Why isn't Ron Paul doing better?

Out of all the current Republican candidates running for President, only Ron Paul has anything really interesting to say. He's the only one who has a clue about how to turn this economy around. We have to slash ALL government spending-- not just entitlements, but yes, also the military. Shut down the bases all around the world and bring the troops home and stop being the world's police force. Let the world take care of itself and let us focus on our own country.

And of course, reduce the size of government.

A government big enough to give you everything you need, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have.

And yet, he doesn't have a chance of getting elected. Why?




http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162...dy;cbsCarousel

(CBS News) Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul said Sunday he thinks flawed U.S. foreign policy "contributed to" the causes that led to the September 11 terrorist attacks, though he stopped short of saying the attacks were America's "fault."


Paul, appearing on CBS' "Face the Nation," said there was a "connection" between U.S. policies and the 9/11 attacks, and that "policies have an effect."


But, he emphasized, "that's a far cry from blaming America."


"I think there's an influence," Paul, a staunch Libertarian, told CBS' Bob Schieffer. "That's exactly what, you know, the 9/11 Commission said. That's what the DOD has said... That's what a lot of researchers have said. Just remember, immediately after 9/11, we removed the base from Saudi Arabia. So there is a connection."


The longtime Texas congressman, whose popularity has recently seen an uptick in the GOP presidential polls, suggested that American military presence abroad fostered anti-American sentiment - which in turn led to actions against the American people.

"You talk to the people who committed it and those individuals who would like to do us harm, they say, 'Yes, we don't like American bombs to be falling on our country. We don't like the intervention that we do in their nations.' So to deny this, I think, is very dangerous - but to argue the case that they want to do us harm because we're free and prosperous, I think, is a very, very dangerous notion because it's not true."


When asked if he was saying "it was our fault" that 9/11 happened, Paul said, no. "That's a misconstruing of what I'm saying," he replied.


"America is you and I," Paul told Schieffer. "We didn't cause it. The average American didn't cause it. [But] if you have a flawed policy, it may influence it.


"I'm saying the policy-makers' fault contributed to it," he added.


Paul, who has long been vocal in his opposition to sending American troops abroad, argued that America should use diplomacy - not the military - to deal with countries like Iran.


He also decried sanctions as "the initial step to war."


"We have 12,000 diplomats. I'm suggesting that maybe we ought to use some of them," Paul said. "I think the greatest danger now is for us to overreact. This is what I'm fearful of. Iran doesn't have a bomb. There's no proof. There's no new information, regardless of this recent report. For us to overreact and talk about bombing Iran, that's much more dangerous."


The candidate said he doesn't think there is any place in the world where it "helps" the United States to have forces stationed - not only because "we can't afford it," but also because, he said, "I believe we can defend ourselves with submarines and all our troops back at home.


"I think a submarine is a very worthwhile weapon," Paul said. "I believe we can defend ourselves with submarines and [station] all our troops back at home. This whole idea that we have to be in 130 countries and 900 bases - now they've just invented a weapon that can hit any spot in the world in one hour. I mean, what's this idea? This is old-fashioned idea that you have to keep troops on 900 bases around the world. Makes no sense at all. Besides, we're bankrupt. We can't afford it any longer."


The famously outspoken congressman added that he'd bring home troops even from Japan and South Korea. "Absolutely. And the people are with me on that. Because we can't afford it. It would save us a lot of money. All those troops would spend their money here at home," he said.


Besides, he added, "Those troops overseas aggravate our enemies, motivate our enemies. I think it's a danger to our national defense. We can save a lot of money cutting out the military expenditures that contribute nothing to our defense."

He has some good points, but he will not get the mainstream vote.
Too clear on his doctrine... which I dont share.

For the same reasons Kucinich wasn't electable. They make sound interesting points, make their stances very clear, but they can both be a bit of a nutball.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bucerius

He has some good points, but he will not get the mainstream vote.
Too clear on his doctrine... which I dont share.

---

What don't you like about his doctrine?

Too many people are writing him off. I've had my Ron Paul sign in the front yard for months now.

I don't think he receives equal coverage on the nightly news either. I haven't watched the past couple of debates but I know he was doing very well last I looked. He had come out on top of every single debate, an had finished in first place in every straw poll but one, in which he placed second. He still gets little to no media coverage whatsoever. According to MSNBC, in the Reagan Library debate he finished with 51.3% of the votes. That's more than all the others on the panel combined!

There are still good some sources that show him doing well tho'.

Ron Paul is for real in Iowa. Seriously. - WA Post

Niche Voters Giving Paul Momentum in Iowa Polls - NYT

Ron Paul’s 19 percent in Iowa may indicate a path to the nomination - Daily Caller

GOP outsider Ron Paul gaining traction in Iowa - AP

Ron Paul And Libertarians Can't Be Discounted - Forbes

I had a Ron Paul sign up in my grandparents' front yard in Eugene, Oregon, but someone stole it.

My family has them up in Eagar still.

We know it's a longshot, but we still hope he somehow ends up winning the primary.

Point is that you apparently need to be a politician to get elected.

Ron Paul will never become a Republican nominee. But I don't like him that much. He thinks that our involvement in foreign affairs is too strong, but we are the only remaining superpower, so we really should be the world police to prevent many other countries from becoming dictatorships. Cain wants the rich and the poor to pay the same amount of taxes, which is crazy. Romney is better than Cain, but I don't like him. Obama 2012!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OlegL

Ron Paul will never become a Republican nominee. But I don't like him that much. He think that our involvement in foreign affairs is too strong, but we are the only remaining superpower, so we really should be the world police to prevent many other countries from becoming dictatorships. Cain wants the rich and the poor to pay the same amount of taxes, which is crazy. Romney is better than Cain, but I don't like him. Obama 2012!!!

---

That's just the opposite of what I believe. It is our propensity to stick our nose in other countries' business, where it doesn't belong, that makes us targets for terrorism, and it is draining our treasury. I want to see all government spending slashed to the bone.

And why shouldn't the poor pay a percentage of what they make in taxes? Right now they pay essentially no federal income taxes. In fact, many of them get "earned income tax credits" after paying zero in income taxes. They actually walk away with more money than they paid in. It is in essence, socialism. The rich are paying taxes which are then given to the poor people who pay nothing. So, of course, they vote for liberals because they know voting for liberals is like voting for a raise for themselves. And they will never feel any of the bite from their irresponsible decision.

If everyone, even the poorest of the poor, had to a pay a percentage of their income back in taxes, perhaps they would stop voting for people who want to raise their taxes over and over. At the very least, they would see that their vote has a very real consequence in terms of their take home pay.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 999969999

That's just the opposite of what I believe. It is our propensity to stick our nose in other countries' business, where it doesn't belong, that makes us targets for terrorism, and it is draining our treasury. I want to see all government spending slashed to the bone.

And why shouldn't the poor pay a percentage of what they make in taxes? Right now they pay essentially no federal income taxes. In fact, many of them get "earned income tax credits" after paying zero in income taxes. They actually walk away with more money than they paid in. It is in essence, socialism. The rich are paying taxes which are then given to the poor people who pay nothing. So, of course, they vote for liberals because they know voting for liberals is like voting for a raise for themselves. And they will never feel any of the bite from their irresponsible decision.

If everyone, even the poorest of the poor, had to a pay a percentage of their income back in taxes, perhaps they would stop voting for people who want to raise their taxes over and over. At the very least, they would see that their vote has a very real consequence in terms of their take home pay.

---

Yeah, let's go hunt down some single mothers and slap the silver spoons right out of their mouths. Working 2 jobs, making $24K raising 2 kids, time to shove her off the lap of luxury. Then we could like hold her children's heads under water until she writes out a check for $4000 to the U.S. government, silly cunt trying to hoard her wealth. That'll teach her to vote for democrats.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 999969999

And yet, he doesn't have a chance of getting elected. Why?

---

Because he's a moron who only appears sane compared to Bachman, Santorum and Gingrich.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mjmacky

Yeah, let's go hunt down some single mothers and slap the silver spoons right out of their mouths. Working 2 jobs, making $24K raising 2 kids, time to shove her off the lap of luxury. Then we could like hold her children's heads under water until she writes out a check for $4000 to the U.S. government, silly cunt trying to hoard her wealth. That'll teach her to vote for democrats.

---

Well said, Macky! It is about time someone stood up for the rich besides the mega-corps, and the looney. If whores like that could just keep their legs shut, the wealthy would be able to afford additional vacation houses, support additional mistresses (well, strike that one, right?), buy additional cars, and play more golf. You have any idea how stressful it must be having accountants find deductions for all those taxes they should be paying? Sad times. Sad times indeed...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by megabyteme

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mjmacky

Yeah, let's go hunt down some single mothers and slap the silver spoons right out of their mouths. Working 2 jobs, making $24K raising 2 kids, time to shove her off the lap of luxury. Then we could like hold her children's heads under water until she writes out a check for $4000 to the U.S. government, silly cunt trying to hoard her wealth. That'll teach her to vote for democrats.

---

Well said, Macky! It is about time someone stood up for the rich besides the mega-corps, and the looney. If whores like that could just keep their legs shut, the wealthy would be able to afford additional vacation houses, support additional mistresses (well, strike that one, right?), buy additional cars, and play more golf. You have any idea how stressful it must be having accountants find deductions for all those taxes they should be paying? Sad times. Sad times indeed...

---

And why shouldn't the wealthy want additional vacation houses?

What is the point of working hard and taking risks with our money if we don't get to spend it however we choose to spend it?

Why not just sit down on a sofa, watch t.v., and wait for the government to deposit money into our accounts each month?

And this is the problem with Socialism, just as the Soviet Union found out when they gave people no incentive to work hard, they did just enough to get by and coast, and their system collapsed around them.

Greed, whether you like it or not, is the natural state of man, and it is what propels the economy forward.

Well, that's all for now. I have to head back to Oregon and start studying for final exams.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 999969999

And why shouldn't the wealthy want additional vacation houses?

What is the point of working hard and taking risks with our money if we don't get to spend it however we choose to spend it?

Why not just sit down on a sofa, watch t.v., and wait for the government to deposit money into our accounts each month?

And this is the problem with Socialism, just as the Soviet Union found out when they gave people no incentive to work hard, they did just enough to get by and coast, and their system collapsed around them.

Greed, whether you like it or not, is the natural state of man, and it is what propels the economy forward.

Well, that's all for now. I have to head back to Oregon and start studying for final exams.

---

:lol: I love the fact that you are so quick to lump yourself in with the rich. It's from your "hard work", right? :lol::lol::lol:

Speaking of which, has anyone ever made a movie of a dystopian future where only the rich and privileged survived?

This is my humble opinion and I am not trying to target or rile up any stanch Obama fans, but I believe that president Obama has proven at every turn lately that he is no longer fit to lead our great country. He is trying to and to some degree based on some of the statements in this thread, has succedded in dividing the people of the United States preaching his class warfare which is totally bollax when you think about what it actually means to be a truly free American. "Rich people" as some people say don't owe you or me a damn thing - they got rich because they got off their duff, were creative and took great risk and worked hard to create something, something that others wanted - like Steve Jobs - he became wealthy because he worked hard with many others to create great things like the MacBook Pro I am typing on. - He and Apple have made a huge contribution to our world in the field of technology so if he want's to spend his money on an extra house or a Golden toilet - he is damn well entitled to, he worked hard and did something amazing. As americans we all have the potential to do something great, we aren't entitled to take away from others who have worked to get where they are in life. What makes our country great is that we are free and we all have a right to life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness, according to our constitution and our founders no one else including our government has a right to take what you have earned. In the dramatic example of the Mom with 3 kids that was mentioned, if true liberty were upheld and abided by she would not have to give up a single penny because she would get to keep what she earned. The point is that it isn't that the "Rich People" should pay more - it's that no one should pay more. The government needs to stop spending the money we give them - that is our damn money, yours and mine. The Obama administration is like a teenager with an American Express Premiere Black card and they don't care how much of our money they spend because they know that unless you and me and the rest of country wakes up and remembers that it is "We the People" and NOT "We the Politicians" - they can and will just continue spending OUR Money with out a care in the world. Since our dollars value is falling and the Obama has spent over $4 TRILLION in less than 3 years, they now have resorted to class warfare saying that the fault lies on the American people and they have pitted the Rich against the Poor - I believe in Americans and I pray that we as a whole are not so slow and stupid as to believe such a crock of BS. I am not wealthy in money, but I am smart enough to know that we need the rich folks because they take the risk and build new things that we need (hospitals,malls,amusement parks,schools) - in short being able to become wealthy is what has made our country so great and if the government startes to take that wealth away and WASTE it as they are doing now - the wealthy will leave to spend their money more wisely to grow new things and if the government pushes them to leave then none of us will have anything in a very short time. If you care about the future of our country and the quality of life of your children or family, you would vote for Ron Paul - he does not believe in an income tax for anyone because he does not believe the government should run and ruin our lives. Ron believes that we as Americans are smart enough and capable enough to take care of ourselves and our families. Not trying to be dramatic, but if Obama get re-elected I truly fear for the future of America's growth and prosperity. They have to stop spending OUR money. http://youtu.be/MXCZVmQ74OA

God Bless America!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nntpjunkie

Spoiler: Show

This is my humble opinion and I am not trying to target or rile up any stanch Obama fans, but I believe that president Obama has proven at every turn lately that he is no longer fit to lead our great country. He is trying to and to some degree based on some of the statements in this thread, has succedded in dividing the people of the United States preaching his class warfare which is totally bollax when you think about what it actually means to be a truly free American. "Rich people" as some people say don't owe you or me a damn thing - they got rich because they got off their duff, were creative and took great risk and worked hard to create something, something that others wanted - like Steve Jobs - he became wealthy because he worked hard with many others to create great things like the MacBook Pro I am typing on. - He and Apple have made a huge contribution to our world in the field of technology so if he want's to spend his money on an extra house or a Golden toilet - he is damn well entitled to, he worked hard and did something amazing. As americans we all have the potential to do something great, we aren't entitled to take away from others who have worked to get where they are in life. What makes our country great is that we are free and we all have a right to life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness, according to our constitution and our founders no one else including our government has a right to take what you have earned. In the dramatic example of the Mom with 3 kids that was mentioned, if true liberty were upheld and abided by she would not have to give up a single penny because she would get to keep what she earned. The point is that it isn't that the "Rich People" should pay more - it's that no one should pay more. The government needs to stop spending the money we give them - that is our damn money, yours and mine. The Obama administration is like a teenager with an American Express Premiere Black card and they don't care how much of our money they spend because they know that unless you and me and the rest of country wakes up and remembers that it is "We the People" and NOT "We the Politicians" - they can and will just continue spending OUR Money with out a care in the world. Since our dollars value is falling and the Obama has spent over $4 TRILLION in less than 3 years, they now have resorted to class warfare saying that the fault lies on the American people and they have pitted the Rich against the Poor - I believe in Americans and I pray that we as a whole are not so slow and stupid as to believe such a crock of BS. I am not wealthy in money, but I am smart enough to know that we need the rich folks because they take the risk and build new things that we need (hospitals,malls,amusement parks,schools) - in short being able to become wealthy is what has made our country so great and if the government startes to take that wealth away and WASTE it as they are doing now - the wealthy will leave to spend their money more wisely to grow new things and if the government pushes them to leave then none of us will have anything in a very short time. If you care about the future of our country and the quality of life of your children or family, you would vote for Ron Paul - he does not believe in an income tax for anyone because he does not believe the government should run and ruin our lives. Ron believes that we as Americans are smart enough and capable enough to take care of ourselves and our families. Not trying to be dramatic, but if Obama get re-elected I truly fear for the future of America's growth and prosperity. They have to stop spending OUR money.

God Bless American!

---

Holy fuck dude please break your wall of text into discrete paragraphs. I'm one of the last people to complain about the length of a post, but even I had to stop reading once I realized your first few lines weren't leading to any kind of interesting point.

Also, "god bless america" negates any post, so "god bless american" negates it to the 3rd power.

Still doing well. Romney moves to 3rd.

http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.co...gop-candidate/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mjmacky

Holy fuck dude please break your wall of text into discrete paragraphs. I'm one of the last people to complain about the length of a post
Also, "god bless america" negates any post, so "god bless american" negates it to the 3rd power.

---

Sorry, not a grammar major - just got on a rant about the truth and couldn't stop :D Hopefully the way Obama is trying to deceive everyone is not lost on everybody.

A truly principled person like Ron Paul who rails against the evils of the establishment rather than working from within it, will always have an enormous uphill battle simply because they make too many enemies of people in high places, including the mainstream media, which is an integrated part of this established 'system' and seeks to preserve the status quo for their own self-interest.

Did anyone watch his interview with Bob Schieffer on CBS's "Face the Nation" a couple of weeks ago?

Bob Schieffer, like most traditional mainstream journalists, has always been a pathetic boot-licker all his career when dealing with any "mainstream" politicians, whether Republican or Democrat. Yet when he interviewed Ron Paul, he interrupted him constantly, tried to put words in his mouth, and basically showed utter contempt if not outright hatred for him. (At least the Fox News attack dogs like Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity treat a full half of all politicians that way.) The media constantly repeats the message that he is a "fringe candidate" and has "no chance of winning" -- terms that are never applied to anyone else, no matter how unpopular they might be. With the corporate media against him, the only place where Ron Paul can get anything even approaching fair treatment is the internet.

Perhaps the biggest problem is that very few people are independent thinkers. Most will allow themselves to be led by the media subliminally telling who to vote for. A good example of this is the way the Republican candidates go up and down in the polls so quickly and dramatically, ostensibly as a direct result of positive/negative press coverage.

I disagree with some of the 'class-warfare' arguments here, I think one reason many wealthy Americans would fight Ron Paul tooth-and-nail is because so many of them make their fortunes by sucking off the teats of Big Government.

Ron Paul has the nerve to chastise the "military industrial(/security) complex" which since at least WWII has been one of the most profitable and lucrative industries in the country - which should not be surprising since it's an industry that does not even operate in any sort of free market system. To me it seems rather odd that a country surrounded by friendly, military-weak neighbors, which has never lost a war or been occupied since its founding, is so terrified that it needs to spend more on military "defense" than the other 200 nations of the world combined -- even when nearly all the countries in the world could be considered friendly allies. But maybe that only shows how effective the MIC's fear-mongering campaign has been.

I hate to think that I could have bought a new car with my share of the money the Iraq war cost taxpayers -- had it never happened. And Ron Paul was one of the very few people in Washington who had the courage to be skeptical of Bush's "weapons of mass destruction" claims: lies that were thoroughly deconstructed in the foreign press and the internet yet never questioned by the American MSM.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nntpjunkie

Sorry, not a grammar major - just got on a rant about the truth and couldn't stop :D Hopefully the way Obama is trying to deceive everyone is not lost on everybody.

---

Obama turned out to be exactly what I expected him to be, a presidential politician who managed to get a few long awaited policies through that have been made nearly redundant through compromise. That's not very new. The recent SNL opening (host: Buscemi) covered the prez's significance pretty accurately, almost.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zot

And Ron Paul was one of the very few people in Washington who had the courage to be skeptical of Bush's "weapons of mass destruction" claims: lies that were thoroughly deconstructed in the foreign press and the internet yet never questioned by the American MSM.

---

From what I remember hearing, the kickback coverage of that issue was a little tit for tat. Unscrutinized coverage of WMD for lax FCC regulation/fines. Not certain about the truth behind that, but there certainly has to be some reason why there was so little skepticism at that time about that issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mjmacky

From what I remember hearing, the kickback coverage of that issue was a little tit for tat. Unscrutinized coverage of WMD for lax FCC regulation/fines.

---

I'm not sure what you mean. The "equal-time rule" has always been shredded when it comes to taking the nation to war. In WWI&II dissenters could expect jail.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mjmacky

Not certain about the truth behind that, but there certainly has to be some reason why there was so little skepticism at that time about that issue.

---

Maybe because whenever a country is being whipped up into a war hysteria, no one wants to be branded a traitor -- and face harsh scorn and retaliation, perhaps on the level of being a child-molester. I myself had faced a lot of hostility and I've lost friends over disputing the WMD hoax. Neighbors stopped talking to me. (and let's not forget the Dixie Chics and what happened to them) If I had to do it over again (and be the lone dissenter in my social/professional circle) I'm sure I'd keep my mouth shut and just swallow the Kool-Aid propaganda like everyone else.

I think that's exactly why no one in the corporate news media dared to challenge a flag-draped president about war.

Just my opinion, but I also doubt that Ron Paul was really in favor of the invasion (and likely occupation) of Afghanistan when he voted for it, but realized that the tide was much too strong to fight against. (and looking back, wouldn't it have been so much cheaper to have just sent in Seal Team 6 in 2001?)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zot

I'm not sure what you mean. The "equal-time rule" has always been shredded when it comes to taking the nation to war. In WWI&II dissenters could expect jail.

Maybe because whenever a country is being whipped up into a war hysteria, no one wants to be branded a traitor -- and face harsh scorn and retaliation, perhaps on the level of being a child-molester. I myself had faced a lot of hostility and I've lost friends over disputing the WMD hoax. Neighbors stopped talking to me. (and let's not forget the Dixie Chics and what happened to them) If I had to do it over again (and be the lone dissenter in my social/professional circle) I'm sure I'd keep my mouth shut and just swallow the Kool-Aid propaganda like everyone else.

I think that's exactly why no one in the corporate news media dared to challenge a flag-draped president about war.

Just my opinion, but I also doubt that Ron Paul was really in favor of the invasion (and likely occupation) of Afghanistan when he voted for it, but realized that the tide was much too strong to fight against. (and looking back, wouldn't it have been so much cheaper to have just sent in Seal Team 6 in 2001?)

---

So what I mean is that the FCC is used as leverage against Media Corporations. Dissent and compliance can both be punished and rewarded through the system of regulation and censorship. It's not that they even needed to start the path of dissent, they could easily schedule guests that offer criticism on the validity of WMDs, and at the least the connection to Al Qaeda for fuck's sake. So not only was there basically a complete lack of dissent from almost every outlet, but very little criticism offered. NPR at the time did have a sane viewpoint, but they're not produced in any sensationalist way so that didn't produce any major following.

The vote against the Iraq war included 1 Republican senator and 6 Republican representatives. None of them played a role in the next election cycle, and for the democrats only Kucinich was very outspoken about this in 2004 during the primary cycle, and at that time I became a huge fan of his public career. He didn't tend to follow an ideology, he looked at things from a public viewpoint, i.e. how does it affect the public in whole (basically he's one of the few to serve office that ever adhered to the spirit of the role). I knew he wasn't electable though, due to his willingness to announce, articulate, and back his platform; as well as denouncing and rejecting corporate financial backing for his candidacy run. If you aren't ready to buddy up to corporate interests and powerful lobbying groups, you're kept out of major offices, plain and simple. So basically I kind of see Ron Paul in a similar way as I have seen Kucinich, a genuine interest to represent the people (and in a similar way is an ideological representative of the people that voted him in his congressional seat).

However, taking politics into consideration, it's a bit naive to expect to take on large competitive elections in that manner single-handedly. These types of politicians would need to take to the campaign trails in full force to get truly representative government. No more corporate campaign donations, less immunity to severe criminal activity, complete transparency for lobbying activities (most genuinely interested lobbying groups would not have a problem with this).

P.S. Does it irk anyone else that there's a member in the legislature named Rand Paul. That could easily be pronounced as 'Ron'.

I've come to the conclusion that most people choose to live in a bubble of fantasy and simply don't want to know about things that upset their distorted viewpoint of the world.

In the case of the Iraq war, all the damning information was already out there, if anyone cared to look. Pentagon insiders like Col. Kwiatowski had written articles about how intelligence data was being intentionally distorted and mis-represented to the public. How the CIA's established channels had been shortcut and undermined by Cheney's setting up a parallel operation within his office of hand-picked "analysts" who basically said what he wanted them to say. The Iraqi dissident known as "curveball" that the CIA considered a liar. The roll of a tiny but influential close-knit network known as the Neoconservatives. Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson.

The truth could be found all over the internet that the Iraq "WMD" was a huge conspiracy of propaganda, that all the crap being shown on TV every day had been thoroughly debunked many times over. Yet most people preferred to put on their blinders and march behind Fox News & co. beating the war drums.

I used to print off copies and hand it to people who I argued with, to show them I wasn't just some kook who made it all up. So what would they do? They'd hand it right back without even glancing down at it. I thought I was doing people a huge favor by taking the time to educate them about the lies that were being told, or even things like how war propaganda since WWI has been conducted. But it soon occurred to me that my efforts were about as welcome as a "Holocaust Denier" lecturing a Brooklyn synagogue.

But that is the great thing about the internet; people are not forced to rely on America's controlled news media for information. Propaganda-free British Newspapers like the Manchester Guardian and The Independent exposed the Iraq war lies, and their websites were flooded by US readers. Though sadly, this was only a tiny percentage of the USA citizenry who didn't consider it apostasy to question the President and independently seek the truth. (and I suspect that the next bullshit war won't be too much harder to ram through over an unsuspecting public)

The Ron Paul "Revolution" could never have even got started without the internet. but until more people question the mainstream media and seek outside sources of information, it's hard to imagine someone getting into power who stands against the established, entrenched political/financial system and its enablers and cheerleaders the corporate media -- who will always strongly oppose such a person who can't easily be compromised, corrupted, or bought.

http://youtu.be/0x3Z1e3UPV8

The time is NOW!

The smear campaign has begun with a bang. Since moving to the top in the Iowa polls, Ron Paul is now finally being talked about in the MSM news ... but everything being said about him is negative.

It's funny how CNN cut up and re-spliced his interview to make it appear as something it was not.

Code:

---

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2078343/Raw-footage-shows-Ron-Paul-DIDNT-storm-CNN-interview-racist-newsletters--interview-simply-done.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

---

If Ron Paul doesn't end up winning the primary, should he run as a third party candidate in the general election?

I think so, and here's why.

I am sick and tired of Republicans pretending to be fiscal conservatives just long enough to get into office and then once they get to Washington they end up becoming Democrate Lite, and end up compromising to the point that they betray the very people who got them elected.

I would rather let Obama have 8 full years to screw up this country to the point that it becomes painfully clear to most Americans that liberal policies simply do not work, and what we really need is a true fiscal conservative in the white house and true fiscal conservatives controlling both the senate and the house, so we can finally slash government spending to the bone and stop running a deficit year after year after year.

If Ron Paul runs as a third party candidate in the general election, I will vote for him.

At this point, I can't bring myself to vote for Romney. He is just too liberal. This will be the first presidential election for me as a voter, and I hope I will be able to vote for someone with which I agree.

Is that asking too much?!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 999969999

and end up compromising to the point that they betray the very people who got them elected.

---

It would be better if you listed some examples of when they betrayed corporations that invested into their electoral victories.

http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blo...he-candidates/

http://reason.com/blog/2012/01/04/re...-austrians-now

"Last night Ron Paul told his followers that “we are all Austrians now,” and they cheered..."

Is it any wonder why I like this guy?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by megabyteme

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 999969999

And why shouldn't the wealthy want additional vacation houses?

What is the point of working hard and taking risks with our money if we don't get to spend it however we choose to spend it?

Why not just sit down on a sofa, watch t.v., and wait for the government to deposit money into our accounts each month?

And this is the problem with Socialism, just as the Soviet Union found out when they gave people no incentive to work hard, they did just enough to get by and coast, and their system collapsed around them.

Greed, whether you like it or not, is the natural state of man, and it is what propels the economy forward.

Well, that's all for now. I have to head back to Oregon and start studying for final exams.

---

:lol: I love the fact that you are so quick to lump yourself in with the rich. It's from your "hard work", right? :lol::lol::lol:

---

You really are jealous of me. Oh well.

The reason I mentioned vacation houses is because my family is taking advantage of the steep decline in housing prices to buy up real estate in places like San Francisco, Portland, and Seattle, which were at one time out of our reach. We're buying them with cash, so no interest to pay, and we plan to hold on to them for about a decade or so, and then turn around and sell them for a huge profit. My family feels that this is the safest place to put cash in view of the hyper-inflation which is heading our way with the government spending out of control and the fed doing its quantitative easing over and over again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mjmacky

Speaking of which, has anyone ever made a movie of a dystopian future where only the rich and privileged survived?

---

I am Leg end.

Will Smith lyke has lots of dough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snee

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mjmacky

Speaking of which, has anyone ever made a movie of a dystopian future where only the rich and privileged survived?

---

I am Leg end.

Will Smith lyke has lots of dough.

---

I didn't know the Hispanic lady with child was rich? And Will Smith committed suicide.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mjmacky

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snee

I am Leg end.

Will Smith lyke has lots of dough.

---

I didn't know the Hispanic lady with child was rich? And Will Smith committed suicide.

---

What, you watched it all the way through?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snee

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mjmacky

I didn't know the Hispanic lady with child was rich? And Will Smith committed suicide.

---

What, you watched it all the way through?

---

I can't quit halfway through a zombie film.

Quote:

---

Forum: The Drawing Room

For (serious) discussions on any topic.
NOTE: This forum will be moderated strictly to keep discussions on-topic.

---

Really?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zot

Quote:

---

Forum: The Drawing Room

For (serious) discussions on any topic.
NOTE: This forum will be moderated strictly to keep discussions on-topic.

---

Really?

---

It linearly progressed to that. Also, Ron Paul is a zombie sympathizer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zot

Quote:

---

Forum: The Drawing Room

For (serious) discussions on any topic.
NOTE: This forum will be moderated strictly to keep discussions on-topic.

---

Really?

---

Fair enough.

Ron Paul is a wanker who'll never get elected on account of being batshit loco and having a realism-impairment.

There. Srs bznz restored.

Lets face it hes dead in a few whats the point of electing him, you lot will only assassinate him anyway for his radical policies and ideas. I say the cunts to old anyway how long has he really got to make a change. The fact an election is taking place means failure IMO.

I watched Ron Paul's interview by Piers Morgan last night. Unlike so many of Morgan's other interviews, in which he lobs softball questions, avoids any controversy, and never interrupts or contradicts the guest -- essentially serving as a promoter -- he treated Ron Paul the exact opposite.

But to his credit, at least he didn't treat him with quite the same level of disrespect, disgust and contempt that Bob Schieffer did on "Face the Nation" a few months ago ... or so it seemed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRok9o95fB4