Ron Paul Revolution!!!!

[vanfullofretards]

what was not necessary?

 

nothing nevermind

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

LOLZ IM DUMB!

[LIVERWURST*]

nah, i was saying that telephone pollsters are using tricks like that.

pretty dirty if you ask me.

 

go look at straw poll results, then get back to me.

dr. paul is winning most of them.

 

Straw polls require people to pay, which Ron Pauls supporters are clearly willing to do, but is only an indicator of the campaigns willingness to pay or the degree of energy existing supporters have. They are not in any way as accurate as polling, and while I'll grant polling isn't perfect, trends across multiple polls paint an accurate trend.

...unless you believe all the polls are influenced by the Communist Jew conspiracy fighting to keep their secret government afloat via illegal funding through the federal reserve and Hillary Clinton's secret ovary clone army and only Ron Paul can save you.

 

 

 

Anyway, what I was thinking after I made my original post is that maybe polls are just conducted via home phones where as Ron Paul has younger supporters who might just have cell phones which pollsters can't call. I don't care enough to verify this idea but maybe you could...

[lord_casek]

http://youtube.com/results?search_query=ron+paul+telephone+poll&search=Search

[angelofdeath]

what im surprised about is that beck didnt take him on about iraq, civil liberties, drug war, etc. when the pressure is put on to any of the conservatives about real conservative principles, like getting out of the UN, cutting taxes and spending, etc. they will most likely agree with the position in rhetoric, but probably not in practice.

 

beck had the league of the south guy and some uber leftist guy who were the head of a secessionist conference a couple of months back. beck basically tore them apart, which i thought was funny because beck is supposed to be some sort of 'libertarian at heart' or limited government conservative guy. considering this country was founded on secession from tyranny, it always strikes me as funny when people put down the principle of it.

[lord_casek]

pretty much the same with michael weiner, eh?

[Some1]

So you're reason for Ron Paul gaining no new ground is that your neighbor got a call like that?

 

The polls mean nothing until the election. They don't poll kids who have never voted they don't call people with cell phones. I dont know anyone my age with a home phone. Polls are wrong you watch how big of a deal its gonna be at an election when he takes the vote.

[El Mamerro]

 

Remember, Remember

the 18th of August.

[lord_casek]

stop shilling, mamerro

[El Mamerro]

Not shilling whatsoever by any definition of the word... I'm just saying, I have a feeling you guys are in for a big disappointment.

 

I like Ron Paul a lot, I really do. Dude wants change and has some very strong ideas. But the kind of hype and attention he's been getting is eerily similar to past happenings that didn't turn out as expected. The Mark of the Internet Phenomenon has been very unkind to those it's been awarded to.

[lord_casek]

Not shilling whatsoever by any definition of the word... I'm just saying, I have a feeling you guys are in for a big disappointment.

 

I like Ron Paul a lot, I really do. Dude wants change and has some very strong ideas. But the kind of hype and attention he's been getting is eerily similar to past happenings that didn't turn out as expected. The Mark of the Internet Phenomenon has been very unkind to those it's been awarded to.

 

i wouldn't be so quick to jump to that conclusion. his straw poll results, as well as the results from donations show differently.

 

we want change and we aren't going to stop until we get it.

 

our news is lying to the world, and now everyone is starting to realize this.

[El Mamerro]

I'll have to see when the moment of truth comes. if following the SOAP example (not even gonna get into the more appropiate precedent, Howard Dean), the sheer amount of user generated content and participation related to the movie definitely showed something different from the actual results later. And I have yet to see donation money translate into electability. A decent amount of people giving a lot of money might match funds-wise a huge amount of people giving a little, but they won't match the votes.

 

I hope I'm wrong.

[lord_casek]

I'll have to see when the moment of truth comes. if following the SOAP example (not even gonna get into the more appropiate precedent, Howard Dean), the sheer amount of user generated content and participation related to the movie definitely showed something different from the actual results later. And I have yet to see donation money translate into electability. A decent amount of people giving a lot of money might match funds-wise a huge amount of people giving a little, but they won't match the votes.

 

I hope I'm wrong.

 

me too.

 

what's the news look like in pr? they paying much attention to our goings on?

[El Mamerro]

Not really. We never really do, local politics is basically PR's national circus/sport and there's little time/space for the big people in the US who really call the shots.

[lord_casek]

Not really. We never really do, local politics is basically PR's national circus/sport and there's little time/space for the big people in the US who really call the shots.

 

 

 

i kinda figured, but wasn't sure. hell, atleast we don't have nuke bases there any longer.

[the.crooked]

i wouldn't be so quick to jump to that conclusion. his straw poll results, as well as the results from donations show differently.

 

My stepdad studies voting trends in relation to pols before the votes, and if he has impressed upon me anything about prevoting polls, people lie.

 

Polls and the survey's they are based on have necessary biases that suggest to people there is a correct way to answer. There are also tons of little patterns he and other analysts feel they can discern based on what the polls say (for example my stepfather believes that if Obama leads Clinton by a margin of 2 to 4 percent in the polls come the primaries, he will lose), but most certainely this is not based of who is in the lead. Polls merely reflect what people say, or profess to say they will do. They are some of the weakest probabilistic determiners of the future as far as a scientific method. In all reality they are complete crap when it comes to appreciating what probability can be inferred from a limited measurement (surveys/polls) of an extremely complex cognio-social activity (voting activity/interpretation of politics). Good science based on polling is not the superficial immediacy of this or that person being supposedly the one people would choose. It lies in whatching how people say certain things and what they actually do otherwise. Impress upon me an instance where polling trends for an independent candidate with moderate fan base ever even mattered as far as the end result. Mams is right in trusting the dictate of last election's fiasco for Howard Dean. The trend being as Mams expressed. His polling numbers were great, but then you know, it didn't happen.

 

Do not put all your faith in the strength of his poll numbers. Also, can you put up a link to what polls specifically you are talking about. The general moniker "straw-poll" is a bit too ambiguous for me.

 

I don't trust polls at all.

 

 

People are shady and stupid.

 

I also do not vote. an argument for which goes like this.

 

In my desicion theory class we spoke of the the cost to benefit equation for voting.

 

If I rememer correctly it went something like this:

 

R=Bc+Bp-C

 

where

 

R= net return

Bc= Benefit of your party/candidate winning. Or the benefit of being of the winning group.

Bp= direct/personal and intangible benefit of your vote winning.

C= cost of voting.

 

 

Now he asked the class how many people felt this was an adequate model for evaluating the capacity to choose to vote. Most agreed, while a few of us expressed a feeling of certain inadequacy. He immediately followed this up by a "poll" of how many people vote and will vote in the next election. Everyone raised their hand but me.

 

The variable C is underdetermined for me. They only spoke about it in tangible costs of voting, e.g. cost of gas, energy, etc of actually voting. What it lacked is the intangible cost of voting, e.g. displaying a coherence and acceptance of the general terms and structures of our government at all. To me, the complacency displayed by voting for any of these fucks is more than I am willing to bear of my personal morals. At this point in our history, the inadequacy and corruption of our institution is matched only by the ineffecacy of what the public actually thinks. I choose to not participate but to quitely navigate my way through a fucked up system long enough to get to a comfortable place. I do not choose to give validation to that system through blind civic action towards the perpetuation of an unstoppable institutional process of increasing complexity (in a formal systems sense) and ineffeciency.

 

 

I stay hood rich, fuck the american middle class. Fuck all of this in general, property rights... please.

 

I got into an argument today with my dad about graffiti being as socially damaging as someone breaking into a car andnot stealing anything. He felt like it was vandalism for vandalisms sake. I said who cares. He said that no matter what it was someones property. I said and what? I am supposed to think thats a good thing? An entire culture founded upon the maintnence of what is yours and yours only. It is no wonder we have ended up as focused on material and monetary gain. Our very governmental structure is perpetuated upon subliming the two.

 

I also made the point that in so much as that system is created it creates a necessary caste system. And if some fuck needed to break into a car to get money to eat, or to buy beer or whatever, I would take that as a necessary event that is equivalent to the one time cost of replacing the window on the car. The intangible and tangible cost of having one's car broken into is a matter of statistical chance equaled by the social conditions and experiences of the person driven as a matter of necessity to complete such an act.

 

This country will never be the ideal dream it so professes to work towards, or that you and everyone else starry eyed suckin ron pual's dick think it once was. You are takin it back.... From what? The corporations? Right. The ideal tenets of this country... The ultimate expression of the founding rights that you and AOD so strongly advocate in your support of Ron Pauls constitutionalism. What the representatives who speak more on behalf of those corporations than the millions of constituents that "elected" them? Please, their arguing for the corporations is more a reflection of american sentiment then any one person. As people push their dollars (the representation of American choice, if you will) in to the hands of this or that corporation, they align themselves with a certain identity and set of values. When those companies have enough money they in a sense become infrastructure through lobbying and other means (be they bribes, etc). So pleeeasssse do not tell me this country was ever ours. This country was built for the inevitable inception of the corporation as conglomerate middle man between the sovereignty and the people composing it.

 

 

No my friend, nothing will change. Even if Ron Paul is elected, I assure you the fissures and structural change he would impose or at least force consideration of will turn this country far from what you hoped it would be come. Not by ill intent, but by necessary course of fact.

 

There are ways to change things though, and it is through corporations. Through changing the consumer's perspective by convincing the corporations that their bottom line would be better served by taking certain political stances. That is the value of people like Al Gore, that you casek are so skeptical of. They act as liaisons through the only effectual means of policy change in this country; money. We should be so lucky as to have people who realise they can make some bucks while still making good things happen. When Al Gore as asked why he didn't run again he kept saying, "Because I can do better for the world outside the White House." And he is absolutely right. Bureaucracy has many connotations of corruption and red tape but really it is just another term for Entropy. Our government is a closed system of indexed policy. Procedure is mapped out by ever increasing levels of policy. After however many years of this process, how can one person change all so much within it. And as you are about to tell me that is the very thing RP will do, I will again refer to this point: The changes he would force would be far beyond yall's consideration. For what you can not account for in the ideal belief of progressive reformation is the backlash and counteraction towards that impulse. Like I said, failure not through ill want, but through necessary course of fact.

 

 

Change things in subversion. Change things by personal interaction, not by a belief in an already destroyed system in which our perspectives actually mean nothing.

[thinksmall]

Al Gore is just a brilliant actor, similar to Bill Clinton and all those other junkies. He's just got some public relation adviser over his shoulder.

 

"In early March 1993 President Clinton created what is now called the National Partnership for Reinventing Government (NPR) and named Vice President Al Gore to serve as his point man in a drive to reinvent government in the United States. While on the surface it may appear to be nothing more than just another government management fad, it is anything but that."

 

"National Partnership for Reinventing Government - The National Partnership for Reinventing Government (NPR) began life as the National Performance Review when President Clinton created it on March 3, 1993 and named Al Gore as its head. In June of that year Gore sponsored the first Service to the Citizens Conference in Richmond, Virginia. The three most important conclusions that the conference came to were:

 

1. Information technology should be used to create a single government.

 

2. A national identity card would be necessary and it must be an integrated access card or as it is more commonly referred to as a "smart card".

 

3. That legislative action should be avoided while implementing the program."

 

http://sovereignty.freedom.org/p/gov/hillmann-book2.html

[Juan Fuentes]

crooked, very crooked

 

you wouldnt be thinking like that if you were born in palestine under the zionist occupation.

 

you have it easy.

never experienced anything harsh in your life.

and that's why you think things will stay the same for ever.

you are frozen in time, you react according to your surroundings. by instinct, like animals, or primitive humans.

people like that are on the process of being extinct.

 

being egoistical does not make you a free individual.

 

 

maybe when they chip your arm and put a camera in your door youll realize evil exists.

[lord_casek]

crooked: here you are. very interesting analysis

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/straw-poll-results/

[the.crooked]

Juan, do not presume to know what I have and have not experienced.

[the.crooked]

crooked: here you are. very interesting analysis

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/straw-poll-results/

 

gracias.

[the.crooked]

Al Gore is just a brilliant actor, similar to Bill Clinton and all those other junkies. He's just got some public relation adviser over his shoulder.

 

"In early March 1993 President Clinton created what is now called the National Partnership for Reinventing Government (NPR) and named Vice President Al Gore to serve as his point man in a drive to reinvent government in the United States. While on the surface it may appear to be nothing more than just another government management fad, it is anything but that."

 

"National Partnership for Reinventing Government - The National Partnership for Reinventing Government (NPR) began life as the National Performance Review when President Clinton created it on March 3, 1993 and named Al Gore as its head. In June of that year Gore sponsored the first Service to the Citizens Conference in Richmond, Virginia. The three most important conclusions that the conference came to were:

 

1. Information technology should be used to create a single government.

 

2. A national identity card would be necessary and it must be an integrated access card or as it is more commonly referred to as a "smart card".

 

3. That legislative action should be avoided while implementing the program."

 

http://sovereignty.freedom.org/p/gov/hillmann-book2.html

 

As if the integration of technology into societal infrastructure is avoidable?

 

 

Cask will tell you I am all for this idea, and I call it google.

[thinksmall]

'single government' duude.

 

Technology is cool (Though it is 100% avoidable like me about to eat chinese, but i wont because its yummy.) and its done well for a lot of people.

 

BUT the destruction of diversity is a completely different case.. it is the creation of fascist society.

 

Al Gore manipulates public opinion to create the necessity of repressive policy. Martin Luther King Jr. warned us about this, suggestively.

[the.crooked]

What is an infinite plurality but one whole?

 

Fascism is when a government imposes a specific rule of thought. A single government can exist and allow diversity to flourish under it.

 

 

Im still sayin enlightened corporatism, a tinge off from enlightened despotism.

 

 

 

And what repressive policy has Al Gore pushed in he absence of office? The attempt to restructure the ideals of industrial society? To put an impetus of responsibility into the effects of our actions on earth into the monetary viability of said society?

[lord_casek]

What is an infinite plurality but one whole?

 

Fascism is when a government imposes a specific rule of thought. A single government can exist and allow diversity to flourish under it.

 

 

Im still sayin enlightened corporatism, a tinge off from enlightened despotism.

 

 

 

And what repressive policy has Al Gore pushed in he absence of office? The attempt to restructure the ideals of industrial society? To put an impetus of responsibility into the effects of our actions on earth into the monetary viability of said society?

 

 

 

global carbon tax.

[the.crooked]

Again, I do not think that is a bad thing.

[the.crooked]

Repressive connotes decreasing or inhibiting progression. If anything this is forcing a higher level of effeciency or having to increase the cost of current production. Companies do not want to pay more, so they will slowly learn to change their infrastructures.

[thinksmall]

Not only that, he wants to imply policy.

 

Its like the seatbelt policy. Which is similar to a diet policy, hours you can spend outside policy, kinds of furniture you are allowed to have policy (I made these up, but they're in the same bracket). I can go on and on with things that are good for everyone that could well be policy.

 

Someone somewhere believes they know whats good for you and without objection, makes you do it. Thats policy.

 

Awareness then responsibility is one thing. Policy and repression is another.

 

...Obedience vs. Discipline

[the.crooked]

And we aren't living that life already?

 

 

Besides, global carbon tax is not being imposed on you or I. That is on a corporate level for corporate entities.

 

While indirectly effecting us it is not an immediate imposition on our lives like, say a city ordinance banning baggy pants (that one is real).

 

What you to are suggesting is that he is trying to control societal morals. Well, yes, isn't that the point of policy at all. Ideally this is gudied by the majority voice, but you know, people are retarded at all levels. Any choice in making a law is a restriction of some one elses right to do that which is made illegal by the creation of the law at all. A law is an expression of a dominant viewpoint subjugating everyone else. It just means there is enough punishment to back up "illegal" behavior.

 

 

Law = restriction. Plain and simple. You dig our government you dig restriction.

 

 

This is my point though. If one is going to engage in activie participation of this program, I appreciate those that do it for things that are obviously in the mind of maintaining the potential for a progressive society. Bitching about environmental issues because it is change at all just shows the masses as the maintnence of the status quo and nothing more.

[thinksmall]

You are right. Though i dont dig restriction, i exercise against it often. Lawl. What you wrote is also why everyone likes Ron Paul, he's the hero in all this.

 

My argument is that Gore changed, changes or even tries to change, the 'dominant viewpoint'. I don't understand what you mean by bitching about environmental issues though.

 

Anyways.. with respect to diversity, there shouldn't be a dominant viewpoint - but everyone should respect each other. Which is what global governance destroys, things should be handled in state.