Free Dating Site    

1) Ron Paul has failed to ignite much interest in his campaign.

2) The Gold Standard is outdated economic policy that has been largely discredited by the majority of the economic community

3) The Real ID is proving to be the unworkable fiasco that it was likely going to be. And it has yet to be proven anymore of a threat than a SS card.

4) The Patriot Act, while violating some freedoms currently is not likely to remain a law w/ many teeth as it not produced any evidence of it's efficacy in fighting terrorism.
And it's currently facing a number of court challenges.

5) FEMA camps? Ok...people left homeless by disasters now have a place to stay.They can come or go as they please which makes the long term existence of the camps a matter of choice rather than necessity.

6) Barring any unforeseen attack on the US or its interests, war w/ Iran is a near impossibility since the CIA report showing their lack of progress in developing a nuclear weapon.

10) The debt. That's a serious issues that I'm sure we can all agree upon.However, until people start saving and stop spending and the government raises taxes and curtails its own spending , we'll be stuck w/ debt for a long to to come.

the government raises taxes

curtails its own spending

NameGame and Cocy come up with some facts or something to debate on or take your foot-stomping tantrums elsewhere.
Geeze, do you not take into consideration you've been invited to debate, and ALL we've heard is bias backed by insults every time .. too many times - amounting to little as usual???

Again, tell us why you think your candidate of choice has better stances on the issues and predictably you've ignored the challenge to debate or discuss REAL political issues or the crisises this country and we the people are facing. Is it that you are unaware? WTF. This isn't about a popularity issue - although it appears the only train of thought coming from you both.

USA today:
Their support doesn't show up in public opinion polls, but it's unmatched among presidential candidates in its passion. Paul has attracted a contingent of previously apolitical and even left-leaning Americans like Leslie who support his call to pull all troops out of Iraq immediately and who like his reputation for opposing any legislation not linked to principles already expressed in the Constitution. In the six months since, more than 30,000 people have joined Meetup groups in more than 700 places across the country. Paul's Meetup presence surpassed Dean's in just two months, said Andres Glusman, vice president of Meetup.com.
***** Note that Dr. Paul did not announce his candidacy until March 12, well often many of his opponents, and at the time of the polls, many media outlets did not offer his name as a choice for Republican nominee.
During the fourth quarter of 2007, Paul was the most successful Republican fundraiser, bringing in approximately 20 million dollars. He also received the most money from the armed services of any candidate in the 4th quarter.Ron Paul's campaign set two fund raising records: the largest single day donation total among Republican candidates and twice receiving the most money received via the Internet in a single day by any presidential candidate in American history.

Washington Post:
Rep. Ron Paul is more popular on Facebook than Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). He's got more friends on MySpace than former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney. His MeetUp groups, with 11,924 members in 279 cities, are the biggest in the Republican field. And his official YouTube videos, including clips of his three debate appearances, have been viewed nearly 1.1 million times -- more than those of any other candidate, Republican or Democrat, except Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.).

If he had his way, the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Education, among other agencies, would not exist. In his view, the USA Patriot Act, which allows the government to search personal data, including private Internet use, is unconstitutional, and trade deals such as the North American Free Trade Agreement are a threat to American independence.

CCN/ Michael Kraft
We have already reported on the media censoring and omitting Ron Paul from its’ coverage. It is very clear and indisputable that mainstream media sources are intentionally removing Ron Paul from their coverage to purposely damage his campaign chances.

We have shown the New York Times, MSNBC and Fox News all doing the exact same thing. In every opportunity or every time Ron Paul shows clear popularity it will fail to make the media. When Ron Paul has a political win like Nevada or raises far more money than any other candidate in either party in the History of our country, it doesn’t even make the news.
Here is a video to highlight the USA Today newspaper doing it again. The picture of the candidates with Ron Paul intentionally cut out is another undeniable piece of evidence that this is intentional.

I would hope Mr. Paul would seek legal response to the purposeful actions in the media to suppress his campaign.

Doubters should ask themselves, “is it really possible that the candidate to have the greatest fundraising day in history of our country not even worthy of news?”
Is not this and all other fundraising victories a clear sign of popularity despite what the media does not say?
The news today says that McCain, Romney, Huckabee and Giuliani are all running out of money from their campaigns. Ron Paul who has out fundraised all of them has huge amounts of donations still at his disposal. The donations Paul receives are in small quantities and from ordinary (non-corporate) donors and still far exceed the money raised by John McCain or Mike Huckabee.
Ask yourself why CNN, with the “best political team on television”, and broadcasting the election 12 hours per day has not found time to mention these facts?

I think you misunderstand the point. I don't have a candidate of choice because on the two most important issues to me, Iraq and Illegal Immigration, Paul is the only candidate to reflect my views. If he ran on just those two issues, he might have made a huge impact on this race.

But Paul (or at least his supporters) believe that a bunch of other stuff is just as important, and that if you don't agree with all of it you are part of the conspiracy. I'm not allowed to support Paul, at least until I change some of my beliefs. Let's take your list:

- The Real ID? I am in favor of it. We have to carry around our drivers licenses and a half dozen other pieces of ID anyway, and wind up giving out our ssn's willy-nilly. It's time to get organized with a single card.

- Patriot Act? I don't have a big problem with it. I don't think it is abused.

- Fusion Centers? I don't know what this means.

- Fema Camps? I don't care.

- The growing surveillance industry? If you mean things like cameras in ATM
booths and public transit, I'm for it.

- Possible war with Iran? Depends on why it starts.

- Russia's take on it? Russia's agenda under Putin is to create confrontation with the US for domestic gain, so I'm not overly concerned.

- USA now importers as opposed to exporters? That is bad. Which candidates are for it?

- The loss of Habeus Corpus? I see nothing happening that bothers me.

- The growing contracted militias? I see nothing wrong with contracting out protection. The state department has been doing it for decades. Normally, the guards are foreign nationals. Why are you not more troubled by that? My only problems with it are waste and accountability. The latter I see only as a problem unique to Iraq - I havn't heard of any incidents elsewhere. I find the idea that they are a private army (sorry, militia) being primed to take over the US laughable.

- Illegal wiretapping? The government should not be doing that. Which candidates are in favor of it? I'm ok with legal wiretapping.

- Amnesty for the companies providing the services? Yes, if the government and their lawyers told them that they were acting within their authority.

- The debt we are leaving our children? That is bad. Which candidates are for it?

- The assault on free speech? What assualt?

- Nafta? It has plusses and minuses.

Do my answers disqualify me from the Paul movement? Successfull movements strive for the big tent: unity on a set of common issues, and room for disagreement on the rest.

The Real ID has proved the unworkable fiasco

The Real ID Act creates a federal identity document that every American will need in order to fly on commercial airlines, enter government buildings, open a bank account, and more. It creates huge administrative burdens for state governments, while providing no federal funds for implementing its onerous requirements. At the same time, it does nothing to combat terrorism, and puts us at greater risk for invasions of privacy and identity theft. Seventeen states have spoken out against the Real ID Act, and conservatives and liberals alike have voiced serious opposition to the law.
Privacy and civil rights advocates have objected to the REAL ID plan on grounds that a nationally linked database of drivers' license information would be easy prey for government surveillance or private data-mining companies, as well as for identity thieves and hackers looking to harvest information.
Objections were also raised over the possibility of embedding the new licenses with radio-frequency identifier (RFID) chips to ensure their readability by machines. RFID technology has been frequently criticized as both invasive to privacy and easy for hackers to break into. "A centralized ID system is a far greater security risk than a decentralized one with various organizations issuing ID cards according to their own rules for their own purposes,"
Even supporters of strong measures against terrorism have balked at the potential problems with REAL ID. Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), chairman of the Senate Homeland Security committee was quoted as saying that the program was "overly burdensome, possibly unworkable, and may actually increase a terrorist's ability to commit identity theft."

For five years, on presidential orders, the National Security Agency has been reading email and tapping phones without a warrant - actions explicitly forbidden by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.
Despite this 30-year precedent, Congress and the president colluded in a last-minute Patriot-Act-style vote just before the 2007 summer recess. The resulting legislation lifts longstanding protections between government spying and Americans’ international communications. Congress’ "Police America Act” now gives the NSA a blank check to wiretap Americans without judicial oversight.
The ACLU urged members of Congress to resist the president's scare tactics, but caving to White House bullying and base political fears, the Democratic leadership agreed to these reckless changes.
No American is beneath the law's protection. And no one - not even a U.S. president - is above the law's limits. Our fundamental system of checks and balances must be maintained if American democracy is to be preserved.

The “Police America Act" (Protect America Act) allows the Attorney General (AG) to issue program warrants for international calls without court review … has no protections for American phone calls and emails that are caught up in the dragnet …provides only a phony court review of secret procedures… requires only meaningless reporting to Congress … has a sunset that may be of little value.

For Immediate Release
December 12, 2007
ACLU Releases New Report on Government "Fusion Centers"
Says they must be open, carefully monitored and subject to restraints

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Charles Samuelson, Executive Director, 651-645-4097 x123

St. Paul, Minn - The American Civil Liberties Union today released a report outlining serious concerns about new institutions called "fusion centers," which have been created in over 40 states around the nation - including Minnesota. Fusion centers vary widely, but generally are centers intended to improve the sharing of anti-terrorism intelligence among state, local and federal government agencies and the private sector.

"Our report reveals that fusion centers lack oversight, boundary-setting, and checks and balances, which are crucial to protecting the rights of innocent Americans," said Charles Samuelson. "There is a long history of local and federal law enforcement agencies abusing their domestic spying powers. The Minnesota legislature - as well as Congress - must lift the cloak of secrecy, examine these centers closely, and make certain that they are acting within the law - and that they aren't pursuing an ineffective, wasteful, dragnet approach that is diverting Minnesota's resources away from the basic law enforcement needs."

While the ACLU agrees that the ostensible purpose of fusion centers - improving the sharing of anti-terrorism intelligence among different levels and arms of government - is legitimate and important, taken as a whole, fusion centers raise serious questions about privacy and effectiveness.

The ACLU report identifies five specific problems with fusion centers as they currently exist:

• Ambiguous Lines of Authority. Overlapping jurisdictions create the potential for manipulation of differing laws to evade accountability.
• Private Sector Participation. Fusion centers are incorporating private corporations into the intelligence process, further threatening privacy.
• Military Participation. Fusion centers are involving military personnel in law enforcement activities in troubling ways.
• Data Mining. Federal fusion center guidelines encourage wholesale data collection and manipulation processes that threaten privacy.
• Excessive Secrecy. Public oversight, individual redress and the very effectiveness of fusion centers are threatened by excessive secrecy.

"The Bush administration is pushing an expansive vision for fusion centers that raises serious question about the direction these centers are headed," said Charles Samuelson. "Using firefighters and other emergency personnel to spy on Americans will undoubtedly lead people to mistrust and fear them. During a fire or medical emergency, this is the last thing anybody needs."

There are several risks to the fusion center concept -- including potential privacy and civil liberties violations, and the possible inability of fusion centers to demonstrate utility in the absence of future terrorist attacks, particularly during periods of relative state fiscal austerity. Fusion centers are state-created entities largely financed and staffed by the states, and there is no one "model" for how a center should be structured. State and local law enforcement and criminal intelligence seem to be at the core of many of the centers. Although many of the centers initially had purely counterterrorism goals, for numerous reasons, they have increasingly gravitated toward an all-crimes and even broader all-hazards approach.

Certainly "Betterlate" is correct about Ron Paul. We have not seen anything close to a Ron Paul since Goldwater and Robert Taft before that. Strangely, I was going to write a letter directly to Betterlate and found a message block. I cannot recollect corresponding with this person on PlentyOFish. And had I corresponded, as a libertarian myself, I cannot figure why we would have disagreed forcing BetterLate to put on a message block. I am totally mystified

Well, what is apparent to me is that RP supporters are not thrilled with the way things have been. What I question is what are you going to do now that McCain is the man? Who will get your support? Who will RP endorse?
that will be a telling moment....