oki, i have a question concerning Mr. Paul

DriftingByTheStorm

godpt3 wrote:

I believe it's far easier to play the victim and blame everyone but yourself. You know, there's really not that much different between you and Jesse Jackson.


It's the same with the effort to legalize pot. You guys would rather talk the talk than put forth the effort and walk the walk.

You don't think that 80 PLUS % of America bases their decision to vote on who they see on TV the most looking all "presidential"?
Ron Paul has been undeniably squelched from the media.

You want to deny that he has received unfair coverage?

godpt3

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

You don't think that 80 PLUS % of America bases their decision to vote on who they see on TV the most looking all "presidential"?
Ron Paul has been undeniably squelched from the media.

You yourself admitted that RP wasn't a very good public speaker. don't blame the media for that one.

ledvedderman

Were we really just complaining about the election process in WYOMING?!?!?!

The reason Paul isn't on the media more is because he isn't as well known. That's one thing that all the tier one candidates have going for them. However, if you want to talk about candidates that haven't been given a fair shake in the media you should talk about Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo (when he was in the race).

I've seen 10X the coverage for Ron Paul then I did for either one of those. Is that fair?

DriftingByTheStorm

ledvedderman wrote:

However, if you want to talk about candidates that haven't been given a fair shake in the media you should talk about Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo (when he was in the race).

I've seen 10X the coverage for Ron Paul then I did for either one of those. Is that fair?

Lol.
I guess i agree in sentiment.

But Ron Paul had recieved millions upon millions in spontaneous grassroots funding at the point with which he received ANY substantive coverage, and that is the ONLY reason they gave it to him.

BEYOND that, the reason they covered the fundraising was because they could use the Guy Fawkes slogan to CRUCIFY him! "Fundraiser in recognition of a terrorist!" and then just use that raised awareness to skewer the guy in what remaining VERY MINIMAL coverage you give him.

And honestly,
respective of their poll numbers and lack of fundraising, Tancredo and Hunter received similar coverage, AND in most of the early debates received AS MUCH or MORE debate answer time!

True.

jlew24asu

ledvedderman wrote:

Were we really just complaining about the election process in WYOMING?!?!?!

The reason Paul isn't on the media more is because he isn't as well known. That's one thing that all the tier one candidates have going for them. However, if you want to talk about candidates that haven't been given a fair shake in the media you should talk about Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo (when he was in the race).

I've seen 10X the coverage for Ron Paul then I did for either one of those. Is that fair?

I try to follow this race as much as I can and I have never even heard of duncan. tom maybe.

paul gets his coverage and still doesnt move in the polls.

hell, he was on the news for days when he had that record fundraising day. it didnt really make a difference.

prism

melodious wrote:

I am watching the news in the a.m. and hear about the Republican gathering in Michigan...I notice that there is no mention of Ron Paul as a prospect. If the Repubs are keeping him out of the debates, then how is the rest of Amerika supposed to familiarize with him. Not everyone reads the internet for information purposes...Should one become a "troll" and infiltrate "mom and Pops" websites to make the voting population more familiar (whether it be about ron paul or information concerning vaccinations)...I have tried this once before--going to places to put out information where it was not welcomed...(i feel like it's disturbing other's peace, these days..)

Most people spend all their time watching mainstream media, and if info is not fed concerning Mr. Paul, then how will these people have an exposure when their options are being withheld..

I did notice flyers posted around my community promoting him...but will this be enough?...

How does this work, if a person is not recognized "officially" by their party and yet wants to run in an election. I hope I am making sense.

here's what you have to do to get the word out about Ron Paul in 6 easy steps:


step 1) Go to the store and buy a bunch of tin-foil

step 2) Go home and make thousands (heck why not make it millions) of hats out of that tin foil

step 3) Get a big sharpie and write "Why, oh why, won't anyone listen to the nonsense coming from Ron Paul?" and on the other side write "I have a hard-on for Ron Paul!" on every one of the hats

step 4) Go down to a busy local street corner and hand out the hats

step 5) Make sure to get video of you doing all of this and post it on youtube

step 6) Congratulate yourself for being another hero that is getting out the message on what Ron Paul really is all about!

DriftingByTheStorm

prism wrote:

here's what you have to do to get the word out about Ron Paul in 6 easy steps:


step 1) Go to the store and buy a bunch of tin-foil

step 2) Go home and make thousands (heck why not make it millions) of hats out of that tin foil

step 3) Get a big sharpie and write "Why, oh why, won't anyone listen to the nonsense coming from Ron Paul?" and on the other side write "I have a hard-on for Ron Paul!" on every one of the hats

step 4) Go down to a busy local street corner and hand out the hats

step 5) Make sure to get video of you doing all of this and post it on youtube

step 6) Congratulate yourself for being another hero that is getting out the message on what Ron Paul really is all about!

So, of all pauls profoundly wise recommendations regarding American policy, which of them, specificaly do you find to be lacking in validity?

I'm guessing its one about "dem terr'ists"?

Or you really think prudent fiscal policy is an absurdity?

godpt3

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

Or you really think prudent fiscal policy is an absurdity?

Eviscerating the Federal Reserve is NOT prudent. It's just stupid.

DriftingByTheStorm

godpt3 wrote:

Eviscerating the Federal Reserve is NOT prudent. It's just stupid.

Stupid,

or you mean that it would cause a lot of problems?

I believe it is very wise policy that would require a great deal of short term hardship for the country.

But the next 5 years of inflation will cause massive, broad spread and longterm suffering for everyone.

The dollar is about to be below 70 on the index.
That means it only has 70% of its value since the SEVENTIES. Not since the Fed started in 1918 ... in that case, the index number would be like a THREE.

That doesn't scare anyone?

godpt3

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

Stupid,
or you mean that it would cause a lot of problems?

You're basically turning the entire country's infrastructure into one giant unfunded mandate. You wipe your hands and say "not my problem. Let the states deal with it." And because state legislatures are inherently brain damaged, then your entire system collapses in a mass of collapsed bridges, leaking nuclear facilities and crumbling roads.

That's not just stupid. It's irresponsible.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

godpt3 wrote:

10%. Put up or shut up.

I've come to the conclusion you're really fucking wierd...

But I mean that in a nice way...

macgyver06

melodious wrote:

I am watching the news in the a.m. and hear about the Republican gathering in Michigan...I notice that there is no mention of Ron Paul as a prospect. If the Repubs are keeping him out of the debates, then how is the rest of Amerika supposed to familiarize with him. Not everyone reads the internet for information purposes...Should one become a "troll" and infiltrate "mom and Pops" websites to make the voting population more familiar (whether it be about ron paul or information concerning vaccinations)...I have tried this once before--going to places to put out information where it was not welcomed...(i feel like it's disturbing other's peace, these days..)

Most people spend all their time watching mainstream media, and if info is not fed concerning Mr. Paul, then how will these people have an exposure when their options are being withheld..

I did notice flyers posted around my community promoting him...but will this be enough?...

How does this work, if a person is not recognized "officially" by their party and yet wants to run in an election. I hope I am making sense.

there is no place for new ideas in this system when it is ruled by the mega rich....why would they want change? the candidates taking money from corporations care about one thing and one thing only....staying in a position of power... and they willlll doooo anything to obtain it and sustain it...

JamMastaE

Ron Paul is not a whore,he isn't in Israel's back pocket,he isn't on any global corporations/military industrial complexes payroll.he isn't controlled by the globalists.

this sham election process bullshit is totally manipulated by these same people and is nothing but theater.
then the public (sheeple) opinion is crafted by soulless lying media douche bags feeding you dis-information.

so even though he may be "republican" he is a bird of a different feather,that's why they don't wanna give him any air time for fear he may break the trance they worked so hard to put you in.


and THAT is the real answer to your question.

granparocks

jeez, you ron paul folks sounds like such conspiracy theorists. most americans believe they aren't controlled, so they don't want to listen to that kind of stuff. and when someone hears that someone like you is condescending enough to tell them they are just pawns being played in the game, and that you alone have the answer of truth...well, it just seems trite.

paul gets - about - as much coverage on CNN as richardson did, as thompson does. and that = very little cause people don't really support them.

one final thought of mine - i don't vote/support a politician because i agree with everything they say. just like the smartest person in the office shouldn't necessarily be the manager. it's about who can lead. who can bring people together, create some positive vibes, some change, and not fuck up. it's called the american deliberative system. it's why, though i support much of what kucinich stands for, i don't support him. he can do great things, but not as chief executive.

i don't think i'm alone here.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

granparocks wrote:

jeez, you ron paul folks sounds like such conspiracy theorists. most americans believe they aren't controlled

Most average people in general have no idea how things really work around them, or who owns and controls what.

granparocks

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Most average people in general have no idea how things really work around them, or who owns and controls what.

what about me? i consider myself pretty well informed and realistic. but you consider me an average american who just falls for the latest schtick government commercial. i understand you aren't *necessarily* addressing me explicitly in your post, but you are arguing the point i made before, which includes people like me.

i mean, condescending is a polite word for these attitudes.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

granparocks wrote:

what about me? i consider myself pretty well informed and realistic. but you consider me an average american who just falls for the latest schtick government commercial. i understand you aren't *necessarily* addressing me explicitly in your post, but you are arguing the point i made before, which includes people like me.

i mean, condescending is a polite word for these attitudes.

I'm just looking at who owns what, and how they're connected, and who's making the money, and where it's all coming from....and who it's all going to.

Pretty standard stuff.

granparocks

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

I'm just looking at who owns what, and how they're connected, and who's making the money, and where it's all coming from....and who it's all going to.

Pretty standard stuff.

i definitately appreciate the questioning, and the challenge to the authoritative structure that the people with the money have set in place.

however, what if i happen to agree, fundamentally, with a candidate, whether it be clinton or obama, regardless of the money spent. do you accept that i could have an opinion that was not bought by the omniprescent, all-knowing, media?"

melodious

granparocks wrote:

jeez, you ron paul folks sounds like such conspiracy theorists. most americans believe they aren't controlled, so they don't want to listen to that kind of stuff. and when someone hears that someone like you is condescending enough to tell them they are just pawns being played in the game, and that you alone have the answer of truth...well, it just seems trite.

paul gets - about - as much coverage on CNN as richardson did, as thompson does. and that = very little cause people don't really support them.

one final thought of mine - i don't vote/support a politician because i agree with everything they say. just like the smartest person in the office shouldn't necessarily be the manager. it's about who can lead. who can bring people together, create some positive vibes, some change, and not fuck up. it's called the american deliberative system. it's why, though i support much of what kucinich stands for, i don't support him. he can do great things, but not as chief executive.

i don't think i'm alone here.

omy gosh, hi granpa...i would say that people forget their business theory when it concerns a political office.

it's not too far in the distant pass to bring up schwarzneiger's campaign that gave him califiornia...

honestly, i wish that mr. paul will be nominated for the repub party. i do think this man could make changes...i also don't understand why the republican party wouldn't want to side with a candidate that appeals to all parties.

mr. paul seems to have gained alot of favor from many of the communities i visit. i hope he does get a nomination, for the sake of our people...

i truly pray that our leaders of our localities, states, and countries have guidance by our Spirit Guide and start doing what is right as opposed to what makes $ and opens doors at the bank..

when it all boils down, the power that Be will have the final say...

i have not really decided if i am gonna make that stroll to the ballot box...(i usually do though, even though i resist.)

i can only hope that people will truly read and research each measure and each candidate's voting record...

for instance find out if your candidates support or discount principles that make a difference in your life...

macgyver: i used to think that many of my countrypeople are sheep thinkers and yes there is a large portion of people who like to be milk fed, information; but the interaction here and at many other message boards has brought me to eat my words and humble my closed and premise based mindset. i have always thought if we could take out the corporate influence in voting, that the people would be represented...

unfortunately, capitalizm is our king and the united states is set up a bit like old rome...it's not a matter of if the system falls apart, but more so when...

thanks for your time and energy, MT community...xox

Skitch Patterson

a thought i had about ron paul.
He has railed against the president essentially violating the constitution by sending troops without a decleration of war/congressional approval for a decleration....

as president, wouldnt he need congressional support and approval to remove all the troops FROM Iraq? Assuming he didnt get the approval to do so, wouldnt he be left with 2 options... Going against his campaign promise (and main point of his platform) and Not bringing them back immediately, or just doing it without approval- which would be the same violation that bothered him so much about Bush?

The fact is, even if Paul manages to pull out a victory, he will need to work within the system to bring the troops home, or dismantle the federal reserve- and with more "standard" politicians in the house and senate, there is absolutely no way he will be able to accomplish the things he has promised.