Slashdot Mirror

Voice of America has been trying to influence Russians (Soviets) for a very long time.

In the meantime, the Soviets/Russians have been trying to influence the US: From the Communist Party USA (founded in 1919) to Wikipedia edit-wars over MH17 in 2014, and of course, everyone's beloved "Russian Bots" that are responsible for everything from Trump's election to Global Warming and skin cancer.

This is called 'diplomacy', and all countries do it. When Merkel spoke publicly about the 2016 US elections, it was an attempt to influence the US population. When Obama opposed the Brexit, it was an attempt to influence the UK population.
It isn't anything new. So you need to suck it up and learn some history.

I couldn't cite any single source that would cover it. But, honestly, all you need to do is just look at a website of pretty much any socialist or communist party in US or Europe. For example:

http://www.cpusa.org/article/c...

http://en.die-linke.de/nc/news...

Thank you for "giving me the chance" to repost the link to my research that you never bothered to look for, and was sitting right there, out in the open for you to find, simply by looking at my original post.

You just tried to support the argument of one blog by ... linking to another blog. One was partisan on one particular issue, the other is simply partisan in its all-encompassing goal of defeating anyone with the wrong letter after their name.

Yet neither provides any factual information to support your earlier claim about global warming data.

Man, when you lefties don't want to understand something, you really go all out pretending not to see it.

I'd love to know how you can possibly imagine this conversation to somehow be supporting that claim. I have now multiple times asked you for factual information to back up your arguments and the best you have done - which is not in any reasonable approximation a qualifying reply to what I asked for - is to link to more partisan blogs.

Besides...communists being associated with unions is hardly a surprise at all, on any level; they are fundamentally communist organizations to begin with.

No, although that is the closest to a factual statement I have seen from you in this entire discussion. Actual Communism - as opposed to whatever strange nonfactual version of communism exists in your nightmares - indeed is about organizing workers in a revolution against the controllers of industry so that workers get a fare shake. The closest we have to that in this country is the labor unions, but they have very little power remaining in this country.

The Communist Party USA and the Socialist Party USA have both endorsed her.

The first half of your statement Is wrong and exists only in the conservative blogosphere. Intelligent people who actually read up on what happened here know that the CPUSA chairman gave a statement that he will vote for her, but never gave an endorsement of her on behalf of the CPUSA.

The second half of your statement is an outright lie, as Socialist Party USA has their own presidential / vice presidential candidates.

I'll say to you what I have said to other fact-lacking slashdot conservatives - there is plenty wrong with Hillary Clinton, why do you feel the need to spread lies about her? You could take a much more sound path by sticking to actual facts about her.

Bernie Sanders is a bona-fide Communist, actually — a prominent member of the Democratic Socialists of America. Complete with nationalizing means of production.

He may be talking about making America more like Scandinavia, but the end result would've been more like Venezuela.

Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for Hillary to "disown" and reject the Communist endorsement.

So can I. From here at the bottom end of Africa. I challenge you to name one site I cannot reach.

And, whilst you are about it, see if you can establish or join a communist party in the USA.
That is not a problem for the minority of folk down here who feel so inclined.

You mean like the Comunist Party USA or Worker's Party in America or Socialist's Party USA or maybe even the Green Party?
Our ballets are quite rich although the mainstream media and the incumbent Parties would have the World, including Americans, believe they have to chose between the Republicans and the Democrats.

try starting a Communist party in the USA (illegal)

I'd like to believe you're simply ignorant rather than intentially telling a falsehood. We don't ban political parties in the US. Granted, we haven't always lived up to that ideal, like the McCarthy-era witch hunts - perhaps that's what you're thinking of?

Try starting a Communist party in the USA (illegal)

O rly???

A law is on the books until it is repealed, but that doesn't make it enforceable. Even though the ruling of the federal district court in Arizona isn't binding outside that district, other federal courts are likely to reach the same conclusion for the same reasons. Has the Communist Party USA or any other peaceful Communist organization been prosecuted under this law outside Arizona in the four decades since the federal district court threw it out in Arizona?

In the United States Democrat (which generally means left) is socialist too - they just - with the exception of Bernie Sanders - avoid using the word socialism to describe their policies do to the backlash involved with that particular taboo. There's deep-seeded anti-socialism ideas here, which are being successfully dodged for the most part with word games due to the general lack of attention given to political things and real education versus test passing training in the general populace.

Here's a recent stumble from Hillary, there's older ones that are just as bad: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

The Communist Party USA generally and endorses Obama, even declining to submit their own candidate since they felt the base was covered: http://cpusa.org/

In truth the Republican party is somewhat socialist also, where the Democrats focus on "vote cattle" by using corrupt versions of social capitalistic cronyism to make low income people dependent on the system, Republicans manipulate people (including those in my own family) making a different version of vote cattle that uses corporate welfare to keep the companies they work for unrealistically profitable. They both do the same basic things, Democrats tend to focus on the under/unemployed, Republicans focus on the employed.

Which organization is that? You forgot to include the website this time.

Very sorry. I forgot to include the links too! I meant conservatives and liberals.

There are no left parties in the US.

You are one of the ignorant majority I see.

There seem to be one or more gaps between what you believe and what actually is. Unpopularity and non-existence are not the same.

"Left" parties do in fact exist in the US, more than one in fact. Here are a couple:

Communist Party USA
Revolutionary Communist Party, USA

And they work hard to move their agendas forward.

Communist Party USA: 'Working with the Democratic Party' is key

Thankfully there are few Americans that are given to this ideology which has proven so murderous over the last century.

The Black Book of Communism

Are there any liberal groups with this solution as part of their platform? Just curious....

LOL! Here ya go: http://www.cpusa.org/party-pro...

Please make your check payable to

Communist Party USA
235 West 23rd Street
New York, NY 10011

I thought it would be serious until I visited uselessd' site (http://uselessd.darknedgy.net) and saw such gem: "This has meant eradicating plenty of GNUisms" and GNUisms being a link to... USA's Communist Party (no, seriously: http://www.cpusa.org/).

...what passes for "left" in this country.

It isn't that they don't exist (CPUSA), but that most Americans aren't interested in that path.

Communist Party USA

A bad idea that never really caught on in the US, but it exists. There are plenty more like it.

I skimmed through your link and I would say that they are pretty lame for claiming to be a communist party. Their major points appear to be to stop racism and fight for gender equality. No reasonable person argues against those things. They claim to be revolutionary but the revolution they talk about is that of gathering a large voter base in a democratic republic.

That's the closest thing you get to "far left" here in the US; you probably won't find the Communist Party USA, or the Peace and Freedom Party, to be too far on the left by the standards of the rest of the world, either.

And, yes, the NY Times is well to the right of all three parties, so calling it "far left" is a sign of being so far right that just about anything to your left looks "far left".

"Socialist" is little more than a pejorative. I truly wish we had some genuine socialists in the US, not because I support their politics .... but because I appreciate their clarity.

Communist Party USA

(Not that I approve of their message, but they exist.)

then search sometime for "AM talk radio"

One station from Salem communications

If you like clarity, try Prager.

Whatever his deepest personal inclinations are, President Obama won an election, not a revolution. He has to govern within the existing structure, with another party in opposition, and conform to the existing rules. You would certainly be mistaken to think he isn't shifting things noticeably to the left within that framework. There really isn't any question about the politics of his former "green jobs czar," Van Jones, is there? And an interesting comment from his former press secretary, Anita Dunn. Early on in his campaign, there were a number of reports or interviews of his early supporters, and several of them that I saw had a similar motif in the wall coverings. Move along, nothing to see here, right?

I would also advise you to not make the mistake of thinking that the US does not have a genuine Left. Among others, the Communist Party USA would beg to differ with you. Since they have little open support, guess what many of the hard left do when they want to actually hold office? Tone down the rhetoric, declare themselves to be "progressives," and join a more moderate party than they would prefer. Once in office, incrementalism moves them towards their goals.

Everywhere in the wide world, Obama is a conservative moderate right. US does not have a "Left" side.

The Communist Party USA begs to differ with you that the US does not have a Left. There is just little support for it. President Obama won an election, not a revolution. He has to govern with the government that exists which greatly limits him. Obama is a leftist in a system with checks and balances. He would prefer to go further than he can.

The problem is that no one better ever had a chance of making it through the primaries. It's not like there was a better viable alternative.

Hillary Clinton could have run. She probably would have won the presidency as well.

The Communist Party USA begs to differ with you about the lack of an American Left. The American far Left exists, it just has little support.

There is no far left in American politics.

The Communist Party USA would beg to differ with you. They aren't successful in winning office, but they exist.

Obama is well to the right of most first world politicians, and in American context is somewhere around Reagan or Nixon.

Based on what? That he is fighting wars that were occurring when he came into office and that he governs with the existing government structure? Even communist nations fight to protect their people, and the US's NATO allies are fighting with it in Afghanistan. President Obama won an election, not a revolution. He is stuck governing with the government that exists. He is neither a Reagan or Nixon. He is clearly far left of Reagan. Functionally you may have an argument with Nixon, but Obama lacks many of Nixon's finer points with still keeping enemies lists woven in action with the Chicago way.

The extreme left of American politics, represented by Bernie Sanders and Elizibeth Warren would be centrists in any sane country.

Bernie Sanders is a self-proclaimed socialist. If socialist is the center, than you must be in at least Marxist-Leninist or Maoist territory for the left. Given the massive carnage such government have caused, and how few remain, I don't think "sane country" would do well if such a left were powerful.

There is in fact a genuine left in American politics, here is one example. The Left in the US regularly engages in various marches and protests. The hard Left in the US isn't very successful at the ballot box. Few Americans will vote for communists if they understand that is who is running. As a result it isn't that uncommon for the far left to mute their rhetoric and run as Democrats or otherwise engage with the Democratic party where "progressive" ideas are generally welcome.

The US has left-wing parties, including several communist parties. The difference is that few if any voters in the US will vote for them. Don't confuse lack of voter interest with non-existence of a political party.

Communist Party USA

And no, the democratic party is not hardcore right-wing. Unless there is wide agreement the American system effectively forces incrementalism.

The United States doesn't really have a left-wing party.

That is a mistaken idea commonly held by people without a strong understanding of the American political system and politics. The US does in fact have a full political spectrum from left to right, including real, honest to Lenin and Marx Communists , and Communist Party. (More than one, actually.) It even includes people who have been willing to go the Stalin or Pol Pot route (see below after reading the rest of this). The difference is that people in the United States generally won't vote for Communists if they understand that is who is running for office. That is why many on the hard left camouflage themselves by rhetorically moving to the center and refer to themselves as progressives, or some other label, to merge into the larger body of the moderate left. If they make it into government, they are forced to govern by incrementalism using ordinary political means since they gain office by votes, not by revolution.

When Emeritus Isn't Automatic

"I intend to vote against conferring the honorific title of our university to a man whose body of work includes a book dedicated in part to the man who murdered my father, Robert F. Kennedy. There can be no place in a democracy to celebrate political assassinations or to honor those who do so."

Who is BILL AYERS? (This page has link to download the Prarie Fire political manifesto referenced below.)

William Ayers says Weather Underground, Boston bombings not same

William Ayers' forgotten communist manifesto: Prairie Fire

We are a guerrilla organization. We are communist women and men, underground in the United States for more than four years. . . .

...We need a revolutionary communist party in order to lead the struggle, give coherence and direction to the fight, seize power and build a new society.

And more....

The Weather Underground openly discussed exterminating 25 million Americans who refused to be "re-educated" into communism...

... I bought up the subject of what's going to happen after we take over the government. We, we become responsible, then, for administrating, you know, 250 million people.

And there was no answers. No one had given any thought to economics; how are you going to clothe and feed these people.

The only thing that I could get, was that they expected that the Cubans and the North Vietnamese and Chinese and the Russians would all want to occupy different portions of the United States.

They also believed that their immediate responsibility would be to protect against what they called the counter-revolution. And they felt that this counter-revolution could best be guarded against by creating and establishing re-education centers in the southwest, where we would take all the people who needed to be re-educated into the new way of thinking and teach them... how things were going to be.

I asked, well, what's going to happen to those people that we can't re-educate; that are die-hard capitalists. And the reply was that they'd have to be eliminated. And when I pursued this further, they estimated that they would have to eliminate 25 million people in these re-education centers. And when I say eliminate, I mean kill. 25 million people.

I want you to imagine sitting in a room with 25 people, most of which have graduate degrees from Columbia and other well known educational centers, and hear them figuring out the logistics for the elimination of 2

Left? the US doesn't have a left. it has a right and far right.

That is a mistaken idea commonly held by people without a strong understanding of the American political system and politics. The US does in fact have a full political spectrum from left to right, including real, honest to Lenin and Marx Communists , and Communist Party. (More than one, actually.) It even includes people who have been willing to go the Stalin or Pol Pot route (see below after reading the rest of this). The difference is that people in the United States generally won't vote for Communists if they understand that is who is running for office. That is why many on the hard left camouflage themselves by rhetorically moving to the center and refer to themselves as progressives, or some other label, to merge into the larger body of the moderate left. If they make it into government, they are forced to govern by incrementalism using ordinary political means since they gain office by votes, not by revolution.

William Ayers' forgotten communist manifesto: Prairie Fire

We are a guerrilla organization. We are communist women and men, underground in the United States for more than four years. . . .

...We need a revolutionary communist party in order to lead the struggle, give coherence and direction to the fight, seize power and build a new society.

And more....

The Weather Underground openly discussed exterminating 25 million Americans who refused to be "re-educated" into communism...

... I bought up the subject of what's going to happen after we take over the government. We, we become responsible, then, for administrating, you know, 250 million people.

And there was no answers. No one had given any thought to economics; how are you going to clothe and feed these people.

The only thing that I could get, was that they expected that the Cubans and the North Vietnamese and Chinese and the Russians would all want to occupy different portions of the United States.

They also believed that their immediate responsibility would be to protect against what they called the counter-revolution. And they felt that this counter-revolution could best be guarded against by creating and establishing re-education centers in the southwest, where we would take all the people who needed to be re-educated into the new way of thinking and teach them... how things were going to be.

I asked, well, what's going to happen to those people that we can't re-educate; that are die-hard capitalists. And the reply was that they'd have to be eliminated. And when I pursued this further, they estimated that they would have to eliminate 25 million people in these re-education centers. And when I say eliminate, I mean kill. 25 million people.

I want you to imagine sitting in a room with 25 people, most of which have graduate degrees from Columbia and other well known educational centers, and hear them figuring out the logistics for the elimination of 25 million people.

Who is BILL AYERS?

William Ayers says Weather Underground, Boston bombings not same

In the US there are no left wing parties.
As an example, "socialist" can be used as an insult there.
From the outside, all US politicians are right wing (meaning that they are not for wealth redistribution or any other left wing concept). It's not that hard to change from strongly conservative to not that strongly conservative.

I think you mean there are no really viable ones, due in large part to common sense. Or call it "lack of traction" if you want to be more polite, or call it "ineffective leadership" if you don't. To me that last one is a direct appear to common sense to not support someone who is ineffective at their job.

Socialist Party of USA: http://socialistparty-usa.net/
Communist Party USA: http://www.cpusa.org/

Here's the current active list:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_parties_in_the_United_States#Party_comparisons

Here's the current full list:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_United_States

Mindless garbage, unless you think the communist party of Texas ( http://tx.cpusa.org/) can't define socialism.

Workers get treated better when the workers own the factory. Vote Communist Party in 2012!

Zero understanding of concepts, terms, philosophy, and facts....or

You are deliberately trying to mislead.

Now, some Republicans ( not conservatives as that is not necessarily the same thing) such as McCain, Lugar, Gramnesty, are just about as socialist/marxist as the Democrats have become. So I'll only partly dispute that.

But you are totally in error and expose yourself by claiming the Tea Party folk are Communists. The principles of the Tea Party and Communists are direct opposites. Meanwhile, you cannot tell the difference between the Democrat platform and the Communist party platform. See http://www.cpusa.org/

I'm calling bullshit. If you're going to post an ignorant comment, you might want to google first just to keep from looking like a complete and utter moron.

In the USA it's illegal to be communist.

Oh, really? You'd better inform these guys, then: http://cpusa.org/

I believe you have your correlation and causation mixed up sir. Areas with high minority populations tend to be, for a number of historical reasons, lower income. Lower income areas tend to have more cause for abortions due to high rates of prostitution, less availability of birth control (the pill ,morning after or otherwise, not being affordable) higher rates of risky behavior like drug abuse and unprotected sex and less ability to afford a child should they accidentally get pregnant. So it makes perfect logical sense for those areas to be more likely to have abortion clinics.

Even so, the fact that high minority populations exist in them doesn't stray from the idea that it can be viewed as in the original comment, a way of controlling the less evolved species. Just substitute the race on the whole with the lesser people and you have the same effects.

Please remember, I'm not citing this as a reason for the existance today, I'm stating that it was involved in the creation. Margret Sanger was highly involed and motivated in Eugenics. This was the prime philosophy that lead to Hitlers idea of the final solution in Mime Camp (and no, this is fact, not a Godwin comparison moment). She was at least intelligent enough to not get involved in Euthanasia based around the Eugenic views. And yes, A core of the Eugenics movement at the time was that different races of people evolved differently and some were superior to others.

urthermore, abortion clinics aren't necessarily government run so they exists where ever the demand is perceived to exist. Oh, and as for communism. By definition communism would actually remove our current government system, putting a few people in control and screwing the rest of the party so it's HIGHLY unlikely that any party is supporting it.

First, I never attempted to state that Abortion Clinics were government run. They are however supported largely by grants and donations so it's not really a demand issue as much as it is an effectiveness of service issue.

Your acting like the idea is that people want the abortion clinics and birth control not that people were convinced through propaganda to kill their offspring and suppress their gene pool in society. This concept BTW, is exactly why aids is such a problem in Africa, they see the attempts at birth control and protection from spreading the disease as an attempt to force their genes out of the gene pool and destroying them as a people. Instead, they look to myths like sexual intercourse with a virgin will cure you as a crackpot remedy.

But this is little more then a distraction to the point I was attempting to make. What motivated the start of it and the associations of those who were involved with it doesn't mean its still reflective as operated today. In today, it's more of a second change at making something of life thing without the burden of parenthood while being unprepared. Again, the point is that something can take on an entirely new o0bjective or purpose in life without remaining tied to the previous motives.

Second, I didn't say that any party supported communism, and I didn't limit it to just communism. Socialism was in there too. I did say that some in the party supported socialism and communism though. By some, I guess I could have clarified that as meaning Some people but not all of them or the party itself.

Now there is a party that does support communism in America openly. This roots of this party is primarily why the US in general sees communism as a bad idea and why some left the party and hid within other parties. The Communist party in America attempted to organize the overthrow of the US government and install a dictator and institute communism in the form of

Really.... There's little in common with the JBS or KKK in the "Tea Party" though they've gravitated to that bunch because they've more in common with the "Tea Party" than anything else out there. That doesn't make them anything like it. However...

In regards to your remarks about the Democrats not having anything to do with the American Communist Party...

Democratic Socialists of America
Young Democratic Socialists

As said of the founder of the DSA: "Throughout his life, Harrington simultaneously embraced the thinking of Karl Marx while at the same time rejecting the "actually existing" Communist systems of the Soviet Union, China, and Eastern Europe."

You can't embrace the thinking of Marx without really ending up being a Marxist- all the "actually existing" systems are variations on the theme.

The Communist Party USA

We already know this bunch, you mention them outright...

The Movement for a Democratic Society (MDS)

This is a unifying organization that represents a unified front for orgs such as DSA, CPUSA, etc. and is comprised of members of these other organizations.

Now, where am I going with this, you might ask...

These very much Communist/Marxist organizations, work within the Democratic Party to get their way on things.

http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/5317/mobilized_in_motor_city/
http://mds-austin.pbworks.com/ (look for the Democratic Party Convention notes...)

There's more if you dig, but the claim that the Dems have Marxists and Communists in their make up and in their midst is an accurate one, unlike the one you made. MDS was directly involved with Obama's getting elected, has been directly involved with Democrat Party platform policies for years, and in the end, if you look at just what has been going on in this country for the last TWO years, there's been this move to try to make this country Marxist in nature, in spite of what the Constitution says on some of the actions taken.

Denying there's an influence there that permeates the organization is about like saying that the Republicans, Tea Party, or Libertarians are all members of the KKK or JBS. Neither of which is true. It is no better than saying the Dems have all the Communists there- not true either, but with the case of the leadership of the Democratic party, it IS the case if you do a bit of digging.

or a P, or C

Socialism will meet the needs of the great majority of our people and lay the basis for solving our social, economic and environmental problems.

Now tell me, do you personally as an American trust government to meet the great majority of your needs? I could be wrong, but I don't think many people would say yes.

The whole dichotomy between left and right is so flawed that it is more a tool used to divide us than anything meaningful. For example, I favor government that works: I don't care if healthcare becomes state-run or remains independent as long as the more serious problems are fixed. I don't care if gays get married or do anything else they want, as long as it's not hurting other people. I do favor freedom to use guns, and all other basic freedoms. I do think we should help people who need help, whether with a welfare program or some weird faith-based initiative like Bush was pushing, I don't care, as long as it works.

A lot of people don't fit into the left-right mold, and breaking into teams only serves to help those who want us to be fighting (ie. politicians who are always looking for a reason why you should vote against the other guy). Don't give in to their manipulation, instead favor government that works.

TM Repository is officially the saddest, most pathetic website I've ever seen: A tiny community of people who get together just to snark at Linux propaganda. It's like setting up a site to mock the CPUSA.

http://www.cpusa.org/ Leaving in a communist country doesn't prevent from beeing capitalist... And actually... china is getting to be the most capitalist country :P

Is this the "Hope" and "Change" you voted for? No? Too bad liberals. You supported a person who was endorsed by the communist party of the United States You voted for it, and you got it. It just sucks that the rest of us independent thinking persons who value liberty got stuck with the communist also.

Because under a socialist government everyone gets paid the exact same averaged dollar amount per year regardless of what job they do and how good/efficient they are at it right? No one is advocating that kind of system, not even the real socialists nutcases.

What you described is not socialism or socialist policy and it's intellectually dishonest to call it so.

Here in Canada we have a Communist party. In the US it is illegal.

O RLY?.

"Obama did say that I agree with is that there's 'no government program that can replace an involved parent.'"

Unless they are homeschooling, or want to use their portion of tax dollars to send their kids to a different school. That's *too* involved. Unless they don't feel it appropriate for their kids to attend Pre-K. They shouldn't be too comfortable raising their own kids when Big Brother can do it in a much more socially responsible manner.

"you have to stop encouraging the creationists and other similar anti-science people"

People can practice their religion, but only if it doesn't conflict with my beliefs. When they send their kids to school, we should tell them that their God is false and that he did not create the world, and that their Holy Book was a fabrication by very dead conspirators. In the name of furthering Science, of course.

"sending only the smart kids to college and giving the non-smart ones jobs appropriate to their abilities"

So now *we* send kids to college? Funny, I thought that it was there decision whether to take out loans and go to school. Reminds me of another system that used to tell people what their careers would be.

"most of that money just sits in the bank/market for decades"

You realize that money doesn't "sit" anywhere unless it is in your mattress? It gets loaned out, invested, and used. You hope to get more back than you had when you started. Even a basic savings account provides others with the ability to take out mortgages and such, open businesses, etc. But those are bad things. After all, we can just have the government employ everyone to get the things that need to be done, done. To each, according to his need. Right?

"We need someone who can recognize that we might be #2, #5 or #9 in 20 years' time and learn to live alongside everyone else."

We are not nearly as good as we think we are. It's someone else's turn to run the world. Someone with a better track record, like India or China.

"Until costs really get bad"

Yeah. They will get better when everyone is a guaranteed payer of a large medical bill every year (enforced medicare, whose costs are already crushing budgets in our communities, despite being so "efficient")

It seems to me you might be interested in switching parties. Take a look at CP USA - seems they share your platform:

http://www.cpusa.org/article/static/511/#question29

Before you go off on the fact that I am calling you a communist, please realize that you are slapping the label on yourself. In fact, I will go so far as to say that you know your own proclivities, and are just not labelling them to submarine those "Capitalist overlords".

I got modded down for pointing out that Colin Powell made a 1 hour speech of known lies to the UN to make our case for going to war with Iraq? I guess now that he endorsed Obama he must be a great guy again!

That speech he gave was from a paper written by a post-graduate student in 1990. He and others knew it but he gave the speech anyway. Without that speech there would have been a lot more people against the war from the beginning.

It really is too bad I didn't make i to a +5 troll. that would have made my day :)

The Ron Paul campaign was never really about Ron Paul becoming president. If you can't see what is is all about, you are probably still voting Democrat or Republican.

Here's what the Ron Paul campaign is about:

It is a two party system, that's it. Other parties cannot get into the nationally televised debates, and their views are never heard. Even if the law states that third party candidates must be allowed into the debates, the third parties are left out. Look at the Arizona debates last presidential election (2004). The Libertarians and the Green Party took it too court. In Arizona if you are on the ballot, you must be included in any debates. The judge told them they had presented the case too late, although the case was presented an entire two weeks before the debates.

So the system has forced a Libertarian to claim he is a Republican. This is nothing new. Other parties have been doing this for decades. Socialism and Communism infiltrated both parties a long time ago. Everything about Hillary is Communism. If you don't believe it, go to the Communist Party's web-page and read their agenda. http://www.cpusa.org/article/static/758/ I'm not saying if this is good or bad. I am just using it as an example.

So you see, the Ron Paul campaign isn't about Ron Paul becoming president. It's about letting people hear other ideas, and getting their gears turning in that direction, and in that respect, the Ron Paul campaign has had much better success than anyone could have ever expected.

Once you see how the system really works, you might stop taking the evening news seriously, maybe even turn the news off. Then with a clear mind you will probably do your own research, and vote for an idea not a party. Then you might vote for what you want instead of voting against what you fear. Basically you will develop independent thinking, grow a spine and vote for the candidate you really want.

Of course, Ron Paul will deny all this, but he has to. After all he is a Republican, not a Libertarian. Libertarians don't get any national coverage at all. Zippo, Nada, Zilch! (Are those real words?)

Not that it makes a damn bit of difference, but I should point out that the USA also has an "active communist party".

(how often do you hear people in the USA discussing the pro's of Communism or Islamic extremism?).

Every single day in the USA. Ever heard of the Communist Party or the Socialist Party? Ever notice how many different mosques there are in the USA, of which several DO condone violence?

Maybe YOU need to do a little historic research before you hit the Submit button.

Considering that Republicans are the ones pushing the racist bills, yes. (And before you say anything about affirmative action, go read about the Bakke case.)

Notice that the KKK publically supported Bush in the 2004 election

Oh great somebody is offering to give money away to anyone who pretends to be the AC who made the GP post! Well I (who just happen to be the GP poster, really) would like it very much if you would make a donation to this site: http://www.cpusa.org/donate

Fortunately, there are still some people willing to stand-up for the little guy. We have to stop these corporations from hijacking the Web. INFORMATION WANTS TO BE FREE!

What is communsim?
CPUSA

What is communism?
CPUSA