It would have made more sense to pose the question of a bazooka to hunt bears or deer... But seriously, only if they are in season.

I completely agree that most people should be trained to use weapons (like Switzerland or Israel) just like they are taught to use a vehicle (which is much more deadly weapon) If everyone was comfortable around firearms they wouldn't be taboo. The unknown is always the most feared.

-Why would he go from Libertarian to Republican, if either one was so much more profoundly right than the other?,

I need to sing, "i want to get elected"

he can't get elected under Libertarian, but sneaks in with the Republicans, hoping no one will notice in "the big tent"

big tent
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2...

even when I was (briefly,) a libertarian, I did not know that such was the sentiment (perhaps it's different out here.)

It is quite possible, and indeed the fashion to run up to someone who is simply standing there, minding their own business, and begin to push at them all the while saying '...why are you pushing me, why are you pushing me...?'

They are faced with the obvious choice,,, push back just to stand up, get pushed around, or become offended and aroused at the affront...

The first person continues to push, the second loudly states '...I'm not pushing you, you need to leave me alone,'

The first says '...Now you're pushing and YELLING...'

-and it goes from there.

There is also this thing about the energy of motion and the energy pent up...

I recall driving for days just to get here, and at the end of the night still feeling like I was moving, (though I was just sitting still, in a towel, having just taken a bath on a bed somewhere in a motel 6.
--Was I really still, (non-moving,) -or was I simply more intune with the constant movement of everything, having been awakened by 're-centering,' upon that seemingly endless motion of 70mph for entire states...?

There are some beings (speaking of all things,) that are simply quiet, at peace, and unfamiliar with the whole concept of being lied to, manipulated, or attacked.
(If) attacked, -they may have the (basic instinct) of running, -or they may stand there in bewilderment, wondering why they are being attacked, -when they've never thought of doing such a thing, -and you've been peaceful with them to this point, (you not meaning YOU (orcaoid,) you being the general 'you,' of all illustration.

Some folks, so predisposed to attack the other, may even blame the one who was so simply dispatched as being 'stupid,' or 'ignorant,' or 'a drain on society, and an endangerment,' because they did not 'get it.'
(which would be the ultimate projection of one's own fears, anxieties, violence, and (god knows what...)

-(Me personally?) having lived with such folks in both a governmental, societal, and religious sense? Can tell you that it's a frightening thing, not unlike coming across a strange village where they take Shirley Jackson's 'Lottery,' as a sacred text...
-Whether it's 'your turn,' or somebody elses, -you want two things: -for said practices to stop, (but perhaps more honestly,) just to get out of there...

Bringing it out of the Ether?

-I doubt Ron Paul is (really,) all that concerned about 'oppressive govt.' ---or that we really (either) have one to begin with, (or more likely,) have one that can be changed from it's course of being one...
(Else, why would the man go into politics to begin with?
-Who deliberately becomes a part of something, just to attack what they are a part of? (particularly in politics?)
-Why would he go from Libertarian to Republican, if either one was so much more profoundly right than the other?,
-and if 'Big Bad Awful Ammoral Oppressive Govt. -really was as horrendous and deathly as we are now hearing, ---why has nobody destroyed it before?
-(This is a new problem and now we've become the pinnacle of intelligence and ethics, and we've managed to turn the light on, (and everybody all along has been duped until us?)

I'm not saying that these things should not be taken seriously... (they should be,)
-but perhaps they need to be seen for what they are, and not get so riled up about some aspects, ---that they miss the other glaring ones.

(...and folks need to realize that what promises to 'wash whiter than white, and cleaner than clean, -or is 99/44 one hundredth percent pure.' may not hold up under too much scrutiny.

Cynicism?
No...
Just not farting and floating along thinking it's a zephyr of song...

-Truth of it all? (regarding weapons,)
Most people don't need them.
-and in my experience? there are a fair amount of them who shouldn't have them, (too imbalanced, too likely to pick them up and use them for all the wrong reasons.)
-So yes, I'm in favor of 'gun control,' that means more than 'using both hands,' ---but also means understanding the reason in the mind that is telling the hand to reach for a weapon to begin with... (as well as NOT letting 'just anyone,' have one.

Not everybody who yells 'I'm being oppressed,' actually is, and the script-flipping is a real work of art around here...

There is tons of evil in the world, and once moving in and among it, even sitting still, you will be aware of it all around you. (so the answer to both is true,) -even sitting in a bathtowel...

And, though I see more and more 'innocence,' (even true 'ignorance and naievte') being branded as 'stupid and a threat,'
--and that, once having shed blood, or been attacked, -you can never (really,) go back to a peaceful state?

That anyone with this bubble waaaaay off plumb does not claim their 'right to arms,'
-(though, not being stupid nor innocent myself, I know full well that far to many people already have.)

For being God's little half acre, Fresno is a funny, funny place... is it not?

"Still:
I'd like to know what Mr. Paul has to say about firearms, weapons control, registration, (etc. etc.)"

I asks: under Ron Paul would I be allowed to buy a bazooka for elephant hunting?

Out of the Void asks:

"-as well as if He's concerned about some sort of 'oppressive govt.' that we need to be taking up arms over..."

I says:
according to libertarians, any intrusion of gov is "OPPRESSIVE", no matter the reason, cause or amount
so, Annie get your gun!!!

I clicked on the Ron Paul Updates just to see what was bouncing back and forth, and lone and behold, arms advocacy was being discussed.

(I sincerely have no idea what Mr. Paul's personal standings are on weapons in the hands of everybody...
if one of his devotee's would be so kind as to post the information, I'd appreciate it,
--and I'm sure others would be really interested as well.)

-Having run with a 'gun crowd,' for a while
(back when I used to hear the word 'sheeple,' used pret near every tenth sentence?)
I can only say that some of the opines in favor of heavy armament kinda creeps me out, and I live in a neighborhood that has been loaded with 'bangers (and has been for some time I've been told.)-

-I also find it curious to read the ancient postings from the State of NY have made the thread.

Having recently lived in areas of NY
that were suburban, urban, and extremely rural?
I can tell you what the general sway was a couple of years ago, ---and probably would be now.

-First off:
If you're licensed to own a weapon, (which not everybody is,)
-it has to be for hunting, protection of ones own home, and (finally,) for one's own person.
-A lot of people have firearms on their property, (they're not 'guns,' a gun is what you're holding when you're standing at a urinal, sorry, military family, we don't call 'em 'guns.')
---particularlly if they live in
a.) very remote regions (where it is your defence until the local, state police, or sheriff arrives,)
or
b.) in urban settings, where (the perception,)
of personal attack or attack of your dwelling exists,
-and seen as 'crime is higher, I need a gun.'
(What is weird? Most people who have pistols in this situation don't know how to use them effectively, are at greater risk of having them taken and used back at them, --and (again,) though guns are common?
I think it's still more common to use a knife in an assault, (particularly a robbery,)
-as a people know how much it hurts to be cut,
--but don't know how it feels to be shot,
(so assailants go for the fear factor
-that and lesser charges if caught (pistol vs. boxcutter.)

NY has had a very interesting relationship with firearms. (You don't hear much about the militia, actually, -though you do hear a lot of them in Penna., Conn. and surrounding states.)
Penna. had WAY more ink about weaponry for a while there.)

In NY city, there are often very high profile situations that punctuate the understanding that guns are probably all over the place.

-There are the occasional shooting where 'excessive force,' is reported
(person shot who was reaching for a cel-phone or wallet, etc. -met with tons-o-bullets and shots,

-There is also the very real understanding that pistols are easy to get, relatively cheap, and not hard to bring in from 'neighboring states,' (the recent Va. shootings brought this up, -in some states it's unbelieveably easy to get a weapon, then drive a few hours, -and voila -you're in NYC with guns. ---big problem.

-We also have these really interesting 'turn in your weapons, no questions will be asked,' things every once in a while. (with some sort of refund/rebate offered,)
---that always shows intersting results,
-ancient rifles from near the stone age, assault weapons painted to look like supersoakers, (etc. etc.)
-All of which scares the hell out of folks for about fifteen to twenty minutes,
-and then the hustle and flow of city life goes on.
-Guns are accepted as everywhere, but most folks generally don't have to deal with them.

Upstate?
Different situation.
-Guns are everywhere, but most folks are raised with them.

-A lot who live outside of NY deliberately choose so (such as myself,) because we like the wild and want quality time (away from) people when we choose.
-Upstate has tons of hunters (so we're talking more rifles, shotguns, etc. etc.)
-and the mindset is more 'defensive,'
(IE: "you come on my property and try to get into my house in the middle of the night? I'm assuming you mean harm, you will be blown away, consider the very fact that you chose to do what you're doing a warning.")

Suburban-
kind of a blend.
-again, 'homestead defence,' weaponry, -but more often a pistol somewhere 'just in case somebody breaks in in the middle of the night,' sort of thing.
--Note: Suburban also means, '...less perceived crime, greater police response, less time for police response, less need for weapon.'

An interesting group that seems to span the whole genre of 'regions,' -tow truck operators and folks who have to offer roadside assistance / do 'repos,' ---I've yet to meet one who is not seriously packing, (and licensed to do so,) -and every one I've met has been shot at at least once. --Because of their line of work? They are some of the few people (aside from police officers,) who are licensed to carry, -and carry they do.

Having been on both ends of a gun, and licensed to carry in Philadelphia, (inner city,)
-as well as hung with a lot of 'right to bear arms' folks years ago?
I'm glad to be away from it all.

why?

There is this problem, (with a parallel -recognized in human services/psychiatric care, among the staff:

-If you teach and authorize staff how to subdue and 'handle,' situations using force and 'holds,' on a patient/client (etc.)
that is acting violently?
-The situation will 'go there,' (IE: violent physical interraction,) more quickly, (kind of a 'if you build it, they will come,' thing.)

--and there will be less opportunity of 'talking the person down,' (by working 'verbally,) where nobody is jeopardized, -not the patient/client nor the staff.)

---So they've stopped training a LOT of staff in these 'physical interractive,' methods,
---and are now trying to go more 'talk-down,' methodology with violent situations. (I've seen a lot of police following this method as well, and I'm glad.)

The same can be applied when you have firearms all over the place, with the wrong mindset, (where they're always associated with crime and crime prevention.)

--The situaion can quickly go to an exchange of rounds, and life-threatening occurances ---in public settings (with greater liklihood of bystanders getting injured as well.)
--Because there are pistols and 'thug-life,''gun-happy,''gun-centric,' mindsets to begin with.

I think, in all of it? (even when licensed to carry weapons?)

I was most comfortable upstate,
-where weapons were used, viewed as 'tools,' and treated with respect within their scope (no pun intended.)
-and were for (either,) hunting or homestead protection.

It's remarkable how low the crime rate was
(regarding firearms,)
'up in the hills,'
-because people basically knew what was right and wrong, -acted accordingly,
-and you knew if you tried to break into somebody's house (in the middle of the night or whatever?
--you'd get your ass shot off, (rightly so, you had no business approaching somebody's house and family in that way, everybody accepted that.)

-Regarding all of the 'arming against an oppressive govt.' talk?

-Strangely enough,
Because of the proximity of Upstate to NYC,
-there were Fed. Agencies with bases and offices sprinkled throughout some pretty bucolic and reeeeealllly rural areas. (Lotsa Feds.)

Lotsa prisons too, and Military Bases.
So it wasn't uncommon to have heavilly armed military and para-military coming through all the time.

The general mindset was not
'got us an oppressive govt. to worry about.'

It was more:
'...Well, I know my rights, they know my rights, and so long as I'm not doing anything wrong, and acting responsibly, -everything is going to be alright.'

-More of a common understanding and folks coordinating with each other (govt. and police included,) which presented a pretty unified (and peaceful,) situation at the end of the day.

Not a lot of fear,
just folks who knew how to protect themselves, should the need arise.
--There was a spike in weapons interest, and a lot of 'sighting in,' of people's weapons right after the 9/11 attacks (as we lost a lot of locals in the towers,)
---but things settled down pretty well within a few months, (it wasn't like we had soccer-moms packin' peacemakers all of a sudden.)

(I think this may have been more what the founding fathers had in mind?)

Still:
I'd like to know what Mr. Paul has to say about firearms, weapons control, registration, (etc. etc.)
-as well as if He's concerned about some sort of 'oppressive govt.' that we need to be taking up arms over...

in the the rough & tumble past, the intent was for most male citizens to be able to defend themselves from foreign armies, Injuns & rascals; 2 local units were thus used, the "Posse" for law-breakers in counties & the "militia" for armed invasion or revolt in states

so to quote from "Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788"

Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American.

the original intent of the 2nd Amendment was that Americans be armed, trained & disciplined for defense
and I'm all for that, we're in the middle of a hundred years war with radical islam, they will find our weak spots, we must be ready.

also, I'm not at all sure that if the students at Virginia Tech had been armed, it would have prevented a blood bath, unless those students were "armed, trained & disciplined" in the militia

I'd feel safer if we were more like Switzerland or Israel & each adult male had an uzzi ;-)

original intent

A Well-Organized and Armed Militia
"For a people who are free and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security. It is, therefore, incumbent on us at every meeting [of Congress] to revise the condition of the militia and to ask ourselves if it is prepared to repel a powerful enemy at every point of our territories exposed to invasion... Congress alone have power to produce a uniform state of preparation in this great organ of defense. The interests which they so deeply feel in their own and their country's security will present this as among the most important objects of their deliberation." --Thomas Jefferson: 8th Annual Message, 1808. ME 3:482
"None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army. To keep ours armed and disciplined is therefore at all times important, but especially so at a moment when rights the most essential to our welfare have been violated." --Thomas Jefferson to -----, 1803. ME 10:365
Every Citizen Given Military Training
"We must train and classify the whole of our male citizens, and make military instruction a regular part of collegiate education. We can never be safe till this is done." --Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1813. ME 13:261
"[Congress should] consider whether it would not be expedient, for a state of peace as well as of war, so to organize or class the militia as would enable us, on a sudden emergency, to call for the services of the younger portions, unencumbered with the old and those having families... Able-bodied men, between the ages of eighteen and twenty-six years, which the last census shows we may now count within our limits, will furnish a competent number for offence or defence in any point where they may be wanted, and will give time for raising regular forces after the necessity of them shall become certain; and the reducing to the early period of life all its active service cannot but be desirable to our younger citizens, of the present as well as future times, inasmuch as it engages to them in more advanced age a quiet and undisturbed repose in the bosom of their families." --Thomas Jefferson: 5th Annual Message, 1805. ME 3:389

From: http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1480.htm

FEDERALIST No. 29

Concerning the Militia
From the New York Packet.
Wednesday, January 9, 1788

HAMILTON

To the People of the State of New York:

THE power of regulating the militia, and of commanding its services in
times of insurrection and invasion are natural incidents to the duties
of superintending the common defense, and of watching over the internal
peace of the Confederacy.

It requires no skill in the science of war to discern that uniformity in
the organization and discipline of the militia would be attended with
the most beneficial effects, whenever they were called into service for
the public defense. It would enable them to discharge the duties of the
camp and of the field with mutual intelligence and concert an advantage
of peculiar moment in the operations of an army; and it would fit them
much sooner to acquire the degree of proficiency in military functions
which would be essential to their usefulness. This desirable uniformity
can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to
the direction of the national authority. It is, therefore, with the most
evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower
the Union "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the
militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the
service of the United States, RESERVING TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY THE
APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS, AND THE AUTHORITY OF TRAINING THE MILITIA
ACCORDING TO THE DISCIPLINE PRESCRIBED BY CONGRESS."

from: http://federalistpapers.com/federalist29.html

As pointed out, the meaning of words over time change. When reading laws that where written over 2 hundred years ago it is necessary to read into the original intent of the people who wrote them.

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms..disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one." - Thomas Jefferson quoting Cesare Beccaria, Criminologist in 1764.

"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." -Thomas Jefferson

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.-Thomas Jefferson

What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?-Thomas Jefferson

[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
---James Madison,The Federalist Papers, No. 46

To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws.
---John Adams

Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.
---Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788

I am going to take a chance and say that they are hinting that every American has the right to own a gun a sword a knife ect... not only to protect ourselves from those that seek to do us harm but also from an OPPRESSIVE GOVERNMENT if the need arises.

...Are the main reason I WILL NOT attend a Ron Paul meetup.

It pains me to read such combative and narrow-minded words coming from a crowd that I agree with.

We look worse and worse on this board and in the streets everyday...

Now I know how Ron Paul feels running as Republican.

To some of the Ron Paul supporters, I propose that you DO NOT fight what you perceive to be fire with fire. For the good of all involved, use water. <---(figuratively speaking.)

~Rell www.myspace.com/559rell www.myspace.com/trellthareallamane (music production)

you said:

I support Ron Paul because after watching him in the debates, reading his articles at ronpaulibrary.com, and reviewing his voting record he is the only candidate who has integrity, honesty, and isn’t in the corporate pockets of America. He is the only one who seems to have actually read the constitution and has defended it successfully and consistently for years. And he is the only one, who wants to protect the individual’s freedoms and not just some of them, but all of them.

A small example of an error for the LP:

I.6 The Right to Keep and Bear Arms
The Issue: Governments at all levels often violate their citizens’ right of self defense with laws that restrict, limit or outright prohibit the ownership and use of firearms.

From: http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml

the actual 2nd amendment reads:

Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

From: http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am2

Being that English is my second language, I may tend to be too literal on what words mean, but if I read the 2nd Amendment right, it means that all those citizens that are in the state militia, are considered reserves in times of war, with the right to bear arms for the common defense, so they need guns.
Every part of that amendment is made up of dependent clauses, & can not stand on its own, don’t believe me?

See here:
"A well regulated Militia,
being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,
shall not be infringed."

Transformed here:
"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms,
being necessary to the security of a free State,
a well regulated Militia,
shall not be infringed."

or here:
"Being necessary to the security of a free State,
shall not be infringed,
a well regulated Militia,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms."

no part of it can stand on its own, its spaghetti

BTW, "well regulated", means just that & a 'militia' is made up of citizen/soldiers, duties now under the National Guard, thank you.

I’m all for calling up all the armed citizens, we’re at war, don’t you know? A little drill here & there, some target practice & off to Fallujah you go.

if I ever voted Republican
And my left, if I ever voted Libertarian, not to worry, neither will ever happen, trust me

Republicans are self-righteous, lying hypocritical wind-bags; for example, see the clammer, gusto & relish that they had when they went after both Bill & Hilary, then see their muted response to Abramoff, Foley, election fraud, Gonzales, Iraq War, etc., etc…

Libertarian ideals are too self-centered, individualistic for me & for any decent, civilized society. Only Bill Gates & Bill Maher & people like them, could make it in a purely libertarian society, all the rest of us would be indentured servants, homeless or lazy pot-heads.

Though I like the idea of personal responsibility that both parties espouse, we are, for better or worst, a collective of individuals that need to work together for the common good, otherwise, we are a house of cards, for every endevour that makes society better, we have worked together for that, without the protection of the government we would be at the mercy of robber barons, monopolies, trusts. Without a strong military, we would be at the mercy of any rogue nation. without the alphabet soup agencies, we would get poisoned, cheated, killed, swindled, at will, by the strong & powerful.

And for any Libertarian that would run as a Republican, shows me that they have made a political calculation, knowing that they could not win on their own ideas & values, but must ride someone else’s horse into battle & wear their sheepskin disguise to hide their own un-electable wolf. Sheeple indeed!

Ron Paul's Manifesto
Mises.org Updates
Here is Ron Paul's political manifesto, Freedom Under Siege, a courageous book on civil liberties and the rights of Americans that are relentlessly under assault from government. It was written in 1987, on the 200th anniversary of the Constitution, and is back in print for the first time.

From: http://blog.mises.org/archives/007044.asp

A few Libertarian Ideals

I.4 Property Rights
The Issue: The right to property and its physical resources, which is the fundamental cornerstone of a free and prosperous society, has been severely compromised by government at all levels. Public Policy instruments including eminent domain, zoning laws, building codes, rent control, regional planning, property taxes, resource management and public health legislation remove property rights from owners and transfer them to the State, while raising costs of property ownership.

II. Trade and the Economy
We believe that each person has the right to offer goods and services to others on the free market. Therefore we oppose all intervention by government into the area of economics. The only proper role of existing governments in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected.

II.3 Public Services
The Issue: Federal, state and local governments have created inefficient service monopolies throughout the economy.

III. Domestic Ills
Current problems in such areas as energy, pollution, health care delivery, decaying cities, and poverty are not solved, but are primarily caused, by government. The welfare state, supposedly designed to aid the poor, is in reality a growing and parasitic burden on all productive people, and injures, rather than benefits, the poor themselves.

III.2 The War on Drugs
The Issue: The suffering that drug misuse has brought about is deplorable; however, drug prohibition causes more harm than drugs themselves. The so-called "War on Drugs" is in reality a war against the American people, our Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It is a grave threat to individual liberty, to domestic order and to peace in the world.

IV. Foreign Affairs
American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world and the defense -- against attack from abroad -- of the lives, liberty, and property of the American people on American soil.

From: http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml

btw, if I remember what an LP member told me about what #'s; I.4, II, II.3 & III. means is the elimination of any & all ABC agencies; no FBI, CIA, FDA, CDC, etc.... & # IV. means, its the 6% solution, cut all military spending by 94% & defend only the homeland, period.

Mariska

-perhaps you would care to actually read what is being written?

-I have stated repetedly that I am speaking for myself in terms of why and who I choose to vote for.

-I am speaking of various methods that (any) candidate is presented and followed (be it Ron Paul or anyone else.)
-As well as how those methods have played out in recent and past history.

-As far as Ron Pauls writings? Sure I've read some.
I'm reading the statements and views of any of the candidates, have stated (earlier in the string,) that I feel it's too soon to go making decisions on which candidate I'm going to vote for, -and have no problem with waiting for time to reveal who each of these people are, what their groups are about, and whether they're worth more of my time.

(I don't know how to state such any clearer than that, and it's not the first time I've said such in the string.)

-For someone who is so interested in people not having liberties taken, addressing spin, dealing with real issues, (etc. etc.)
---you certainly seem to be having a problem with doing such with some pretty direct comments.

But yes, to answer your question? Have I read his comments. Sure. I read a lot of things.
-Do I care to debate his views?
At this time I'm not debating anything, nor looking to do so, (it's not how I wish to make my choices at this time.)

Would I care to do so in the future?

I really wonder if it would be such a good idea.
I have found that when you have a group or ideal that needs to present things in a constant alarmist, hostile, and crisis mode, ---and turn everything into a debate?
That such can cripple and prevent thinking deeper on the subjects at hand, -and needlessly force issues, preventing the making of decisions.
(At least that would apply to myself.)

So I'll continue down that path that you're so firm on defending and encouraging,
('reading the writings,' 'look at track records,' 'see what this guy and his people are all about,')
-and then making a wise choice to go with him or not.

It's funny, I have the ability to make decisions both in battle and when at rest,
-as well as understand that not all 'battles,' are necessary,
-and (again,) presenting of everything as such can actually be used to distract, and prevent folks from really coming to good conclusions.

-How you consider 'weighing out all of these options' to be an attack on Ron Paul Followers?
(When it's the very thing that gets stood upon as a foundation for his being a better choice, and part of the battle cry as to why he's not like all the rest?,)
Is beyond me.

It does look a little suspicious,
-when, as somebody is agreeing to take their time,
look at the whole situation,
then proceed intelligently, (before going one way or another,)
--only is chastized by the very folks who say 'how important it is to do such...'

You realize that, with all this talk of 'sheeple,' and manipulation,
-you're treating others in this exact way?

I think it's a good thing that there be no 'forcing,' to decide one way or another at this time,(if ever,)
---and anyone who tries to do so should take heed to this.

-It plays out as such:

Person A.
'...Okay, People's rights and thoughts have been hijacked and surrendered long enough, we want you, instead to consider all the facts, it's what's most important,
-here's the facts on our guy/girl/stance (whatever,) okay?'

Person B.
'...Okay, I have considered these facts, and have some reservations and wish to take more time, but thanks for the facts to this point.'

Person A.
'WHAT!? You've considered these facts and you you don't see it our way?
You've obviously havn't considered the facts, -or are against us and are attacking us...!'

Mariska, I would hope that such a manipulative and combative loop is not playing out here,
-I mean, a chimp could spot it,

-Not to mention that it's also being displayed to whomever reads the string.

I'm saying people need to really look at the whole picture,
understand and consider the sides presented,
dig a bit, and then make clear independant choices based upon intelligent thought and reasoning,
(regardless of candidate or situation.)
-And recognize that, according to those foundational truths that you guys are so emphatic about us getting back to (as a nation,) --that others may see things differently than you, -and might just be correct.

(Contrary to the hysteria? Democracy is actually a blend of individual well thought ideas, put into play, tested and refined.)

(Though I am speaking for myself?
-I am not confusing the Presidential Run, (and possible election,) of Ron Paul with the Second coming of Christ.)

Everybody is entitled to their own opinions however, it is part of what makes the country beautiful, etc. etc.

I love how Out of the Void speaks for everyone, as if his experiences and opinions are universal truths when they are no such thing. You really ought to only speak in terms of yourself. It would lend more credibility to what you are saying.

And I also like how, yet gain, he addresses no issues and debates none of Ron Paul's ideas.

So I ask again, have you read any of his writings?

Or are you here just to attack his supporters?

Mariska

Regarding your post on Ron Paul's Writings and such.
(As well as those who are supporting him using various techniques.)

It should be clear, if you've read my postings on this that I do not endorse any pol. solely based upon their 'followers,' (this would be Ron Paul, -any.)

I am an advocate of checking out what each pol is about, their voting records, what they say, what they write (etc. etc.) as you have recommended.
-And have done so for quite a few years.
(You will find this as well if you read what I have written.)

I am neither endorsing, nor discrediting Ron Paul (or any pol.) solely based upon 'what his people think and do.'

Others?
I have no idea, and you'd have to ask them.

I will say that, when it comes to 'getting the word out,' -as well as 'campaigning,' for someone?
A lot of how a pol. is promoted or received can be affected by the methods used by that effort,
-as well as who/how those methods are presented. (That's a no brainer.)

As has been stated before:
Ron Paul may be the greatest thing, ever, (this may or may not be true,)
-How Ron Paul is presented by his followers can and will have a significant impact on even the most benign of truths.

To handle (any) issue (when it comes to campaigning/marketing/promoting,)
-One of the first rules is:

Do not alienate the very people you are trying to communicate with / enlighten with one's 'truths.'
-Further in this?
-coming across in a negative,
(IE: 'If you dont' want to know about '_______',
'If you don't know _______',
'If you don't vote for '________', (etc.)
-'Than you're a sheeple.'

(with similar taglines '...don't waste time on these sheeple,' 'don't waste time with small mindedness, or Jr. High mentality, group-think, etc.')

All of that?
comes across (to the people that you're trying to reach,)
As elitist, as fanatical, as hostile, and (if the person bothers to listen and put any value to those remarks?, insulting.

Despite the comments and assertion that Ron Paul is all about personal liberties and seeing that restored to the average citizen and the country on a whole?
-What I so often hear are comments like
'...If you knew what this guy was about, and cared about the country, the foundations of the govt., right and wrong, pure government, (etc. etc.)
-you'd be for him.'

(or)

'If you (were the sort of person,) who thinks, reads for themselves, thinks for themselves, (and is not 'sheeple,')
-you'd be for him, (...and join us.)'

What I think you're missing is:
It's a communication tactic to corner a person.

'Do you know of Ron Paul?
NO? You're missing out.

'Do you care about Ron Paul?
NO? You don't know how to think.

'Are you for Ron Paul?
NO? -You're part of the problem.'

If you look that over, and consider what is being said, (and how often this method is presented?)
-Again, it's not just 'cornering,' somebody
-causing them to say
'Gee, if I'm not into Ron Paul,
-I don't think,
-I don't care,
-I'm not a patriot and into Liberty,
and
-I'm a 'sheeple.')

---Which is not only not true,
---but actually a type of social and political bullying,
---and actually? Is a type of 'groupthink,' (which is a bit more sociologically correct (and less offensive,) understanding of what leads to 'sheeple.'
-(BTW: Sheeple is a very old term, is highly derrogatory, and was championed by conspiracy theorists (at least,) twenty years ago...)

Somebody who would be 'turned around,' with such a method would
A.) not only be someone affronted and degraded into such but
B.) would be going after that new idea for exactly the wrong reasons, (and would further that same method/mentality, -also 'group-think.')

My suggestion?

If Ron Paul Followers really want people to just make up their own minds (and not be 'sheeple,')

--Then they should focus on the very things that you have encouraged others to check into
(voting records, stances, writings, how this has played out through time, (etc. etc.)
---Which would be keeping the issue to facts and more clinical comparitive data.
(That is what intelligent people, (and the ones that you are claiming to want to reach, -not just a bunch of idealistic reactionaries,) ---would want to know about.

-Not:
'If you don't go for Ron Paul, you're a Sheeple,
-and you're not even going to realize that you're a Sheeple, because you are one.'

(It kind of follows the same mentality of:

'..We're right because we know that we are,
-and we know you're wrong because we're right,
-and you can't see that we're right,
-because you are wrong,
-and you can't see that you're wrong, because that's how wrong people see things.')

-Personally? (and this may not be for everybody, which is fine.)

I really don't care about the pols. on the same levels as a lot of other folks,
-and in fact, do make my decisions on who I'm going to vote for based upon:
-(not just,) the previously mention criteria
(what they've done, what they say, what they believe, (etc.)

-but also based upon understanding the whole system at the time.
-Why?
You can have somebody who is all about what you are into,(who has very strong character and actions that you agree with,) ---but if they're surrounded by folks who are into the complete opposite? It's going to be perpetual stalemates on every turn.
-So it has to be considered where this person is, in terms of how they are with their party, as well as seen by the other side.

(So, from a governmental standpoint? Again, I see things as more of a corporate and 'how the game is being played,' mindset. We're not electing kings and queens who run the country completely as they (personally,) see fit, here. (This mindset, probably played out and demonstrated by Bush's regime, I think is a real turn off to all sides, ---and the upcoming elections will be quite sensitive (and avoid,) such impressions, ---and indeed already have been.)
-When the time comes? I'm going to look a lot at that.

From a sociological perspective, (more my interest, actually.)

I'm always interested to see what people where are motivated (either bothered or soothed,)
-and what is on their minds, and WHY they like a particular pol.

-Again Pols are barometers,
-just like sociological issues and concerns are excellent indicators as far as what people are thinking, -and what they want.
-So listening to anyone's followers is a good idea, -as it will tell you what that immed. society has on it's mind. (Again, it's just data collecting.)

Further (sociologically speaking,)
-Considering the methods that any party is using, any pols followers are using, (ANY) group is using
---and how that is received by the rest of society, or how effective such ways are?
-Will tell you a lot about what influences people,
---as well as what will sway society thought and handling of those issues.

Example:
Racism is illegal and wrong on every turn.
We've had major revolutions within our country's history to work this issue out, -as well as nullify it's existance.
-Does it still exist. (Yes.)
-Is it expressed in all areas (Pol. Relig. Soc. Financially. Municipal. Educat. (etc. etc.) (Yes.)

-Will you learn a ton about who and what people think (and are,) as well as how they see others by watching how this
'illegal,'
and
'we've done away with that 60 years ago,'
problem is handled?
Very.
----Yet, for all intensive purposes, it's supposed to have been educated out of society by now, (again, half a century later.)

So If I look at someone's 'people,' or 'followers,' and I listen to how they talk about others,
how they talk about thought process, how they even go about discussing issues,
---I'm seeing (greatly:
'what the world would be like.'
-If a whole bunch of folks who felt that way were running the place, (be it a family, a neighborhood, a town, a church, a County, State, or Country.)

-So, yeah, looking at how any campaigners come across, -as well as how they interract with other members of the terrarium?
-Says a lot.

In a very very basic level?

I'd advise the followers of any pol. (if they are looking to get a thought or their candidate) acrossed
-to stick to their candidates facts (good and bad,)

And not come across with '..If you're not into our guy, you're an airhead who refuses to think for yourself.'

Because, even if that candidate is spectacular,
-and all of their followers are right and brilliant?
-To come across that way to everybody else is quite juvenile, and can/will/and has put off a lot of folks.

Just for fun?
I'd recommend a coupld of books:
1.) 'Handmaids Tale,' -by Margaret Atwood
2.) 'The Selling of the President,'
(I think is the title, not sure,) by: Joe McGinnis(?) About the whole election process that went on between Kennedy and Nixon (I think it was the 1968 one,)
---Somewhat cloudy as to the particulars,
-but it's an excellent book on how the whole impact of media (particularly TV (image media,) changed politics for good.)
-Those two are off of the top of my head, but they're excellent in terms of understanding how image, group thought, and idealism can sway-be used. (They're core books in poli-sci, and quite good reads.)

I read the above posts and all I can think is that Out of the Void and several others on here have based their opinion of Ron Paul on the actions of his supporters. This is a shame because you really don't sound like you know what you are talking about when you dismiss Ron Paul based on the behaviors of others.

Oh, yes, I know that Out of the Void stated he wouldn’t let Michael’s “mannerisms” sway him negatively, but even to state that is try to imply that Ron Paul’s supporters’ behavior is a reflection of the candidate himself. That is ridiculous. Anyone who lets themselves be swayed by the behavior of someone who is not officially linked to a candidate’s campaign is beyond help. That is the epitome of juvenile conformity. Are you in junior high trying to do what the cool kids do? Or are you an adult who takes the steps necessary to make an informed opinion all on your own? It makes me wonder what these people stand for. What do they believe in? Only what other’s stand for, only what others believe in? It is this mentality that leads me to assume most of these people are sheeple.

You would really let the behavior of supporters who aren't officially linked to the candidate's campaign make your decision for you? Shame on you. You are no better and certainly no more mature than those junior high students. Do your research and come back with something intelligent to say. I would much rather debate the man's ideas than the behavior of his supporters.

If you haven’t taken the time to read his writings and review his voting record, then you really have nothing to say when it comes to the man himself. If you haven’t take the time to develop your own response to his ideas, then why are you posting about him? Educate yourself. There thousands of resources on the web with which to do so.

I have read his writings and there are some things I love and some things I don’t. Some of his ideas are original and refreshing and some aren't. It’s not like his ideas are hidden. It takes two seconds to go to ronpaullibrary.com and another couple of hours to read about his ideas. It appears many of you have wasted that time on this thread alone.

I support Ron Paul because after watching him in the debates, reading his articles at ronpaulibrary.com, and reviewing his voting record he is the only candidate who has integrity, honesty, and isn’t in the corporate pockets of America. He is the only one who seems to have actually read the constitution and has defended it successfully and consistently for years. And he is the only one, who wants to protect the individual’s freedoms and not just some of them, but all of them.

We "ronnites" wouldnt go to such measures, if the media would just pay attention to the attention he is getting. It is finaly paying off.

As our founders pointed out that no one will give you freedom you have to demand it untill you are blue in the face.

...Oy,
Ya see, now this is a problem.

Am I Republican, (nope,)
Am I interested in voting for Ron Paul?
Not as of yet,
(heck, you can read the War and Peace string above this to see why...)

But the problem is: This is a pol (or any representative,) who actually may have some great ideas, --but their 'position,' and 'crowd,' -are actually serving to detract away from the effort...

-I think the 'religious fervor,' aspect, (and, even within that spectrum of thought, 'unhealthy religious fervor,' (as a person can be really religious, really zealous, and really 'on fire,' about their beliefs,
----and yet, NOT weird you out or make you feel like they had your arm behind your back,)
-Is what's freaking folks out.

(I've always found it intersting how even Christ, when he 'came out,' and went public about being 'the Messiah,' -did so after over thirty years of being an average guy in his neighborhood, (carpenter, etc.)
---and was so 'normal,' that most folks from his region and town thought he'd initially lost his mind,
-(and still was just a carpenter.)
(That tells me something... I mean, (If) He was God, -and had a lot on his plate and a world to turn upside down in the following four years,
---He was still quite convincing as a 'regular Joe,' for the first 30+,
(and believe me, there was plenty of opportunity for him to step off, develop a massive following, and have wild-eyed supporters,
(that happened within a short while of him taking His deal on the road,
(-but the homecrowd was always like: -yeah, that's nice, great to see you, '-can you fix this chair? Hows your Mom?')

Moral of the story?
You can even be God, be quite effective as 'God as Man,' and still lead a relatively normal life (and walk through crowds unnoticed, -which he often did, ---well into his more 'noted,' days,) And get all that you were looking to accomplish done quite well, -and still be discrete, orderly, and not going nuts on 'hype.'

As far as 'regular, non-rabid, 'no salesmen will come to your door,' Ron Paul endorsers?
I am not saying that he should be the clearing house of information,
(I'd not do that, He's just an individual,)
---but you might want (if you're interested in one persons stance on Ron Paul,)
to just bounce a question or two off of '559rel.'

--The guy is even keeled, is a straight shooter, -and is a thinker who can communicate about the subjects at hand without going all 'frothmouthed,' and making you nervous.
(It's just a thought.)
We've Emailed a couple of notes back and forth, and he's a decent guy, and does not come across like somebody put a pod in his basement.

I realize that there's wackos in every sector of life, and people, especially in difficult times (which our country is in in a lot of areas,) who are actually decent folks, ---can go a little weird when overtaxed (socially/emotionally, etc.)
-Even when they're just regular schlubs like the rest of us, and really mean (and pose,) no harm.

Despite my initial fun poking at the 'Ronnites' that I had wandered across (a few weeks ago, now,)
--it was more
'...I like you, you remind me of when I was young, zealous, and naieve,'
(versus 'old, jaded, and only wiser because of the callouses on my forhead from banging into stuff.')

I seriously think, (in any political, social, or religious, (etc.) venue?
The best way to go about it, and come to conclusions and make decisions?

Is with a completely clear head with as little emotion and ballooning / 'zealousness,' of the situation as possible.

Things are a bit charged right now in the US and abroad, And (again,) it's way to early to tell who's really into what. (As well as what kind of world we're going to be handed in a year (we have 14+ more months of Dubya.)

I really hope the Ronnites understand where this is coming from (on my end,)
-and see how they're coming across, and maybe 'rethink their sideburns,' just a tad...

Ron Paul may be one of the most even keeled 'best men for the job,' candidates that we have (I' am not saying he is or he isn't,) ---and he may have a very cool and non-alarmist demeanor and method.
(Which is excellent, IF it's true...)

--What I don't think his followers get is: by running around frantically waving their arms in the air like it's freak-out time on the muppet show?

---all of that calmness and stability of their guy?
Is lost in their raving about him being so calm and stable...

As for those Saturday morning visitors?

I had a buddy of mine, years ago, who used to deliberatly answer his door (when he knew it was a religious group,) wearing the strangest things, (like, sometimes, nothing,) and holding a rubber chicken and plastic meat cleaver, (stuff like that...)
---They didn't bother him after a while...

(I wouldn't advise this, but it seemed to be quite effective, his wife would always be half snickering in the background sayng '...put down the rubber chicken and the cleaver, come over here, and leave those poor people alone...'
-He'd be like '...whut???')

(...Sometimes I really miss Pennsylvania.)

The Ron Paul people are some of the most annoying campaigners I've ever encountered, online or in person. It's one thing to be exuberant about your favorite politician's campaign, it's something else entirely to do what Paul's people are doing, which is borderline cultist fanaticism.

I'm a lifelong political conservative (though not a Republican), and even I have tuned out Ron Paul largely because his campaigners have irritated the hell out of me. I pay no more attention to his campaign than I do to the words of the bicycling Latter-Day Saints that wake me up at the crack of dawn most weekends, offering me a free book of Mormon.

Michael: When people use phrases like:

'My meetup group...'
(please refer to your earlier posts,)
-say such things?

You know, instead of
'...The meet up group that I"m a part of.'

A person reading it could get the crazy i that it was a group that you were heading up...

Thanks for clearing that up.

Though I'm happy enough to butcher the English language on a daily basis? Even I understand that there are comments that connote 'ownership' 'leadership,' and 'pesonal responsibility for' ('my,')
---or other ones that mean that you are a part of things.

Considering the earlier comments?
I'm quite glad that you made the distinction clear
(kudos.)

Good luck with your convictions, your beliefs, and your candidates, (whoever they may be.)

For clarification, I am in no way affiliated with Ron Paul's official campaign. I receive no direction, nor compensation, and all views expressed are my own.

Out of the Void said, "Do I have some fatalistic over-negative view of the government?
No. They're Corporations. Having been involved with both over the years? I simply see them for what they are, (sometimes, but not always.)"

There is one significant difference. The government has a monopoly on the legal use of force. In the present day democracy, this is legimized as the "will of the people."

Out of the Void said, "How Ron Paul, (or, perhaps his followers are going to overcome this?
-Are we speaking of some sort of Ron Paul Style of Govt. Overthrow?

I'm glad that one of your supporters has stated that they are 'not in favor of revolution.'
(IE: throwing out the presnet government to install Ron Paul as King.)
---because y'all do start to sound a bit that way, and it's a little scarey."

How did you ever imagine that people, Ron Paul included, who believe it's a bad idea for government to be too powerful would use the government to impose their ideas on others? It should be noted that we suffer far greater oppression at the hands of our own government than the Colonists did when they were provoked to revolution against the British.

Out of the Void said, "I'm trying really hard to not be embarassed"

Well, keep it up. With these posts you keep making . . .

Out of the Void said, "---I'd still not care to spend time with you."

Oh, no! I just don't think I can bear that thought.

Out of the Void said, "It's probably just some personality clash in this case, (hopefully.)"

Let's not forget who got personal first. You ridiculed friends of mine prior to me ever seeing this thread.

I fully respect the choices and opinions of others, up to the point that they begin to impose those choices and opinions on me. You may say that I'm trying to impose my personal agenda on others, that I believe my way is the right way. This is true. You perceive that as arrogance. Fine. Does this make me the same as the people that I so sharply criticize?

Here is a quote from Frederic Bastiat that explains my position: "But it must be admitted that I act in an entirely different sense; if I have joined the ranks of the reformers, it is solely for the purpose of persuading them to leave people alone. I do not look upon people as Vancauson looked upon his automaton. Rather, just as the physiologist accepts the human body as it is, so do I accept people as they are. I desire only to study and admire."

Here is a wonderful, short video that everyone should watch; it explains these concepts quite clearly. It's called The Philosophy of Liberty.
http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.swf

...you have an astonishing ability to claim to understand people who you know squat about, and further accuse and assume where they're coming from...
At this time it would be myself that would be the subject of such pseudo-science. Good luck with that.

Do I have contrasting views?
Yes and no.
Am I worried about that?
Hardly.

Do I have some fatalistic over-negative view of the government?
No. They're Corporations. Having been involved with both over the years? I simply see them for what they are, (sometimes, but not always.)

I know my stuff is long, but I know I clearly have said that the govt. (and govt. officials,) have both strong negatives and positives.

Though I find it naieve to be so 'gung-ho,' about a political leader? I completely recognize that others may need to feel this way, (much like devotion to a sports team or something,) So fine...
So, Ron Paul is the new RockStar... (that's nice.)

--I also, (on far deeper levels,) feel that voting is important (and feel strongly about this.)
Why?
Simple.
Even though it's not 'one person one vote' anymore, really,)
The way the electorial system works?
IF enough people vote the same way,
the larger bodies that actually do have input will have more of an impact.

I also believe strongly that people need to follow their convictions, and that it's healthy for them to do so,(whether the vote means anything or not?
Totally different story. At least they care and have made decisions based upon reasoning, and are standing for something in their own mind (-so it's a good thing.)

Though I understand and sympathise with the subjects that (any,) citizen will be upset about,
(that you and your candidate have gone after,)
-I think if read properly (according to the statements of Ron Paul Backers, (which is not hard to do?)

The ONLY way things will change and be 'restored,' back to some 'purist form of Republican Democracy'
Is to:

1. Claim some 'new-unchartered land,' colonize it, then run it completely with the ideals of yours (or any,) candidate.
(Good luck with that...)
Though everybody in and around may be comfortable if this was done from time to time?

As large and as all encompassing as the US is,
-and considering that we can't take over other lands anymore, (they all seem to be owned,)
-We are forced (by sheer mathematics,) to only be a percentage of something dropped into a much greater one.
-Hence: our influences really can't be that strong.
(This isn't defeatist or fatalist, -this is just understanding math.)

How Ron Paul, (or, perhaps his followers are going to overcome this?
-Are we speaking of some sort of Ron Paul Style of Govt. Overthrow?

I'm glad that one of your supporters has stated that they are 'not in favor of revolution.'
(IE: throwing out the presnet government to install Ron Paul as King.)
---because y'all do start to sound a bit that way, and it's a little scarey.

Further:
There are two reasons,
nope, actually more,
that are good enough for me not to attend your next Ron Paul get together.

1. I am not interested in your candidate, nor his party, enough to find out my information via hanging out with his followers.

(I'm not interested in ANY candidate nor their party enough to find out my information via hanging out with their followers either.)

I have no problem doing my own research,
-and quite honestly?
Being an adult,
-not really prone to 'groupthink,'
-nor needing such when deciding which candidate I'm going to vote for?
Attending such a group (for me,) is a waste of time.

(Now, I understand others may not feel this way,
---but I'm assuming that they are all equally invited,
-and if they wish to attend?
Cool. Great.
However they choose to find out their truths and come to their decisions in life? That's their option. (best wishes.)

2. I am an EXTREMELY busy person, and need to watch my time and my focus.
(Again,) I'll come to my conclusions in my own ways, and with my own findings,
-so, KNOWING that going to one of your groups is not a method that will work for me?
I see no reason to spend time that way.
(Though I appreciate the offer of 'free food,' -actually, I earn enough and have my own food to eat, thank you.

This choice is not a problem for me.

3. Though I will check out what candidate is standing for what (and will be watching how others react to them,
-purely as a lifelong student of sociological behaviour?

(How people line up behind leaders, why, and when, I find to be quite interesting, (particularly when anybody starts using words like 'sheeple,' -It says a lot.)

So, don't sweat it,
I'll be checking out Ron Paul as I feel led, and if I decide to vote for him?
Again, I don't see the need to 'hang out,' with others who have done the same...

-If there IS any revolution that I'd like to see happen?
It would be people intelligently seeking out answers to their questions, thinking about what they find, -and acting independently, developing as much as possible as well-thinking individuals.
--These individuals would then, in a responsible fashion, based upon their thinking things through, would (again,) follow their own convictions.

(Strangely enough, It is quite in line with the origional model that the founding fathers laid out...)

---NOT quite: a group of people all getting together because they felt the same way about stuff,
-and felt the need to nfluence more to to the same.
--but (instead,) being intelligent and well informed individuals moving in the same direction (where it occurs, -almost as a byproduct of independent intelligent thought,)
-Choosing to act responsibly (WITHOUT the need of some group, -to authenticate nor affirm, nor dictate their own throughts.)

I'm kind of funny like that.
I don't hang out with 'other Democrats, or Libertines,' or whatever (any group,) because 'we're all the same.'

I may ask them why they feel the way about whomever?,
-and why they voted one way or another?

-But, as everybody is different?
I know I find completely different reasons than anything I'd think or understand,
(but I'd want to know because I value their opinions on the matter,
-and value them as people.)

-So hanging in a group hearing from a bunch of Ron Paul Supporters about how good Ron Paul is (at this time,) is only slightly less prefferable, (for me,) than recreational root canal surgery.
(I just don't go to groups like that unless I have some need to, -and at this time? I honestly have no need.)

Final reason?

You head up the group.

-and (unlike, for example, someone like 559Rel, who I don't know personally, but I think I'd probably greatly enjoy discussing politics and any topic in terms of why he feels the way he does?,
(I sense he'd actually not just be convinced of his own reasons, -but would respect others choices (be they like his or not.)
So far? I've enjoyed his comments for their honesty (and diplomacy,)
while not compromising his convictions.)

I sense that he actually respects the views of others and sees them as something more than 'for,' or 'against,' his own personal agenda.

Your comments, assumptions and expressed attitude, I find to be really arrogant, loaded with insinuation, needlessly combative, and woefully thin half- baked maniuplations.
(I'm trying really hard to not be embarassed, not just for you, but for your candidate and group as well.)

Honestly?
We could both like a ton of the same things, in a variety of areas in life, not just politics.
---I'd still not care to spend time with you.

In short?
Ron Paul may be the greatest thing since sliced bread, and might actually be a 'tremendous next president...'
-But if I was to decide to go for (or against,) Ron Paul purely by the comments of you?
(particularly your last two entries...)
(and I'm assuming your some sort of area coordinator or official or something?)
I'd completely dismiss him.

-The good part?
I don't make decisions about a political leader based upon their followers.
(I DO consider them, and really wonder how much 'in league,' that leader (if surrounded with 'like minded,' individuals may be like their followers...)

But don't usually consider it a deal maker/breaker.
It's probably just some personality clash in this case, (hopefully.)

Now, Don't feel bad,
-you may still be very effective in this area,
-It is chock full of people who have really harsh 'Right (and Left,) Wing' stances and attitudes who love to argue and consider perjorative debate (and way too much emotion on the most benign subjects,) to be great sport.
--So you may be just the ticket to get Ron Paul into the hearts and minds of a lot of Fresnans.
(Not my method, but we're different people.)

(Besides, in your defence?
I'm sure that somebody somewhere saw great talent and promise
-and loved your style of communicating to make you the Ron Paul Rep in these parts,
(...so I'm sure they saw something that I didn't, which very well could be my own failed vision.)

Either way?
I'll observe Ron Paul and his stances on things (if/when the time is necessary,) on my own, as I have been doing with political candidates for decades.

-And honestly?
I promise, (to the best of my ability,) to not let your mannerism overshadow my consideration of him as a candidate.

Good luck with your campaign, voting strategy, and whatever it is that you believe in, -and are looking for from Ron Paul.
I do hope, (as I'd hope for anyone,)
-that you find fulfillment in your endeavours. (I mean this most sincerely.)

I watched the Republican debate expecting the usual diatribe and was quite astonished to find myself agreeing with Ron Paul. When he was allowed to speak he made a lot of sense and his opinions mirrored my own very liberal views.
I can't imagine that his particular political party holds him in high esteem, which raises him a couple of notches in my book.

Also, I'm fairly sure that hairdo, body make-up, and choice of clothing are not the most important factors in volunteer campaign workers. Power of conviction and a will to act are key. Which is more important-- volunteering your time to a candidate that you strongly believe in? Or writing mean spirited things about people who volunteer their time to a candidate they believe in?

Viva Ron Paul and ALL Political Campaign Volunteers.

Hi pudgy guy here, I do like beer (no fruit though) and I do not own a
Ron Paul shirt and I don't work behind a desk. But I am a liberty
loving sovereign Californian that sees no distinction between the
federal government and a far off King stealing our wealth and our
freedoms.

Our #1 goal in putting up these fliers was to get the people asking
the question "Who is Ron Paul". We have seen him censored by the media
and have seen a lot of response to his message on the last vestige of
free speech (add booming voice here) THE INTERNET. So it seems to have
worked! yay us!

now on to my speech...

I am an advocate of learning from the past, as those that do not are
doomed to repeat it.

MANY Americans are fed up with politics as usual, If you research the
election campaigns from the last century the underlying rhetoric from
both parties is unmistakably the same every election cycle.

ie:

-"cant sleep -insert name here- are out to get us"
-"do we or don't we have the right to end a life before it starts"
-"for the good of the people and the planet -insert rhetoric-"
bla bla bla. It never really changes...

In all my studying current and past politics the only person I totally
agree with is old Ronny, He advocates things all liberty loving
Americans believe in and that our founders believed in:

-Economic freedom - doesn't exist in a true sense, not with a debt
based currency that is controlled by a FOR PROFIT CENTRAL BANK

-Freedom from indentured servitude - if you pay income taxes on your
labor or are drafted into the military I'm sorry but you are
indentured.

-Writ of habeas corpus - no longer exists sorry
http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/HR-6166-Bill.pdf
page 93 section 7

-Writ of free speech - try quoting the 1st amendment aloud on a street
corner in NY and see what happens
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:iZuNkKWiB3YJ:www.forbes.com/feeds/ap...
(sorry the original story at Forbs was removed, this is a cashed google page)

Throughout history ALL governments that have gotten too large have
always sought to force its will on its people,

-be it the ever increasing in-crouching on liberty ie: bill of rights
-or ownership rights,
-or our wealth; stealing it then financing anti-liberty governments
using Lennon or Fabien socialism, ours is no different.
Or even worse funding "a war that will not end in our lifetime"

The reason we do these things and support who we support is that we do
not see it getting any better with all these blatant disregard for
basic rights and never ending wars.

Ron is the ONLY candidate even talking about restoring our liberty,
restoring or economic freedoms, and possibly restoring America back to
its gleaming pedestal as the worlds hope for liberty!
(as an example, not exporting democracy forcibly)

We are asking Americans to bypass the rhetoric of media to see that
there is a person with the knowledge, heart, and track record to put on
the brakes and keep this Constitutional Republic from making the
same continuing mistakes that governments have made throughout
history (we hope). If Ron is elected things will not change the way I
would like as quickly but with him in office we would have someone
that respects the individuals rights, what this country was founded on,
the things that have changed for the better(equality for all being civil and womens rights) and not wield to the
powers that have changed things for the worse (corporate special interests & anti-sovereign world government).

This country was started with the firing of a gun! We are just putting
up fliers using our writ of free press trying reclaim to it! Heck the revolution was fought over much
less than what is at stake now! People are angry as hell and they are
not going to taking it any longer! So stop bitching about a few
fliers, at least we don't have a revolution on our hands. (I am in no
way advocating a bloody revolution so don't take my words as such)

have a nice day
Pudgy beer drinking guy

oh and VIVA RON PAUL!

Out of the Void,

You seem to hold a lot of contradictory beliefs.

You're cynical about politics, but cherish your vote. You strongly believe that others should use their vote as well, even though they really don't care and are easily duped. But since all you or I can do is ride out what is being done, why even vote? You think the only valid way to find out about a candidate is through personal research, however that is next to impossible (even though it's not), so as a fall back there is always the let time tell method. Although, strangely you seem to know exactly how everything works and will work in the future, so why wait? You are a former hardcore Republican and now a Democrat by default who despises third parties because they take votes from the two major parties, neither of which you would really care to associate yourself with. You know, at best, you're voting for someone who won't run the country into the ground and is the lesser of so many evils, but you understand that they're not running the show at all. Since presidents are just figureheads and bureaucrats really run the show, once again why vote? You believe that the correct way to approach any situation in life is with a methodical disinterest, and anyone who shows excitement is a wild-eyed, hardcore whatever. You believe ideology must be set aside to properly weigh the merits of a situation, but you clearly exhibit utilitarianism, which is an ideology.

Like I said, it's about ideas. The American Revolution was about ideology. What made America unique among nations was ideology.

Here is a video that someone recently put on YouTube that fits nicely into this discussion:

My comments that you deem 'alarmist' are based in fact. All the candidates that I listed are collectivists, Ron Paul is an individualist. Once again ideology.

As is typical of internet forums, I'm sure this discussion will go nowhere. 559rell is right. It's time for a different tactic.

Out of the Void, you are cordially invited to the next Fresno Ron Paul 2008 Meetup. You'll get a chance to see how "crazy" we are. You can even give us input, or just have some food and watch. The choice is yours. It's only one hour out of your month. What do you have to lose? The meeting is August 19. Click the link for all the details: http://ronpaul.meetup.com/60

I don't care about Ron Paul's politics. If his people are willing to litter our city in violation of the laws we have passed then they don't really respect us.
I post only in approved locations as do most local musicians. Those that post on lamp posts and city light polls are in violation and should be fined. As should the Ron Paul campaign.

...thanks for hearing me out. I appreciate it. Now, lets all shake hands and savor the civility.

I've learned some things and said my piece so...

PEACE!!! to the remaining posters. :-)

~Rell www.myspace.com/559rell www.myspace.com/trellthareallamane (music production)

...how to convince someone who is assuming that I love to make assumptions -that I don't make assumptions?
(fruitless exercise.)

As has been suggested by '559Real' -the issue would be

-Consider Ron Paul for who Ron Paul is.

(again, I'm waiting on all of the horses, --it's too early to say what's up with any of them.
-Do I have interests in some so far? Yep, --but again, it's too soon to tell.

I'm glad that you agree that your own methodology and comments are diametrical to what your team wants to accomplish.

Want to see what concerns me the most about (your) methods?

Read the last two paragraphs (after the 'diametrical,' statement,) right above...

(done?)

Though there may be some very real problems ('...my money is worth less, we're in wars we have no business being in,'
...blah blah blah (yes, all true.)

--The same general 'going after the monsters,' of life, (in this case political issues,) verbage makes your advance team 'concerns,' come across with the same over-zealousness and worry-and-promise of a label on Dr. Bronner's Soap.

Your compartmentalizing of Ron Paul as being
'different than all the candidates being handed you,'
(particularly that 'handed you,'thing,)
-comes across like the old ad for Keds 'jump higher, run faster, go farther,'

Is he different? Sure, --they're ALL different.
-but how? (He's Republican right? I've heard of those before...)

-And this 'what's handed you,' comment.
Jeez, talk about 'conspiracy based.'
---Why don't you call him 'Neo,' and say that he's going to show us all how to get away from the Matrix?

--Good luck with getting away from that...

-Is he from some new party that's untainted and 'totally new?'
Nope, he's a Republican. (And he's been one for a while, it looks like...)

Seriously, if you want your guy to be considered and seen as something more than the horse being ridden by Trekkies and Conspiracy Theorists? Use better methods.

I realize that the Republicans are pretty much despised because of the Bush Administration
---They realize that too..
-So what do the Rep's do?

They say '...gee we need a Republican who is still very definitely a Republican,
--but will say that He IS, but NO LONGER IS, ---but he IS.
-and is getting back to the basics and 'pure,' Republicanism,
----and is therefore totally different.'

Ahuh.

Live longer, keep your eyes open, (as well as your ears,) ---and watch how Marketing works.

Remember the Saturn? (the car?)
Initially they insisted that it was a whole new Car.
GM went nuts trying to convince the public that it was 'a completely different car,' 'a whole new company,' 'something never ever done,' 'giving it back to the people,'
--right, right, yep yep...

Then, after they were out on the road they chilled out and let it be known that it's been a GM since it's inception...

That took a massive effort and a ton of money, (and, even though it was well done and effective?
To a cynical eye it still revealed as a very well executed game of smoke and mirrors.
(Fortunately they were pretty good cars...)

Again, it's not that I'm on the fence on who I'm voting for.

I just feel no pressure nor need to decide right now.
I'll let time tell, and then decide then.

-Your methods (Michael,)
Are like somebody walking up to me and saying
'...what will it take for you to drive off the lot with this candidate right now?'

Though there are several answers (all credible.)

The first would be: '...um, different salesman with more credible methods...'

-Even then, I'm going to want some literature, a test drive, and to talk to a lot of people (mechanics included,) at stoplights, and honest opinions, (maybe read some consumer reports, ---and then know that going into it?
First model years all have 'bugs.'

(Good thing Ron Paul is not 'something totally New,'
but (either)
a repackaged Republican
(or)
purist Republican, (or whatever,)
--There HAS to be some commonality in his perspectives and methods -otherwise nobody is going to trust him nor how to work with him...

(...it's okay, you can jump up and down and say,
'...but he's not a Republican, he's a REPUBLICAN...')

If your guy's worth anything?
It will show with time.

(...Despite your present tactics, I'm afraid,
---but don't fret, you have quite some time to regroup and come across as something other than alarmist and idealist, with better signage than stuff that comes acrossed like '...loose 50 lbs this week eating Hoodia...' or whatever...)

Out of the Void,

You love to make assumptions. I 'm glad you've taken a liking to my physique, but I'm not sure why you keep trying to paint me/us as crazy, conspiracy theory, fringe, wackos. Sounds a lot like Sean Hannity, but since you guys are both from back east, I guess you probably have it all figured out.

I've know of Ron Paul for years. My decision to support him is well thought out, as are my efforts to spread the word about him. I truly hope that my methods don't turn people off or create negative associations. That is not my intention. The last several years have made me realize that I can no longer sit around while most people are told who to vote for by the mainstream media. The primary elections are February 5, 2008, and too many people don't know Ron Paul or his message. I want to change that.

My Meetup group (http://ronpaul.meetup.com/60) has added several people in the last week, which I attribute to the signs (one saw my letter in the Bee Aug. 9, she joined immediately).

Most of the people that I've met who support Dr. Paul didn't go into this on a whim. People who believe freedom works rarely have a place to turn in today's political world. People are finding out that they've been lied to, not just by Bush and Co., but throughout the entire 20th Century.

When Ron Paul goes to the White House will the all the problems of the world magically be fixed in one day? No, of course not. I don't know one person who believes that. Is there a limit to what the president can do? Of course, but with the amount of power that has been consolidated in the executive branch over the last 90 years, just relinquishing that power will have a significant effect.

I don't view Ron Paul as a cure all (that's why I also participate in http://www.downsizedc.org), but he is surely much more than just the "lesser of so many evils," and his presidency would be an injection of all the things that America needs right now.

Out of the Void said, "What I'm referring to is looking clearly at what each candidate has done, what they've said, what their history is,
---whole deal.
---Not buying the hype
---but really seeing what these people are about,
---and who backs them."

In the information age, this is easier than ever (http://vote-smart.org), and for Dr. Paul it is very easy, because unlike most politicians he has always been consistent. And his financial support comes from average Americans mostly through small donations. Contrast that to any of the "top-tier" candidates, who have support from special interests and the big money elite. Like Hillary receiving money from Rupert Murdoch.

Out of the Void said, "I don't see any party or leader as wearing halo's nor able to really pass any lie-detector tests (nor have much of a backbone,) ---simply because they really can't, (again, they're puppets.)"

Ron Paul has been in Congress for 20 years, and refuses to be corrupted. He always uses the Constitution as his guide when voting. Does he wear a halo? No. Is he unlike other politicians? Yes.

Out of the Void said, "The sad truth of it is: the average american really doesn't care, -and is easily dismayed and duped."

I'm trying to change that. What are you doing?

Out of the Void said, "What I think would be best is to simply listen to what they have to say,
---see what they've done, and really consider what they are presenting"

That's all I'm trying to get people to do. Take a look at Ron Paul. I think you'll like what to see.

Out of the Void said, "I (personally,) want to see someone who is a good communicator, and can think while moving, and is not afraid to let people really think for themselves, ---Is Ron Paul like that?
If he is, his advanceteam and his supporters don't come across that way at all.
They're getting everybody moving so that they don't have time to think..."

This is diametrical to what I want to accomplish. I want people to think. Think about why their money is worth less every year. Think about why we work almost half a year just to pay the government. Think about if fighting wars in countries that did not and could not have attacked us has anything to do with freedom. Think about why we need to give up our rights to be "safe." Think about why we have to get permission to do almost everything nowadays.

The ones who are benefiting from the status quo are the ones who don't want you to think. Just sit back and let the mainstream media tell you who it's OK to vote for. Hillary, Obama, Edwards, Giuliani, Romney, Fred Thompson. They've presented you with a nice little array, all bought and paid for and bearing the stamp of approval. Take your pick. Nothing changes. Any differences that they have are only superficial.

First off, not to sound totally dark about it all, -but I do think that the whole issue of political leaders is a type of puppetry.

Are they completely powerless? No.

If anything they are kind of like probes.
-Where needed, how the people respond to them and their behaviors and ideas tells the govt. where the population is sensitive, where they are desiring change, -what matters to them, etc. etc.

It's a percentage deal.

Again, the government is basically a large corporation or business machine.
--There really is little room for ideology, and the ideology has little real impact on how business is done.
---kind of like war.
--Are there reasons given and promoted as reasons 'why?' sure.

Are they the actual reasons 'why?'
Probably not.

Is there one single big bad lie and evil hand behind it?
No.
Are their many big bad lies, and many bad hands behind it?
Yep...
----but as in all business there are also many good hands behind it too. (package deal, like something wired so deep into the brain of your car that you can't separate one from the other.)

It's like giving a new shirt to a homeless guy.
-He gets a new shirt and is able to fight off the elements. (good)
-He puts cigarrettes in the pocket, -the cigarrettes are slowly killing him. (bad.)
-The shirt was bought at wal-mart (walmart has questionable ethics) (bad.)
-The shirt was made by someone in a country where (even though they are under-aged and being exploited? ---they also are pulling down some sort of money for their family --as is the wal-mart employee...
(bad? good? both?)
---The homeless guy, by being homeless wanders over to a soup kitchen and is given a free meal,(good.)
--the meal is served by someone who is a paid employee of a care organization.(good.)
--but if there were no homeless guys to feed? -They'd not have that job.(bad, no wait, good, no wait...)
(Just like if there were no tobacco addictions? There would be no tobacco growers, (they starve,)
there would be no paper manufactorers and cigarrette makers, (they starve,)
and the guy who designed the logo for the pack of smokes? He starves too,
---in fact lets make HIM the homeless guy,
--because smoking cut way back in the area and they had to let him go...
(...geez o pete, I was just giving a homeless guy a shirt, I thought I was doing a good thing...)

(okay, long way 'round the barn, but there it is.)

It is not 'that I have anything against Ron Paul, or any pol.'

In their own way, they are trying to represent people and probably think that they are doing something right for a lot of folks down the line, -by doing it their way.

-Do their political parties really matter?
No.

---In the end, these guys are part of a greater game and simply wear different uniforms.
-They may believe in their own team, and have loyalties to that team,
----but they know that they are part of a greater game,
-and believe in the game itself more...

My key focus (as far as having issues with the Ron Paul Supporters...
-which, in truth?
I really don't have any problems with them either...
(besides, the one fellow has rock-hard abs, doesn't drink beer, and has a full head of hair,
---what not to love?
(okay, perhaps I'd not take it that far,)
---but he's someone who believes in a cause and believes that a particular pol. is part of a better process.
Fine...

But, as stated, (and this may be very far removed from Ron Paul, ---it may be completely 100% all about Ron Paul..)

How he's being presented and advanced is kind of creepy,
---and not really too far removed from such plots as 'Bob Roberts,' or 'Wag the Dog.'

--Interstingly enough, --both films are not about political parties (per-se,) nor about liberals or conservatives,
---it's about how people can be swayed into believing that one particular stance or another (or one particular leader or another,) really is a cure all, and how that there is so much going on behind the scenes.

It's not easy to do this right.

This may strike you as weird,
--but as a Christian
--for the past, what,,, 16 years (plus?,)
I was supposed to be Republican.

---Why?
Well, The Republicans took all the 'family values,' and 'churchy values,' themes and ran with them as major campaign points.

This put me in the awkward position of having to explain (which I didn't mind, actually,)
that Yes, I was more in favor of a woman's right to choose to do what she felt led to do with her body and unborn child,
---but that this did not mean I was 'pro-abortion,'
---just that I was pro-the woman being given every sane opportunity to raise her child,
-with full love and support of every possible funded program
-and church- available,
---as I thought that (not only,) was her stance and feelings important,
---but her life and her kids life were that important too.
--Did this mean that I was facilitating abortion?
In some ways yes. (some folks -that's all they're gonna see in all I wrote.)

--As I'd rather see someone if they made that choice
(which I would not personally agree with,)
at least make that choice and not be endangered herself in some back alley somewhere by some bozo with a coathanger...

---As a Christian? (Church member,)
---I felt it essential that if 'my people,' were going to take the stance of saying
'...you should not kill your child.'
---It was on US to build church environments and family systems of support where the girl
(who may have felt totally alone and like she had no other choice,)
--at least would now realize that she had support and people with her to help her through this and help her to make choices that were less 'final,' and more peaceful for her (and possibly the child,) down the road.

-Long explaination (not long for me, but long,) compared to:

Hi we're Republicans and Christians: We want to make it illegal for you to have an abortion and are going to shut down all the planned parenthood clinics and make the world see things OUR WAY.

Now...
The funny thing is?

Back east (about the time when all those 'black helicopters and such,' were being broadcast on late night radio by the conspiracy theory folks? (and the New World Order was right on it's way...)

There were a ton of pols. who made the whole 'abortion/right to life,' thing their main platform for being elected.

--The fight was ravenous, there was battles on all side, (still are,)
--and a lot of those people who were elected on that platform? Sucked at their job in office. (They were handing out cards at churches telling people 'which way the pol went,'
--right down to dogcatcher ---so 'we knew how to vote at the pols.'

I don't know if Ron Paul really wants a bunch of people wild eyed and following him ( voting for him, etc.) --who are responding with more of a 'gut,' or 'visceral,' response.

--If he does? He'd be doing the same crap that the current regime is doing, -and, quite honestly MOST regimes do at one time or another.

The thing that I find quite disconcerting (and it's not about Ron Paul per-se, it could be about anyone,) ---is that this same fervor --and some of the same folks (who ARE actually really into conspiracy theories, (oddly enough,) ---are lining up behind this guy.

I realize the writer who referred to Fres Fam readers and writers as 'sheeple,' was (hopefully,) a minority in the Ron Paul support machine...
-Because they were so derisive in their view of others? Yeah, partly,
--but more because if I was any sort of leader, (charasmatic or non,)
--I'd want people behind me and for me because they saw something worthwhile that they thought I could bring to the situation,
---which (at this time,) means someone who can be extremely diplomatic, and sensitive to a ton of issues (not just poverty in areas, but health concerns, AND this present war (which we're pouring tons of troops and money into,)
----and other ones that are warming up with countries that we used to be pals with.
(My Yahoo news alert just flashed on a story about the Russians now flying 'cold war era sorties and border missions.'
Nice, very nice.)

If Ron Paul is as great as you guys think he is? Wunnerful.

He's going to know how to go into the situation, evenhandedly settle things down, try to win us back some allies, ----and still maintain our military
---which has just gone through major warm-ups (AND) losses
-both in personell and equipment, --and in morale
(not just on the front, -but at home too.)

He's going to know which ditch to die in, (so to speak,)
--and is not going to be this wild 'uber-fix it' guy who's gonna throw out the old system and build a new one... (bad bad mistake...)

-Part of the problems that we've had with W. are systemic and are not partisan, ---it's simply the way things go.
-In the midst of a major war, -you do not srap everything and build 'anew,' ---it's just stupid.

-(Again,) -that's what I am getting at with my concern for all of this fervor and froth about the guy...

I really want to see somebody come in who is going to allow people to think, and make intelligent decisions about their lives (regardless of their faith or lack of it,) NOT just sit there and decree morality and ethical choices. (Mandating Morality does not work.)

--So, as THAT's been the Republican stance (and th