Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Mainsteam Media - Only 3 Left?

Posted 2 years ago on Feb. 17, 2012, 9:56 a.m. EST by asauti (-113) from Port Orchard, WA
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

There are four candidates still in the running to unseat the current president in the 2012 election. However, when watching television news, reading newspapers and/or examining the websites of the mainstream media, one would likely believe there are only three: Gingrich, Romney, and Santorum.

The mainstream media is giving Nearly Zero attention to Ron Paul.

Why is that? Why, for example, is it not Gingrich that is garnering such a minute amount of attention? After all, he is the "most behind" in the cumulative results of the states who have been polled. Yet, his name and photo continue to appear in many mainstream articles about the election.

Strange.

When viewing independent journalist websites and user-generated media, such as YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter, one finds that Ron Paul is quite popular among "The People". His campaign contributions are made up by small donations from individuals across the country - not corporations. And with all of these small donations, he has been able to raise a lot of capital, allowing him to stay in the race far longer than other competitors.

But the mainstream media is turning a "blind eye" to his "Message of Freedom". Very strange, indeed.

147 Comments

147 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 5 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

My favorite RonPaul Speech.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjuUWr9vaXo

It is the one the establishment Republicans and Democrats spin to call him an isolationist.

[-] 1 points by lyn123 (123) 2 years ago

He speaks the real truth but Americans will continue to justify their fear and stupidity. "The quest for Empire eventually destroys ALL great nations". History presents the same story...same outcome every time. Our military is a continual source of diminishing influence. We can't afford it and we refuse to pay it back. Just a matter of time. Sit back and enjoy the show!

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

""The quest for Empire eventually destroys ALL great nations".

Great Briton is still around

way too large a generalization for my tastes

[-] 1 points by freakyfriday (179) 2 years ago

Yea it is, but the sun now sets on it! Hardly an empire any more.

[-] 1 points by lyn123 (123) 2 years ago

http://deathandtaxesposter.com/

Facts are stubborn as they say. Take a look at this poster. It presents some very harsh realities about where our priorities lie. Perhaps when or if you ever get drafted, you would feel differently. I'm not saying we should not protect ourselves but when does this protection begin to harm our whole existence and economic system. We are there. Like it or not.

[-] 1 points by asauti (-113) from Port Orchard, WA 2 years ago

Yes, a great one, indeed!

I'll be voting for Ron Paul this year, just like I did in 2008, when I had to write him in. Hopefully this time around it will be a "checking of a box".

[-] -1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

Nader gave us the Iraq war – deregulation – halliburton - alito - roberts etc etc etc etc
Just think of the fun America will have if you vote for another third party candidate!
President Bain Romney ! ……… and more scalia clones like thomas
or President Cotton Mather Santorum and more christian dictatorship

You gotta believe –
………….the only ones who don’t want you to vote Democratic-
…………………………………………………………………….are the tea potty !

You remember “George-yellowcake”.
You remember “ Dick-Iam not a crook”.
You remember “Ronnie-I don’t remember my treasonous acts”.
Now we have “Ron-I don’t remember my disgusting newletters”.

@--> A 1992 passage from the Ron Paul Political Report about the Los Angeles riots read, “Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks.” Another Paul newsletter asserted that people with AIDS should not be allowed to eat in restaurants because “AIDS can be transmitted by saliva”;

@--> In 1990 one of Ron Paul’s publications criticized Ronald Reagan for having gone along with the creation of the federal holiday honoring the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., which it called “Hate Whitey Day.”

@--> Ron Paul’s newsletter called Barbara Jordan, the African-American Texas congresswoman, a “half-educated victimologist” and said of crime in Washington, D.C., “I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.”

@--> ”If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be." - Ron Paul, 1992

@--> "Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." - Ron Paul, 1992

@--> "We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such." - Ron Paul, 1992

@--> Ron Paul’s newsletter was listed by a neo-Nazi group called Heritage Front, as recommended reading. { you gotta believe the doctor }

@--> The September 1994 issue of the Ron Paul Survival Report states that “those who don’t commit sodomy, who don’t get blood a transfusion, and who don’t swap needles, are virtually assured of not getting AIDS unless they are deliberately infected by a malicious gay.”

@--> In the April 1993 Ron Paul Survival Report, the author states, “Whether [the 1993 World Trade Center bombing] was a setup by the Israeli Mossad, as a Jewish friend of mine suspects, or was truly a retaliation by the Islamic fundamentalists, matters little.”

@--> Ron Paul SIGNED 1993 appeal for funds letter: "Israeli lobby plays Congress like a cheap harmonica," warned of a "race war" and said there was a gay-led cover up of AIDS. The letter suggests, that new $100 bills distributed by the Treasury and ostensibly aimed at tracking drug money were instead aimed at keeping track of all citizens. "I held the ugly new bills in my hands," the letter says. "I can tell you -- they made my skin crawl!" Then "my training as a physician helps me see through" what he calls the "federal-homosexual cover-up on AIDS." The letter warns of a "coming race war in our big cities"

@--> Ron Paul December 2, 2011 Ron Paul Believes that Corporate Lobbying = Liberty: “I Take The Position That You Should Never Restrict Lobbying…”
About Citizens United - "It's corporations' money, they can do whatever they want with it."


And I’m sure I don’t need to tell you that deregulating-Ron would not want

a regulating Food and Drug Administration to ensure the safety of your food or meds
[ if you are poisoned, you or your estate can sue ],
or
a regulating Environmental Protection Agency
[ if your land is poisoned by a fracker – move ],
or
a regulating Federal Aviation Administration
[ if you are a scardy cat, take the train ],
or
a regulating Nuclear Regulatory Commission
[ ? ],
or
a regulating National Transportation and Safety Board
[ you know how to safety and crash test your car, don’t you? ],
or
a regulating Securities and Exchange Commission
[ you always pick honest corporate leaders, right ? ]
or
a nuclear bomb free Iran [ don’t all maniacs need one ? ]
or
a democratic ally in the middle east - like Israel
[ "Israeli lobby plays Congress like a cheap harmonica" – RP ]


Four years ago, Ron Paul generated controversy by not repudiating the endorsement of the neo-Nazi group Stormfront, This time, they seem proud about getting the support of a Nebraska Pastor who has made some revealing comments:
Ron Paul’s Iowa chairman, Drew Ivers, recently touted the endorsement of Rev. Phillip G. Kayser,
praising “the enlightening statements he makes on how Ron Paul’s approach to government is consistent with Christian beliefs.” Kayser’s views on homosexuality go way beyond the bounds of typical anti-gay evangelical politics and into the violent fringe - Kayser recently authored a paper arguing for
criminalizing homosexuality and advocated imposing the death penalty
against offenders based on his reading of Biblical law: “As we have seen, while many homosexuals would be executed, the threat of capital punishment can be restorative.”
Has Ron Paul repudiated this endorsement?

My guess is that just like
Ron Paul tried to shove the
Ron Paul Newsletters under the carpet,
Ron Paul will try to shove his
Ron Paul endorser there too

It is fascinating how, despite the fact that fox hates Ron Paul, he uses the same tactics of deceit and obfuscation.


Please note – I’m not saying Ron is 100% nuts – just 99.4% pure


.................................................................
just a tiny fun fact - do you know who Ron named his senator son after?

google the libertarian queen’s name together with the name “William Hickman”


[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

After all that, they will still try and convince you he's not a real (R)epelican't.

Yes he is........:)

One of their biggest liars too.

[Removed]

[-] 4 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Are you worried that his cuts are a little too similar to the "austerity" measures in Greece that have caused riots?

I like Ron Paul's views on the wars and the fed and the bill of rights, but that's about it. I do like him more than Obamam but only because of Obama's continuation of the Bush war legacy and the fact that Obama has no problem giving money to the Fed and banksters.. And the GOP is fool's errand. I don't consider Ron a republican.

Have you ever read HR 2990 by Dennis Kucinich? It would "end the fed" but also creates jobs through strengthening infrastructure, education, and healthcare, all without raising debt, without causing inflation, and also creating the ability to lower taxes.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h112-2990

What are your thoughts on the cuts Ron wants to make and the potential similarities it could cause with the riots in Greece?

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

The cuts would be painful, but better to do it now then when we are forced to and economy is even more bankrupt.

The fact that balancing a check book is something that people take sides on, is very telling.

The media runs this nation. Divide and conquer.

[-] 4 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

But why make such cuts if we could have a different solution, like in HR 2990? Ron and Dennis share the same view on the fed, except Kucinich wants to skip the step of the audit and just go to step 2 and transfer control back to constitutional authority. HR 2990 is the way to strengthen and expand infrastructure, have better education, and healthcare for all, WITHOUT continuing inflation, and it would actually lower income taxes since such revenue won't be needed as much, all the while funneling money into the economy. It's possible. I highly suggest you read the bill HR 2990. Dennis and Ron are good friends too.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

I like their bill, and I like each of them personally. But there is no doubt that any reigning in of hte spending and/or fed injections will slow things up quite a bit.

Im all for it, but I dont think the economy would keep going as is, for the current future, if it were to be enacted.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

You said "I dont think the economy would keep going as is, for the current future, if it were to be enacted."

I'm not quite sure I'm understanding you on this statement.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

The basis of the economy is built on fraud right now, the entire banking system.

It would be better in the long run, but very painful for the transition period.

At least thats kinda what Im thinking.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

It's mostly FLAKESnews that's dividing it.

FLAKESnews is (R)epelican't by design, therefore, by proxy, it's the (R)epelican'ts that are dividing our Nation.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Wow, I guess you only watch Fox, because I watch them all, and read most too, (not too oftent these days though) and all I see is divisive shit EVERYWHERE.

Its everywhere, and if you think it isnt by design, then you are already lost.

[-] 3 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

that is because he is a risk to them and they are using the power of television to blot him out

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

The (R)epelican'ts actually like him, and want to keep his sordid past undercover. It keeps him in the game.

Keep in mind, there is NO liberal press.

[-] -1 points by lollercoaster (38) 2 years ago

lol, everybody rails on Fox for being conservative, and everybody else makes fun of them. I want some of whatever you smoke, bro

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Why are you surprised?

[-] -1 points by asauti (-113) from Port Orchard, WA 2 years ago

I'm not surprised, nor did I claim to be. It is expected.

It is expected that the big bankers and military-industrial complex would like to silence his message of Freedom.

Now, I did use the word strange. And I do feel it is "strange indeed" that the media would ostracize a candidate who actually stands up for The Constitution of the United States and for Freedom.

His message of Liberty will never go away. If he doesn't win in 2012, or in 2016, or in 2020, there will be someone else rising up to stand for Freedom.

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

It isn't strange at all.

Are you familiar with Ben Bagdikian ?

[-] -1 points by asauti (-113) from Port Orchard, WA 2 years ago

I will look into Ben Bagdikian.

.....................................................................................

Everybody wants "The Ability to Choose" (freedom).

Even a huge media organization, such as NBC, wants the freedoms provided to them under our Constitution.

.....................................................................................

Do you have any specific disagreements to those two statements?

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Yep. The first one is a set up for the false impression of choice as a consumer not what choice (freedom) is.

The second statement does not reflect GE or any GE subsidiaries.

[-] -1 points by asauti (-113) from Port Orchard, WA 2 years ago

For starters, let us just focus on the first statement: "Everyone wants 'the ability to choose'."

When asked if you have any disagreement, you reply:

"Yep. The first one is a set up for the false impression of choice as a consumer not what choice (freedom) is."

So as to make sure I understand correctly, you Do Not Agree that "everyone wants the ability to choose"?

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Ok, lets...........choose what?

[-] -2 points by asauti (-113) from Port Orchard, WA 2 years ago

I had a question. I will rephrase it.

Do you agree with the general statement of: "everyone wants the ability to choose"?

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

To choose what?

[-] -2 points by asauti (-113) from Port Orchard, WA 2 years ago

The "what" is irrelevant because each person is going to have individual desires. One might also say that the "choose what" could be anything that the imagination conjures, and as such, the "what" does not conflict with the overall message of the statement.

Therefore, the point I am seeking as a "basis for agreement on" is simply that everyone "wants the ability to choose". Or, another way to state it: "everyone wants freedom".

If you do believe the statement of "everyone wants freedom" to be false, please explain why.

Do you think you could find me someone that will declare with truth, the following: "I do not want freedom".

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

To choose what? I know you are a libertarian. I'm going to flat out tell you right now, you are wasting your time.

[-] 0 points by craigdangit (326) 2 years ago

Yeah, I'm too stupid to understand what he's saying also.

[-] 1 points by asauti (-113) from Port Orchard, WA 2 years ago

Funny, I have never declared that I am a male.

This site is full of people who make assumptions. My advice to everyone who lives a life based on assumptions to begin a transition toward the opposite.

[-] 1 points by craigdangit (326) 2 years ago

Fair enough.... fair enough. Someone here claimed that I was an old fogey because of something I said, and I told them something along the lines of what you just told me. I guess hypocrisy is not as uncommon as we might think....

Keep up the good work. Cheers

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Let's make sure that we understand each other. I did my Ayn Rand days. I am the wrong girl. You wanna play, douche bag?

[-] 1 points by asauti (-113) from Port Orchard, WA 2 years ago

There you go with the insults, yet again.

I have a feeling that you hold a deep unhappiness with yourself, GirlFriday. It is not too late to turn that around, no matter your age.

[-] -2 points by asauti (-113) from Port Orchard, WA 2 years ago

I do not know what "libertarian" means. It is far too broad of a term to be applied to any single individual.

It is akin to saying "I know that you are white", or "I know that you are black". Those words play into the idea of stereotypes and lump individuals into groups.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Have it your way. You are a Paulite.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by asauti (-113) from Port Orchard, WA 2 years ago

Should I happen to want to "play your game" of putting individuals into groups, which of the following groups would you like me to then place you into?

  • Obamaite
  • Romneyite
  • Gingrichite
  • Clintonite
  • Bushite
  • Goreite
  • Santorumite
  • Trumpite
  • Palinite
  • Bachmannite
  • McCainite

If you do not see your group listed above, please continue with your own answer to the question.

[-] 0 points by asauti (-113) from Port Orchard, WA 2 years ago

First of all, I find it interesting that you are turning off the "Reply" button. You exercise a power that the others participating on this forum do not have. The irony of this runs thick, and if nothing else reveals a clear hypocrisy of ideals.

I also find it very interesting that you choose the route of "throwing insults" by changing the name of my "handle". It is becoming clear to me that you are not one to embrace "Love and Understanding". Therefore, resorting to insults "suites you well".

For the many insults you want to throw, be my guest. I look forward to reading the additional, creative ways you might "attempt to get to me" as an individual and fellow American.

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

lolwut?

But, I have no control over the reply button. You can only reply so many times and then you can't. :/ It's the same for everyone.

The extra s was an unintentional typo. For that I apologize. I am not a subtle insulter-type. I just insult and be done with it. I try not to beat around the bush.

I think you are a wee bit paranoid there.If I am unwilling to engage in Ran Paul-libertarian-Ayn-Rand stuff, you can bet your patootie that I sure as hell have no intention of investing in any "creative ways" to attempt to get to you. Thanks, though.

[-] -1 points by asauti (-113) from Port Orchard, WA 2 years ago

GirlFriday: I hope that you live your life with Love and Understanding. "The Good Life" can be yours.

[-] -2 points by asauti (-113) from Port Orchard, WA 2 years ago

GirlFriday: Are you also one of "those people" that do not believe president Obama to have a legitimate U.S. birth certificate?

Are you also one of "those people" that believe the U.S. government orchestrated the attack of "9/11"?

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

assauti: I am one of those people that knows that Obama has a legitimate U.S. birth certificate and, no, I do not believe that the U.S. government orchestrated the attack of 9/11. In fact, I find the 9/11 was an inside job actually obscures other fundamental questions and/or issues.

[-] -2 points by asauti (-113) from Port Orchard, WA 2 years ago

You are "falling into the trap" of using stereotypes.

While some truth exists in using "stereotypes", they are generally about broad assumptions.

With your current "perceptions of reality", you would not last long in the profession of Law. Our system of law is based on a foundation of contracts, evidence, and facts.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago
[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Bwahahahahaha!

There is an old joke. A wife walks into her bedroom and catches her husband in bed with another woman. He jumps up and says something like, "I am not sleeping with this woman. Now, are you going to believe what you see or what I am telling you?"

You guys never quit. For Pete's sake, we have done this for months on end. If you were an attorney, you would have at least have had an undergraduate course in political science and you should have encountered libertarians but if you did not then you would have at least run into their economic stance in one of your undergrad economic courses.

I call bullshit. Now, if you want to discuss why Ron Paul is not getting media attention then I'm in. I am just going to let you know straight up that I don't buy into that shit. :D

[+] -4 points by asauti (-113) from Port Orchard, WA 2 years ago

GirlFriday: Believe what you will. Nobody can prevent you from such. I can only hope that you will do it with "class, intelligence, and good style".

[-] 1 points by knowledge (2) 2 years ago

Download the torrent: "Truth and Reasons for Occupying America's Streets."

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (21343) 2 years ago

Ron Paul doesn't get a lot of attention because libertarianism is not taken seriously. It is not a viable way to go for this country. It would be a huge set back socially and economically.

[-] 2 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

How can you not like this guy?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPZoldXPl2A

He tells it like it is. No Fear.

[-] 3 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

Admittedly, even though I'm not inclined towards libertarianism, it is hard not to like Ron Paul.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Yes it is.

[-] 2 points by craigdangit (326) 2 years ago

I would like virtually any politician that has been as true to principle as he has for 30 years, no matter what political stripe they are from. I am sick of baloney, and I think the rest of the country is as well.

[-] -2 points by wiseoldowl (86) 2 years ago

I don't understand how you Ron Paul supporters keep saying this? Do you actually believe this? If a politician takes money from an Oil company he is considered a shill for the oil companies. If a politician takes money from Wall Street he is considered a shill for Wall Street. Yet, Ron Paul is given a free pass by all you people as he takes lots of money from White Supremist groups. I'll believe you if he returns every cent he took and makes an official statement of condemnation for those groups he had willingly taken money from during his whole politicial life including his current run for the presidency

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

It is a different animal. I mean, how much money do these groups donate to Paul? What's the nature of the donations (is it merely some skin head ass holes sending in $20, or is it a well known group donating millions to his campaign)?

[-] 1 points by theshadowranger (20) 2 years ago

the difference is in the amounts. Mitt Romneys TOP contributor are employees of goldman sachs with over 400,000 dollars. Ron Paul got almost nothing (in terms of an election) from white supremecists. His top donors are members of the army, navy, and airforce. That's why we call him the choice of the troops.

[-] 0 points by craigdangit (326) 2 years ago

No...not really. If a politician does the bidding of oil companies, he is considered a shill for oil companies. Yes, I would have respect for anyone who tells it from the heart. I might not vote for them, just as I might not vote for Paul, but I would respect them. I don't see any one else in modern politics telling it from the heart.

[-] 0 points by asauti (-113) from Port Orchard, WA 2 years ago

Anyone is free to donate to his campaign.

I repeat. Anyone is free to donate to his campaign.

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (21343) 2 years ago

It isn't that I don't like him personally, but what he is pushing economically would be damning for most people. Unregulated capitalism, which is the economic system a true libertarian would call for would be deleterious for most people. Think back to the conditions of the Industrial Revolution. That is what would happen again and that is why we have regulations in the first place. The true economics of libertarianism gets lost in all the sexy anti-war talk and "liberty" talk. Be careful.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

I prefer free market capitalism to crony capitalism.

You see the misunderstanding is that free markets mean no regulations, and no government. Libertarians believe in freedom as long as you are not harming someone. They believe in limiting the power of government. For example you cannot just dump toxins into a river because that does do harm. You cannot shine a 10,000 watt light on your neighbors house because it interferes with her rights.

When we talk about free markets we mean that the government should not be subsidizing one company over another. That is favoritism and is damages the system. Politicians should no be picking winners and losers.

When we talk about over regulation we are talking about things like Sarbanes-Oxley and Frank -Dodd which add costs to companies and prohibit smaller companies from competing with larger companies. The largest growing career is "Compliance Officer" which is a person who makes sure you are complying with these cumbersome regulations.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (21343) 2 years ago

I understand what you are saying and you make a lot of good points. The problem is that that is not necessarily what libertarianism is all about. It really, at it's heart, is about no regulation. I don't like crony capitalism either, but an entirely free market capitalism will end up as a plutocracy not too different than the way it is now and probably much worse with an even bigger divide in income distribution. What we need is for the economic system to be regulated in a way that works for everyone.

[-] 0 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

Regulation does nothing to prevent a divide in income distribution.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (21343) 2 years ago

Sure, it can. It just doesn't right now.

[-] 0 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

And just how are regulations going to do that?

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (21343) 2 years ago

Is that a rhetorical question? Because there are many ways it could do that, has done that in the past.

[-] -1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

No it was not rhetorical.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (21343) 2 years ago

Okay. Think about things like social security and medicare, the earned income tax credit, a progressive tax structure, the minimum wage. Think about the New Deal, things like that. They all serve to minimize the disparity in income distribution.

[-] -2 points by JuanFenito (847) 2 years ago

Yeah! Tell him! The rich politicians will gladly vote to give their money to the poor!

[-] -2 points by JuanFenito (847) 2 years ago

I think what BeautifulWorld wants, is a "level playing field" where the government favors some companies over others. It's only fair after all, that's what the government is for, right?

[-] 0 points by theshadowranger (20) 2 years ago

Capitalism wouldn't be unregulated. It would be up to the people to enforce with their dollars. Every business sells a product. No business makes money unless people buy their product. If people don't approve of a businesses actions then they simply don't buy their products.

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (21343) 2 years ago

Sounds good, but it's not that simple. People don't always have the power to make those choices. I like your name, by the way.

[-] -1 points by theshadowranger (20) 2 years ago

yes you do. You either buy it or you don't. No one can make you buy something. For example APPLE. If you don't like the business practices of apple, don't buy ipods, ipads, iphones, macs, macbooks, or whatever else they make. You also have to convince others of your viewpoint. If others agree with you, they will stop buying the products. However, not everyone will care as much as you do. But if enough other people care and make it known to the company why they aren't buying, the company will either change or make their product good enough that you won't care.

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (21343) 2 years ago

I'm talking about those in poverty. And, with one-half of Americans earning less than $26,000 per year we have many on the verge of poverty. It is said that one-half of Americans are economically fragile. In that position, people don't have a lot of choice. They shop where they can afford to shop.

[-] 1 points by theshadowranger (20) 2 years ago

i make less than that I'm not forced to buy anything. I have plenty of options for what I buy. I could easily pay more for a different brand if I cared enough to do so.

[-] -2 points by asauti (-113) from Port Orchard, WA 2 years ago

Exactly. I am with you on your point.

The "Free Market" is quite beautiful in that way.

The businesses in my family would be nothing without our clientele. And to our clients we owe many thanks.

[-] 1 points by asauti (-113) from Port Orchard, WA 2 years ago

Good video! Thanks for sharing it.

I'll be voting for Ron Paul in 2012. In '08 I had to write his name in, hopefully this time around it will even easier by just "checking a box".

[-] 0 points by Chugwunka (89) from Willows, CA 2 years ago

Socially? How?

[-] 4 points by beautifulworld (21343) 2 years ago

Everyone loves to hear about "liberty." It's very appealing. With Ron Paul you'd be free to drink unpasteurized milk, carry your gun, visit your prostitute, do your drugs, beat your children, etc. etc. No tethers on your freedom. And, that appeals to many people. But, think long and hard about what an unregulated capitalist economy would mean to most people. It would not be good. And, these are the details they do not go into.

[-] 2 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

Obviously those aspects of libertarian ideology are disturbing, but of course if Paul were President, his only "real" power would be as commander and chief (for everything else, he would require the approval of congress). In other words, he could withdraw our forces from anywhere he wanted to (unilaterally, without congressional support), and even pardon nonviolent offenders in federal prison, but he wouldn't be able to cut a dime from social spending, without approval by a majority of congress. It's true that he wouldn't be inclined to support additional regulation, but I think Paul could be pushed to sign something like a new Glass Steagall into law, if there was enough public pressure (I mean, as it is, no other Presidential candidate supports it, so I'm not sure how Paul is any different here)?

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (21343) 2 years ago

That's all true and fine. But, it is the direction that he would like to take this country in that bothers me. If people are going to stand beside a libertarian then they should understand what he really believes and not just the sexy stuff. The nitty gritty of what type of economy he'd really like to have. Private roads, private schools, no medicare, no social security, no regulations for the environment, you name it. And, they need to understand what an unregulated capitalist system would mean for them personally. If you don't already hold a good deal of capital it would be pretty bad for you. These are the things he ultimately wants, whether or not he could ever attain them in his lifetime. These are the things he stands for and they have consequences.

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

I've heard him express doubts regarding privatizing roads and public infrastructure in general. I think he said something along the lines of socializing the costs and privatizing the profits (and suggested he isn't automatically inclined to support privatization). Nevertheless, I have a number of problems with Ron Paul, but there's certain aspects of his ideas that make him an attractive candidate. Will I vote for him? Probably not ...

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (21343) 2 years ago

Well, there's RP, the politician, and then there's libertarianism, the philosophy. Interesting, what you say.

[-] -1 points by craigdangit (326) 2 years ago

Exactly. Many of my fellow left wingers don't seem to realize that the only things Paul is likely to change are the executive orders-most of the things they agree with him on. As you said, he is not likely to do anything else because congress won't agree. And he's not "taking the country" in any direction, because there is no such thing as a dangerous idea.

[-] 1 points by Chugwunka (89) from Willows, CA 2 years ago

Who says it would be totally unregulated? One of the things about making assumptions about political rhetoric is that they may talk big but when reality intrudes once they are in office. A lot of the things they say can't be done. Or in Obama's case they flat out lie every time they open their mouth. If Paul got in office he would have to moderate his views fast. It reminds me of the Lefts victory in Germany in the 90's. They were suddenly faced with actually having to govern. They moderated their actions fast.

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (21343) 2 years ago

Really good points. I have always called Paul a hypocrite because how can you be a libertarian and a Congressman at the same time? And, you're right they all talk rhetoric. But, beware, rhetoric is powerful.

I just think we need to be very careful about what direction this country is going to go in economically. I do not think libertarianism has much to offer that is healthy for the economy other than spending issues, ending the wars, etc. which is all fine.

[-] -1 points by asauti (-113) from Port Orchard, WA 2 years ago

"free to..." "...beat your children".

When one writes something that is obviously incorrect and/or intellectually dishonest, it damages their credibility.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (21343) 2 years ago

No. That is what libertarianism stands for in some people's minds. Being free to do whatever you want. Some libertarian on this forum posted about what a great dad that guy in Portland was for blowing up his house with himself and his two kids in it because it was unfair that he had to have supervised visits. That's the kind of stuff I'm talking about.

[-] -2 points by craigdangit (326) 2 years ago

Who was this leader of the modern Libertarian movement you are speaking of? What? Oh, that's right, it is a anonymous stranger on an internet message board, who no more represents libertarianism than someone trolling this site represents liberalism. Yes, people troll forums and make libertarians look stupid, just as people troll this site and make us look stupid. You don't mean you picked this quote out because it fulfills your predetermined conclusion that libertarians are nuts, do you?

Besides, You said that Ron Paul supported legalizing child abuse, not "some libertarians". Cite up or forever suffer the consequenses of being a liar.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (21343) 2 years ago

Please. Libertarians don't want to be told how to raise their children. It's called hyperbole, a figure of speech. If I could remember who made that posting, I'd give you the link.

[-] -2 points by craigdangit (326) 2 years ago

I don't want a link, unless the link supports the idea that Ron Paul supports child abuse, because that's what you said, not "with Libertarianism, you would be free to beat your children".

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (21343) 2 years ago

I'm sorry if you don't understand hyperbole. A libertarian posted a thread in defense of Josh Powell saying that he was a hero for standing up to the government who required him to have supervised visits and how unfair that was. So, better to kill your kids? And, many responded in the affirmative. There is a belief in libertarianism that people should be free to raise their kids however they want without any governmental restrictions.

[-] -1 points by craigdangit (326) 2 years ago

I'm sorry you have no grip on factual evidence or reality. The statement you made is absurd, and you know it. I could say something equally ridiculous about Obama, if you like. Maybe you are unfamiliar with the concept of a moral parallel. Oh well, I will try anyway, if for nothing else, for the sake of anyone else reading this who is able to think objectively and reasonably.

"Dianne Feinstein said once she wanted to confiscate all of the privately owned firearms in the country. Dianne Feinstein is a Democrat, and Barack Obama is a Democrat. Barack Obama will confiscate all of the privately owned firearms in the country." That's not hyperbole, that's just lying.

Sigh. Yet another person who cannot get correlation and causation straight. I will not reply further to your babblings.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (21343) 2 years ago

LOL! I'm sorry I hit such a nerve with you, I truly am. Okay. I'll say it. Ron Paul does not support child abuse. Okay. You happy? But, some libertarian supporters seem to think murdering your children is okay and that's a fact.

[-] -1 points by JuanFenito (847) 2 years ago

What do you mean, "Ron Paul does not support child abuse"? It's obvious. He's one of them, of course he supports it. I heard he also engages in ritual blood sacrifices at area 51 during the solstice. He IS one of them, after all, what makes you think he wouldn't support child abuse? The CATO institute said it was okay.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Mr. P endorses such things by deferring to States rights.

Talk about intellectual dishonesty.

[-] 0 points by asauti (-113) from Port Orchard, WA 2 years ago

craigdangit: Well said.

[-] -1 points by asauti (-113) from Port Orchard, WA 2 years ago

Have you watched/listened to a speech by Ron Paul? If so, which one?

He gave a great one in San Francisco, in September of 2010. See it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FobnAnrFG3c

Encourage Love, Understanding & Freedom for ALL!

[-] 6 points by beautifulworld (21343) 2 years ago

Thanks for the link. I've heard Ron Paul speak many times and I'm very familiar with libertarian positions and Austrian economics. It's not the messenger. It's the message. All of the social issues have great appeal to people but the economics of an unregulated free-wheeling capitalist system would set us back. Think of the Industrial Revolution. That is the closest we've ever been to unregulated capitalism. It would not be pretty. It would be Dickensian. The rich would get richer and the poor would get poorer.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

Nader gave us the Iraq war – deregulation – halliburton - alito - roberts etc etc etc etc
Just think of the fun America will have if you vote for another third party candidate!
President Bain Romney ! ……… and more scalia clones like thomas
or President Cotton Mather Santorum and more christian dictatorship

You gotta believe –
………….the only ones who don’t want you to vote Democratic-
…………………………………………………………………….are the tea potty !

You remember “George-yellowcake uranium”.
You remember “ Dick-Iam not a crook”.
You remember “Ronnie-I don’t remember my treasonous acts”.

Now we have “Ron-I don’t remember my disgusting newletters”.

@--> A 1992 passage from the Ron Paul Political Report about the Los Angeles riots read, “Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks.” Another Paul newsletter asserted that people with AIDS should not be allowed to eat in restaurants because “AIDS can be transmitted by saliva”;

@--> In 1990 one of Ron Paul’s publications criticized Ronald Reagan for having gone along with the creation of the federal holiday honoring the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., which it called “Hate Whitey Day.”

@--> Ron Paul’s newsletter called Barbara Jordan, the African-American Texas congresswoman, a “half-educated victimologist” and said of crime in Washington, D.C., “I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.”

@--> ”If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be." - Ron Paul, 1992

@--> "Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." - Ron Paul, 1992

@--> "We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such." - Ron Paul, 1992

@--> Ron Paul’s newsletter was listed by a neo-Nazi group called Heritage Front, as recommended reading. { you gotta believe the doctor }

@--> The September 1994 issue of the Ron Paul Survival Report states that “those who don’t commit sodomy, who don’t get blood a transfusion, and who don’t swap needles, are virtually assured of not getting AIDS unless they are deliberately infected by a malicious gay.”

@--> In the April 1993 Ron Paul Survival Report, the author states, “Whether [the 1993 World Trade Center bombing] was a setup by the Israeli Mossad, as a Jewish friend of mine suspects, or was truly a retaliation by the Islamic fundamentalists, matters little.”

@--> Ron Paul SIGNED 1993 appeal for funds letter: "Israeli lobby plays Congress like a cheap harmonica," warned of a "race war" and said there was a gay-led cover up of AIDS. The letter suggests, that new $100 bills distributed by the Treasury and ostensibly aimed at tracking drug money were instead aimed at keeping track of all citizens. "I held the ugly new bills in my hands," the letter says. "I can tell you -- they made my skin crawl!" Then "my training as a physician helps me see through" what he calls the "federal-homosexual cover-up on AIDS." The letter warns of a "coming race war in our big cities"

@--> Ron Paul December 2, 2011 Ron Paul Believes that Corporate Lobbying = Liberty: “I Take The Position That You Should Never Restrict Lobbying…”
About Citizens United - "It's corporations' money, they can do whatever they want with it."

You can claim – b.b.b.b.b.but Ron did not write these awful things! HE PRINTED THEM!


And I’m sure I don’t need to tell you that deregulating-Ron would not want

a regulating Food and Drug Administration to ensure the safety of your food or meds
[ if you are poisoned, you or your estate can sue ],
or
a regulating Environmental Protection Agency
[ if your land is poisoned by a fracker – move ],
or
a regulating Federal Aviation Administration
[ if you are a scardy cat, take the train ],
or
a regulating Nuclear Regulatory Commission
[ ? ],
or
a regulating National Transportation and Safety Board
[ you know how to safety and crash test your car, don’t you? ],
or
a regulating Securities and Exchange Commission
[ you always pick honest corporate leaders, right ? ]
or
a nuclear bomb free Iran [ don’t all maniacs need one ? ]
or
a democratic ally in the middle east - like Israel
[ "Israeli lobby plays Congress like a cheap harmonica" – RP ]


Four years ago, Ron Paul generated controversy by not repudiating the endorsement of the neo-Nazi group Stormfront, This time, they seem proud about getting the support of a Nebraska Pastor who has made some revealing comments:
Ron Paul’s Iowa chairman, Drew Ivers, recently touted the endorsement of Rev. Phillip G. Kayser,
praising “the enlightening statements he makes on how Ron Paul’s approach to government is consistent with Christian beliefs.” Kayser’s views on homosexuality go way beyond the bounds of typical anti-gay evangelical politics and into the violent fringe - Kayser recently authored a paper arguing for
criminalizing homosexuality and advocated imposing the death penalty
against offenders based on his reading of Biblical law: “As we have seen, while many homosexuals would be executed, the threat of capital punishment can be restorative.”
Has Ron Paul repudiated this endorsement?

My guess is that just like
Ron Paul tried to shove the
Ron Paul Newsletters under the carpet,
Ron Paul will try to shove his
Ron Paul endorser there too

It is fascinating how, despite the fact that fox hates Ron Paul,
he uses the same tactics of deceit and obfuscation.


Please note – I’m not saying Ron is 100% nuts – just 99.4% pure


.................................................................
just a tiny fun fact - do you know who Ron named his senator son after?

google the libertarian queen’s name together with the name “William Hickman”


[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (21343) 2 years ago

OMG! Bensdad, this is one of the best comments ever! Thank you. Thank you. And, wow, I never thought about his son's name. Wow!

[-] 0 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

couldn't have said it better myself

Though that was a good speech paul gave, unregulated capitalism usually serves to concentrate wealth into fewer and fewer hands.

And truth be told many libertarians admit this, grover norquist's 60 minutes interview come to mind.

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (21343) 2 years ago

Yes. I always say, ask your libertarian leaders if they'd be willing to even out the net worth of every American before putting this unregulated economy in place. The answer would be a resounding "No." Why? Because they know damn well the advantage their monied selves would have under such a system.

[-] -3 points by craigdangit (326) 2 years ago

First of all, I would take this deal if the deregulation would be guaranteed to last my whole life or longer. Secondly, isn't that proposition like saying, "sure, we can have socialism, if you give all of the money in the world to the rich first"? It's nonsense.

[-] 0 points by beautifulworld (21343) 2 years ago

No. It's just saying give everyone a level playing field before you deregulate the economy. Kind of a fun idea, don't you think and it would be the only fair way to implement it.

[+] -4 points by asauti (-113) from Port Orchard, WA 2 years ago

"The rich would get richer and the poor would get poorer."

Very true - you speak of the undeniable. Just as a lion eats the antelope, it is the "way of the world".

However, are we as a society going to let everyone make an attempt to "be a tiger" by giving them an "equal rule of law"? Because that "equal rule of law" is what Ron Paul is about: The Constitution of the United States of America.

Our modern-day Constitution does contain some undesirable legislation, but in general, it is a document that I hope you cherish. For if you forget about it, so too will the people who want to rule you.

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (21343) 2 years ago

Oh, I cherish it all right, and nowhere in it does it say we should have an unregulated capitalist economy. Nowhere.

[-] -2 points by asauti (-113) from Port Orchard, WA 2 years ago

Do we have an "unregulated capitalist economy" in the United States?

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (21343) 2 years ago

No. Couldn't, because it would be deleterious, but isn't that what libertarian economics is all about?

[-] -3 points by asauti (-113) from Port Orchard, WA 2 years ago

We currently do have a "regulated capitalist economy" in the United States - there are plenty of good laws "on the books". These laws are a result of cases that have been previously decided in court.

However, there is at least one item of legislation that I am not in favor of: Current federal laws of "Legal Tender".

I am an attorney in the Seattle, Washington area and I am very pleased to see that our state (as well as Utah) are seeking to write their own "legal tender" laws. The goal is to give freedom to people in creating contracts that do not involve a forced adherence to the U.S. dollar as a medium of legal exchange.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (21343) 2 years ago

We need to be clear about what we are discussing. Libertarian economics would be an unregulated capitalist system. That's what it is. Using a different medium of legal exchange could be done with regulation, yes, but that's not libertarianism, though you could view it as a step toward it, I suppose.

[-] -1 points by asauti (-113) from Port Orchard, WA 2 years ago

If you are not clear about my points of discussion, you are welcome to ask me questions.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (21343) 2 years ago

Okay. Well, when you speak of your happiness over the legal tender laws in Washington is that because you view that as sort of a step toward libertarian unregulated capitalism?

[-] -1 points by asauti (-113) from Port Orchard, WA 2 years ago

Let's keep it simple.

1) I want the people of this nation to be able to choose whether or not they use the U.S. dollar as a medium of exchange. It is well and fine that the dollar exists, but it should not be a forced adherence.

Please watch a movie called "Money As Debt" on YouTube and then look me up again for further discussion. Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dc3sKwwAaCU

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (21343) 2 years ago

Okay. I've seen that video and I understand money as debt and all of that. It is fractional reserve banking. However, even though that is a big problem, having an unregulated capitalist system would never be the answer because at the foundation of that is exploitation of labor and capital which means that those with capital, the rich, will get richer while the poor get poorer. We would end up with an even bigger divide in income distribution than we have right now.

Now, fractional reserve banking should be dealt with within the current system. It is a huge problem. I agree. And, most people have no idea that this is going on.

[-] 3 points by wiseoldowl (86) 2 years ago

The video doesn't explain fractional reserve banking. Here is a good course on economics since so few people seem to understand its concepts and go to videos such as above for information:

http://www.learner.org/resources/series79.html#

Almost everything Ron Paul preaches is based on misinformation and old Confederate conspiracy theories that floated around since the Civil War. Let's get back to reality here

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (21343) 2 years ago

Thanks, wiseoldowl. Nice to see you back. You're a voice of reason here.

I do think that video attempted to describe fractional reserve banking, though. It just never calls it by that name.

[-] -1 points by asauti (-113) from Port Orchard, WA 2 years ago

You write: "Almost everything Ron Paul preaches is based on misinformation and old Confederate conspiracy theories that floated around since the Civil War."

Can you be specific about said "misinformation" and include direct references to substantiate your claims?

[-] -1 points by asauti (-113) from Port Orchard, WA 2 years ago

Annenberg Learner. Interesting.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

the rich can outspend the majority of the peoples income

[-] -1 points by asauti (-113) from Port Orchard, WA 2 years ago

You write: "having an unregulated capitalist system would never be the answer because at the foundation of that is exploitation of labor and capital which means that those with capital, the rich, will get richer while the poor get poorer."

Can you name a specific period of time in human history where a group of people, a state or a nation, have participated in a fully "unregulated capitalist system"?

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (21343) 2 years ago

The closest we've ever come was the Industrial Revolution, the early period of capitalism. Not a period in history I'd like to return to. Think Dickensian conditions.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Ancient bazaars in Morocco. You really want to go back there?

[-] 2 points by RogerDee (411) from Montclair, NJ 2 years ago

The Constitution does not contain legislation.

[-] -2 points by asauti (-113) from Port Orchard, WA 2 years ago

Good point.

I change my wording from "does contain some undesirable legislation" to "allows the government to create undesirable legislation".

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Must I point out, once again that Mr. P is a (R)epelican't?

100%. He's the foil for the rest of his party.

He's the wolf in sheep's clothing.

He's been a phony for 30 years now, and was at his most honest, when he published bigoted newsletters.

So I ask, one more time......Is there, or isn't there an (R) after his name?

[-] -1 points by asauti (-113) from Port Orchard, WA 2 years ago

shooz: A life of love, understanding, and richness can be yours. Seek and you may just find it.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

I have that, and I won't let a liar like Mr. P try and take it from me.

All his BS about States rights is hog wash!!!!! Pure and simple.

[-] 0 points by JuanFenito (847) 2 years ago

Get out of here, troll. You and your compatriots have done nothing since the inception of this movement, to drive us away from our central message, including state's rights of protection from corporations.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Sure, whatever you say.

I have more support for this movement than Mr. P, at any rate.

[-] -2 points by asauti (-113) from Port Orchard, WA 2 years ago

Then I might recommend you cast your vote for Obama.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

When are you going to clearly answer a question when asked?

Give an answer without a riddle?

Does Mr. P have an (R) after his name on the ballot?

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

Are things really that black and white for you? All Republicans are bad? DO you also think that all blacks are lazy? And that all Jews are cheap?

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

I haven't seen a Republican around since Eisenhower. Have you?

Tell me. What good things came out the Bush administration?

Was it the BIGGEST government in history?

No child left behind?

2 Unfunded wars?

Tax cuts to the job creators?

The ownership society?

The F'n crash?

What legislation have they passed that would lead to a more perfect union?

What legislation have they passed to improve the commons?

None!

They are all simply (R)s now, to be polite, although I do prefer the term (R)epelican't.

[-] 0 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

Yes you are right, the actions of the Bush administration represent all Republicans in office at the federal, state, and local level. Just like the actions of one black man represent the actions of all.

I have no doubt that you are supportive of Occupy, but the rhetoric above only serves to turn people away from the movement and make it easy to label this movement as nothing more than a far left extension of the Democratic party, which is what a lot of those on the outside already think. And I can't see how that is good for a group that claims to be about the 99%.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Whatever......You still can't point out a single piece of good legislation that came out of 8 years of Bush.

It was 8 years of BAD legislation, and it take more than 8 years to reverse it.

Throw the (R)s out!!!

[-] 0 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

I truly hope that you find the help you need to lead a less hateful life.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

That's funny, you couldn't point out one thing.

Not one.

I even offer you some examples.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

No, off the top of my head I can't think of one good thing Bush did. He was a bad president. But how you use that and hold it against the entire Republican party? It is really pretty naive and narrow minded and it seems like your thinking is clouded by anger and hate.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

The entire (R)epelican't party is supporting the very same policies now, that they did during the Bush administration.

So please, tell me what's to love about lying (R)epelican'ts?

Or is your mind too clouded by hate for those that are trying to move us away from those policies?

[-] -2 points by ironboltbruce (371) from Miami, FL 2 years ago

American Elections: False Choices Hiding Other False Choices

The American elections perpetually televised by our Kleptocracy-controlled media are a smokescreen of false choices distracting attention from even more false choices. At the presidential level and likely others, our election results are predetermined: If not by the billions poured into brainwashing voters through the media, then by rigging the voting machines and if necessary having a tainted judiciary overrule recounts:

Psywar: The Real Battlefield is Your Mind http://www.openfilm.com/videos/psywar

Hacking Democracy http://www.hulu.com/watch/192687/hacking-democracy

Peace! http://www.hulu.com/watch/177439/peace

This Orwellian subterfuge distracts the attention of the Sheeple from other false choices that have far more impact than which corporate puppet gets to sit in the Oval Office for four years. Those choices currently include: the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (NDAA) - a loss of real freedoms in return for protection from fabricated threats; the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and Protect IP Act (PIPA) - Internet censorship disguised as intellectual property protection; and the Keystone XL Pipeline Project - which will give us dirty energy and ditch-digging jobs at an ecological cost that may include the main water supply for the American Heartland - approval for which was accelerated by a clause buried in the recent Payroll Tax Cut legislation that received bipartisan praise. This deceptive spin and doublespeak has been going on for years, and will continue at an ever-accelerating pace now that Corporate Fascist Puppet President Barack Hussein Obama signed away ou! r Bill of Rights on New Year's Eve, while we were watching balls drop and he was in Hawaii, about as far away as he could be from the uprising of an angry citizenry that never materialized...

IT IS NO COINCIDENCE THAT OF THE LAST 14 U.S. PRESIDENTS, 7 HAVE BEEN DEMOCRATS AND 7 HAVE BEEN REPUBLICANS.

Mainstream media focuses on America's two-year election cycles as if who wins or loses in the swinging of the pendulum was a matter of life or death, when in fact even at the Presidential level it makes no more difference than the outcomes of Monday Night Football, American Idol, Dancing With The Stars, Hillbilly Handfishing, the trial of Michael Jackson's doctor, or the latest Kardashian crisis. Our elections are staged to give Sheeple the illusion of control so they will (a) vent their frustrations and expend their energy, emotions and resources supporting or attacking the Puppet on the Left hand or the Puppet on the Right, and consequently (b) never recognize and challenge the common omnipotent Puppetmaster. As long as corporations own the politicians, it's futile to believe we can "CHANGE" things with our votes.

NO MORE LEFT. NO MORE RIGHT. TIME TO UNITE. STAND AND FIGHT!

IronBoltBruce via VVV PR ( http://vvvpr.com | @vvvpr )

[-] -2 points by Mowat (164) 2 years ago

Zionists all over the place!

Please God, rid the world of the mad Zionists.

[-] -3 points by shield (222) 2 years ago

Ron Paul is an interesting character. He seems to say all the right things, but he flashes the Illuminati hand signs. Could just be a coincidence, but why do it? It's not like there's a real reason to be flashing heavy metal devil horns after/before/during a speech...

[-] 0 points by craigdangit (326) 2 years ago

Oh, right. The illuminati hand sign... is it a coincidence that that sign is also the american sign language sign for "I love you"? Seriously, stop trolling this site and making us look like a bunch of conspiracy theorist wackos.

[-] 0 points by shield (222) 2 years ago

Just sayin... It would be just as weird to say "I love you" all the time.

[-] 1 points by craigdangit (326) 2 years ago

Yeah, I don't know.... politicians virtually never say anything good about their supporters at campaign rallies....weird....

[-] 3 points by shield (222) 2 years ago

Lol, I'm not the kind of person who generally goes for conspiracy theories, but seeing how bad ALL of the candidates, on all sides, for this year's elections are, I can't help but theorize that none of them are really running to get elected, that they're only trying to keep people from paying attention to important issues so that when one of them (any one of them) does get elected, whoever is pulling the strings behind the scenes has control. And there's no doubt that there are people behind the scenes. If I were to vote for any of them it would be Ron Paul, simply because what he says resonates with what I believe (disclaimer, I have not done a great deal of research on Ron Paul, but I do disregard claims that he wrote racist essays for a newsletter in his name). If he were elected, it would be difficult for him to successfully dodge accusations that he is not following through on his campaign promises, since the crowd he appeals to is one that is willing to do its research and call him out when he fails to uphold his promises, unlike the Obama supporters (I'll admit it, I was one. But I had just turned 18 and didn't know shit about the world), who were only looking forward to "change". Well, they got it didn't they?

[-] 1 points by asauti (-113) from Port Orchard, WA 2 years ago

shield: Good post.

Those who voted for Obama got "government business as usual".

It reminds me of that song "Won't Get Fooled Again" by The Who, and the line in the lyrics: "Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss."