complete, bogus bullshit. Its just a group of rich fucks that get together, congratulate each other for being rich, and then argue about whether or not the iraq war was justified.

[dvictr]

ron paul was perfect in my opinion.. read my sig

[torchbearer]

Because the Bilderberg conspiracy theories are all complete, bogus bullshit. Its just a group of rich fucks that get together, congratulate each other for being rich, and then argue about whether or not the iraq war was justified.

Have you ever read the academic works of C. Wright Mills (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._Wright_Mills)?
Scientific, sociological studys of the Power Elite?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Elite
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Book_Excerpts/PowerElite.html

This wasn't some nut job with an internet radio show.
This was a serious social scientist who studied how power is passed between industry, government and military in the U.S.

Yeh, I know it sounds like a hollywood movie... but the shit is true.
Read his book, the Power Elite. He goes into great detail about the sharing of power between a hand full of elite people.
He keeps track of their progress from one high position in one industry to the next...
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3276/3023490449_1c048c31fc_o.gif

This is studied in high level sociology class around the world.
Wake up.

[Alawn]

What if you found out that he had discussed with Ron Paul whether he should accept the Bilderberg invite and Ron told him "go digging"?

I'm not saying that IS what happened, but given Sanford's LOUD and CLEAR stands on a lot of important liberty issues and his relationship with RP (and voting history while in Congress PLUS his record as SC Governor), I don't think its beyond probability.

In fact, I think the "ditch him because he went to a conference" is throwing a GOOD man overboard without any serious thought.

First of all it is a felony violation of the Logan Act to attend that meeting even though nobody ever enforces it and many high ranking officials go to it every year. Plus if he really did go to it to get the inside scoop like you suggest he should have come out afterwards and told us what happened at the meeting. They do not even invite you to that sort of thing unless you are willing to play ball. Sorry but I can't trust him. He is a sell out. My standards aren't that high but you cannot be a Bilderberger and get my vote. There is almost nothing worse. Sanford isn't that great and I would much rather have Johnson run.

[georgiaboy]

I've taken the kids to Build-A-Bear lots of times. Seems ok to me.

[puppetmaster]

tell you what man...If Ron Paul says back this man for president come next election than I may join ya till then stop badgering us...shoo

[scandinaviany3]

Since when has any significant percentage of people in the movement supported Palin, the Ghoul, or McCain? Johnson is the most popular potential candidate here. He has won the poll on who to draft, and while I like Sanford and would campaign for him should he jump in and Johnson doesn't, I would prefer Johnson over him. Johnson has no less chance than Sanford does at the moment. Absolutely anything can happen in four years.

in fairness i really think that johnson has no chance whatsoever to be top of the ticket and win...

This sounds like NH all over again is my fear....

We cant make the republican party not be the republican party over night...it will take decades...

We need to be strategically smart ...push lots of candidates in...lets see if they can take them all down.

I wouldnt mind for ron to run with johnson and sanford and see what happens...

Three is better than 1

[scandinaviany3]

also Sanford has 1.7 million on hand and has raised a lot of money

how has he done that? where is it coming from? it certainly isnt coming from us in the past has it? I know it's silly to say it but it makes me suspicious of who his backers are.... and what they want from him

This was answered previously from the 2006 election where he had 8 million vs his opponents 3 million.

[Danke]

Have you ever read the academic works of C. Wright Mills (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._Wright_Mills)?
Scientific, sociological studys of the Power Elite?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Elite
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Book_Excerpts/PowerElite.html

This wasn't some nut job with an internet radio show.
This was a serious social scientist who studied how power is passed between industry, government and military in the U.S.

Yeh, I know it sounds like a hollywood movie... but the shit is true.
Read his book, the Power Elite. He goes into great detail about the sharing of power between a hand full of elite people.
He keeps track of their progress from one high position in one industry to the next...
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3276/3023490449_1c048c31fc_o.gif

This is studied in high level sociology class around the world.
Wake up.

Holy shit Torchbearer! Thanks for the links. I need to do some reading.

[Indy4Chng]

I will support Johnson or Sanford whoever is still alive when they hit my state. What is wrong with two fairly fiscally libertarian candidates.

[scandinaviany3]

I've taken the kids to Build-A-Bear lots of times. Seems ok to me.

ROFL....love it...

[WRellim]

Let's see --

http://www.google.com/search?&q=Mark+sanford+met+Ron+Paul
NADA


Actually 71,700 records... did you check them ALL?



http://www.google.com/search?&q=Mark+sanford+meeting+with+Ron+Paul

NADA


Hmmm... I get "about 97,000" records ...did you read all of those too?



http://www.google.com/search?&q=Mark+sanford+secret+meeting+with+Ron+Paul

NADA


Geepers Google tells me it even has "about 38,200" results for this one, but you read through all of those too (and in less than 13 minutes). Hmph that is a puzzler!



Guess what? EPIC FAIL!!! Unless I'm blind...May be you can help me?
Lesson? DO NOT claim something if you CAN'T back it up.


Nah, I think what it shows is that you ARE blind (or that your "NADA" is a blatant lie).

But gee... because WRellim doesn't have scanned copied of BOTH mens' itineraries from nearly a year ago and ready to produce them on demand... well that just absolutely offers final and conclusive PROOF that it wasn't even possible for Ron Paul to EVER have met with Mark Sanford.

And I'm certain we can trust someone with a name like "StateOfTrance" when he claims to have gotten "NADA" from three different searches on Google -- or perhaps he means that he GOT those results, and mahaged to read through all 70,000+ results from that first google search (http://www.google.com/search?&q=Mark+sanford+met+Ron+Paul) (AND the over 100,000 results from the other two) and managed to accomplish it all in a record breaking time of under 13 minutes (let's contact the Guinness book!) ...so obviously this means that Google has proven that Ron Paul has NEVER EVER MET Mark Sanford.

I'm sure Ron would be amazed to hear that.

It's not like they worked together for a couple of years in Congress, spent time together in the RLC... nah that wouldn't be possible, because "StateOfTrance" says they never even met (and he spent all of under 13 minutes worth of research time to prove it!)

And poor Mark Sanford, here for years now he has had to endure all those accusations about being a "Libertarian" (http://blogs.thestate.com/bradwarthensblog/mark_sanford/index.html) like his old buddy Ron Paul for over a decade now... if he would have just consulted with the omniscient "StateOfTrance" and his blazingly fast online reading skills, he could have saved himself an awful lot of trouble.


You REALLY are some piece of work there.

[WRellim]

First of all it is a felony violation of the Logan Act to attend that meeting even though nobody ever enforces it and many high ranking officials go to it every year. Plus if he really did go to it to get the inside scoop like you suggest he should have come out afterwards and told us what happened at the meeting. They do not even invite you to that sort of thing unless you are willing to play ball. Sorry but I can't trust him. He is a sell out. My standards aren't that high but you cannot be a Bilderberger and get my vote. There is almost nothing worse. Sanford isn't that great and I would much rather have Johnson run.

Well then you should hustle your little butt right over there and perform a citizen's arrest of everyone as they exit that building the next time they meet -- since you are an expert on the law in such cases I'm certain you and the Justice League (or was that S.H.E.I.L.D. ?) will be able to tidy things right up.

Maybe Maxwell Smart and Agent 86 can get a partial assist!

I think you should go crawl back into your hidey hole because otherwise the bogeyman might get you (and if he doesn't, maybe it'll be that guy with the hook hand, or that clown thing from IT!)
:eek:



BOO!

[Real_CaGeD]

I could have just got out of the bed on the wrong side but.......die bold.


Nothing means shit.........die bold.

Wasting your time.......die bold.


I mean, whats the point?,,,,,die bold.

[nodope0695]

I have been here a long time and it amazes me at what some of you say? You wont support Sanford because he had to be asked to talk about ron paul instead of scheduling a interview to talk about him. You wont support Sanford because the GOP doesn't like him. You will support palin because she is hot, you will support ghouliani because he has a chance, some of you say the stupidest things. God i am sure you would eat your own young :mad::mad::mad::mad:

MY GOD PEOPLE THERE ARE NO PERFECT CANIDATES, RON PAUL WASNT PERFECT NO ONE IS.

Go back to voting for McCain if your going to wait for a perfect candidate :mad::mad::mad::mad:


Who the f--- are you talking to???? Who the hell is Sanford? You mean Redd Foxx? Who in this forum, in their right mind, supported Ghouliani? And, if the GOP doesn't like somebody, it's probably a good thing...I mean, look who the GOP likes!

What's wrong with you????????

And yeah, Sarah Palin IS hot, but I wouldn't vote for her.

[rockandrollsouls]

I'm supporting Ron in 2012 until I hear from his mouth he won't run.

I don't know enough about Sanford or Johnson to determine if I'd support either, but from what I hear so far they are a fair bit better than Ventura (who is definitely more in line with Nader than Ron) so I don't know there are probably some candidates we haven't looked at yet and there's still a shot Ron could go at it again if the party wakes up.

[Truth Warrior]

If everyone around YOU is either nuts or an asshole, it's probably NOT THEM.<IMHO> ;)

[nodope0695]

If everyone around YOU is either nuts or an asshole, it's probably NOT THEM.<IMHO> ;)


Ha Ha. Every group of friends has one person who nobody else really likes. If you don't know who that person is, IT'S YOU!:D:D

[LibertyEagle]

I could have just got out of the bed on the wrong side but.......die bold.


Nothing means shit.........die bold.

Wasting your time.......die bold.


I mean, whats the point?,,,,,die bold.

If you dont' like it, start the process in your state to get voting machines and scanners thrown out.

[James Madison]

Ha Ha. Every group of friends has one person who nobody else really likes. If you don't know who that person is, IT'S YOU!:D:D

Karen?:D

[Truth Warrior]

Ha Ha. Every group of friends has one person who nobody else really likes. If you don't know who that person is, IT'S YOU!:D:D Group of "FRIENDS", ONE nobody likes.

How are your ongoing lessons at the "Yogi Berra School of Logic", progressing? :rolleyes:

[nodope0695]

Group of "FRIENDS", ONE nobody likes.

How are your ongoing lessons at the "Yogi Berra School of Logic", progressing? :rolleyes:

symantics.....symantics.:cool:

[Truth Warrior]

symantics.....symantics.:cool:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/semantics (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/semantics) :D

[nodope0695]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/semantics (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/semantics) :D


Okay, "verbiage" would have been a better word. Work with me here, I have a public school education!:rolleyes::D:o

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/verbiage

[nodope0695]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/semantics (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/semantics) :D


LMAO! Look what else may be found at dictionary.com:

http://www.reference.com/search?q=Bushism

[Truth Warrior]

Okay, "verbiage" would have been a better word. Work with me here, I have a public school education!:rolleyes::D:o

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/verbiage I just tend be very literal, and take things that way. Probably just my IT background and training. ;)

I assume that you meant "government schooling". :D Education is something else, entirely.<IMHO> ;)

[nodope0695]

I assume that you meant "government schooling". :D Education is something else, entirely.<IMHO> ;)


Yes, Gov't Schooled, but self taught.;) They couldn't get ahold of my mind, thank God!

I tend to write how I speak, so that would explain my style, especiallly when I'm writing quickly off the top of my head. I'm kinda like Biden...my mouth (or fingers) moves faster than my brain at times.

[klamath]

I watched Johnson's speech from the Rally for the Republic -- and while he's a GOOD speaker and said a lot of solid things...

The CHIEF thing I came away with from that video is "Boy this Gary Johnson guy sure is overflowing with admiration for ...HIMSELF." IMO that is a major ego problem, and a potentially very dangerous character flaw.

He could have made a LOT of those same points in a different (and much less egotistical) manner... either he is aware of this and doesn't care, or he's so egotistical that he doesn't see it; neither one would be a good sign.

I am not jumping on anyones bandwagon four years out. I liked what Johnston said but also noted the "I did this, I did that " in a ralley that wasn't susposed to be about him. I also would like to know what happened to his wife. There maybe a whole lot of rotten stuff hidden there that I don't want to find out about the day before the NH primary. I want to see a lot more debate about all the candidate plus they have four mores years to prove their records.

[Truth Warrior]

Yes, Gov't Schooled, but self taught.;) They couldn't get ahold of my mind, thank God!

I tend to write how I speak, so that would explain my style, especiallly when I'm writing quickly off the top of my head. I'm kinda like Biden...my mouth (or fingers) moves faster than my brain at times. Congrats on your escape. Alas, many have not. :(

If I could manage to touch type, I'd probably do that too. ;) Hence my very STRONG preference for short posts. :)

[Roxi]

instead of fighting about who to run in FOUR years, why don't you join one of the current efforts to educate people on the liberty movement and promote that, it might be a little more constructive

BOTTOM UP PEOPLE! (and no im not talking about beer)

[Roxi]

id like to add:

what i have been doing since the election:

making list of all registered voters in my precinct
making list of all donors to RP08 in my county
making list of all seat winners in my state, and city governments

researching the people who won elections in my state
researching who they ran against in the election


just in case you didn't have anything better to do :)

[DeadheadForPaul]

I REALLY don't want the people on this board to support Mark Sanford

To be honest, you kooks tarnished Ron Paul's campaign with your masked anarchist fundraisers, 9/11 Inside Job conspiracies, support from supremacists, and general kookyness. Don't ruin Sanford's campaign too

[torchbearer]

I REALLY don't want the people on this board to support Mark Sanford

To be honest, you kooks tarnished Ron Paul's campaign with your masked anarchist fundraisers, 9/11 Inside Job conspiracies, support from supremacists, and general kookyness. Don't ruin Sanford's campaign too

Yeah, all you kooks. Stop supporting your favorite candidates. :rolleyes:

[Truth Warrior]

id like to add:

what i have been doing since the election:

making list of all registered voters in my precinct
making list of all donors to RP08 in my county
making list of all seat winners in my state, and city governments

researching the people who won elections in my state
researching who they ran against in the election


just in case you didn't have anything better to do :) And a Gold Star shall now be added to your permanent record. :D

[Danke]

I REALLY don't want the people on this board to support Mark Sanford

To be honest, you kooks tarnished Ron Paul's campaign with your masked anarchist fundraisers, 9/11 Inside Job conspiracies, support from supremacists, and general kookyness. Don't ruin Sanford's campaign too

I am a Bob Barr Libertarian

"I am a Bob Barr Libertarian" Doesn't get much kookier than that.

[DeadheadForPaul]

"I am a Bob Barr Libertarian" Doesn't get much kookier than that.

Beats the hell out of a Badnarik Libertarian and refusing to write zip code on letters because he doesn't recognize the authority of the federal government

[Truth Warrior]

"I am a Bob Barr Libertarian" Doesn't get much kookier than that. Tru dat! :D ( Practicing my pidgin Swahili ;) )

[gls]

Beats the hell out of a Badnarik Libertarian and refusing to write zip code on letters because he doesn't recognize the authority of the federal government

LOL I wonder how many deadheads Barr helped locked up over the years during his antidrug moral crusading at the Justice Department. Most of them are probably still rotting behind bars, no doubt.

[torchbearer]

Beats the hell out of a Badnarik Libertarian and refusing to write zip code on letters because he doesn't recognize the authority of the federal government

At least Badnarik was true to his principles.
And in the most sincerest ways, he is correct in his views.
Our country is far removed from its legit functions that is seems crazy in the same way most Fox News americans think Ron Paul is a kook.

Just because you aren't there yet, doesn't mean your reality is the sane one and everyone else is crazy. Your view is egocentric, ethnocentric, and neoconcentric in its roots.
Someone who demands people not to support a candidate is totalitarian in nature.

[Alawn]

Well then you should hustle your little butt right over there and perform a citizen's arrest of everyone as they exit that building the next time they meet -- since you are an expert on the law in such cases I'm certain you and the Justice League (or was that S.H.E.I.L.D. ?) will be able to tidy things right up.

Maybe Maxwell Smart and Agent 86 can get a partial assist!

I think you should go crawl back into your hidey hole because otherwise the bogeyman might get you (and if he doesn't, maybe it'll be that guy with the hook hand, or that clown thing from IT!)
:eek:



BOO!

The text of the law is very clear. It is a felony. Obviously I can't do anything about it. I can't arrest public officials. That doesn't mean it isn't a felony. If they don't enforce it then there isn't much we can do. But I don't have to support this moron. If any US citizen meets with a foreign official to try to effect policy without specific permission from the federal government he is committing a felony.

[Truth Warrior]

The text of the law is very clear. It is a felony. Obviously I can't do anything about it. I can't arrest public officials. That doesn't mean it isn't a felony. If they don't enforce it then there isn't much we can do. But I don't have to support this moron. If any US citizen meets with a foreign official to try to effect policy without specific permission from the federal government he is committing a felony. Ever hear of citizen's arrest?

[Danke]

Ever hear of citizen's arrest?

You first. :p

[nodope0695]

vv/-/47 73h phv<X?

[angelatc]

I like sanford from what i've seen.
I have one question, why was he invited to bilderberg meeting.

The more important question is whether he agreed with what he heard there.

I went to an Amway meeting once. I've been to other people's churches. See what I am getting at?

[torchbearer]

The more important question is whether he agreed with what he heard there.

I went to an Amway meeting once. I've been to other people's churches. See what I am getting at?

You will never know the truth of his agreement with the discussion.
Never.
But, to actually show up to hear the deal... says something in itself. See what I am getting at?
Would Ron Paul accept such an invite?

[Truth Warrior]

You first. :p I don't DO politics, nor law ( so called ) enforcement. :rolleyes: :p

[torchbearer]

I don't DO politics. :rolleyes: :p

You do politics on this forum all day.
Go out and do us a favor and shut down our government for us.

[Danke]

I don't DO politics. :rolleyes: :p

But you post on a political forum...:rolleyes::p

[DeadheadForPaul]

"Someone who demands people not to support a candidate is totalitarian in nature."

I did not use force to keep anyone from supporting any candidate. I fail to see how it is totalitarian in nature. A totalitarian leader utilizes force to back up their threats. I simply stated that kooks on this board contributed to the negative image of Ron Paul. There were media people on here and some of you just gave them ammunition - as if our struggle was not hard enough to begin with

[Truth Warrior]

You do politics on this forum all day.
Go out and do us a favor and shut down our government for us. Nah, I'm just typing on my keyboard. Do YOUR own dirty work to clean up YOUR mess. :p

[torchbearer]

Nah, I'm just typing on my keyboard. Do YOUR own dirty work to clean up YOUR mess. :p

And how is this MY mess and not YOUR mess?
I'm waiting for that one... since the day I was born... there was THIS mess.
And you were here before me.
So, it is more YOUR mess, than MINE.
How about take responsibility for once in your life.

[Truth Warrior]

But you post on a political forum...:rolleyes::p Damn, I thought this is an INTERNET WWW forum. :D I can tell it's NOT political from the absence and lack of force, coercion and violence. ;)

[torchbearer]

"Someone who demands people not to support a candidate is totalitarian in nature."

I did not use force to keep anyone from supporting any candidate. I fail to see how it is totalitarian in nature. A totalitarian leader utilizes force to back up their threats. I simply stated that kooks on this board contributed to the negative image of Ron Paul. There were media people on here and some of you just gave them ammunition - as if our struggle was not hard enough to begin with

You as orbitor to decide who is a detriment, and who isn't. You as king decider.
This person should shut up, and this person shouldn't.
Total control from your own mind set.

[Danke]

I can tell it's NOT political from the absence and lack of force, coercion and violence. ;)

Hmm... U got me there. <IMHO> :o Oh Warrior of Truth.

[Truth Warrior]

And how is this MY mess and not YOUR mess?
I'm waiting for that one... since the day I was born... there was THIS mess.
And you were here before me.
So, it is more YOUR mess, than MINE.
How about take responsibility for once in your life. Not MY government, it's NOW YOUR'S. Yeah, it was JUST here when I was born too. It was a LOT smaller then though. Somebody's doin' sumpten wrong somewhere. :D I strongly suspect it's those damned MINORITY of voters.

Sorry my responsibilities plate is plum full, just minding my own business and running my own life. ;) HINT!!!

[torchbearer]

Not MY government it's NOW YOUR'S. Yeah, it was JUST here when I was born too. It was a LOT smaller then though. Somebody's doin' sumpten wrong somewhere. :D I strongly suspect it's those damned MINORITY of voters.

Sorry my responsibilities plate is plum full, just minding my own business and running my own life. ;) HINT!!!

Well, if you can live with the fact that your lack of involvement has doomed your children, and their children. That's yours to swallow.

[Truth Warrior]

Hmm... U got me there. <IMHO> :o Oh Warrior of Truth. Touché. :D

[Truth Warrior]

Well, if you can live with the fact that your lack of involvement has doomed your children, and their children. That's yours to swallow. Some things are just outside of my control. :( Your's too, by the way. ;) Personally, I just strongly prefer being EFFECTIVE where I can.

[WRellim]

I REALLY don't want the people on this board to support Mark Sanford

To be honest, you kooks tarnished Ron Paul's campaign with your masked anarchist fundraisers, 9/11 Inside Job conspiracies, support from supremacists, and general kookyness. Don't ruin Sanford's campaign too

Hmmm... you DO have a point.

[torchbearer]

Some things are just outside of my control. :( Your's too, by the way. ;) Personally, I just strongly prefer being EFFECTIVE where I can.

The powerless truth warrior.
There is nothing you can do. It is out of your control.
Admit defeat, and submit... or withdraw into your own shell.

I'd call me father a pussy if he had that attitude.

[WRellim]

I am not jumping on anyones bandwagon four years out. I liked what Johnston said but also noted the "I did this, I did that " in a ralley that wasn't susposed to be about him. I also would like to know what happened to his wife. There maybe a whole lot of rotten stuff hidden there that I don't want to find out about the day before the NH primary. I want to see a lot more debate about all the candidate plus they have four mores years to prove their records.

Yup... I thought is was not only blatant, but more than a bit distasteful given the venue.

I understand and agree with standing on your record, and citing your accomplishments (especially as an example of "hope" to people that it CAN be done) -- but it really smacked a bit to much of the "Look at me and how great I am/was."

I guess that shouldn't be to unexpected (false or "pretend" humility is no virtue either), but I have to say it bothers me; and it bothers me a LOT MORE than the "problems" that people have with other possible candidate (who seem to be more willing to admit past errors and/or failures).

[Truth Warrior]

The powerless truth warrior.
There is nothing you can do. It is out of your control.
Admit defeat, and submit... or withdraw into your own shell.

I'd call me father a pussy if he had that attitude. Sometimes REALITY can just be a real bitch. You may want to consider trying it some time. And if I were YOUR father, I'd merely whip your ass. :D

[torchbearer]

Sometimes REALITY can just be a real bitch. You may want to consider trying it some time. And if I were YOUR father, I'd merely whip your ass. :D

Can't never could. And you couldn't whoop shit.
I'd pair a 90 pound patriot against your ass anyday.
You have no heart. And you should have no respect from anyone who still gives a fuck about what happens to our children and this country.

[DeadheadForPaul]

You as orbitor to decide who is a detriment, and who isn't. You as king decider.
This person should shut up, and this person shouldn't.
Total control from your own mind set.

How dramatic.

You're the kind of nut who is an embarrassment to the Revolution

[Truth Warrior]

Can't never could. And you couldn't whoop shit.
I'd pair a 90 pound patriot against your ass anyday.
You have no heart. And you should have no respect from anyone who still gives a fuck about what happens to our children and this country. I can whip ANYBODY half my weight and twice my age. :D

And you on this forum without even breaking a sweat. :D

[Danke]

How dramatic.

You're the kind of nut who is an embarrassment to the Revolution

Yes, we need less passion in the R3volution. :rolleyes:

[torchbearer]

I can whip ANYBODY half my weight and twice my age. :D

And you on this forum without even breaking a sweat. :D

Machismo really isn't your thing.
Words are words only.

Until you actually do something, you aren't doing anything.

[Danke]

I can whip ANYBODY half my weight and twice my age. :D

And you on this forum without even breaking a sweat. :D

Does your avatar have any resemblance to you in real life? I have that image ingrained in my mind. Just curious.

[WRellim]

The text of the law is very clear. It is a felony. Obviously I can't do anything about it. I can't arrest public officials. That doesn't mean it isn't a felony. If they don't enforce it then there isn't much we can do. But I don't have to support this moron. If any US citizen meets with a foreign official to try to effect policy without specific permission from the federal government he is committing a felony.

See, and I would contend that the "laws" which create your need for a "specific permission from the federal government" -- are in and of themselves UNCONSTITUTIONAL in nature, and therefore invalid, null, and void. (And perhaps that's why they haven't been "enforced" in such cases).

The constitution places handcuffs on the Government -- and only in limited areas does it give that government powers to restrict the actions of citizens.

Freedom of speech and assembly (you know the part that says "Congress shall make NO law ... abridging the freedom of speech ... or the right to peaceably assemble") would seem to encompass the ability to simply meet and discuss a variety of things with ANYONE...

And on top if it, the "try to effect policy" seems likely to be VERY vague criteria, and subject to the enforcer's political agenda; I mean what defines "policy"?

Seriously, taken to the extreme you seem to want (to then indict AND convict someone WITHOUT a trial), anyone posting on some online forum and having a discussion about say, the Federal Reserve and "monetary policy" with other people could be constituted as "trying to effect policy" -- and woe be to them if one of the foreigners that also post online there is some type of "official" that works for a foreign government.

[angelatc]

You will never know the truth of his agreement with the discussion.
Never.
But, to actually show up to hear the deal... says something in itself. See what I am getting at?
Would Ron Paul accept such an invite?

He might. He does not strike me as the type that refuses to listen to others' ideas.

[torchbearer]

How dramatic.

You're the kind of nut who is an embarrassment to the Revolution

I must have hit a nerve.
I have been decided by the orbitor of what is right and what isn't... to be what isn't right...
Why?
Because I told the emperor of sanity he is full of shit.

[WRellim]

Machismo really isn't your thing.
Words are words only.

Until you actually do something, you aren't doing anything.

I think he's referring to the fact that he has a BLENDER...

One of these (which can even "whip" Chuck Norris!):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdD54rG9oQA

:D

[Danke]

See, and I would contend that the "laws" which create your need for a "specific permission from the federal government" -- are in and of themselves UNCONSTITUTIONAL in nature, and therefore invalid, null, and void. (And perhaps that's why they haven't been "enforced" in such cases).

The constitution places handcuffs on the Government -- and only in limited areas does it give that government powers to restrict the actions of citizens.

Freedom of speech and assembly (you know the part that says "Congress shall make NO law ... abridging the freedom of speech ... or the right to peaceably assemble") would seem to encompass the ability to simply meet and discuss a variety of things with ANYONE...

And on top if it, the "try to effect policy" seems likely to be VERY vague criteria, and subject to the enforcer's political agenda; I mean what defines "policy"?

Seriously, taken to the extreme you seem to want (to then indict AND convict someone WITHOUT a trial), anyone posting on some online forum and having a discussion about say, the Federal Reserve and "monetary policy" with other people could be constituted as "trying to effect policy" -- and woe be to them if one of the foreigners that also post online there is some type of "official" that works for a foreign government.

Is it really for any citizen, or just applicable to government workers?

[pacelli]

This wasn't some nut job with an internet radio show.
This was a serious social scientist who studied how power is passed between industry, government and military in the U.S.

Yeh, I know it sounds like a hollywood movie... but the shit is true.


Yup and I'd also add to that the following book which is taught in doctoral psychology programs:

Janis, Irving (1982). Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascoes (2nd Edition).


Irving Janis taught at Yale University.

From page vii:


These observations began to fit a specific pattern of concurrence-seeking behavior that had impressed me time and again in my research on other kinds of face-to-face groups, particularly when a "we-feeling" of solidarity is running high. Additional accounts of the Bay of Pigs yielded more such observations, leading me to conclude that group processes had been subtly at work, preventing the members of Kennedy's team from debating the real issues posed by the CIA's plan and from carefully appraising its serious risks.

From page ix:



Many general readers, social scientists, and students appreciate the importance of the psychology of emotion and personality dynamics when they are trying to understand why a president, a prime minister, a revolutionary leader, or some other leading actor on the stage of history has played his role in a wayward fashion. A major purpose of this book is to increase awareness of social psychological phenomena in decisions of historic importance, so that group dynamics will be taken into account by those who try to understand the performance of the leading actors and members of the supporting cast. Their collective actions, as will be seen in the case studies of major fiascoes, can be responsible for staging an appalling comedy of errors that ends up as a tragedy.

[Truth Warrior]

Machismo really isn't your thing.
Words are words only.

Until you actually do something, you aren't doing anything. I simply refuse to engage in a batle of wits, with those that come half armed. ;)

Yeah, my Mom used to say that too, often when I was reading a book. :rolleyes: She was incorrect TOO. :p

[torchbearer]

I simply refuse to engage in a batle of wits, with those that come half armed. ;)

Yeah, my Mom used to say that too, often when I was reading a book. :rolleyes: She was incorrect TOO. :p

But you are still engaging. ;) :D

[Truth Warrior]

Does your avatar have any resemblance to you in real life? I have that image ingrained in my mind. Just curious. I kinda think so ( several years ago ), that's pretty much why I chose it. ;)

[torchbearer]

Yup and I'd also add to that the following book which is taught in doctoral psychology programs:

Janis, Irving (1982). Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascoes (2nd Edition).


Irving Janis taught at Yale University.

From page vii:



From page ix:

[/B]

Yes. Very True.
I'm dissappointed that not many people responded to the C. Wright Mills post.
But group think in combination points to the facts that this group doesn't live in reality at all.
If surrounded by power seekers and yes men... any idea, no matter how bad, will get reinforced.
If a Ron Paul was among that group, they would be removed for difference of opinion by the majority.

This also shows how the GOP leadership nationally, and within the states have come to embrace policies that are counter to what they stand for... at least in platform.
It is a herd mentality.
It takes courage to stand against the groupthink.

[Truth Warrior]

But you are still engaging. ;) :D Nah, just playin' around. This is merely called banter. ;) I do it with the mental light weights. :D

[torchbearer]

Nah, just playin' around. This is merely called banter. ;) I do it with the mental light weights. :D

Oh geez. I've been outwitted again by a mental giant.
http://www.northrup.org/Photos/turtle/low/horn-pond-turtle.JPG

What do you get on the internets for proclaiming yourself a mental victor?
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v639/Zeldafreak9000/300bunchies.png
You win the internets!


Told ya, machismo wasn't your thing.
Its like witnessing a 5 year old bullying another 5 year old on a school playground to show his dominance to the other infants.
Quite sad, really.

[pacelli]

Yes. Very True.
I'm dissappointed that not many people responded to the C. Wright Mills post.
But group think in combination points to the facts that this group doesn't live in reality at all.
If surrounded by power seekers and yes men... any idea, no matter how bad, will get reinforced.
If a Ron Paul was among that group, they would be removed for difference of opinion by the majority.

This also shows how the GOP leadership nationally, and within the states have come to embrace policies that are counter to what they stand for... at least in platform.
It is a herd mentality.
It takes courage to stand against the groupthink.

That's absolutely correct. I think Mills' book on the Sociological Imagination nicely complemented his book on the Power Elite, in the sense that there is always the process of projection happening. People project their own internal conflicts upon their commentary of the social microcosm and social macrocosm, regardless of their social class or political status. In fact they are far removed from describing anything based in reality. Add to that the phenomenon of groupthink, and you have a reliable model of how all groups have a built-in mechanism of reinforcement and punishment for maintaining a cohesive unit.

You're on the mark in comparing this process to that which occurs in the GOP. The same thing is happening in global decision-making groups. Anyone with a mind for bucking the norm of the group will be intentionally excluded.

As far as your disappointment in the lack of responses to your Mills post- I don't think many people are going to take much of this discussion about Mills & Groupthink to heart because there is an overwhelming theme of emotional distraction already set as a precedent for this thread. It is easier to take sides and participate emotionally rather than process anything intellectually. That's one of the reasons why I rarely make long analytical posts anymore. For the most part they just get skipped over.

[Truth Warrior]

Oh geez. I've been outwitted again by a mental giant.


What do you get on the internets for proclaiming yourself a mental victor?

You win the internets!


Told ya, machismo wasn't your thing.
Its like witnessing a 5 year old bullying another 5 year old on a school playground to show his dominance to the other infants.
Quite sad, really. Not unlike the above <snipped> childish pics choices. BTW, you started it again, as usual. :p

Politics NEEDS and DEPENDS on barbarians like you. :rolleyes:

[torchbearer]

Not unlike the above <snipped> childish pics choices. BTW, you started it again, as usual. :p

Politics NEEDS barbarians like you. :rolleyes:

Yes, I'm the barbarian. Pushing people around on internet forum just because they want to try to make a difference.
Buy a mirror.

[Theocrat]

I have been here a long time and it amazes me at what some of you say? You wont support Sanford because he had to be asked to talk about ron paul instead of scheduling a interview to talk about him. You wont support Sanford because the GOP doesn't like him. You will support palin because she is hot, you will support ghouliani because he has a chance, some of you say the stupidest things. God i am sure you would eat your own young :mad::mad::mad::mad:

MY GOD PEOPLE THERE ARE NO PERFECT CANIDATES, RON PAUL WASNT PERFECT NO ONE IS.

Go back to voting for McCain if your going to wait for a perfect candidate :mad::mad::mad::mad:

I voted for Dr. Chuck Baldwin. :D

[Truth Warrior]

Yes, I'm the barbarian. Pushing people around on internet forum just because they want to try to make a difference.
Buy a mirror. "Don't try. Either do or don't do. There is no try." -- Yoda ;)

Did um get ums feelings hurt? Awwww. :p

[torchbearer]

That's absolutely correct. I think Mills' book on the Sociological Imagination nicely complemented his book on the Power Elite, in the sense that there is always the process of projection happening. People project their own internal conflicts upon their commentary of the social microcosm and social macrocosm, regardless of their social class or political status. In fact they are far removed from describing anything based in reality. Add to that the phenomenon of groupthink, and you have a reliable model of how all groups have a built-in mechanism of reinforcement and punishment for maintaining a cohesive unit.

You're on the mark in comparing this process to that which occurs in the GOP. The same thing is happening in global decision-making groups. Anyone with a mind for bucking the norm of the group will be intentionally excluded.

As far as your disappointment in the lack of responses to your Mills post- I don't think many people are going to take much of this discussion about Mills & Groupthink to heart because there is an overwhelming theme of emotional distraction already set as a precedent for this thread. It is easier to take sides and participate emotionally rather than process anything intellectually. That's one of the reasons why I rarely make long analytical posts anymore. For the most part they just get skipped over.

I appreciate the dialogue.
Not often I find someone who even understand what i'm talking about...
I shouldn't let it frustrate me, but most of the time, I don't even bother trying to explain it to people.
Its not something you can explain easily to someone who has no background in this area, and it is often misunderstood. At least, when I try to explain it.
I haven't found a simple analogy that will turn on that light bulb in the mind.
Have you?

And yes, its amazing how in the same thread I can be called a barbarian.
I'd like to see others take a stab at a contribution to this analysis.
Which seems spot on, and reinforced by scientific study.

Occassionally, I do find someone who stimulates the mind. I appreciate it.

[torchbearer]

"Don't try. Either do or don't do. There is no try." -- Yoda ;)

Did um get ums feelings hurt? Awwww. :p

Yes, I'm crying over your words. They are so painful. :rolleyes:

[Truth Warrior]

Yes, I'm crying over your words. They are so painful. :rolleyes: Something ain't working, Goober. The STATE still GROWS. Do something else.



"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results." -- Benjamin Franklin

[torchbearer]

Something ain't working, Goober. The STATE still GROWS. Do something else.



"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results." -- Benjamin Franklin

What you are doing isn't working either. Goober.
Try something else.

[Truth Warrior]

What you are doing isn't working either. Goober.
Try something else. Overall I'm satisfied with my results. My expectations are realistic and thus not very high. ;) "Que sera, sera." :rolleyes:

[torchbearer]

Overall I'm satisfied with my results. My expectations are realistic and thus not very high. ;) "Que sera, sera." :rolleyes:

Majority of Americans don't vote. The same as YOU.
Nothing has Changed.

"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results." -- Benjamin Franklin

Your expectations are a self-fulfilling prophecy. Get it?
I don't expect to pass the test. I thus, don't study or prepare.
I don't pass the test. Thus, my expectations are based in reality, and are a self-fulfilling prophecy.
You are stuck in a loop of insanity, laughing at your own fooley.
You have failed in every since of the word by your expectations.

[Truth Warrior]

Majority of Americans don't vote. The same as YOU.
Nothing has Changed.

"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results." -- Benjamin Franklin

Your expectations are a self-fulfilling prophecy. Get it?
I don't expect to pass the test. I thus, don't study or prepare.
I don't pass the test. Thus, my expectations are based in reality, and are a self-fulfilling prophecy.
You are stuck in a loop of insanity, laughing at your own fooley.
You have failed in every since of the word by your expectations.

Maybe the new Kenyan POTUS will "fix it" and make it all better for you. :p

"I like the old idea that you can do whatever you want as long as you don't harm anyone." -- Ron Paul, From "Freedom to Fascism"

For some strange reason, the barbarism of voting springs to mind. ;)


The Illegality, Immorality, and Violence of All Political Action
http://users.aol.com/xeqtr1/voluntaryist/vopa.html (http://users.aol.com/xeqtr1/voluntaryist/vopa.html)

[torchbearer]

Maybe the new Kenyan POTUS will "fix it" and make it all better for you. :p

"I like the old idea that you can do whatever you want as long as you don't harm anyone." -- Ron Paul, From "Freedom to Fascism"

For some strange reason, the barbarism of voting springs to mind. ;)


The Illegality, Immorality, and Violence of All Political Action
http://users.aol.com/xeqtr1/voluntaryist/vopa.html (http://users.aol.com/xeqtr1/voluntaryist/vopa.html)

When you have nothing intelligent to say about the actual post you are responding to... because you can't.
Please defer to Kenyan POTUS and place links to crap on the internet.

Good formula you got there... well, not really. The schtick is getting old.
Try another forum.

[Truth Warrior]

When you have nothing intelligent to say about the actual post you are responding to... because you can't.
Please defer to Kenyan POTUS and place links to crap on the internet.

Good formula you got there... well, not really. The schtick is getting old.
Try another forum. Nah, I'm only here because of Ron. Figured I just might find some MORE sanity here. And I have, some.

Not YOU, of course. :p :rolleyes:

http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i304/Truth_Warrior/lewrock0305a.gif

"Visit LewRockwell.com, an outstanding and crucially important Web site I visit every day." -- Ron Paul.
"THE REVOLUTION, A MANIFESTO" ( page # 158 ), http://www.lewrockwell.com/ (http://www.lewrockwell.com/) ;)

[torchbearer]

Nah, I'm only here because of Ron. Figured I just might find some MORE sanity here. And I have, some.

Not YOU, of course. :p :rolleyes:


"Visit LewRockwell.com, an outstanding and crucially important Web site I visit every day." -- Ron Paul.
"THE REVOLUTION, A MANIFESTO" ( page # 158 ), http://www.lewrockwell.com/ (http://www.lewrockwell.com/) ;)

Tell it to our Kenyan POTUS. <IMHO>

Of course, YOU wouldn't get it. :rolleyes:

http://www.crazythoughts.com/images/logo.gif

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperlinks
:p:D
<IMHO>

Oh, and don't forget about the Kenyan POTUS. :D :p :rolleyes:

[Truth Warrior]

Tell it to our Kenyan POTUS. <IMHO>

Of course, YOU wouldn't get it. :rolleyes:

http://www.crazythoughts.com/images/logo.gif

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperlinks
:p:D
<IMHO>

Oh, and don't forget about the Kenyan POTUS. :D :p :rolleyes: I have NO POTUS. In hindsight, I never have. Nor representation either.

[torchbearer]

I have NO POTUS. In hindsight, I never have. Nor representation either.

I have no POTUS, never had.
Nor representation either.
Ever.

[Truth Warrior]

I have no POTUS, never had.
Nor representation either.
Ever. And yet, you still vote. Hope springs eternal. Maybe someday your Prince will come. :rolleyes:

:D

What did Ben say again? ;)

[Join The Paul Side]

I have been here a long time and it amazes me at what some of you say? You wont support Sanford because he had to be asked to talk about ron paul instead of scheduling a interview to talk about him. You wont support Sanford because the GOP doesn't like him. You will support palin because she is hot, you will support ghouliani because he has a chance, some of you say the stupidest things. God i am sure you would eat your own young :mad::mad::mad::mad:

MY GOD PEOPLE THERE ARE NO PERFECT CANIDATES, RON PAUL WASNT PERFECT NO ONE IS.

Go back to voting for McCain if your going to wait for a perfect candidate :mad::mad::mad::mad:


Well I know you're not talking about me because I don't support that phoney and fraud Sarah Palin. :cool:

[torchbearer]

And yet, you still vote. Hope springs eternal. Maybe someday your Prince will come. :rolleyes:

:D

What did Ben say again? ;)

About the majority of americans not voting and expecting things to change??

Its funny how you and Ron Paul agree on everything, especially that part about 'nothing can be done', sit on your ass and post on a forum about not voting.
That's the american spirit!

Bend over and take it in the ass.. because you have no POTUS.
And you never will.
You will be ruled by men who don't care if you vote or not... and they will rule you by ruling everything around you.
Close your eyes and pretend it can't effect you. Just like the turtle.

I'm not waiting for a prince, I'm doing the civil things first, before I return government force with force.

Thomas Jefferson- "You only have the rights you are willing to fight for"
If you want, I'll dig up some hyperlinks for you. And maybe a few graphics, and some of these... :D :rolleyes: :p

Maybe even start posting in bold type. If that helps me communicate with you better.

[alaric]

You do politics on this forum all day.
Go out and do us a favor and shut down our government for us.

wow, is THAT the $64,000,000 question: PLEASE find that person!

[torchbearer]

wow, is THAT the $64,000,000 question: PLEASE find that person!

if you aren't willing to do it yourself, even at the cost of losing your life. It will never happen.

[Truth Warrior]

About the majority of americans not voting and expecting things to change??

Ah, so it's just RULE by the MINORITY of the MINORITY of the MINORITY of the MINORITY, etc., etc. etc. Isn't that the way it's ALWAYS been done throughout human history?

Seems pretty corrupt to me.

Its funny how you and Ron Paul agree on everything, especially that part about 'nothing can be done', sit on your ass and post on a forum about not voting.

That's the american spirit!

Nah, Ron and I disagree about a number of things. I think the American Spirit is, "FUCK the government!", or a least used to be and should be again SOON. Does the year 1776 ring any bells?

Bend over and take it in the ass.. because you have no POTUS.

Having a POTUS, doesn't prevent that, as you TOO, WELL know.

And you never will.

Nor will you.

You will be ruled by men who don't care if you vote or not... and they will rule you by ruling everything around you.

As with you.

Close your eyes and pretend it can't effect you. Just like the turtle.

My eyes are open more than most here, especially you.

I'm not waiting for a prince, I'm doing the civil things first, before I return government force with force.

Merely playing THEIR rigged game, until THEY kick your ass.

Thomas Jefferson- "You only have the rights you are willing to fight for"

No need to quote Jefferson to me. Hamilton is the current corrupt rigged mess you are in, mucking with and voting fruitlessly around.

If you want, I'll dig up some hyperlinks for you. And maybe a few graphics, and some of these... :D :rolleyes: :p

Knock your socks off.

Maybe even start posting in bold type. If that helps me communicate with you better.

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and TOTALLY wasted on me. I'd just have to change colors then, but whatever. Simple operation.



We can continue this in FEMA camp. Thanks for the tyranny and Leviathan.

:rolleyes:

[StateofTrance]

Actually 71,700 records... did you check them ALL?



Hmmm... I get "about 97,000" records ...did you read all of those too?



Geepers Google tells me it even has "about 38,200" results for this one, but you read through all of those too (and in less than 13 minutes). Hmph that is a puzzler!



Nah, I think what it shows is that you ARE blind (or that your "NADA" is a blatant lie).

But gee... because WRellim doesn't have scanned copied of BOTH mens' itineraries from nearly a year ago and ready to produce them on demand... well that just absolutely offers final and conclusive PROOF that it wasn't even possible for Ron Paul to EVER have met with Mark Sanford.

And I'm certain we can trust someone with a name like "StateOfTrance" when he claims to have gotten "NADA" from three different searches on Google -- or perhaps he means that he GOT those results, and mahaged to read through all 70,000+ results from that first google search (http://www.google.com/search?&q=Mark+sanford+met+Ron+Paul) (AND the over 100,000 results from the other two) and managed to accomplish it all in a record breaking time of under 13 minutes (let's contact the Guinness book!) ...so obviously this means that Google has proven that Ron Paul has NEVER EVER MET Mark Sanford.

I'm sure Ron would be amazed to hear that.

It's not like they worked together for a couple of years in Congress, spent time together in the RLC... nah that wouldn't be possible, because "StateOfTrance" says they never even met (and he spent all of under 13 minutes worth of research time to prove it!)

And poor Mark Sanford, here for years now he has had to endure all those accusations about being a "Libertarian" (http://blogs.thestate.com/bradwarthensblog/mark_sanford/index.html) like his old buddy Ron Paul for over a decade now... if he would have just consulted with the omniscient "StateOfTrance" and his blazingly fast online reading skills, he could have saved himself an awful lot of trouble.


You REALLY are some piece of work there.


Look, the way it works IRL and on the internet is - YOU BACK UP YOUR "CLAIMS" with FACTS or EVIDENCE. Otherwise nobody will give a flying fuck about what you say.

You are telling ME to go look for evidence? That's fucked up.

Unless you worked for the campaign DIRECTLY, I wouldn't...you know what? Fuck it! You pull all this rhetoric and waste everybody's time. Don't bother replying.

[StateofTrance]

"AFTER he had a private meeting with Ron Paul. "

: Citation needed :




And you are saying "because "StateOfTrance" says they never even met (and he spent all of under 13 minutes worth of research time to prove it!)"


What a FOX News-type, pathetic spinmaster. Where did I say "they never even met"?

I mentioned "citation needed" with respect to your so called "private meeting"....and NOTHING else. I do know his history with Ron vis-a-vis voting at the Congress.