"Ron Paul Is Sole Dissenter From Resolution Supporting Iranian Protests"

[Chris Grieb]

It is precisely because Ron Paul is right on some many issues that he should be disagreed with when he is wrong. He was wrong on the Orange Revolution in Ukraine and it looks like he will be wrong on Iran. I am delighted Dr. Paul is in the House and on many issues admire him greatly.

Gulch; I just haven't checked my brain like you have.

Michael,

If that remark isn't against your rules of behavior and decorum it should be! It is one thing to suggest that someone "check your premises" and quite another to say, "I just haven't checked my brain like you have."

At times like this I wish we still lived in the age of dueling as I would call you out!

www.campaignforliberty.com 22Jun 5PM 163,886

gulch

Gulch; Why don't we tie our arms together and go after each other with bowie knives. If you don't want to attacked don't post items you disagree with.. If you can't the heat get the F out of the kitchen. I don't like you. You are dishonest and evil on many issues.

Michael; I will not reply but I will not back down to this piece of S.

[galtgulch]

Gulch,

That was Chris, not me...

Michael

Michael,

I know it wasn't you. I was drawing your attention to the way Chris was using your forum by attacking me.

gulch

www.campaignforliberty.com 22Jun 7PM 163,922, 9PM 164,004

Edited June 23, 2009 by galtgulch

[galtgulch]

Gulch; Why don't we tie our arms together and go after each other with bowie knives. If you don't want to attacked don't post items you disagree with.. If you can't the heat get the F out of the kitchen. I don't like you. You are dishonest and evil on many issues.

Michael; I will not reply but I will not back down to this piece of S.

Chris,

You have never endeared yourself to me. What makes you think I care whether you like me or not?

Are you in the habit of considering people to be evil if you disagree with them on an issue?

If I want to post articles with which I disagree I have every right to do so. I will endeavor to indicate that if I do.

Pleasant dreams.

www.campaignforliberty.com 22 Jun 9PM 164,008; 23 Jun 5PM 164,371

gulch

Edited June 23, 2009 by galtgulch

[Brant Gaede]

Is Ron Paul channeling Neville Chamberlain?

When FDR called for a declaration of war against Japan, there was one dissenting vote in Congress. Was that Ron Paul or his Spirit Guide?

There is something more important than Liberty. And that is killing our enemies.

Revenge first, then later liberty -- maybe. That is what Ron Paul does not get.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Thanks Ba'al:

I did not know that there was one negative vote and it is no surprise that the budding progressive pacifist voted against WW I also.

"December 8, 1941

Jeanette Rankin casts sole vote against WWII

On this day, Montanan Jeanette Rankin, the first woman elected to Congress and a dedicated lifelong pacifist, casts the sole Congressional vote against the U.S. declaration of war on Japan. She was the only member of Congress to vote against U.S. involvement in both World Wars, having been among those who voted against American entry into World War I nearly a quarter of a century earlier.

Rankin was a committed pacifist, and she cared little about the damage her beliefs caused her political career. Although some male representatives joined her in voting against World War I in 1917, many citizens saw her vote as evidence that a woman could not handle the difficult burdens of national leadership. Perhaps as a result, Montanans voted her out of office two years later. Ironically, Rankin won re-election to the House in 1940, just in time to face another vote on war.

While her commitment to pacifism was politically harmful during World War I, Rankin knew that in the case of World War II, it would be downright suicidal. The surprise Japanese attack on the U.S. military base at Pearl Harbor was devastating, and zeal for revenge was at a fever pitch. The vast majority of Americans supported President Roosevelt's call for a declaration of war.

Rankin, however, believed that Roosevelt deliberately provoked the Japanese to attack because he wanted to bring the U.S. into the European war against Germany; she was determined not to cooperate with the president's plan. After a 40-minute debate on the floor of the House, a roll call vote began. When her turn came, Rankin stood and said, "As a woman, I can't go to war and I refuse to send anyone else."

When news of Rankin's vote reached the crowd gathered outside the capitol, some patriots threatened to attack the Montana congresswoman, and police escorted her out of the building. Rankin was vilified in the press, accused of disloyalty, and called "Japanette Rankin," among other impolite names. She stood her ground, however, and never apologized for her vote.

When her term neared completion two years later, Rankin was certain she would not win re-election and chose not to run again. She continued to be an active advocate for pacifism, and led a campaign against the Vietnam War in 1968 when she was 87 years old."

Adam

I think she has some kind of monument in Missoula, MT. For her WWI vote she should have been given a pass on her WWII vote. I don't admire her for the second and I do not admire Ron Paul's cheap and gratuitous publicity seeking.

--Brant

Edited June 23, 2009 by Brant Gaede

[Chris Grieb]

On Gulch I have in David Kelley's words "Better things to do."

[Dennis Edwall]

Brant: "I think she has some kind of monument in Missoula, MT. "

I don't know about Missoula, but I do know about Helena: I was just there two weeks ago, and happened to tour the Capitol building there. In it is a full-size statue of Jeanette Rankin prominently displayed.

[Reidy]

The title of this thread is getting closer and closer to being the literal truth. He, Obama and the incumbent Iranian government are pretty much the only people in the world willing to look the other way.

[Selene]

Here is the statue of the crazy bitch.

http://www.avoc.info/info/article.php?article=474

Adam

[DavidMcK]

Michael, I've noticed a clear lack of civility many times in discussions over many topics. People on this web site are suppose to exemplify rationality, and sometimes you see it and sometimes you don't. Do you think that part of your job as the web site master is to make sure that the discussion is on point without ad hominem attacks?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

David,

This looks like it is going to get a lot better...

Michael

[galtgulch]

The title of this thread is getting closer and closer to being the literal truth. He, Obama and the incumbent Iranian government are pretty much the only people in the world willing to look the other way.

Obama is saying that the people of Iran should determine the government they want. Well they did but the election was a complete flagrant farce. We are expected to believe that 40,000,000 paper ballots were counted in less than two hours. Then the Supreme Leader has the audacity to claim that the regime would not lie about that. How i wish that Obama or Ron Paul mentioned those simple facts to the media. The existing regime is a theocracy which has organized a goon squad to intimidate, beat, arrest and kill protesters. The government has the weapons and the citizens have only their courage, their desire for more freedom and rocks to throw at the "militia."

Unfortunately America is too broke and its military too depleted to take a stand against the theocratic regime in power. We might consider arming the protesters to help them overthrow their tyrannical government. If we were to do that we could include copies of our Constitution and Bill of Prohibitions along with the assault rifles and ammo.

www.campaignforliberty.com 23 Jun 6 PM 164,371, 9PM 164,419

gulch

Edited June 24, 2009 by galtgulch

[Selene]

Gulch:

Your statement is:

"Well they did but the election was a complete flagrant farce.

We are expected to believe that 40,000,000 paper ballots were counted in less than two hours."

Is it possible that we do not even know what went on in polling places during the election?

Is it possible that they counted the ballots every hour to see if they had to turn out more voters, you know the way

they work in Chicago?

Let me explain something to you Gulch. If I am running a campaign and I have the names of each voter who voted by 7:00 Am, 8 AM etc.

and I match it against who we have identified as "our voter" I will know the results before the polls close, unless it is too close to call.

If we turned out our voters at a 95% clip which any organization I run must achieve and the total public vote in that E.D. is x, simple math will tell me we will win by 12% 4% etc.

Do you know, because I do not, whether they can vote by absentee ballot in Iran?

Therefore, what we do know is that we have no clue as to what the total vote was and how the vote was counted.

Adam

[galtgulch]

Gulch:

Your statement is:

"Well they did but the election was a complete flagrant farce.

We are expected to believe that 40,000,000 paper ballots were counted in less than two hours."

Is it possible that we do not even know what went on in polling places during the election?

Is it possible that they counted the ballots every hour to see if they had to turn out more voters, you know the way

they work in Chicago?

Let me explain something to you Gulch. If I am running a campaign and I have the names of each voter who voted by 7:00 Am, 8 AM etc.

and I match it against who we have identified as "our voter" I will know the results before the polls close, unless it is too close to call.

If we turned out our voters at a 95% clip which any organization I run must achieve and the total public vote in that E.D. is x, simple math will tell me we will win by 12% 4% etc.

Do you know, because I do not, whether they can vote by absentee ballot in Iran?

Therefore, what we do know is that we have no clue as to what the total vote was and how the vote was counted.

Adam

Adam,

I watched a delightful youtube video of George H. Smith, the author of Atheism: The Case Against God, and his dog, Herbert, named after Herbert Spencer, who, yes the dog, wanted to vote for Ron Paul. But they live in a small town in Illinois where dogs aren't allowed to vote. So Smith said he intended to take Herbert up to Chicago, where dogs do have a right to vote so that Herbert could vote for Ron Paul.

Here is the link and notice that the music is from The Fountainhead!:

I mention that because we all know that Chicago has years of experience with the voting thing. I am reminded of an American expatriot who lives in South America who intended to request that he be buried, after he dies, back in his home town of Chicago so that he can continue to exercise his right to vote for eternity after his death.

Somehow I find it hard to believe that the Iranians have mastered the art of counting votes as they are cast as you suggest. I am sure you have experience doing that as you claim but given that the Iranians are kind of new to the democratic process I don't think they kept a running tally. I may be simple minded when it comes to worldly matters but despite their cunning and guile and their mastery of creating nuclear material imported from North Korea and the fact that their ancestors created arithmetic I don't believe they counted 40,000,000 ballots as they were cast in all the voting stations and compiled them to get the sum in the two hours they claim when they announced the winner.

They said the Islamic leadership would not lie but I think that is exactly what they did. These are people who are willing to kill anyone who stands up to them or is an innocent bystander. They enlisted a goon squad to beat protesters. Do you consider they are a legitimate leadership after watching what they have endorsed? Reminds me of Kent State, Ruby Ridge, the Draft Law!

www.campaignforliberty.com 23 Jun 10 PM 164,422; 24 Jun 3 AM 164,462, 9PM 164,621

Here is the link to a 7 minute interview of Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) on the need to audit of the Federal Reserve on Glenn Beck Show: Beck mentions the "regal presidency" in it as well.

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/index.php

gulch

Edited June 25, 2009 by galtgulch

[Selene]

Gulch:

Waco, the aerial bombing of the mid western Black Wall Street. Yes, Gulch the country is not perfect. Understood.

However, this moron marxist occupying the Presidency responded as ineptly as possible. He is an embarrassment.

Now, Sarkosy

Iranian internet user stumps Obama

Posted: 23 Jun 2009 01:15 PM PDT

At his press conference today, President Obama, in a pre-arranged move, invited a reporter from the Huffington Post to ask a question submitted by one of the Iranians with whom that reporter has been communicating via the internet. The reporter, Nico Pitney, transmitted this question:

Under which conditions would you accept the election of Ahmadinejad? And if you do accept it without any significant changes in the conditions there, isn't that a betrayal of -- of what the demonstrators there are working to achieve?

What a terrific question -- a query that not one in a thousand American journalists could be expected to match -- and kudos to Pitney for selecting it. The question elegantly but pointedly (1) refutes the suggestion of Obama's apologists that the president helps the protesters by remaining above the fray while (2) reminding Obama that he cannot really remain above the fray in any event because he must eventually accept the election of Ahmadinejad by dealing with him as planned or reject that fraudulently reached outcome by changing his course.

The president could only bob and weave. He responded that the U.S. did not have observers on the ground and therefore could not know whether the election was legitimate. But the U.S. knows that the candidates were pre-screened by the regime, making the election inherently illegitimate.

He responded further that it is up to the Iranian people, not the U.S., to view the election as legitimate or not. But a portion, and probably very large portion, of the Iranian people has already decided that the election is not legitimate; yet the "result" will stand and Ahmadinejad will serve another term. Thus, the ball is now in the Obama administration's court to treat the election as legitimate, by dealing with Ahmadinejad even as he represses his own people, or to demur.

The question thus stands unanswered by Obama, though it answers itself: if Obama treats Ahmadinejad as the legitimate leader of Iran in the absence of significant changes in conditions there, that would indeed constitute a betrayal of what the demonstrators are working to achieve.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kiPhPyoicf8

In terms of the elections:

Wiki -

"Blogger and statistician Nate Silver on June 13 wrote that a statistical analysis of the official results was ultimately inconclusive as far as determining that there was election fraud.[100][101] On June 15, Silver posted regional results that he had received from a student of Iranian Studies at the University of St Andrews, who had translated them from the original Farsi. He compared Ahmadinejad's 2009 results with the conservative candidates' results in the first round of the 2005 election (Ahmadinejad, Larijani and Ghalibaf), and found the results from certain provinces to be suspicious. While conservative candidates in Lorestān received only 20% in 2005, Ahmadinejad reportedly got 71% in 2009. In Tehran, on the other hand, the conservative vote was relatively speaking lower than in the previous election. Silver further compared the votes for Ahmadinejad only, and found the correlation between 2005 and 2009 to be "fairly weak". He did, however, warn against differences between the two elections and changes over time, and declined to make a judgment on the validity of the official result.[102] Silver disagrees with claims that the mere size of the alleged fraud makes it unlikely, explaining that the lack of election monitors means that actual ballots did not need to be faked and hence fraud "is simply a matter of changing numbers on a spreadsheet."[103]"

And, also from wiki:

"Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett, CEO of STRATEGA, argue that:

Ahmadinejad got almost the same percentage of votes in this election as in the 2005 election where he received 61.69% and no claims of fraud were put forward. They further suggest that the shock over the result is "self-generated" and due to "wishful thinking". They also point out that Ahmadinejad was seen by most Iranians as having won the nationally televised debates, especially the one with Mousavi. The Leveretts state that the notion that a high turnout would favor Mousavi is based on nothing more than assumptions.

In response to the claim by some experts that Mousavi was more likely to have won in the Azeri majority provinces because of his Azeri background, they point out that Ahmadinejad speaks fluent Azeri as a result of his eight years of service as an official in two Azeri-majority provinces and that he during his campaigning quoted Azeri and Turkish poetry. The criticism made by Mousavi that some precincts had run out of ballot paper and some polls were not open long enough, could not in themselves have tipped the outcome so clearly in Ahmadinejad's favor, according to the Leveretts."

The section above tells me that the election was not rigged.

For example, let's look at the overseas results:

Overseas results

"A total of 234,812 votes were cast outside Iran, out of which Mahmoud Ahmadinejad won 78,300; Mehdi Karroubi won 4,647; Mohsen Rezaei won 3,635 and Mir-Hossein Mousavi won 111,792 votes (Press TV)."

So. assuming that these voters would be least exposed to threats, Mousavi barely got to 49% of the vote cast!

Adam

[Selene]

Folks:

Dr. Paul, September 26, 2011 on Stewart. It is an excellent interview...closing with Stewart thanking Dr. Paul for being the last of the consistent politicians.

http://youtu.be/tcrybSxF_Vg

This is an amazing thread, especially post # 63 with George H. Smith and his dog.

There are some excellent discussions and conflicts that populate this wonderful forum.

Additionally, it is fascinating to see how we were approaching politics back then and compare it to now.

Adam