The Washington Post shows once again why the mainstream press can’t write about the internet from a believable point of view. They’ve got a front-page writeup of his supposed support online that doesn’t contain anything in the realm of skepticism.
There’s this desire to think of Paul as the next Howard Dean, but the difference is Governor Dean had actual human beings supporting him. The "support" for Ron Paul comes from a band of the very far left and right allied with 9/11 Truthers who are rigging online polls and the like in favor of Paul. In concert with fringe conspiracy theory radio hosts like Alex Jones (whose show I listen to because I have a perverse affinity for listening to conspiracy theorists weave their plots about how the globalists in the trilateral commission faked 9/11 so that they can enslave Mexican babies in advance of the beings from Planet Thurlon returning to rule us all), the Paul fringe works to use bots and the like to "Digg" Ron Paul stories as well as vote for Paul in online polls.
When Howard Dean got on the national stage via the web, it was reflected in polling. And before he eventually lost to John Kerry, he even led for a while. Ron Paul, on the other hand, ranks somewhere below statistical noise in his campaign. But the mainstream press is just accepting the assertions of some kooks as reality without doing any work, as usual.
And Dean had a credible enough resume that people could see him as a possible President: undefeated as a politician, a 5-time governor of his state, fiscal integrity and socially progressive. Which means real live Democrats could support him. Ron Paul hasn’t anything as impressive, and he’s running against the grain of his own party-real live Republicans aren’t supporting him. Which is why he’s in Kucinich territory-take that back, at least some Democrats support Kucinich.
Err…..they’ve been rigging the online polls? I kinda doubt that. He was received pretty enthusiastically on The Daily Show (which would be hard to rig) and I’ve heard Liberals in general (who don’t know enough about his agenda) speaking well of him because of his anti-war stance and his willingness to be contrary to the other GOPzoids. I suspect that his real support is stronger than you’ve suggested.
By the way Oliver, there are more than a few of us out here who think that the story we’ve been handed about 9/11 is ridiculous. That doesn’t make us, as a group, clinical paranoids. Given the surrounding evidence and reaction, I would think we could be skeptical without automatically being tarred in the way you’re attempting to do.
But it won’t be liberals that will be trying to get him the Republican nomination. That’s the difference between Paul and Dean right there: we were trying to get him the Democratic nomination and nearly succeeded. And because he had solid Democratic support, he became Chair of the DNC and is exercising real influence over the party.
Where are the Republicans who are trying to get him nominated as the Republican candidate, and who will defend him to fellow Republicans, enough so that he could shape the party’s direction?
Also there’s the matter of money. We Deaniacs opened our wallets enough that he became at least financially competitive with the current front-runners. Where is the flood of dollars for Paul?
Online polls and applause at the Daily Show isn’t enough to make a real dent in the race or give Paul a real shot to survive long enough to get to the primaries.
“Where is the flood of dollars for Paul?”
Here you go.
http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=43192
That doesn’t make us, as a group, clinical paranoids.
Yes, it does.
And yeah, a pro-Ron Paul site with news no other organization has. Clearly, I must believe it.
Offtopic, but this link is for CK:
The Sun Online – News: Doggy casanova’s cupid climb
That doesn’t make us, as a group, clinical paranoids.
Yes, it does.
(sigh) Ollie, I love your work and find you to be a very adroit blogger. I don’t want to get into this with you, it just wouldn’t be productive.
(I mean, you’re not going out of your way to insult me like this to boost your hits, are you? That’d be….. damned disillusioning).
But it won’t be liberals that will be trying to get him the Republican nomination.
I couldn’t agree more, however, there are a lot of people out there (who aren’t really familiar with his philosophy) that find him attractive and kind of refreshing (like they did with Ross Perot….go figure). He’s not going to get close to the nomination but he’s going to make life easier for us Dems by turning the heat up on his own (very twisted) party.
“I couldn’t agree more, however, there are a lot of people out there (who aren’t really familiar with his philosophy) that find him attractive and kind of refreshing”
Yeah, there are some people on the left who don’t realize how anti-goverment he is who like his stand on Iraq, the Patriot Act, etc.
As people on the left learn more about his massive hard-on for private sector, he’ll lose what little support he has.
I’m upping my hits by disagreeing about 9/11 conspiracies with someone I’ve never heard of before? That’s a bit of stretch. Even a little conspiratorial, one could say.
Well, I’m just trying to understand what the motivator for calling me a clinical paranoid would be. You don’t know me (as you note), don’t have the faintest idea as to why I believe what I believe, yet you lump me in with the lunatic fringe. What’s that about?
The part where you endorsed a 9/11 conspiracy.
Yes, some of Ron Paul’s online techno-wizards somehow managed to get holograms of 600+ real-world supporters at a recent Meetup in Kansas City, and another 300+ at a post-debate party in New Hampshire.
The next thing you know, they will be spamming his donations page to the point where he passes John McCain and moves into the top tier.
And if we’re not careful, they might spam the voting booths in the primaries, too.
I read your post a couple of times. Maybe I missed something. Do you disagree with Ron Paul on the issues? Or do you just have a problem with some of the people who support him?
The part where you endorsed a 9/11 conspiracy.
(aye,yi,yi…). I haven’t kept up with your take why we went to war with Iraq…but I’ll assume that you (like most of the world) realize that entire casus belli was bogus, long before Bushie made his “I feel good” television appearance announcing the start of the war. I’ve always found it puzzling that folks like you could accept that our government sent it’s citizens into war (with thousands of American deaths the likely result), and that they knew that the excuses for war they were giving were bogus, yet you can’t get a grip on that same government actively playing a part in another bogus event that would result in thousands of American deaths. What part of this equation is grinding your gears?
I don’t want to load your site up with the thousands of links providing evidence for 9/11 skepticism (though I might use a couple), I’d rather you think this through yourself. We all know that PNAC laid out their plans in some detail and that we’re looking at the results of their (completely insane) plans, but their “new Pearl Harbor” has had no impact on your thinking.
Let’s take a look at the day before 9/11, the day when Rumsfeld and the Pentagon Comptroller, Dov Zackheim, announced that the Pentagon had mislaid 2.3 TRILLION dollars in cash and material. That likely would’ve been a huge story if the events of the next day hadn’t soaked it up completely. Think about the scale of that for a second. A Trillion one dollar bills stacked one on top of another would result in a stack 60,000 MILES HIGH! We’re talking about a stack about 150,000 miles high Oliver, enough money to buy virtually anything and anyone and to *do anything* you chose to.
Look a little closer at Dov Zackheim. Prior to his job as the military’s rather dubious bookkeeper, he was the Vice President of a company called System Planning Corp., which markets something called “Command Transmitter System”. This system was originally presented as a way to defeat airplane hijacking by taking control away from the pilot and flying the hijacked jet via remote control, anywhere you would like to (even into buildings, one would guess). Dov is also noteworthy as he is a prominent member of PNAC (some say he was the author of the “new Pearl Harbor” line).
This concept might turn your world upside-down but…..I don’t think that the “Muslim hijackers” were onboard those planes! We’ve all seen the video of Mohammed Atta at Bangor Airport over and over again but (and this is fairly odd) there are no photos or security video of any of these guys at the airports they were supposed to have left from on that day! (Even prior to 9/11, these airports were completely covered with security video for insurance purposes). But the kicker is this: the Army’s incredible forensic team did a study of the Pentagon crash site and managed to find matching DNA for every victim of the tragedy there, save for a single infant that was onboard. One civilian heard about the study and queried them about the results via Freedom of Information Act and the letter he got back (it’s online in a photo-state) gives the names of all of the actual victims of that crash. Curiously, there wasn’t a single Arab name and none of the DNA that was found was unconnected to the known victims. There were *no Arab highjackers onboard*.
The fact that this ridiculously important information is out there and hasn’t been reported by a single member of our “liberal” media indicates to me that, yes, we ARE looking at a 9/11 conspiracy, one in which our media is playing an active part. Muslims are being framed to make it acceptable for the U.S. to invade their countries and control the flow of increasingly scarce oil around the world. The large percentage of neocons who have declared commitment to the Israeli cause could also be taken in consideration as the general tone of the “hate Arabs” propaganda might be considered helpful to the Zionists.
Some people are so fearful of the word “conspiracy” that they refuse to use it in any way but a mocking one. They see an administration that has been an outlandish trashing of justice right from the onset (with the Supreme Court coup) and yet something in their mind locks out the possibility that members of the U.S. government and military played a part in 9/11, even if it was simply looking the other way or burying field reports from intelligence and law enforcement officials. Keep in mind what we’ve heard from them: that the transponders of the planes were tuned off, making them untrackable (almost every pilot of a small plane travels without a transponder, yet these planes are easily tracked), that the victims spoke to people on the ground via their personal cellphones (this technology is only now beginning to come online and was impossible on 9/11…try it yourself sometime. I have and so have many others, it doesn’t work).
Well, that’s enough to get this started. It’d be nice if we could actually have a logical conversation about this…let’s give it a try, ok?
“Yes, some of Ron Paul’s online techno-wizards somehow managed to get holograms of 600+ real-world supporters at a recent Meetup in Kansas City, and another 300+ at a post-debate party in New Hampshire.”
Those are tiny numbers. Nothing to brag about.
“The next thing you know, they will be spamming his donations page to the point where he passes John McCain and moves into the top tier.”
Okay. I’m going to say this slow while using small words.
Ron. Paul. Has. One-fucking-percent. Support.
Got it?
Sometimes it bumps all the way to 2%, but I’ve never seen him outside the margin of error in any national poll.
His numbers are worse than Lieberman’s were in 2004.
Stop bragging about his support, because it doesn’t exist.
“Well, that’s enough to get this started. It’d be nice if we could actually have a logical conversation about this…let’s give it a try, ok?”
How about no? Does no work for you?
You see, it is clear that you like to engage in sexual intercourse with large, oily kernels found within wooden shells, usually a seed of some kind.
You are, simply put, fucking nuts.
There is no point in having a logical conversation, because you can incapable of participating in one.
Thanks for adding to the query totals for Ron Paul, the more the merrier.
“Thanks for adding to the query totals for Ron Paul, the more the merrier.”
It doesn’t matter. Onlu 1% of Republicans support him. That’s less than the number of Democrats that support Bush.
“It doesn’t matter. Onlu 1% of Republicans support him. That’s less than the number of Democrats that support Bush.”
What, based on a few paid-for, un-scientific telephone polls of an extremely small percentage of Americans? Go ahead and base your perception on those polls while accusing others of lacking logic. Hilariously ironic.
Guess again, Einstein. I’ma 43 year old soccer Mom who is proudly sporting a Ron Paul bymper sticker on her car.
I’m more real than you’ll ever be.
You can live in your little internet land, but I’ve been to the Ron Paul flash-and-lood meet-ups. Hardly anybody there was a truther, but there were a couple. There were Democrats, Republicans, Independents and Libertarians. Men and women, veterans, a Congressional candidate, financial advisers, and a welfare recipient. Black, white, Mexican, Asian.
We’re uniting people without legislation. Imagine that!
Paul supporters seem more like Nader voters than Deaniacs. The fact is that Paul has raised no money, has garnered little support among Republicans, and is not spoken even as a dark horse. He won’t even be invited to speak at the nominating convention. Whatever attributes he may have, he’s got no chance of becoming president.
He’s still one of the least popular of the pool of Republican candidates, you can’t change that.
A bunch of Ron Paul people feverishly looking for any blog mention of him to come up then hit the comments immediately in order to convince us that there’s a “there” there. Exactly what I said. And the conspiracy theory above? Sheesh, one too many viewings of the nutty “Loose Change” propaganda piece.
I cannot have a logical conversation with someone talking patent nonsense.
You’re not only wrong, you’re a month late being wrong!
Most right wing bloggers were spouting this crap a month ago.
Ron Paul people,come back when you’ve raised $10 million for your guy….. in a month, when Paul people are taking trips to early primary states to canvass, when he gets to be on the cover of the Rolling Stone…
“Ron Paul people,come back when you’ve raised $10 million for your guy….. in a month, when Paul people are taking trips to early primary states to canvass, when he gets to be on the cover of the Rolling Stone…”
Reports have him around $5 mil, plenty at this point for a thrifty campaign. There are multiple groups in nearly every state that already have organized plans to hit up the early primary states, conventions, caucuses, straw polls and whatever other event is happening. You can check out what many of them are up to over at meetup.com.
Reports = one pro-Paul blog.
I fell upon your site and book marked it immediately. I am usually right there with you. I have to disagree with your take on Ron Paul. Until I saw him on the Colbert report with him talking about getting rid of FEMA, the IRS and other nesessary institutions, he was in close contention in my mind with Obama. Could I really see myself voting republican? Not Likely, but he is the guy I have my eye on when I’m watching the republican twits on TV. I’m far from the far left and by no means am I on the right, but Ron Paul is closer to where I’m looking than the union busting Clinton for example.
There is no point in having a logical conversation, because you can incapable of participating in one.
Ok.
You can’t handle the thought of it. I can understand your panic.
Sheesh, one too many viewings of the nutty “Loose Change” propaganda piece.
For what it’s worth, I don’t think I’ve ever seen “Loose Change”…maybe I should track it down. It’d be nice if you could point to somewhere in my post where I was “talking patent nonsense” as what I wrote is all verifiable. Need a link to something? Let me know, I’m here to help.
For what it’s worth, your reaction is fairly standard for folks on liberal blogs (which I find a bewildering facet of my fellows). I don’t mind that *avoidance* is so prevalent, it’s the inability to recognize the avoidance that I find frustrating. This is a very difficult thing we’re talking about, I know. No one wants to think that their government lies to them, sends their own citizens to their deaths and tries to pin it on a convenient enemy, but it happens. Even students of history have a hard time grappling with the fact that history repeats itself, that we’re not in some golden, saintly era where such things would never take place. Unfortunately, human nature remains pretty consistent (and yes, that’s almost too depressing).
Yeah, you can brush me off by telling your audience that I’m not capable of participating in a logical conversation but the truth of the matter is that you’re unwilling to participate in one. If I’m such a half-wit wacko it ought to be child’s play to show me where I’m wrong.
“What, based on a few paid-for, un-scientific telephone polls of an extremely small percentage of Americans? Go ahead and base your perception on those polls while accusing others of lacking logic. Hilariously ironic.”
Shut the fuck up, you ignorant loser. You obviously have no idea what you are talking about when in comes to statistics if you blast polls like that. And when the actually voting happens and Ron Paul gets 2, may 3 percent you will be shocked and I will laugh.
“You can’t handle the thought of it. I can understand your panic.”
How’s this for logic? You are claiming Cheney, Bush, et al killed 3000 Americans, but they decided to let you live and spread the ‘truth’ about them.
If they are willing to kill that many people, they are willing to kill you to keep it quiet. Yet I don’t see a rash of Truthers out there ending up dead.
“No one wants to think that their government lies to them, sends their own citizens to their deaths and tries to pin it on a convenient enemy”
You just described the Iraq war (nearly) perfectly.
“If I’m such a half-wit wacko it ought to be child’s play to show me where I’m wrong.”
Here’s the problem, what you’ve given us has no backing. I can’t argue about the FoIA documents because you gave none. You gave almost no name, no information, no details. Nothing of substance.
You go no counter-argument, because there’s nothing to argue against.
If they are willing to kill that many people, they are willing to kill you to keep it quiet. Yet I don’t see a rash of Truthers out there ending up dead.
Umm…how would we know? Who’s in Gitmo and all of those CIA secret prisons? Do you know? Anyway, why would they worry? They’ve got people like you so convinced of their bizzare anti-Arab drama that people like me are marginalized. I’m a “kook” and a “crazy”, right? What danger could I pose to them when a mind as razor sharp as Oliver’s puts up a wall and refuses to even *look* at the evidence?
Of course, I’m not involved with the plot. If I were, I’d be runnin’ scared:
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/ap20020212_991.html
http://www.gomemphis.com/mca/local_news/article/0,1426,MCA_437_985827,00.html
http://www.gomemphis.com/mca/local_news/article/0,1426,MCA_437_1016243,00.html
Funny thing, that.
You just described the Iraq war (nearly) perfectly.
No shit? Did that fly right past you or do you now get that these guys (”Please don’t kill me…”) are cold blooded murderers that don’t care how many people die at their hands? That the deaths of American citizens mean nothing to them?
Here’s the problem, what you’ve given us has no backing.
No backing? Are you out of your fucking mind??? I told Oliver I would spare him the thousands of links that I could provide because I figured his readers had at least a passing familarity with Google! You need the FOIA documents? Sure, I’m happy to provide them:
http://www.sierratimes.com/03/07/02/article_tro.htm
I’ve gone out of my way to be civil about this and have kept this comment section as link-free as possible. Like I told Oliver, I wanted him to actually think about these things, rather than providing the entire chain of evidence (which has been done plenty of times elsewhere and is usually just deleted rather than actually pursued by *avoidists* like yourself).
Sometime, eventually, you’ll “get” what actually happened and all of this bullshit you’ve tossed into the air to shield yourself from the truth is going to seem rather pathetic to you, which, yeah…it is.
“Umm…how would we know?”
Cause you are still posting. You would think your exposure of their plan would be enough to get you killed or sent off to GitMo, but it hasn’t. So either your evidence isn’t as Convincing as you think it is, or there’s not conspiracy here.
“I’m a “kook” and a “crazy”, right?”
Yes.
“What danger could I pose to them when a mind as razor sharp as Oliver’s puts up a wall and refuses to even *look* at the evidence?”
I have looked at the evidence. Just like I’ve looked at the evidence for the second gunman in the JFK assassination. It looks convincing cause there are always a few details left out.
For instance, did it ever occur to anyone that the list of victims would not include the hijackers because, and this is confusing logic here so pay close attentions, they are not victims?
The FoIA doesn’t mean you get all the information you ask for.
Me: “You just described the Iraq war (nearly) perfectly.”
The True Believer: “No shit? Did that fly right past you or do you now get that these guys (”Please don’t kill me…”) are cold blooded murderers that don’t care how many people die at their hands? That the deaths of American citizens mean nothing to them?”
Serious question, how dumb are you?
You said I refused to believe the evidence because I couldn’t accept these people killing innocent people for political goals. I just said that I believe they are killing people in Iraq for political goals. Therefore that is not the problem. The problem is the evidence.
“Sometime, eventually, you’ll “get” what actually happened”
I would say the same of you, but no amount of evidence will persuade the true believer.
By the way, what do you make of the tape where Osama Bin Ladden discusses the success of their plans to attack the WTC?
Cause you are still posting.
Not too quick on the uptake, are you. There are mega-millions who doubt the official 9/11 tale but they’re gonna focus on me? I was suggesting that there are unknown numbers of people in “secret” prisons…perhaps some of them are a greater *threat* than I am.
the list of victims would not include the hijackers because, and this is confusing logic here so pay close attentions, they are not victims?
Oh Jesus! I’ve had this conversation with more than a few people but not one of them were desperate enough to try this one! Look at the airline manifests, which have to be absolutely accurate for insurance purposes…no Arabs. You think the Army excluded the “hijackers” because they weren’t victims? Read the report again, there are no exemptions like that (no matter how badly you wish it were so).
By the way, what do you make of the tape where Osama Bin Ladden discusses the success of their plans to attack the WTC?
Good grief! Take a GOOD LOOK at that “Osama”. See anything different?
He’s a completely different man, this tape was debunked (point by point) virtually days after it was released by the same government that was planning to attack Afghanistan *before* 9/11 took place. You DO know that war plans were sitting on his desk on 9/11, right…they don’t even bother to deny that.
Look, there’s a whole gigantic list of sites you need to be visiting to see this stuff, rather than hiding your head in the sand. If you check it out and you still think it’s bogus, well….at least you looked into it.
“Not too quick on the uptake, are you. There are mega-millions who doubt the official 9/11 tale but they’re gonna focus on me? I was suggesting that there are unknown numbers of people in “secret” prisons…perhaps some of them are a greater *threat* than I am.”
Then why aren’t they dispearing? Any yes, you fucking idiot, you would know about it because these people have friends and family, they would notice if their brother / son / co-worker disappeared one day. There would be reports on the Internet over their disapperances.
(Of course, you freaks would probably blame UFOs or Bigfoot.)
“Look at the airline manifests, which have to be absolutely accurate for insurance purposes…no Arabs.”
How would you know? The information you are looking for has not been made public.
http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/passengers.html
“It has been claimed that the names of the hijackers were on the airlines’ flight manifests. However, there is no public evidence of this. Researchers who have attempted to obtain this information from the airlines have been rebuffed.”
Maybe you guys should get your lies straight. The information has not been made public, so you are making claims without evidence.
“this tape was debunked (point by point) virtually days after it was released”
Yes, debunked by the same people who think lighting a fire under some chicken wire proves the WTC were destroyed by a controlled implosion.
“same government that was planning to attack Afghanistan *before* 9/11 took place.”
No, shit for brains, they were doing business with Afghanistan, they were planning on attacking Iraq.
“Look, there’s a whole gigantic list of sites”
And you should watch Opération Lune. Maybe then you realize how easy it is to paint a conspiracy where none exists.
That American Chap: “same government that was planning to attack Afghanistan *before* 9/11 took place.”
C.S.: “No, shit for brains, they were doing business with Afghanistan…”
Actually, C.S., they may have been doing both.
Link
“Actually, C.S., they may have been doing both.”
I’m not surprised. Doing business with the people you are fighting is not a big deal considering the screw-ups in the past.
(It is important to note the plans discussed in that link are not the same as what actually happened. “Limited military action,” is not the same as regime change.)
On the other hand, the links are even less than convincing that the US needed 9/11 to attack Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Osama bin Ladden had attacked the U.S. before 9/11, in fact, he attacked the U.S.S. Cole less than a year before. And the US had fired cruise missles into Afghanistan in the past.
So to claim 9/11 was an inside job to start the war is a joke.