Re: POLITICS My Ron 2008 Endorsement

[Guest guest]

Haecklers,

> I don't like Ron much either, tho he is better than some, but

> why do you think he's so heartless? You keep saying it without any

> substantiation.

Ancient? No, not ancient? :-)

> Is it because as a libertarian he'd like to give

> large corporations free rein to do as they'd like and remove some of

> the laws that keep us safe?

What libertarian materials have you been reading? Certainly the folks

over at Lew Rockwell which house most of Dr. 's articles, are not

interested in giving corporations free rein to do as they like and

harm people.

And as is usually the case in these kind of statements, they too are

interested in safety. They just think safety comes about in a

different way than you do. So it does no good to automatically assume,

as you do, that your approach to safety is correct or even works and

therefore anybody who has another approach is therefore against

safety.

> Because he's actively anti-

> environmentalism

What does it mean to be " actively anti-environmentalism " ?

> and believes global climate change is a hoax?

If by this you mean he thinks the global warmers are wrong, then sure,

and he is not alone.

> Because he's endorsed by the Birch Society

They do? About time they wised up, LOL!

> and hates communists

> and socialists?

You surely mean hates communism and socialism? Or are you saying he

hates *people* who are communists and hates *people* who are

socialists?

> Or because groups the KKK supports, support him?

The KKK as well? You have some support for that? Wow, maybe they are

starting to depart from their evil ways? More power to them!

Now if only the Democrats would oust that former KKKer and " wise man

of the Senate " from office, Byrd.

On why he would never serve in a desegregated military:

Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in

the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours

become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen

from the wilds. "

--

" Who loves not women, wine and song remains a fool his whole life long. "

Luther

[Guest guest]

On 7/28/07, Suze Fisher <s.fisher22@...> wrote:

> Huh, perhaps the On The Issues website was trying to skew his stance on

> abortion by only including the 2003 rating.

Maybe the votes they show is random actually. Look at the votes they

select for Kucinich, a number of which are anti-abortion, and then

they select a NARAL rating of 100%, and say it " indicates a pro-choice

voting record. " LOL.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Dennis_Kucinich.htm

I wonder if they always choose the 2003 NARAL rating, or if they just

pick the rating that is best for liberal candidates and worst for

conservatives? I'm not too familiar with the site.

Chris

[Guest guest]

On 7/28/07, Ancient Eyeball Recipe <implode7@...> wrote:

> > He is nevertheless the only bona fide anti-war candidate with any

> > credibility as an anti-war candidate.

> Kucinich? And I don't consider him a serious anti-war candidate if his

> politics preclude any sensible person from voting for him.

Sorry I wasn't thinking of Kucinich. Kucinich and then -- any

others who voted against the war to begin with and are for bringing

the troops home?

Chris

[Guest guest]

Ancient,

> > Well, to tell you the truth, I didn¹t know too much about him until Chris

> > ³endorsed² him, at which point I figured that he must be pretty bad.

LOL!

Where is Rodney King when you need him?

> I hadn¹t

> > paid much attention to him previously because, after all, he¹s affiliated

> > himself with the Republicans, and I view the statement, Œhe¹s a Republican,

> > but his politics are very good¹ as somewhat equivalent to Œhe¹s a member of

> > the Nazi party but his politics are very good¹. We choose who we affiliate

> > with for a reason.

In his case, to win and remain in Congress. That is just political

reality. Just as I would run as a Democrat if I ran for Congress from

my home district. To do otherwise would be political suicide. I'd be

the Dr. No of the left and he would remain the Dr. No of the right. As

it is the Republicans generally can't stand him.

One of the great moments in recent American politics was when Ron

stuck it to the Republicans during the candidates debate regarding the

war on Iraq. They all went apoplectic, especially the evil (and yes I

mean that) Rudy Guiliani. Talking about speaking truth to power!

That was one of the finest moments in American politics since the days

when a supporter of Clarence during his senate confirmation

hearings told Metzenbaum to screw himself for trying to place

him kissing a white women in the back room of his office by the

copier. Metzenbaum fell apart because he had no substantiation and the

Democrats quietly silenced him for the rest of the hearing. Then

silenced the rest of those jokers by telling them he had no

intention of kowtowing to a high tech lynching designed to put uppity

black folks in their place.

" ...as far as I'm concerned, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity

blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for

themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message that unless

you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you. You will

be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the US Senate

rather than hung from a tree. "

> > In the brief time that I researched him, I didn¹t uncover some of the stuff

> > that you mention below (which if true is rather disturbing), but simply

that

> > he just strikes me as an EXTREME survival of the fittest,

Really, and yet he has delivered babies for free his entire medical

career? That really doesn't square with what you said above. He seems

to be helping two groups of people who aren't the fittest for survival

on their own, especially innocent babies who have no ability

whatsoever to do for themselves.

> freedom for all of

> > the wrong reasons,

and what are the right reasons?

> anti-abortion,

Hi position is more nuanced than what you suggest, but yes he is very

pro-life and as I noted earlier, puts his money where his mouth is.

> anti-gay,

You mean legally or personally? I know legally he believes the gov't

should get out of the business of relationships altogether. I can't

imagine any more freedom than that for any voluntary union.

> anti-U.N.,

Good for him!

> anti-income tax.

So that young woman who couldn't afford a doctor can keep more of her

money to take care of that newborn baby he just delivered for free?

Sounds like a win/win to me.

> Let

> > the rich rule everything and let¹s call it freedom.

All of the above is really just code for " he doesn't agree with Gene "

so gosh darnit he MUST be extreme, LOL!

> > A VERY dangerous candidate, and while his views on Iraq, and the PATRIOT

act,

> > etc, seem on the surface to be courageous in the context of Congress, they

are

> > borne of the kind of courage that comes from crazy right wing extremism.

Psychologize someone you disagree with so that even if they take the

" right " position it is still for the wrong reason? This is what the

philosophers call " operationally meaningless, " for it means you refuse

to accept any evidence, logical or empirical, that might prove your

contention wrong. " Yeah he is right on this position but only because

he's got the crazy courage of a right wing extremist! " That's nonsense

but there is certainly good precedence for it. The radical feminists

do it all the time to women who don't accept their premises, only they

call those women " brainwashed " .

--

" Who loves not women, wine and song remains a fool his whole life long. "

Luther

[Guest guest]

haecklers

> I haven't read all of Ron 's views yet either, when I got the the

> part that he hates environmentalists I kind of stopped right there.

Where is the part he hates environmentalists? Could you please post it?

> Maybe I overgeneralized because the libertarians I know believe that

> government should stay out of the affairs of business,

Thats funny. Libertarians are usually pilloried as the people who

believe in vices, i.e. let people do what they want personally, like

snort cocaine or smoke pot, as long as they don't harm anyone else in

the process. While the term is somewhat fungible these days, generally

speaking libertarians are both for personal and economic freedom.

While the major parties, at least rhetorically, favor one or the

other, although neither do in actual practice.

> like not stop

> them from using their economic power to get monopolies because they

> believe the market will prevent it somehow.

Well there is *much* historical evidence that is exactly what happens.

Standard Oil is the premier example, bringing order to a dangerous

marketplace, lowering prices, and losing lots of market share long

before they were broken up by the gov't.

" Standard Oil was such an extraordinarily efficient company that even

Rockefeller's harshest journalistic critic, Ida Tarbell, described it

as " a marvelous example of economy. " The efficiencies of economies of

scale and vertical integration caused the price of refined petroleum

to fall from over 30 cents per gallon in 1869 to 10 cents by 1874, and

to 5.9 cents in 1897. During the same period Rockefeller reduced his

average costs from 3 cents to 0.29 cents per gallon.

" The industry's output of refined petroleum increased rapidly

throughout this period--just the opposite of what mainstream monopoly

theory would predict. In 1911, the year in which the federal

government forced the breakup of Standard Oil, the company faced

fierce competition from Associated Oil and Gas, Texaco, Gulf, and 147

other independent refineries. Because of this competition Standard

Oil's market share fell from 88 percent in 1890 to a mere 11 percent

by 1911. "

The Gates-Rockefeller Myth

http://www.mises.org/story/388

> They also told me

> (libertarians, not Ron ) that we don't need the FDA, USDA, EPA or

> any other government regulatory agency because nonprofits like

> Consumer Reports will spring up to fill the gap to keep us safe from

> toxins in our food or unsafe additives or toxic additives in our

> clothing, cleaners, etc.

It is a fact that what keeps us safe in innumerable areas is the

private market, and then the gov't borrows from them or usurps the

process for themselves.

Besides it is a stretch to think those alphabet soup agencies you

mention above are protecting " us "

The War On Good Food

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/miles2.html

Abolish the FDA

http://www.lewrockwell.com/grichar/grichar17.html

What Keeps Us Safe

http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=193

Were American Indians Really Environmentalists?

http://www.mises.org/story/2642

> Americans will somehow wake up out of their

> fog and start caring and boycotting all the coroporations that

> pollute or poison their customers. Sounds to me like a nice way to

> allow businesses to keep more of their profits and stop following

> even the weak protections we have now.

>

> By the way, a foreigner told me yesterday that many other countries

> know that the US inspects seafood very much less than other countries

> do, so if there is a batch of fish that's likely to be " off " they'll

> send it here.

At the moment, sounds like a gov't failure to me. What then do you see

as the answer?

> Personally, I think that a false dichotomy has been made

> between " capitalism " at one extreme and " facism " at the other, when

> really people should be seeing that there can be a facist capitalist

> state, just as surely as there can be a democratic socialist state.

Hunh. Well without parsing your statement, libertarians make the

distinction all the time between state capitalism of any sort

(including what we have in this country), which they oppose, and true

freedom.

> Indeed, the extremes of capitalism seem to be driving a lot of the

> spread of facism while the extremes of democracy are pushing toward

> more socialist states, with land reforms, better childcare and

> healthcare, more environmental reforms, etc. Unfortunately when

> there are land reforms and countries grab for control of their own

> resources to keep the profits out of foreign investor's hands, the

> capitalists often exert their influence to bring about a shift toward

> facism.

Ron 's approach to foreign policy would solve a number of these

kind of issues.

--

" Who loves not women, wine and song remains a fool his whole life long. "

Luther

[Guest guest]

Ancient,

> > Well, I don¹t see anything wrong with my reasoning, and it really boils down

> > to something pretty simple:

> > If you publicly endorse a pig....

Uh-Oh. Evolution is in trouble.

[Guest guest]

>

> That was one of the finest moments in American politics since the days

> when a supporter of Clarence during his senate confirmation

> hearings told Metzenbaum to screw himself for trying to place

> him kissing a white women in the back room of his office by the

> copier. Metzenbaum fell apart because he had no substantiation and the

> Democrats quietly silenced him for the rest of the hearing. Then

> silenced the rest of those jokers by telling them he had no

> intention of kowtowing to a high tech lynching designed to put uppity

> black folks in their place.

>

> " ...as far as I'm concerned, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity

> blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for

> themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message that unless

> you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you. You will

> be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the US Senate

> rather than hung from a tree. "

>

I have little interest in taking time out of the time that I have with my

synthesizers and sequencers, to debate with a bunch of libertarian fanatics.

However, the notion that trying to derail Clarence was racist is so

ludicrous that I don't know what to say. Clarence silenced no one,

and if you can spout gibberish like this and simultaneously talk about how

wonderful a country people like Ron would give us, I can just hope that

most of the sensible people on this list would rightfully lump you in with

the Christian zealots who bubble up here from time to time.

[Guest guest]

IMHO, I would like to see a real debate between Ron and Dennis

Kucinich. I believe a real dialogue between these ideas would go a long way

in solving real problems.

Buy as a realist, I believe we all just be getting more of the same from the

same old same old. maybe a change of color but no substance.

Gee, look how hard the FDA is watching out for us with our own food and

imports, and labeling the country of origin.(or not). Lotta talk about

China, and nothing on the American distributors who profit and hide who they

are.

Peace

Ed Kasper LAc. & family

www.HappyHerbalist.com

[Guest guest]

Ancient,

> > That was one of the finest moments in American politics since the days

> > when a supporter of Clarence during his senate confirmation

> > hearings told Metzenbaum to screw himself for trying to place

> > him kissing a white women in the back room of his office by the

> > copier. Metzenbaum fell apart because he had no substantiation and the

> > Democrats quietly silenced him for the rest of the hearing. Then

> > silenced the rest of those jokers by telling them he had no

> > intention of kowtowing to a high tech lynching designed to put uppity

> > black folks in their place.

> >

> > " ...as far as I'm concerned, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity

> > blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for

> > themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message that unless

> > you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you. You will

> > be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the US Senate

> > rather than hung from a tree. "

> >

>

> I have little interest in taking time out of the time that I have with my

> synthesizers and sequencers, to debate with a bunch of libertarian fanatics.

There you go...name calling again :-)

> However, the notion that trying to derail Clarence was racist is so

> ludicrous that I don't know what to say.

right...cuz it is just so self evident that it was otherwise that

anyone who sees it differently than you has got to be a looney tune,

LOL

> Clarence silenced no one,

Apparently he did. Metzenbaum went awol, and Ted Kennedy was no where

to be found during the hearing.

> and if you can spout gibberish like this

You have been around long enough to know my posts are full of

gibberish, especially when they disagree with you. But that was a

quote from Clarence , not me.

> and simultaneously talk about how

> wonderful a country people like Ron would give us,

I don't know what kind of country Ron would give us, since we are

not Imperial Rome (though someone should tell W. Caesar) and

have never expressed an opinion as to what his election would mean for

this country cuz frankly I don't know.

> I can just hope that

> most of the sensible people on this list would rightfully lump you in with

> the Christian zealots who bubble up here from time to time.

Not sure how Clarence fits into the Christian thing, but I

think the Christian zealots are here to balance the anti-Christian

zealotry you often bring to the table (wait, Ron is...ah...oh

no...Christian...hmmmm...naw...surely that has nothing....naw...bad

thought).

I think the karmic balance of the universe demands it.

--

" Who loves not women, wine and song remains a fool his whole life long. "

Luther

[Guest guest]

>> >

>> >

>> >

>>> >> However, the notion that trying to derail Clarence was racist is

so

>>> >> ludicrous that I don't know what to say.

>> >

>> > right...cuz it is just so self evident that it was otherwise that

>> > anyone who sees it differently than you has got to be a looney tune,

>> > LOL

>

> Well, yeah ­ I do think that it is self evident that Clarence was

> chosen as a nominee to play that particular race card ­ that if he were

> opposed because he was an unqualified, extremist candidate, they could call it

> racism.

>> >

>>> >> Clarence silenced no one,

>> >

>> > Apparently he did. Metzenbaum went awol, and Ted Kennedy was no where

>> > to be found during the hearing.

>

> Well, the democrats are always wimps....but I don¹t think that this was the

> cause and effect, i.e. that the power of ¹ words just shut them up. Kind

> of funny...

>

>> >

>>> >> and if you can spout gibberish like this

>> >

>> > You have been around long enough to know my posts are full of

>> > gibberish, especially when they disagree with you. But that was a

>> > quote from Clarence , not me.

>

> Of course I know that. That doesn¹t mean that both it and what you say isn¹t

> gibberish, logically.

> ...

>> >

>> > Not sure how Clarence fits into the Christian thing, but I

>> > think the Christian zealots are here to balance the anti-Christian

>> > zealotry you often bring to the table (wait, Ron is...ah...oh

>> > no...Christian...hmmmm...naw...surely that has nothing....naw...bad

>> > thought).

>> >

>

> Ah ­ I can see that you like to be consistently silly, but I have NEVER said

> anything anti-Christian on this list. You might read what I¹ve said a little

> more carefully.

[Guest guest]

>

>

> > Because he's actively anti-

> > environmentalism

>

> What does it mean to be " actively anti-environmentalism " ?

It WAS on his own website, but I just checked and obviously his

handlers have had him clean it up quite a bit. So the REAL Ron

is being hidden to make him more appealing to the general majority of

voters, I guess.

After first Clinton then Bush, the environmental programs have been

gutted. Obeying anti-pollution laws now are more voluntary than

mandatory, and giant companies (I could name a few but it's

priveledged information) are getting ready to abandon sites that

could be considered super fund sites and just leave them. There's

nobody left to stop them. Cancer rates are skyrocketing, and it's

not all just poor nutrition, a lot of it is exposure to more toxins

than the body can eliminate. I don't want to watch my kids die of

cancer because nobody is regulating pollution anymore.

[Guest guest]

As a neat woman I used to work with said, " Opinions is like noses,

everyone has one " .

I would hope you'd take some time to look into what Dennis Kucinich

has been doing, since everything I read leaves me more impressed.

Like his taking an hour of the Senate's time to educate them about

the confidential documents he's studied that say the US won't pull

out of Iraq until they sign over the vast majority of their oil to

the control of foreign investors, yes, 80% of the existing and

undeveloped oil fields. Wonder who the foreign investors are?

Or how our government is now funding the same groups they used to

target as terrorists, to get them to destabilize the government of

Iran, because so far the American public can't get behind another

invasion over there.

Since your guy is much more likely to win than mine, I sure do hope

you're right!

The problem I see with endless debate is people's minds become more

closed as they dig them selves deeper into their " side " . Not really

enlightening, but then again that's also just an opinion.

>> Ron 's approach to foreign policy would solve a number of these

> kind of issues.

>

>

> --

> " Who loves not women, wine and song remains a fool his whole life

long. "

> Luther

>

[Guest guest]

Renate,

> It WAS on his own website, but I just checked and obviously his

> handlers have had him clean it up quite a bit. So the REAL Ron

> is being hidden to make him more appealing to the general majority of

> voters, I guess.

I have no idea what they have or have not removed from

www.ronpaul2008.com, but here are 13 years worth of Ron 's

articles from which I'm sure nothing has been removed:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul-arch.html

I watched the Google video and it seemed he was pretty straightforward

about his stance on the environment. If anything has been removed

from his web site recently, you should be able to search on Google and

then click on " cache " to get the frozen-in-time version of the page

and that way you could substantiate your assertion if there is any

merit to it.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Renate,

> It WAS on his own website, but I just checked and obviously his

> handlers have had him clean it up quite a bit. So the REAL Ron

> is being hidden to make him more appealing to the general majority of

> voters, I guess.

I don't know what web site you are referring to, but his official

campaign site, www.ronpaul2008.com, turns up nothing for " environment "

or " environmentalism, " on Google, which means he hasn't had anything

for that keyword in months, because if they just removed it, it would

be cached on Google, which keeps snapshots of web site pages for

months.

I find it rather difficult to believe that he would be dishonest about

a stance that you claim is anti-environmentalist while he is trying to

win the Republican nomination. If he were to take the typical

dishonest political strategy, he would emphasize his supposed

anti-environment position now, and then eliminate it from his web site

once he gets the nomination and he starts appealing to the general

population.

If he were to tame his positions to get ahead, he would be taming his

anti-war position to win the Republican nomination! Instead he is

doing this:

And they just say to him, " Why are you even running for this party?

What's wrong with you? " And they cheer.

Chris

[Guest guest]

On 7/29/07, Masterjohn <chrismasterjohn@...> wrote:

> If he were to tame his positions to get ahead, he would be taming his

> anti-war position to win the Republican nomination! Instead he is

> doing this:

>

>

>

> And they just say to him, " Why are you even running for this party?

> What's wrong with you? " And they cheer.

" Republicans are scared to death to face up to the truth and my job is

to make them face up to it. "

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPHVuM_QRLY & NR=1

Chris

[Guest guest]

On 7/28/07, Marc <wmupton@...> wrote:

> Collectivism = Slavery = Evil

I disagree. I think collectivism is superior to individualism.

However, I do not see Ron 's stance as being pro-individualism.

Rather, his stance allows people the liberty to choose to participate

voluntarily in individualism, collectivism, or, as most people do, an

amalgamation of both.

Chris

[Guest guest]

I wade into this with hesitation, because I usually delete these things

sight unseen.

That said, I have to say that on the Republican side there's only one

candidate I could support, and that's Dr . He's a small-L

libertarian--a common-sense libertarian, not a " sell the park service "

kind of libertarian. He's that rarest of Republicans, or Democrats,

that really is interested in the common man, not the corporations. I'm

registered Democrat, and I call myself a libertarian Democrat:

Government is rarely the best solution, but when it is, it must work in

the interests of the people.

If Dr got the nomination I'd vote for him, as much as I despise

the Republican party as a whole.

Lynn S.

who, on the Democratic side, supports as the least evil

------

Mama, homeschooler, writer, activist, spinner & knitter

For feminist homemakers: http://www.thenewhomemaker.com

NOTICE: The National Security Agency may have read this email without

warning, warrant, or notice.

[Guest guest]

>> >

>> >

>> >

>> >

>> > I wade into this with hesitation, because I usually delete these things

>> > sight unseen.

>> >

>> > That said, I have to say that on the Republican side there's only one

>> > candidate I could support, and that's Dr . He's a small-L

>> > libertarian--a common-sense libertarian, not a " sell the park service "

>> > kind of libertarian. He's that rarest of Republicans, or Democrats,

>> > that really is interested in the common man, not the corporations. I'm

>> > registered Democrat, and I call myself a libertarian Democrat:

>> > Government is rarely the best solution, but when it is, it must work in

>> > the interests of the people.

>> >

>> > If Dr got the nomination I'd vote for him, as much as I despise

>> > the Republican party as a whole.

>> >

>> > Lynn S.

>> > who, on the Democratic side, supports as the least evil

>> >

As far as I can tell he is against raising the minimum wage, and is rated

rather poorly on labor issues. He is against colleges considering race and

sex in admissions. He¹s voted yes on restricting bankruptcy rules. Voted yes

on making Bush tax cuts permanent.

Yes ­ he¹s really interested in the common man.

[Guest guest]

I beleive very strongly in the right to choose the way I want to

feed my family -- including raising my own livestock without

government interference and being able to buy vitamins and minerals

over-the-counter. I do not want to have to carry my " papers " to

cross a state line. I do not want the federal government dealing in

things that the constitution never allowed. Ron is the only

one running for president that has voted against NAIS, the Real ID

act, UN treaties (like Codex), and any other legislation that goes

against our constitution. Yes, he is a pro-life Christian, but he

believes the abortion issue is a STATE issue, not a FEDERAL issue.

He belives in a real free-market society, not one where the

government props up industries that cannot make it on their own at

the expense of the " little guy " . And if the government quit

protecting the polluters, the free market would force industries

to " clean up their acts " . You and I would actually have a voice by

how we spent our money.

Listen to Ron himself and look at his voting record. Make your

decision an informed one. I, along with many other dissatisfied,

freedom-loving Americans, am JOYFULLY voting in my primary for RON

PAUL! I might add that we are a group of Republicans, Democrats,

conservatives, liberals, libertarians, constitutionalists,

Christians, Atheists, and others. The message of FREEDOM pulls

people together, as opposed politics as usual that divide.

Maggie in TN

[Guest guest]

On 7/29/07, Lynn Siprelle <lynn@...> wrote:

> If Dr got the nomination I'd vote for him, as much as I despise

> the Republican party as a whole.

I am not enrolled in a political party but I will certainly be

temporarily enrolling as a Republican to vote for Ron in the

primary.

Chris

[Guest guest]

> Yes – he’s really interested in the common man.

Compared to the average corporatist, yes, he is.

Lynn S.

------

Mama, homeschooler, writer, activist, spinner & knitter

For feminist homemakers: http://www.thenewhomemaker.com

NOTICE: The National Security Agency may have read this email without

warning, warrant, or notice.

[Guest guest]

I don't understand how you do the " cache " thing. I'm on his web

site right now and don't see a Google search field for his site, just

the regular Google search field in the upper right header bar right up

near the edge.

On Jul 29, 2007, at 1:26 PM, Masterjohn wrote:

> I don't know what web site you are referring to, but his official

> campaign site, www.ronpaul2008.com, turns up nothing for " environment "

> or " environmentalism, " on Google, which means he hasn't had anything

> for that keyword in months, because if they just removed it, it would

> be cached on Google, which keeps snapshots of web site pages for

> months.

Parashis

artpages@...

zine:

artpagesonline.com

portfolio:

http://www.artpagesonline.com/EPportfolio/000portfolio.html

[Guest guest]

On Jul 29, 2007, at 6:20 PM, Parashis wrote:

> I don't understand how you do the " cache " thing. I'm on his web

> site right now and don't see a Google search field for his site, just

> the regular Google search field in the upper right header bar right up

> near the edge.

It's not on his website. Go straight to Google itself. On almost all

Google results you'll see the term " cached " in light blue letters. If

you click on it you'll see what Google saw the last time it looked at

the page.

Lynn S.

------

Mama, homeschooler, writer, activist, spinner & knitter

For feminist homemakers: http://www.thenewhomemaker.com

NOTICE: The National Security Agency may have read this email without

warning, warrant, or notice.

[Guest guest]

On 7/29/07, Parashis <artpages@...> wrote:

> I don't understand how you do the " cache " thing. I'm on his web

> site right now and don't see a Google search field for his site, just

> the regular Google search field in the upper right header bar right up

> near the edge.

No I mean through Google. If you search for something in Google, and

it has been recently deleted, it will still turn up. If you click on

the main link, it will say " page not found " or something like that,

but under it will be a smaller link that says " cache " and this will

give you a frozen snapshot of the page from when it was first indexed.

You can limit a search to a given web site in google by putting in

" site:website.com [search term] " and it will only give you results

from that web site. Do not put in the www or the http, but just the

domain name.

For example:

site:ronpaul2008.com environment

If there are any such pages, they will turn up. If they've been

recently deleted, they will still turn up, and you will be able to

click on " cache " for the particular result and look at the page as it

existed before it was deleted. The same is true if the page has been

recently modified.

Chris

[Guest guest]

> I don't know what web site you are referring to, but his official

> campaign site, www.ronpaul2008.com, turns up nothing for " environment "

> or " environmentalism, " on Google, which means he hasn't had anything

> for that keyword in months, because if they just removed it, it would

> be cached on Google, which keeps snapshots of web site pages for

> months.

Well, this is not necessarily the case for the keyword nor for the

cached version. The website is probably updated pretty regularly.

Keywords come from meta tags or the actual page. They are indexed by

Google's robots regularly and do not represent a historical account,

as they change as the site changes, content and all. The cached

version Google has is just one day, whatever day it is, where they

show an older version. They do not show all older versions of his

site, and in fact, as of the writing of this message (which may not

get posted for a time since for some reason I am on moderation still)

at a bit after 7pm CDT Sunday, July, 29, 2007, the cached version

Googled sported was yesterday's. So Renate may well have seen

something that has since been removed that Google will not keep track

of indefinitely. And it certainly in not, as you state in a later

message, reflective of the " original " site. Hardly.

Deanna