|
|
Post by Night Ranger on Mar 25, 2012 9:35:28 GMT -5
|
|
Sandbagger
Administrator/The Boss 
Posts: 6,250 
|
Post by Sandbagger on Mar 25, 2012 10:36:59 GMT -5
Far be it from me to defend the liberal media, but the "sour grapes" Ron Paul supporters live a dream world where he actually has more than single digits worth of support. The fact that they cannot accept that "their guy" is doing so poorly, they invent deliberate media blackouts, voter fraud, and all sorts of alternative explainations for what is most likely simply a case of fringe support for a fringe candidate. But if for some reason they are right, there are a lot worse problems than simply a biased media. |
|
|
|
Post by Night Ranger on Mar 25, 2012 12:39:11 GMT -5
Far be it from me to defend the liberal media, but the "sour grapes" Ron Paul supporters live a dream world where he actually has more than single digits worth of support. The fact that they cannot accept that "their guy" is doing so poorly, they invent deliberate media blackouts, voter fraud, and all sorts of alternative explainations for what is most likely simply a case of fringe support for a fringe candidate. But if for some reason they are right, there are a lot worse problems than simply a biased media. The media blackout is not invented. It is real. I've done my research. Just to make a point try this on your own. Go to YouTube.com and search on each candidates names. YouTube is not owned by the main stream media. Note the search results in the top right hand corner. Here is what the results showed as of 1:29 PM. EDT on 3/25/2012 YouTube search results for each candidates name; Newt Gingrich: About 22,000 results Rick Santorum: About 27,400 results Mitt Romney: About 47,800 results Barack Obama: About 294,000 results Ron Paul: About 367,000 results Try it yourself. It does not look like Ron Paul came in last to me. Here is the latest poll concerning how each republican candidate fares against Obama in a one to one match up. Ron Paul did not come in last in this poll either. He is at the top. www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_US_032212.pdfThe reason Ron Paul's numbers are not that great in the republican caucuses even though he draws big enthusiastic crowds is because many of his supporters are not registered republicans. They are independents and democrats dissatisfied with Obama. You can't measure those people in a republican caucus. If you did not watch the videos I posted you should. I'm not nuts. This video was uploaded to YouTube yesterday; Hidden Camera Catches Missouri GOP Admitting They Rigged the Caucus! BUSTED! ;D www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5R7mRxmAVgP.S. Grumpy's board says it's your birthday. Happy Birthday! Night Ranger |
|
Sandbagger
Administrator/The Boss
Posts: 6,250
|
Post by Sandbagger on Mar 25, 2012 16:07:13 GMT -5
Far be it from me to defend the liberal media, but the "sour grapes" Ron Paul supporters live a dream world where he actually has more than single digits worth of support. The fact that they cannot accept that "their guy" is doing so poorly, they invent deliberate media blackouts, voter fraud, and all sorts of alternative explanations for what is most likely simply a case of fringe support for a fringe candidate. But if for some reason they are right, there are a lot worse problems than simply a biased media. The media blackout is not invented. It is real. I've done my research. Just to make a point try this on your own. Go to YouTube.com and search on each candidates names. YouTube is not owned by the main stream media. Note the search results in the top right hand corner. Here is what the results showed as of 1:29 PM. EDT on 3/25/2012 YouTube search results for each candidates name; Newt Gingrich: About 22,000 results Rick Santorum: About 27,400 results Mitt Romney: About 47,800 results Barack Obama: About 294,000 results Ron Paul: About 367,000 results Try it yourself. It does not look like Ron Paul came in last to me. Here is the latest poll concerning how each republican candidate fares against Obama in a one to one match up. Ron Paul did not come in last in this poll either. He is at the top. www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_US_032212.pdfThe reason Ron Paul's numbers are not that great in the republican caucuses even though he draws big enthusiastic crowds is because many of his supporters are not registered republicans. They are independents and democrats dissatisfied with Obama. You can't measure those people in a republican caucus. If you did not watch the videos I posted you should. I'm not nuts. This video was uploaded to YouTube yesterday; Hidden Camera Catches Missouri GOP Admitting They Rigged the Caucus! BUSTED! ;D www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5R7mRxmAVgP.S. Grumpy's board says it's your birthday. Happy Birthday! Night Ranger Thanks Michael..... Hey, I didn't say that Paul isn't popular with younger and more internet savvy people, but a youtube poll reflects simply just that, and not of registered and likely republican primary voters, many of whom are older and do not care for RP's radical departure from a typical republican. I've been having this debate for months now with a few hard core RP supporter friends of mine. They too are convinced that there some sort of master plot in play that's preventing what they feel are sweeping Ron Paul victories in each and every primary we've had. My answer is always the same, if this is indeed the case, then we have a far greater problem that simply RP getting cheated out of a LOT of votes. The degree and depth of cooperation it would take to orchestrate and pull off a fraud of this magnitude, between republicans, the media, and democrats who would love to expose something like this, implies a level of complicity that reaches far beyond what you would think would be something that could be kept secret. That's why I tend to be highly skeptical of these claims. I think it's more likely a case of, for every enthusiastic 25 year old who supports Ron Paul, there are 3 60, 70, and 80+ year olds who would be perfectly fine with a Romney or Santorum. And those 60, 70, and 80+ year olds aren't hanging out on the internet. |
|
|
|
Post by Night Ranger on Mar 25, 2012 17:41:18 GMT -5
The media blackout is not invented. It is real. I've done my research. Just to make a point try this on your own. Go to YouTube.com and search on each candidates names. YouTube is not owned by the main stream media. Note the search results in the top right hand corner. Here is what the results showed as of 1:29 PM. EDT on 3/25/2012 YouTube search results for each candidates name; Newt Gingrich: About 22,000 results Rick Santorum: About 27,400 results Mitt Romney: About 47,800 results Barack Obama: About 294,000 results Ron Paul: About 367,000 results Try it yourself. It does not look like Ron Paul came in last to me. Here is the latest poll concerning how each republican candidate fares against Obama in a one to one match up. Ron Paul did not come in last in this poll either. He is at the top. www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_US_032212.pdfThe reason Ron Paul's numbers are not that great in the republican caucuses even though he draws big enthusiastic crowds is because many of his supporters are not registered republicans. They are independents and democrats dissatisfied with Obama. You can't measure those people in a republican caucus. If you did not watch the videos I posted you should. I'm not nuts. This video was uploaded to YouTube yesterday; Hidden Camera Catches Missouri GOP Admitting They Rigged the Caucus! BUSTED! ;D www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5R7mRxmAVgP.S. Grumpy's board says it's your birthday. Happy Birthday! Night Ranger Thanks Michael..... Hey, I didn't say that Paul isn't popular with younger and more internet savvy people, but a youtube poll reflects simply just that, and not of registered and likely republican primary voters, many of whom are older and do not care for RP's radical departure from a typical republican. I've been having this debate for months now with a few hard core RP supporter friends of mine. They too are convinced that there some sort of master plot in play that's preventing what they feel are sweeping Ron Paul victories in each and every primary we've had. My answer is always the same, if this is indeed the case, then we have a far greater problem that simply RP getting cheated out of a LOT of votes. The degree and depth of cooperation it would take to orchestrate and pull off a fraud of this magnitude, between republicans, the media, and democrats who would love to expose something like this, implies a level of complicity that reaches far beyond what you would think would be something that could be kept secret. That's why I tend to be highly skeptical of these claims. I think it's more likely a case of, for every enthusiastic 25 year old who supports Ron Paul, there are 3 60, 70, and 80+ year olds who would be perfectly fine with a Romney or Santorum. And those 60, 70, and 80+ year olds aren't hanging out on the internet. I think alot of it comes down to the fact that main stream media is owned mostly by six media giants. The FCC was suppose to prevent this by not allowing a single company to own more than so many tv, radio, and newspapers in a single area. Unfortunately the FCC has been bought off, and they have been routinely relaxing the media ownership rules for one company. See below; Rotten, Old-Fashioned Corruption at the FCC www.alternet.org/story/16032/FCC relaxes media ownership rules www.latimes.com/news/la-fi-fcc19dec19,0,126054.story Court tosses FCC's relaxed ownership rules thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/170179-court-tosses-fccs-relaxed-media-ownership-ruleThere are more stories like that if you care to search for them. The FCC has made more than one attempt to relax the media ownership rules by a single company only to have the courts strike it down. What does the FCC then do? They wait a year or two and then relax the rules again, and then it gets slapped down by the courts again. It has already happened more than once. I'm not big on conspiracy theories, but this one appears to be legit. Who Owns the Media - the Big Six www.freepress.net/ownership/chart/mainNight Ranger |
|
Sandbagger
Administrator/The Boss
Posts: 6,250
|
Post by Sandbagger on Mar 26, 2012 6:28:22 GMT -5
Thanks Michael..... Hey, I didn't say that Paul isn't popular with younger and more internet savvy people, but a youtube poll reflects simply just that, and not of registered and likely republican primary voters, many of whom are older and do not care for RP's radical departure from a typical republican. I've been having this debate for months now with a few hard core RP supporter friends of mine. They too are convinced that there some sort of master plot in play that's preventing what they feel are sweeping Ron Paul victories in each and every primary we've had. My answer is always the same, if this is indeed the case, then we have a far greater problem that simply RP getting cheated out of a LOT of votes. The degree and depth of cooperation it would take to orchestrate and pull off a fraud of this magnitude, between republicans, the media, and democrats who would love to expose something like this, implies a level of complicity that reaches far beyond what you would think would be something that could be kept secret. That's why I tend to be highly skeptical of these claims. I think it's more likely a case of, for every enthusiastic 25 year old who supports Ron Paul, there are 3 60, 70, and 80+ year olds who would be perfectly fine with a Romney or Santorum. And those 60, 70, and 80+ year olds aren't hanging out on the internet. I think alot of it comes down to the fact that main stream media is owned mostly by six media giants. The FCC was suppose to prevent this by not allowing a single company to own more than so many tv, radio, and newspapers in a single area. Unfortunately the FCC has been bought off, and they have been routinely relaxing the media ownership rules for one company. See below; Rotten, Old-Fashioned Corruption at the FCC www.alternet.org/story/16032/FCC relaxes media ownership rules www.latimes.com/news/la-fi-fcc19dec19,0,126054.story Court tosses FCC's relaxed ownership rules thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/170179-court-tosses-fccs-relaxed-media-ownership-ruleThere are more stories like that if you care to search for them. The FCC has made more than one attempt to relax the media ownership rules by a single company only to have the courts strike it down. What does the FCC then do? They wait a year or two and then relax the rules again, and then it gets slapped down by the courts again. It has already happened more than once. I'm not big on conspiracy theories, but this one appears to be legit. Who Owns the Media - the Big Six www.freepress.net/ownership/chart/mainNight Ranger Oh, I don't doubt for a minute that the MSM is owned by a few large companies. But it's been largely that way for years. While putting most of our media under the control of a few corporations has obvious downsides, the opposite is just as bad. All anyone has to do is search the internet for so-called "independent media", and you can find all sorts of propaganda disguised as news, with articles by people who have no professional credibility quoting "unnamed sources", and drawing conclusions on issues based on hearsay and opinions, rather than cold facts. I'm all for competition, and there needs to be someone or group that keeps the media honest. But with the proliferation of "new media" sources out there (anyone with a computer and decent web design and writing skills can become one), it becomes almost impossible to fact check all of them. So in some ways, having fewer news outlets becomes easier to police. |
|
|
|
Post by Night Ranger on Mar 26, 2012 7:40:07 GMT -5
I think alot of it comes down to the fact that main stream media is owned mostly by six media giants. The FCC was suppose to prevent this by not allowing a single company to own more than so many tv, radio, and newspapers in a single area. Unfortunately the FCC has been bought off, and they have been routinely relaxing the media ownership rules for one company. See below; Rotten, Old-Fashioned Corruption at the FCC www.alternet.org/story/16032/FCC relaxes media ownership rules www.latimes.com/news/la-fi-fcc19dec19,0,126054.story Court tosses FCC's relaxed ownership rules thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/170179-court-tosses-fccs-relaxed-media-ownership-ruleThere are more stories like that if you care to search for them. The FCC has made more than one attempt to relax the media ownership rules by a single company only to have the courts strike it down. What does the FCC then do? They wait a year or two and then relax the rules again, and then it gets slapped down by the courts again. It has already happened more than once. I'm not big on conspiracy theories, but this one appears to be legit. Who Owns the Media - the Big Six www.freepress.net/ownership/chart/mainNight Ranger Oh, I don't doubt for a minute that the MSM is owned by a few large companies. But it's been largely that way for years. While putting most of our media under the control of a few corporations has obvious downsides, the opposite is just as bad. All anyone has to do is search the internet for so-called "independent media", and you can find all sorts of propaganda disguised as news, with articles by people who have no professional credibility quoting "unnamed sources", and drawing conclusions on issues based on hearsay and opinions, rather than cold facts. I'm all for competition, and there needs to be someone or group that keeps the media honest. But with the proliferation of "new media" sources out there (anyone with a computer and decent web design and writing skills can become one), it becomes almost impossible to fact check all of them. So in some ways, having fewer news outlets becomes easier to police. General Electric is one of the media big six. They make alot of money off Department of Defense contracts. Ron Paul wants to cut alot of money going to military operations over seas. That would cost GE big money. GE may being using it's influence on the many media outlets it owns to minimize Ron Paul's message. I don't know what impact Ron Paul's government budget plans would have on the other five media giants. Night Ranger |
|
Sandbagger
Administrator/The Boss
Posts: 6,250
|
Post by Sandbagger on Mar 26, 2012 10:13:32 GMT -5
Oh, I don't doubt for a minute that the MSM is owned by a few large companies. But it's been largely that way for years. While putting most of our media under the control of a few corporations has obvious downsides, the opposite is just as bad. All anyone has to do is search the internet for so-called "independent media", and you can find all sorts of propaganda disguised as news, with articles by people who have no professional credibility quoting "unnamed sources", and drawing conclusions on issues based on hearsay and opinions, rather than cold facts. I'm all for competition, and there needs to be someone or group that keeps the media honest. But with the proliferation of "new media" sources out there (anyone with a computer and decent web design and writing skills can become one), it becomes almost impossible to fact check all of them. So in some ways, having fewer news outlets becomes easier to police. General Electric is one of the media big six. They make alot of money off Department of Defense contracts. Ron Paul wants to cut alot of money going to military operations over seas. That would cost GE big money. GE may being using it's influence on the many media outlets it owns to minimize Ron Paul's message. I don't know what impact Ron Paul's government budget plans would have on the other five media giants. Night Ranger An interesting irony. One of GE's media holdings is NBC, and MSNBC, which is pretty blantently liberal in their bias. Several of their "personalities" have called for a sharp reduction in defense spending in response to conservative calls to cut back on entitlements. Kind of puts GE in a tough position...... |
|
|
|
Post by cbrown on Mar 26, 2012 10:18:24 GMT -5
Belated Happy Birthday, Sandbagger!  The ONE thing this government is supposed to do is protect its citizens, which means raising and keeping an armed force of people willing to protect this country no matter what the cost. Ron Paul plans to gut the military. I would prefer it if he gut the bloated US Government instead. Just my opinion. I actually hate political discussions, as no one ever wins them. |
|
|
|
Post by Night Ranger on Mar 26, 2012 13:15:38 GMT -5
Belated Happy Birthday, Sandbagger! The ONE thing this government is supposed to do is protect its citizens, which means raising and keeping an armed force of people willing to protect this country no matter what the cost. Ron Paul plans to gut the military. I would prefer it if he gut the bloated US Government instead. Just my opinion. I actually hate political discussions, as no one ever wins them. Most of what Ron Paul says is cutting military expenditures overseas, but not necessarily at home. Interestingly Ron Paul has gotten more donations from active military personnel than all other candidates combined including President Obama. See below; Ron Paul Campaign Receives Most Military Donations thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/9044-ron-paul-campaign-receive-most-military-donationsand... Ron Paul Awash in Active Duty Military Donations www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2012/02/06/ron-paul-awash-in-active-duty-military-donationsand.... Veterans’ support for Ron Paul runs strong www.wistv.com/Global/story.asp?S=7238667Just search Google for plenty more articles concerning Ron Paul's support from active military personnel. My guess is the troops are tired of being shot at and blown up over an oil grab by the United States, it's allies, and the big oil companies under the guise of anti-terrorism. Now Iran is in the cross-hairs, and surprise surprise Iran has the third largest oil reserves in the world. The United States and the United Kingdom already overthrew the government of Iran once before in 1953 under the claim that the Iranian government was being funded by the communist party. 1953 was filled with McCarthyism and fear of the communist party taking over America. The real reason for the coup was because the leader of Iran had nationalized the oil industry in Iran and taken control away from the British run "Aglo-Iranian" oil company which is now called "British Petroleum" or "BP". The coup orchestrated by the CIA was called "Project Ajax", and it was hidden from the U.S. public at the time. The U.S. government installed the Sha of Iran who was a brutal dictator in the former governments place. 1953 Iranian coup d'état (TPAJAX Project.) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tatThis is a rather eye opening documentary on the history of Iran, and U.S. meddling in their internal affairs. This documentary brings Saddam Hussein, the Iran/Iraq war, and the Iran/Contra scandal in to perspective. The History of Iran www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_AHJQiMxIwI found it interesting that Rick Santorum claimed the United States wanted to spread freedom and democracy in to Iran during one of the recent debates, and that the war between the United States and Iran started in 1979 when the Iranians took over the American Embassy in Tehran in what became the Iranian Hostage crisis. Apparently Rick Santorum did not know that the U.S. overthrew Iran's last democratically elected official in 1953, and installed a dictator that was friendly to the United States. Ron Paul set him straight. Iranian Hostage Crisis en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisisRon Paul Vs. Rick Santorum on Iran during a recent debate www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAXBevBcwHUI want to be proud of my country, but it is things like this that make me realize the United States government is not always the shining white knight I would like it to be. Night Ranger |
|
Sandbagger
Administrator/The Boss
Posts: 6,250
|
Post by Sandbagger on Mar 26, 2012 15:40:46 GMT -5
Belated Happy Birthday, Sandbagger! The ONE thing this government is supposed to do is protect its citizens, which means raising and keeping an armed force of people willing to protect this country no matter what the cost. Ron Paul plans to gut the military. I would prefer it if he gut the bloated US Government instead. Just my opinion. I actually hate political discussions, as no one ever wins them. Most of what Ron Paul says is cutting military expenditures overseas, but not necessarily at home. Interestingly Ron Paul has gotten more donations from active military personnel than all other candidates combined including President Obama. See below; Ron Paul Campaign Receives Most Military Donations thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/9044-ron-paul-campaign-receive-most-military-donationsand... Ron Paul Awash in Active Duty Military Donations www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2012/02/06/ron-paul-awash-in-active-duty-military-donationsand.... Veterans’ support for Ron Paul runs strong www.wistv.com/Global/story.asp?S=7238667Just search Google for plenty more articles concerning Ron Paul's support from active military personnel. My guess is the troops are tired of being shot at and blown up over an oil grab by the United States, it's allies, and the big oil companies under the guise of anti-terrorism. Now Iran is in the cross-hairs, and surprise surprise Iran has the third largest oil reserves in the world. The United States and the United Kingdom already overthrew the government of Iran once before in 1953 under the claim that the Iranian government was being funded by the communist party. 1953 was filled with McCarthyism and fear of the communist party taking over America. The real reason for the coup was because the leader of Iran had nationalized the oil industry in Iran and taken control away from the British run "Aglo-Iranian" oil company which is now called "British Petroleum" or "BP". The coup orchestrated by the CIA was called "Project Ajax", and it was hidden from the U.S. public at the time. The U.S. government installed the Sha of Iran who was a brutal dictator in the former governments place. 1953 Iranian coup d'état (TPAJAX Project.) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tatThis is a rather eye opening documentary on the history of Iran, and U.S. meddling in their internal affairs. This documentary brings Saddam Hussein, the Iran/Iraq war, and the Iran/Contra scandal in to perspective. The History of Iran www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_AHJQiMxIwI found it interesting that Rick Santorum claimed the United States wanted to spread freedom and democracy in to Iran during one of the recent debates, and that the war between the United States and Iran started in 1979 when the Iranians took over the American Embassy in Tehran in what became the Iranian Hostage crisis. Apparently Rick Santorum did not know that the U.S. overthrew Iran's last democratically elected official in 1953, and installed a dictator that was friendly to the United States. Ron Paul set him straight. Iranian Hostage Crisis en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisisRon Paul Vs. Rick Santorum on Iran during a recent debate www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAXBevBcwHUI want to be proud of my country, but it is things like this that make me realize the United States government is not always the shining white knight I would like it to be. Night Ranger Be very careful of the stuff you read on the internet. Much of it is plainly untrue, while a great deal more has a grain of truth but is spun disingenuously to mean something a bit different from what the truth really is. Be especially careful of those who claim that the country is being run by international bankers and that the only reason we're in the middle east is for oil. If this were all true, we'd be sitting fat in the thick of the Iraqi oil wells, but that never happened. Afghanistan has no real oil deposits, and the US has more oil than Iran (If Obama would allow us to drill for it). Most of these sites that make these claims cannot be independently verified, they quote unnamed or anyonymous sources, or vague references such as "a top ranking official" (who they never name directly). Don't get drawn into the tin-foil hat wearing crowd. They see conspiracies around every corner. |
|
|
|
Post by Night Ranger on Mar 26, 2012 17:52:40 GMT -5
Be very careful of the stuff you read on the internet. Much of it is plainly untrue, while a great deal more has a grain of truth but is spun disingenuously to mean something a bit different from what the truth really is. Be especially careful of those who claim that the country is being run by international bankers and that the only reason we're in the middle east is for oil. If this were all true, we'd be sitting fat in the thick of the Iraqi oil wells, but that never happened. Afghanistan has no real oil deposits, and the US has more oil than Iran (If Obama would allow us to drill for it). Most of these sites that make these claims cannot be independently verified, they quote unnamed or anyonymous sources, or vague references such as "a top ranking official" (who they never name directly). Don't get drawn into the tin-foil hat wearing crowd. They see conspiracies around every corner. Possible, but I did find the following on CNN.com's website; transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0004/19/i_ins.00.htmlHere is a partial transcript. =============================================== CNN Insight U.S. Comes Clean About The Coup In Iran Aired April 19, 2000 - 0:30 a.m. ET THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. JONATHAN MANN, INSIGHT (voice-over): Reconsidering a coup. Washington has been warming up to Iran, apologizing, too. Now a long- secret account of U.S. espionage there emerges. Maybe honesty is the new policy? (on camera): Hello, and welcome. There are two stories to tell on our program today - intertwined tales of diplomacy and intrigue and the United States and Iran. The first story is an old one. The second story is what makes the first story new. Back in 1953, Washington and London organized a coup to oust Iran's government and establish a military regime under the shah, Reza Pahlavi. The New York Times has published a lengthy report based on a long-secret CIA account of the operation. The context, though, is as interesting as the content. The front-page story in the USA's most important newspaper came just a month after U.S. secretary of state Madeleine Albright made an apology to the people of Iran. On our program today - coming clean about the coup. ================================================ Here is another piece from retired Four Star General Wesley Clark. I definitely remember seeing him on CNN during the Gulf War conflict in 1991. Wesley Clark - America's Foreign Policy "Coup" www.youtube.com/watch?v=TY2DKzastu8In this video retired Four Star General Wesley Clark says if the Middle East had no oil nobody would care; www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RC1Mepk_Sw&feature=relatedNotice that Ron Paul is the only current Republican candidate that does not want to start a war with Iran. All the other republican candidates advocate war with Iran, and Ron Paul is the candidate the media is desperately trying to ignore. Go back to the first videos I posted at the beginning of this thread to see it. "Ron Paul debunks Iran War propaganda during the Republican debate" www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9GAqVT_C_URon Paul on January 6, 2012 - The Goal Is Peace, It Isn't Occupation , and the reasons given to the American public for going to war with Iraq were lies. Ron Paul also mentions the 1953 coup of Iran by the CIA and the grab for Iranian oil. www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpVvieBKfmI&feature=relatedNight Ranger |
|
darknuss
Mudduck
The world is a cold free toilet..
Posts: 24
|
Post by darknuss on Mar 26, 2012 18:19:01 GMT -5
Thanks to the OP for the posting. I took the time to watch all the videos. The one that sticks with me is the last one where retired General Wesley Clark talks about a planned destabilization of the middle east.
3's
|
|
|
|
Post by Night Ranger on Mar 26, 2012 18:29:12 GMT -5
Thanks to the OP for the posting. I took the time to watch all the videos. The one that sticks with me is the last one where retired General Wesley Clark talks about a planned destabilization of the middle east. 3's Check the second video I just added to that post where he says if the Middle East had no oil no one would care. Night Ranger |
|
|
|
Post by Night Ranger on Mar 27, 2012 5:38:06 GMT -5
Here is another speech retired General Wesley Clark gave in 2006 about Iraq, Iran, Libya, and other wars (Remember Muammar Gaddafi being ousted from power in Libya and then being killed last year?) ; www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8aOiMmekGk&feature=g-vrec&context=G28b3e12RVAAAAAAAAAgAccording to Wesley Clark the coming Iran war was planned even before the United States invaded Iraq in 2003. During the first part of the Gulf War/Operation Desert Storm in 1991 Wesley Clark was all over national news giving updates on the war. I remember seeing him on CNN. Ron Paul is the only republican candidate for president that is trying to debunk the war propaganda and not start a war with Iran. He also wants a full audit of the Federal Reserve which prints the money, because they operate with no checks and balances on them. He wants to see who has their hands in the money printing presses. Night Ranger |
|
Sandbagger
Administrator/The Boss
Posts: 6,250
|
Post by Sandbagger on Mar 27, 2012 6:18:18 GMT -5
Here is another speech retired General Wesley Clark gave in 2006 about Iraq, Iran, Libya, and other wars (Remember Muammar Gaddafi being ousted from power in Libya and then being killed last year?) ; www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8aOiMmekGk&feature=g-vrec&context=G28b3e12RVAAAAAAAAAgAccording to Wesley Clark the coming Iran war was planned even before the United States invaded Iraq in 2003. During the first part of the Gulf War/Operation Desert Storm in 1991 Wesley Clark was all over national news giving updates on the war. I remember seeing him on t.v. Ron Paul is the only republican candidate for president that is trying to debunk the war propaganda and not start a war with Iran. He also wants a full audit of the Federal Reserve which prints the money, because they operate with no checks and balances on them. He wants to see who has their hands in the money printing presses. Night Ranger The thing you have to keep in mind about Ron Paul, is that his support comes largely from the fringe, and even if he were to be elected, he'd still have to work with the congress as it stands, which will likely (at least the democrats) oppose much of what he wants to do. |
|
|
|
Post by Night Ranger on Mar 27, 2012 8:10:21 GMT -5
Here is another speech retired General Wesley Clark gave in 2006 about Iraq, Iran, Libya, and other wars (Remember Muammar Gaddafi being ousted from power in Libya and then being killed last year?) ; www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8aOiMmekGk&feature=g-vrec&context=G28b3e12RVAAAAAAAAAgAccording to Wesley Clark the coming Iran war was planned even before the United States invaded Iraq in 2003. During the first part of the Gulf War/Operation Desert Storm in 1991 Wesley Clark was all over national news giving updates on the war. I remember seeing him on t.v. Ron Paul is the only republican candidate for president that is trying to debunk the war propaganda and not start a war with Iran. He also wants a full audit of the Federal Reserve which prints the money, because they operate with no checks and balances on them. He wants to see who has their hands in the money printing presses. Night Ranger The thing you have to keep in mind about Ron Paul, is that his support comes largely from the fringe, and even if he were to be elected, he'd still have to work with the congress as it stands, which will likely (at least the democrats) oppose much of what he wants to do. I don't agree with the fringe label the media has often placed on him, but he is definitely not main street republican. His followers are growing, and they are easily the most enthusiastic of all current republican candidates. The status quo republicans may not want him, but they definitely want the supporters he brings to the republican party. This is what multimillionaire republican Jack Welch had to say about Ron Paul and his supporters; www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hqaqHODe5gThe republican party is going to run in to one big problem with Ron Paul supporters as a whole. They are not going to vote for Mitt Romney, because he is pro-war and he has no integrity. Also, they are not going away. Mitt Romney is just the latest sock puppet pulled over the same old hand that got us in all this mess to begin with. In the words of Judge Napolitano; "We need a game changer, and Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum are not up to that". Judge Napolitano endorses Ron Paul; www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbrOa9aR1Og&feature=relatedHere is a headline you are probably not going to see much about in main stream media; Ron Paul Wins Key Victories in Missouri Caucus despite the beauty contest (straw poll) results; politicalnews.me/?id=12851Night Ranger |
|
|
|
Post by cbrown on Mar 27, 2012 11:52:21 GMT -5
My question is if Ron Paul is catching on so much, why in an open primary is he not getting better numbers?
And with regards to Iran, if they continue with their nuclear programs there will be some sort of conflict, if not war. Religious zealots with nuclear weapons frighten me. Most normal people wouldn't detonate a nuclear weapon until the last resort, but zealots have a 'higher' calling, and would detonate one without hesitation.
Just think: Who in their right mind would fly a plane into a building guaranteeing their death to make a point? And who would stay in the plane knowing the the guy piloting was going to kill everyone on-board?
|
|
|
|
Post by Night Ranger on Mar 27, 2012 13:35:59 GMT -5
My question is if Ron Paul is catching on so much, why in an open primary is he not getting better numbers? And with regards to Iran, if they continue with their nuclear programs there will be some sort of conflict, if not war. Religious zealots with nuclear weapons frighten me. Most normal people wouldn't detonate a nuclear weapon until the last resort, but zealots have a 'higher' calling, and would detonate one without hesitation. Just think: Who in their right mind would fly a plane into a building guaranteeing their death to make a point? And who would stay in the plane knowing the the guy piloting was going to kill everyone on-board? That is a very good and legitimate question. The answer appears to be the majority of Ron Paul supporters are not registered republicans. You can't measure them in a republican caucus. They are anti-war independents and democrats dissatisfied with Obama and the huge deficit. If you put them together with registered republicans Obama may come tumbling down. In the minds of hardcore republicans having Ron Paul on the ticket may amount to an unholy alliance, but it may also be the only alliance that has any real chance of taking down Obama. Mitt Romey falls significantly behind Obama in the latest head to head polls. Ron Paul however is at the top. See below; www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_US_032212.pdfThis article supports my assumption on non-republicans being among Ron Paul supporters; www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2011/12/27/ron-pauls-base-of-support-not-republican/Your concern about religious zealots having a nuclear weapon is valid, but according to the CIA Iran does not have a nuclear weapon nor is it about to get one despite what the war propaganda is saying. From the New York Times... Published: February 24, 2012 "WASHINGTON — Even as the United Nations’ nuclear watchdog said in a new report Friday that Iran had accelerated its uranium enrichment program, American intelligence analysts continue to believe that there is no hard evidence that Iran has decided to build a nuclear bomb. ..." Below is the full article from the New York Times; U.S. Agencies See No Move by Iran to Build a Bomb www.nytimes.com/2012/02/25/world/middleeast/us-agencies-see-no-move-by-iran-to-build-a-bomb.html?_r=1...so.....Despite all the other republican candidates rattling the war saber and claiming Iran is about to have a nuclear weapon, Ron Paul is the one telling the truth.........again. ;D Ron Paul Destroys Rick Santorum On Iran www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3JkUm0zLwwNote that Santorum claimed we were spreading democracy in Iran through the Iran Freedom Support act which he authored, but he fails to mention that the CIA and the United Kingdom overthrew the only democratically elected government Iran has ever had in 1953 (Project AJAX), and installed a brutal dictator (The Sha of Iran) just to get their oil. Former CIA bin Laden hunter Michael Scheuer on who benefits if the U.S. goes to war with Iran; www.youtube.com/watch?v=dimiJigwQ3QBy the way, this guy Michael Scheuer has some balls. Watch him plant his feet and un-apologetically stand his ground against the media; www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBhjdX61nqo&feature=relatedNight Ranger |
|
Sandbagger
Administrator/The Boss
Posts: 6,250
|
Post by Sandbagger on Mar 27, 2012 18:01:18 GMT -5
My question is if Ron Paul is catching on so much, why in an open primary is he not getting better numbers? And with regards to Iran, if they continue with their nuclear programs there will be some sort of conflict, if not war. Religious zealots with nuclear weapons frighten me. Most normal people wouldn't detonate a nuclear weapon until the last resort, but zealots have a 'higher' calling, and would detonate one without hesitation. Just think: Who in their right mind would fly a plane into a building guaranteeing their death to make a point? And who would stay in the plane knowing the the guy piloting was going to kill everyone on-board? I tend to agree with you. To listen to Ron Paul supporters, he should be running away with this primary, not coming in dead last in practically every vote count. Of course, to listen to them, they swear there's a dark sinister conspiracy to suppress RP's votes, but they also have a secret plan to quietly appoint delegates at the convention and they claim they'll run away with it there. Ah, just have to love unbridled idealism...... I also agree that fanatical dictators with nuclear weapons are especially troublesome. While it is true that Iran does not YET posses a nuke, I do believe that they are actively working on it (otherwise why the bomb hardened underground facilities that they recently discovered?). I also believe that once they have it, they will use it first against Israel, and maybe attack other western targets. On the other hand, it's really hard for countries who have nukes to deny others from obtaining them. It's a bit hypocritical, and the argument that we are more "responsible" in practicing restraint is a hard sell (we are, after all, the only country to use a nuke in a war). I don't see an easy way out of this. But if any of those propaganda sites are even close to the truth, we should be able to send in the CIA and just remove those "troublesome" leaders, and then no one has to risk an overt war. But I guess reality is a harder pill to swallow than fantasy. |
|
Sandbagger
Administrator/The Boss
Posts: 6,250
|
Post by Sandbagger on Mar 27, 2012 18:16:28 GMT -5
The thing you have to keep in mind about Ron Paul, is that his support comes largely from the fringe, and even if he were to be elected, he'd still have to work with the congress as it stands, which will likely (at least the democrats) oppose much of what he wants to do. I don't agree with the fringe label the media has often placed on him, but he is definitely not main street republican. His followers are growing, and they are easily the most enthusiastic of all current republican candidates. The status quo republicans may not want him, but they definitely want the supporters he brings to the republican party. This is what multimillionaire republican Jack Welch had to say about Ron Paul and his supporters; www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hqaqHODe5gThe republican party is going to run in to one big problem with Ron Paul supporters as a whole. They are not going to vote for Mitt Romney, because he is pro-war and he has no integrity. Also, they are not going away. Mitt Romney is just the latest sock puppet pulled over the same old hand that got us in all this mess to begin with. In the words of Judge Napolitano; "We need a game changer, and Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum are not up to that". Judge Napolitano endorses Ron Paul; www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbrOa9aR1Og&feature=relatedHere is a headline you are probably not going to see much about in main stream media; Ron Paul Wins Key Victories in Missouri Caucus despite the beauty contest (straw poll) results; politicalnews.me/?id=12851Night Ranger I don't believe RP's supporters are all that large. They sort of remind me of the Howard Dean supporters in 2004. Very vocal, internet prolific, and giving the illusion of a greater degree of support than they actually have. You have to remember the silent majority does not go to rallies, is not making youtube videos, and generally not making much noise about who they're supporting. But when the votes are counted, that's when their influence is known. Conventional wisdom is always telling us that in order to win a general election, no candidate can be too far left or right. Those pesky fickle independents, which make up 40% of our electorate, will not stomach such a departure from their comfort zone. In poll after poll, Ron Paul just doesn't do well against Obama. He scares too many people. The polls still show Romney as the best choice, although personally, I just can't get enthused about him. He reminds me of Bob Dole, and Clinton easily beat him so....... |
|
Sandbagger
Administrator/The Boss
Posts: 6,250
|
Post by Sandbagger on Mar 28, 2012 6:39:37 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Night Ranger on Mar 28, 2012 7:39:04 GMT -5
I saw that on several media. One article claimed Newt Gingrich was staying in the race to keep Romney from getting the necessary votes to win the nomination on the first vote at the convention. If all four candidates stay in the race that will increase the likelihood of a brokered convention. The article stated that Gingrich was staying in to give Rick Santorm a better chance to beat Romney at the convention. I don't know if that is true. Ron Paul is also counting on a brokered convention as his bound delegates will then be free to vote their conscience on the second and later votes regardless of what the straw poll for their state was. If you are not that familiar with the delegate selection process, Rachel Maddow does a pretty good job of explaining the shenanigans that goes on at the caucus; www.youtube.com/watch?v=9x28_I9oIVg&feature=results_main&playnext=1&list=PL0444CA89EA4A9EDFNight Ranger |
|
|
|
Post by cbrown on Mar 28, 2012 9:00:36 GMT -5
That is a very good and legitimate question. The answer appears to be the majority of Ron Paul supporters are not registered republicans. You can't measure them in a republican caucus. Your concern about religious zealots having a nuclear weapon is valid, but according to the CIA Iran does not have a nuclear weapon nor is it about to get one despite what the war propaganda is saying. From the New York Times... So why run as a Republican if you know the majority of your base isn't Republican? And as to any NY Times article, I have more faith in the stuff published in Weekly World News than I do the Times. |
|
|
|
Post by Night Ranger on Mar 28, 2012 9:42:01 GMT -5
That is a very good and legitimate question. The answer appears to be the majority of Ron Paul supporters are not registered republicans. You can't measure them in a republican caucus. Your concern about religious zealots having a nuclear weapon is valid, but according to the CIA Iran does not have a nuclear weapon nor is it about to get one despite what the war propaganda is saying. From the New York Times... So why run as a Republican if you know the majority of your base isn't Republican? And as to any NY Times article, I have more faith in the stuff published in Weekly World News than I do the Times. Ron Paul tried to run previously as an independent, and he said he spent half his money just trying to get on the ballot in all states. He has come to the realization that if he wants to accomplish his goals (like audit the Federal Reserve) he will have to work through one of the established parties. So far he has convinced Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum to audit the Federal Reserve if they win. Only one candidate has not agreed to audit the Federal Reserve......Mitt Romney....the Goldman Sachs candidate. No one is watching over the Federal Reserve, and they control the printing presses that print the money. There are no checks and balances in place for them. If the Federal Reserve gets audited you are going to see a money scandal that will dwarf the Maddoff ponzi scheme scandal. One of Ron Paul's goals is to modify the party platform to including auditing the Federal Reserve. If he manages to get enough of the delegate votes to keep Mitt Romney from getting the required 1144 votes to secure the nomination he can effectively sell his delegate votes in exchange for the party platform to include auditing the Federal Reserve. Ron Paul is smart guy. In essence Ron Paul's goal may be paraphrased as "If you can't beat them, join them, and then modify the party platform". The big money banks funding Mitt Romney's run for the presidency know that Ron Paul is not going to quit the race, because they are the ones in his crosshairs. They also know that if Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich stay in the race the likelihood of Ron Paul being able to modify the party platform will increase, because Mitt Romney won't be able to get the required delegates to seal the party nomination on the first vote. The crooks that have their hand in the Federal Reserve know that Ron Paul just might start the process that exposes them and sends them to jail. Check out this article; "PART 3. Without 1,144 Votes on the First Ballot Romney is in Trouble" www.conservativehq.com/node/7238From Ron Paul's website; Audit the Federal Reservewww.ronpaul.com/congress/legislation/audit-the-federal-reserve-fed-hr-459-s202/Night Ranger |
|
Sandbagger
Administrator/The Boss
Posts: 6,250
|
Post by Sandbagger on Mar 28, 2012 16:00:48 GMT -5
So why run as a Republican if you know the majority of your base isn't Republican? And as to any NY Times article, I have more faith in the stuff published in Weekly World News than I do the Times. Ron Paul tried to run previously as an independent, and he said he spent half his money just trying to get on the ballot in all states. He has come to the realization that if he wants to accomplish his goals (like audit the Federal Reserve) he will have to work through one of the established parties. So far he has convinced Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum to audit the Federal Reserve if they win. Only one candidate has not agreed to audit the Federal Reserve......Mitt Romney....the Goldman Sachs candidate. No one is watching over the Federal Reserve, and they control the printing presses that print the money. There are no checks and balances in place for them. If the Federal Reserve gets audited you are going to see a money scandal that will dwarf the Maddoff ponzi scheme scandal. One of Ron Paul's goals is to modify the party platform to including auditing the Federal Reserve. If he manages to get enough of the delegate votes to keep Mitt Romney from getting the required 1144 votes to secure the nomination he can effectively sell his delegate votes in exchange for the party platform to include auditing the Federal Reserve. Ron Paul is smart guy. In essence Ron Paul's goal may be paraphrased as "If you can't beat them, join them, and then modify the party platform". The big money banks funding Mitt Romney's run for the presidency know that Ron Paul is not going to quit the race, because they are the ones in his crosshairs. They also know that if Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich stay in the race the likelihood of Ron Paul being able to modify the party platform will increase, because Mitt Romney won't be able to get the required delegates to seal the party nomination on the first vote. The crooks that have their hand in the Federal Reserve know that Ron Paul just might start the process that exposes them and sends them to jail. Check out this article; "PART 3. Without 1,144 Votes on the First Ballot Romney is in Trouble" www.conservativehq.com/node/7238From Ron Paul's website; Audit the Federal Reservewww.ronpaul.com/congress/legislation/audit-the-federal-reserve-fed-hr-459-s202/Night Ranger Running as an independent just guarantees the incumbent will be victorious. I sure hope RP doesn't decide to try that if (when) he doesn't win the primary. I'm at the point where I will be voting for anyone but Obama, but not if they're independent. |
|
|
|
Post by Night Ranger on Mar 29, 2012 8:28:12 GMT -5
Running as an independent just guarantees the incumbent will be victorious. I sure hope RP doesn't decide to try that if (when) he doesn't win the primary. I'm at the point where I will be voting for anyone but Obama, but not if they're independent. I can't vote for a war monger presidential candidate and that describes Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum. If any of those three get elected you will see the United States go to war with Iran shortly after they take office. The pretext will be that Iran has or will shortly have a nuclear weapon if we don't take action. The CIA however has already published a report that says there is no evidence that Iran is trying to make a bomb. They'll claim that we are spreading freedom and democracy in the Middle East, and that we must act to stop state sponsored terrorism by Iran. They will no doubt show images of the airplane crashing in to the World Trade Center on 9/11, the burning towers, and the buildings crashing to the ground. The reasons given for going to war with Iran will be a lie just like the reasons given for going to war with Iraq were a lie. The real reason will be to take control of Iran's oil just like the United States and the United Kingdom did in 1953 when the CIA orchestrated the overthrow of Iran's democratically elected government. It will be the same reason we invaded Iraq, and the same reason the United States backed the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi in Libya in 2011. Greedy men in the West want to control the flow of oil in the Middle East. President Obama has proven that he is not financially responsible. The ridiculous Federal deficit proves that. Neither Obama, Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich will make any meaningful cuts to the Federal deficit. The United States is bankrupt, and all of the above will only make it worse. In the words of Judge Napolitano; "We need a game changer, and Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum are not up to that". We need a man of peace, integrity and truth. We need a man who will stay within the confines of the Constitution, and not wage war without a Declaration of War from the Congress. We need a man who will make meaningful cuts to the Federal deficit, and force the United States to live within it's means. We need a man who doesn't think the United States should police the world. We need Ron Paul. Judge Napolitano Endorses Ron Paul www.youtube.com/watch?v=igQ20jXRCnERon Paul First GOP Candidate to Appear on Ballot in All 50 States politicalnews.me/?id=12911&keys=PAUL-NAME-BALLOTS-AMERICANight Ranger |
|
|
|
Post by cbrown on Mar 29, 2012 8:52:16 GMT -5
Ron Paul tried to run previously as an independent, and he said he spent half his money just trying to get on the ballot in all states. He has come to the realization that if he wants to accomplish his goals (like audit the Federal Reserve) he will have to work through one of the established parties. So far he has convinced Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum to audit the Federal Reserve if they win. Only one candidate has not agreed to audit the Federal Reserve......Mitt Romney....the Goldman Sachs candidate. By your own admission he polls better with Independents and Democrats than he does with Republicans. So why run as a Republican when he is almost guaranteed not to get the nomination? I'm with Sandbagger, I'll vote for almost anyone but Obama. If Ron Paul gets the Republican nod, I'll vote for him. But no third party candidates. Like in 1992, it'll just split the vote. |
|
|
|
Post by Night Ranger on Mar 29, 2012 9:12:39 GMT -5
Ron Paul tried to run previously as an independent, and he said he spent half his money just trying to get on the ballot in all states. He has come to the realization that if he wants to accomplish his goals (like audit the Federal Reserve) he will have to work through one of the established parties. So far he has convinced Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum to audit the Federal Reserve if they win. Only one candidate has not agreed to audit the Federal Reserve......Mitt Romney....the Goldman Sachs candidate. By your own admission he polls better with Independents and Democrats than he does with Republicans. . That is actually a good thing for the Republican party. Ron Paul is bringing fresh blood in to the party. In particular he is pulling in younger voters and Independents. Those voters tended to go more towards Obama in the last election, and now Ron Paul is getting those voters. That means less votes for Obama. In the latest head to head matchup poll against Obama, Mitt Romney was way behind but Ron Paul was at the top. The reason is if Mitt Romney gets the nomination he will only get the Republican vote. If Ron Paul gets the nomination he will get the Republican vote, the Independent vote, and the young vote. The PPP report is below; www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_US_032212.pdf Night Ranger |
|
