Its been a obvious conspiracy for a long time now. Ron Paul is very popular everywhere, and the media is claiming polls are hacked as facts without having anything to back it up with. Unfortunately I would not be surprised if the dumbed down public accepts these things as facts as well. The conditioning to not think for themselfs is strong.

But every action has a reaction. All these obvious attempts at manipulating the results will only make the resistance stronger and more motivated.

We may not live in a democracy, but lets make it as difficult as possible for the powers that be to fake the election results.

Dig. My saying is "Let's give this so-called democracy a test drive"!

We need to turn up the volume. We have approx 3 months left...

I was explaining this to my young nephew, who has never voted. (not yet anyway...hehe)

That there can be manipulation by omission.
Then, we watched a few video clips of Ron..Various debate clips..Some campaign clips..etc..He was shocked.."Why haven't I heard of this guy!!?"

Well, grasshopper...now you have heard..

Thanks for commenting.

In that last stretch I forgot to mention how hes been blocked from at least one debate, and is about to be again, by the GOP. If that's not an indicator of foul play nothing is.

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Thanks for commenting.

In that last stretch I forgot to mention how hes been blocked from at least one debate, and is about to be again, by the GOP.

IIB, do you have more information on this?
Is someone trying to muscle him out of an upcoming debate?

I watched the debate and I thought that the whole situation was less deliberate or forced than that. It was more like they were asking all the wrong questions (just like many in the American public would for example assuming that a rising stock market :necessarily: means a rising standard of living for the middle class American), and Romney and Giuliani and Mcain were willing to beat around the bush and talk about a whole lot of nothing. Ron Paul didn't dive into the discussion. What was there to say? The other guys were talking complete BS, there would be nowhere to start - They already had the discussion flying free of sound argument/logic and into emotion driven BS. Well they were not talking about the most salient or relevant of issues. They were discussing free trade and globalism in general.

Ron Paul pinpointed our problems in his tiny window of airtime that he got. In about four sentences he explained how our monetary policy and our wasteful spending (which I think goes beyond government and right into the life of virtually every american) saying that you can't spend 1 trillion per year on policing the world, take care of citizens from cradle to grave, and still expect to have a decent economy. We can't live beyond our means and expect it to continue to be perfectly supported forever. He really nailed it with that 30 seconds of time, the rest of the time was indeed spent with the others BSing constantly and trying to act all positive and upbeat.

I'm a Ron Paul supporter and I actually think that this censorship stuff is being blown out of proportion. They interviewed him after that debate and asked him fair questions, they made him look good. I loved it when the guy said "Mr. Paul I think we should in fact spend more on defense." Ron Paul said something like "I would spend it on defense, not spend it on military for policing the world with, I would increase our defense. When we were attacked on 9/11 we were protecting the Korean borders better than our own, and I would change that." Perfect.

Edit for clarity

[edit on 15-10-2007 by Novise]

Originally posted by spacedoubt
That there can be manipulation by omission.

I suppose so. I certainly never had any choice in who has been chosen to run in this election. Prior to the party machinery gearing up for Obama, for instance, I wouldn't have known him from Adam's off ox. But somebody I guess decided he fit the right marketing profile, so away we go.

I don't know about this Ron Paul, honestly. I know folks around these kinds of Internet forums have a bit of a soft spot for more libertarian types, as long as they're not too strident about putting a semi-auto rifle in everybody's kitchen cupboard. And there are a lot of people here all a-twitter about Ron Paul. I guess he's sort of like the "Linux" of candidates, and if you don't like him you're a damned Windows lover.

It's easy to shout "conspiracy" when your favorite candidate doesn't get in one pointless debate or another. People can get excluded for all kinds of reasons. It usually has to do with money, and that's as good a reason as any. Thousands of people run for President every four years. So how do you keep the riff-raff out? Maybe we could get them all in a big room and see who shouts the loudest. That's how Hitler built a name for himself at first. He was a good shouter. Later on, he got thugs to beat up his opponents, which really streamlined his campaigns, but it was the shouting that first got him noticed.

As for popular support, well, I suppose if you had a lot of people supporting you, you'd have more money, wouldn't you? The Internet's a good, cheap place to state your views, and if you've got good views maybe some people will agree with you. But it doesn't say much about your true broad-based support. Anybody can put up a web page for a few bucks a month.

In the end, it's not about whether you have "good ideas" or not. Maybe Ron Paul does. So do a lot of people. I got some pretty good ideas myself. But I'm also old enough to remember Jimmy Carter, who had a load of good ideas and only managed to get a handful working, because he was such an outsider in Washington. That was a bitter lesson to learn about political idealism. Turns out that the majority of people in the U.S. want things to stay pretty much the same. They don't want a lot of surprises.

I guess that's why I figure Ron Paul doesn't have a snowball's chance, whether you want to call it a "conspiracy" or just Business as Usual.

"But I'm also old enough to remember Jimmy Carter, who had a load of good ideas and only managed to get a handful working, because he was such an outsider in Washington. That was a bitter lesson to learn about political idealism. Turns out that the majority of people in the U.S. want things to stay pretty much the same. They don't want a lot of surprises. "

OK I am a young guy before Carter's time (I am a huge fan of him as a person as I have read a good bit about his work with Habitat for Humanity and how countries all over the world trust him completely) and I don't know a whole lot about politics. But I thought we were supposed to support who we believed in. Vote for who we thought would best do the job. If I think Ron Paul is the best one for the job, who also represents ME and my views! What else can I do in good conscience but support him. This very thing you have said has been on my mind for a while. This is also important because he is quite the outsider in Washington for all I can tell. BTW I think he would be able to answer this question well, I just don't know what he'd say.

Originally posted by Novise
But I thought we were supposed to support who we believed in. Vote for who we thought would best do the job. If I think Ron Paul is the best one for the job, who also represents ME and my views! What else can I do in good conscience but support him.

I think you're talking about two different things. One is whether you think he says things you believe in, the other is whether or not he can actually get the job done. I'm sure you believe the first thing, but do you honestly think that he has a chance at the second? Without throwing in all kinds of "ifs" and "buts" and "maybes?" If you do, then I don't think you understand politics.

You see, politics is a lot of people owing each other favors. Mutual back scratching. You support my children's lunch program and I'll vote for your nerve gas funding. Like I said, it's not a conspiracy, unless you want to label every transaction that goes on in any business in the country as a conspiracy. It's really about how people do business. Money, favors, votes, funding, getting to meet the right people, etc.

Other than ideas (which like I said, I have plenty of my own), just what does Ron Paul bring to the table? Massive support? Not really. Money, connections, favors? I don't think so. He's like a little kid pressing his nose against the candy store window, but all he has is a dime in his pocket.

So this is where you get to make a mature, thoughtful decision. Knowing how the political game is played, and recognizing that it's probably not going to change anytime soon, what are you going to do? Support somebody who has zero chance, or compromise a little and maybe investigate candidates who do have a better chance who also may have platforms you can mostly get behind? Remember. Politics.

Then if you really want to make a difference, rather than worry about who wins the big Popularity Contest, you go out on November 6th and find some way to volunteer on your street and in your neighborhood and in your town. Touch people's hands.

A big Presidential election is just like a football game. The different fans cheer for their team, everybody gets all excited, and when it's over it doesn't really matter who won or lost. It's just football, and they're big, wealthy pros in the league and you're not.

But if you can make a difference in the lives of even a few people in your town who can't get clean water, or need a shelter, or shooting lessons, or whatever, you'll personally do more than most politicians ever do. Ron Paul, included.

Originally posted by Nohup
Other than ideas (which like I said, I have plenty of my own), just what does Ron Paul bring to the table? Massive support? Not really. Money, connections, favors? I don't think so. He's like a little kid pressing his nose against the candy store window, but all he has is a dime in his pocket.

So this is where you get to make a mature, thoughtful decision. Knowing how the political game is played, and recognizing that it's probably not going to change anytime soon, what are you going to do? Support somebody who has zero chance, or compromise a little and maybe investigate candidates who do have a better chance who also may have platforms you can mostly get behind? Remember. Politics.

Thats Defeatism talk, and with that attitude no nothing will change. That's Status Quo conformity, appeal to confort. Wiggle your way thru and ask for permission to do everything...

Ever wonder why the military is always so concerned about morale, during war, including the enemy's concern over his enemy's troops morale? Tell somebody they cant win and they wont even try. It's that simple.

We've all been indoctrinated to suffer in apathy and defeatism when faced with the system that domnates us...

Announcement:
DEFEATISM is all that stops US!

Thanks IIB , for the additional information.

Some of my "rightest" right-wing friends are seriously considering Giving Paul their primary vote. SO Are some of my "leftist" of the left-wing friends.
Although only one has re-registered as a Republican.

I've really enjoyed presenting Material about Ron, to others.
I enjoy seeing the look on their faces. when they realize this guy is actually consistent!

I am talking about two different things and that was not fair of me. But I did not want either to be ignored. While I am certain that idealistically Ron Paul is my man, I can not be certain that he can actually accomplish everything that I believe in. (I am not sure I want him to actually abolish everything he says he would like to, but he is still my # 1.) I also don't believe he actually would, because he would not abuse his powers, he would allow a balance for power which is something that has become foreign to us through GWB's reign. It means he would turn the executive branch into a supportive role, not some authoritarian role.

But after thinking about it, and realizing that at least 4 of the republican candidates (not to mention the top few democratic candidates) would certainly turn all their favors in to push us towards removing the middle class and towards a NAU and prolonged war and more debt, how can I not think that having a president inch us 2% of the way in the right direction to be superior to that?

I cannot imagine that someone fighting the bad guys would put us in worse shape that someone in bed with the bad guys.

And even though I can provide water and food to the needy in my area, I cannot save their children from the effects of American policing the world, their son being sent to Iraq for several months and the horror that that brings to a family, whether justified or not.

I'm still listening Nohup, I get what you are saying in part, but I'm not sold, and I want you to understand that I am trying to understand and I think you have a lot to tell me, and people like me.

[edit on 15-10-2007 by Novise]

the elite own the world, they are the banksters, they even own controlling shares in most multi national company's and oil empire's

if paul was ever elected it would mean there was a national awakening.


the only way this happens is if there is much more economic hardship for the middle class in the next 12 months ( as the pain increases the ignorance fades because their is no bliss)

if paul was elected and he tried to abolish the fed or coin money not borrowed from the independant banksters he would go the way of kennedy and lincoln ( a bullet in his head)

this may wake up the public into a revolt

One of the best selling books these days in China is one that sheds light on the Private FEd and how the rothschild banking dynasty has caused recession and depression and how they gain from defaults ( by repossesing actual property for defaults on "money" that is free to print" ) and how the gov't doesn't issue it's own money is borrows it and how the fed came to being while congress was on vacation in 1913. as well as how they bought up controlling shares in the media and call in their loans if the media decides to shed lite.

not sure why this is so hard for people to beleive. The bankers are very succesful and ruthless businessmen. but none want to wake from their blissful ignorant slumber and get shaken from their comfort zone's. i mean honestly human nature and history shows it will take a bit of pain suffering for people to feel the need to do something about this. history shows us any suffering will be deflected away from fed, and the public will clamor for a solution to a problem orchestrated by the money men, which will be what the banksters wanted to implement all along.



[edit on 15-10-2007 by cpdaman]

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Ron Paul isn't the end but instead the beginning, whether he makes it or not. The Revolution is much bigger than Ron Paul, but he's there to show the People that they can stand up for justice while getting the Sheeple's attention to the real world.

You definitely seem enthusiastic about it! Maybe over the years I've just developed slightly different defintions for words like "revolution," "people," and "justice." You see, to me, I'm just not quite sure what those words mean anymore. The words have a nostalgic ring to them, but after all these decades, I've decided that they ring because they're hollow. "Sheeple," now, that's just an ego word, in which you're claiming some kind of superior awareness. And maybe you do know better. Difficult to prove it, though. But that's what good salesmanship does. Makes you feeling like you're the smartest person on Earth for buying that car, or toothpaste, or funny hat, or politician. It's a clever manipulation I've always admired.

Anyway, good luck to you! For me, I figure The Who said it best:
"Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss."

[edit on 16-10-2007 by Nohup]

Well it's quite simple: The way you've described things would be evolution.

They way I described them would be revolution. Abrupt. Sudden. Affect massive, true & deeply penetrating change in the shortest time period, as opposed to crawling our way in and pressing some buttons to affect some limited degree of global change within the system in question. The latter case, in my view, is futile and pointless in the context of even bothering to pay attention to the "candidates".



[edit on 16-10-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]