It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ron Paul just reshaped History, as the Conspiracy against him went into Defcon4

page: 1
32
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+20 more 
posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 03:12 AM
link   
Read it and weep, Establishment stooges, sheep & whipping-boys: Today Ron Paul's campaign reached 1002 Meetup.com activism groups. In angst, a Fox news affiliate released report stating that Ron Paul's campaign success is nothing but a manufactured "astroturf" conspiracy, but the report is itself part of a widespread conspiracy to undermine Ron Paul and what's best for the American People.

NOTE TO MODS: This is meant to underscore the conspiracy to trample on Ron Paul and the American Republic, not to "debate politics", so I respectfully hope it can stay in "Political Conspiracies".

Saturday, Ron Paul's campaign reached 1002 Meetup.com activism groups. In contrast, all other active candidates combined equal only 266 total activism groups, going by Meetup.com numbers. It's also worth noting that the entire Politics & Activism category has only 3,272 total groups. As of today, Ron is pushing towards dominating nearly 1/3 of the entire Meetup.com "Politics & Activism" spectrum, with nearly 4 times the amount of groups of all other candidates combined. This was achieved in almost precisely 8 months, which, coupled with the rise of Internet Democracy, is a historical milestone in grassroots campaign rallying.

Despite this, amongst many other similar successes and trends, the Establishment's media stranglehold continues to pretend and parrot the idea that Ron Paul "can't possibly win" while even resorting to smear tactics wherever possible. The goal is to undermine any hopes and aspirations of “democracy” in their controlled dominion known as our morbid reality of lies and distortions. The day before the 1000 Meetup mark was made, a Fox News affiliated outlet released a report stating that the entire façade of the Ron Paul phenomenon is a fictional illusion perpetrated by the Ron Paul Campaign office.
infowars.net...

Leading up to this quarter, Ron Paul already had 930 Meetup groups heading into October. He also received $5.3 million in campaign donations last quarter, with $1.3M coming in the final 7 days.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.
Ron Paul's 114 percent increase is in stark contrast to the decrease suffered by Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, and John McCain. Romney's fundraising was down 29 percent. Giuliani was down 40 percent. McCain was down 55 percent. freemarketnews.com...

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.
It should be noted that something like 99% of those donations from real American's as opposed to the multi-national mega-conglomerates and similar special interest groups funding those other stooges of American Imperialism (well all but maybe 2 are anyways).

This is mostly the buildup to the CNBC Michigan TV Debate early last week. Other notable items of interest include:
  • He has won with 1st place in 17 of 36 total Straw Polls. He had won 15 before the CNBC Debate, and even placed 2nd in 6 Straw Polls. He’s the clear leader in Straw Polls, while even gaining momentum by winning 7 of the last 8.
    firstread.msnbc.msn.com...
    www.ronpaul2008.com...

  • Vegas Gambling Odds: Ron Paul entered the election with 200-1 odds. During the summer his odds dropped to 16-1, and then to 8-1 within weeks. The odds are now at 6-1, above the multi-millionaire Mitt Romney. Gambling911.com, who has been following the 2008 Presidential Election, and the Ron Paul phenomenon closely all-year, predicts that he'll soon reach 4-1 odds.
    www.gambling911.com...
    In another article, they predict that Paul is the only GOP candidate who can beat Hillary in a great analysis:
    www.gambling911.com...

  • 49.5% of Q3 military donations to GOP candidates went to Ron Paul.
    dailypaul.com...

  • web stats show that entering October the www.RonPaul2008.com website pulled in more activity than all other major contenders combined.
    i24.photobucket.com..." target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>

  • These same trends can be found at places like Youtube.com, where Ron Paul clearly dominates the playing field by leaps and bounds. Consider how he currently has over 32,000 subcribers and over 4.5M channel views. You can compare that to:
    Giuliani: S-2,528 / CV-665,764
    Romney: S-3,119 / CV-798,727
    Thompson: S-665 / CV-41,077
    Clinton: S-6,325 / CV-954,687
    Edwards: S-4,237 / CV-656,929
    Kucinich: S-3,749 / CV-536,941
    Obama: S-11,480 / CV-11,222,069The Obama channel has an interesting number of channel views. It's quite a fluke in comparison to even Ron Paul when comparing the number of subscribers. One thing worth noting is that Obama has 212 videos while Paul only has 52. But, comparing the number of video results shows Ron in the lead:
    Ron Paul 37,200
    Obama 26, 000
    Hillary 23,500
    John Edwards 5,560
    Giuliani 5,320
    Romney 4,530
    Kucinich 1,930
    Fred Thompson 1,550

  • The same trends as the Youtube results can be said of other prime outlets such as Google Video, Technorati.com, hitwise.com, alexa.com and so on.

  • Ron has won 5 of 6 TV Debate aftermath polls. The most recent was removed as Ron was dominating the results in a clear landslide, which prompted CNBC to remove the poll in a matter of hours claiming that:

    "I haven't seen him pull those kind of numbers in any "legit" poll. Our poll was either hacked or the target of a campaign. So we took the poll down."

    As Mark Anderson, of Op Ed News, pointed out:

    Which prompts the question: if Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, and John McCain are the true front-runners, with legions of fans everywhere, why can't they replicate the same thing Ron Paul supporters are doing? Where are the supporters for the other candidates?
    www.opednews.com...


  • He’s even been rising in “scientific” polls, with over 8 states averaging above 3-8% in the past 2 months, which demonstrate a clear surge in popularity…

    And now our Conspiracy comes into view…
    The so-called “scientific” polls, which “show” Paul to be insignificant, don’t seem to always include him on the list of options. Evidence of this begins as he’s the clear leader in national Straw Polls, with many of his victories resembling the gross-landslide victories seen in many of his TV Debate victories, as well as the other indicators including those listed above, yet he appears marginal in “scientific” phone-call-based polls. The flip side is that Giuliani has dominated these same polls throughout the year, yet has failed to win even one single Straw Poll. This indicates that there could be cause for concern.

    While it’s hard to “catch” the shady pollsters ‘doing wrong’, at least one report has surfaced where Paul’s fellow anti-Military Industrial Complex non-CFR candidates from the Left (Kucinich & Gravel) have been snubbed in the phone polling process.

    For example, if you compare the poll listings, of Paul & Giuliani, from usaelectionpolls.com, you end up with 31 polls where Paul wasn’t even on the final results listing, between March when Paul officially entered the campaign, and October.
    Some of the exclusions even involve major networks. For instance, Fox = 2 exclusions, CBS = 4, LA Times = 2, NBC = 2 and Newsweek & Time each equal 2. How are polls scientific if everybody officially in the election isn’t on the list? Furthermore, how can anything in the entire process be scientific when people aren’t haven’t been exposed to all of the names when viewing poll results, alone?

    We can already expect that Media coverage and cheerleading based on the guidance and funding of the Establishment that control it destroys any concept of fairness or democracy, but we must expect to at least see them all listed on poll results. That is the ultimate in illusion; in shaping perception, and them it’s probable that many later “averages” are also skewed based on past figures that don’t include any results.

    But even worse, how are we even to trust the results they give us? We can’t even trust the “results” from the actual elections. We certainly can’t trust the Media in general. But now we’re supposed to trust their polls, when many of us are even influenced in our positions based on the poll results?

    How about some proof that we can’t trust them? Take everything above into consideration, and then step back to that CNBC TV Debate mentioned towards the beginning. Ron Paul entered that Debate as the clear folk champion, as demonstrated all throughout herein, yet CNBC totally snubbed him. This is incredible as CNBC claimed that the talk times were essentially awarded based on the popularity of the debaters. They even ‘cut his mic’ at one point, so-to-speak, as he was directly mentioned by Giuliani in an attack, yet CNBC didn’t even allow him to respond.

    Meanwhile, all during the debate, they allowed Giuliani & Romney & Thompson to play ping-pong in bouncing the airtime back and forth amongst themselves, and to answer anything that may or may not have applied to them. That’s a slap in the face, because if that latter part were CNBC’s m.o. then they’d have been forced to give Ron Paul twice the airtime as Romney, as Paul’s economic positions are one of the primary badges that set him apart.


    [edit on 15-10-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]



  • posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 03:18 AM
    link   
    In fact, the exclusionism was so rampant that he was given the least amount of airtime period. All of the indicators rank Paul as a top-tier candidate, even above McCain, yet left him in the bottom of the barrel. Finally, at the end of the debate, he was the only one to be skipped on his 2nd lightning round question.

    Our methodology for this is actually quite fool-proof. We take a transcript of the debate and parse each of the words spoken at the debate and count who spoke how many words. This is what we got.
    Candidate # of Words % of Candidate Total
    Mitt Romney 1357 22.8
    Rudy Giuliani 1091 18.3
    John McCain 781 13.1
    Fred Thompson 728 12.2
    Mike Huckabee 445 7.5
    Duncan Hunter 431 7.2
    Tom Tancredo 401 6.7
    Sam Brownback 387 6.5
    Ron Paul 343 5.8
    www.usaelectionpolls.com...

    That’s clear in your face display of bias, especially considering that they threw many skewed questions at him in the tradition of the talking heads running the Fox News debates. Then, as mentioned above, they scrubbed the online poll for the Debate after the Ron Paul landslide dumped on them.
    But that’s only evidence of the Establishments Media attempting to rig the election process. Here’s video documentation of eligible Ron Paul Straw Poll supporters being turned away in Ron’s home state:

    Further GOP Party moves have become apparent as at least 3 states shortened the party affiliation-change deadlines, 2 of them already having ended last Friday, the 12th.
    These events provide clear insight into the coordination that exists between the Media and GOP, who with the DNC operate underneath the same Establishment.

    What is happening in modern American politics, thanks to Ron Paul, is therefore unheard of, significant, extraordinary. The bosses of a major, American political party are apparently willing to do anything in terms of the electoral mechanism itself to defeat the candidate - their own candidate - who likely has the best chance of taking the White House.
    freemarketnews.com...

    Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


    www.prisonplanet.com...
    This points us towards the CFR, as all of the bigshots from “both” parties are CFR members, and as I said earlier this year, in my thread titled '08 Election Melodrama Conspiracy, Obama & Hillary are being deployed in unison to provide an irrational social-group wedge secret-weapon… to ensure that the Establishment gets their people into the White House, once again, no matter what contender could arise and steal the weaker-standing GOP nomination. This is the same Establishment behind decades of war crimes resulting in beyond 10 million deadinnocent people, who uses their Media talking heads to manufacture the consent of our own undoings.



    posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 03:28 AM
    link   
    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.



    posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 03:30 AM
    link   
    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...



    posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 06:46 PM
    link   
    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..



    posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 08:01 PM
    link   
    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.



    posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 08:07 PM
    link   

    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?



    posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 08:33 PM
    link   
    I just saw this today--Ron won the Conservative Leadership Conference Straw Poll. They point out that he won without even being there, even though Romney was. This is getting really interesting because for months I've been listening to them say he doesn't have a chance and I haven't been believing them.

    www.politicalderby.com...



    posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 08:39 PM
    link   
    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]



    posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 08:46 PM
    link   

    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.



    posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 08:56 PM
    link   
    "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.



    posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 09:13 PM
    link   
    reply to post by spacedoubt
     




    The Republican Jewish Coalition debate on October 16, 2007 explicitly excludes Ron Paul due to his "record of consistently voting against assistance to Israel and his criticisms of the pro-Israel lobby", according to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, resulting in calls for boycott by Jews for Ron Paul.[119]
    jta.org...



    Did republican candidate Ron Paul draw more attendees to his rally than the Iowa Tax Forum from which he was excluded? The campaign and some eye witnesses say that the rally held next door to an Iowa GOP tax forum – sponsored by the Iowans for Tax Relief and the Iowa Christian Alliance - drew at least 1,000 individuals. This would have been at least 200-400 more than the forum itself, and would have raised even more questions about the reasoning behind excluding Ron Paul – supposedly because he does not have an organization in Iowa, nor the capacity to build one.
    www.freemarketnews.com...


    Videos of the Ron Paul Rally:
    dailypaul.com...

    Those aren't apparently "TV Debates", like from the major Media propaganda-outlets. The first one listed is the Isreali Lobby, in essence, and the Iowa one was more GOP centric. It's no wonder hes been having a harder time in Iowa.


    reply to post by Nohup
     


    I recommend you get familair with him. Give him at least 10 or 20 minutes on Youtube.

    There's been a concerted effort between the Establishment Media to undermine Paul from day one. Videos showing some of this aren't too hard to find. We could spend from now till the Primaries covering all of the media manipulation that has already happened. I wouldn't evne know where to begin. Since the Big 5 Media operates as the mouthpiece of the Establishment (see my final link in my original 'article'), along with everything else I detailed, a "Conspiacy" is the logical conclusion.

    If you'd like we can go into how its a conspiracy from the top... and for those who operate underneath it, and are indoctrinated in establishment-driven political biased newspeak reality do their part like they do in covering up the truth on a consistent basis. But, that would refer to your lamebrained people who don't understand the system. For those who do, such as Media pundits and so on, they understand what their job is and how they much behave. You know, the people who understand that we weren't attacked on 9/11 for our freedoms, and that the truth underlying almost everything they spout off about is puppet to American Empire. The nature of our entire system is wrapped in "conspiracy". Check out my "American Hegemony" sig link.



    posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 09:27 PM
    link   

    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.



    posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 09:32 PM
    link   
    reply to post by Nohup
     


    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.

    [edit on 15-10-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]



    posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 09:40 PM
    link   

    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!



    posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 09:46 PM
    link   
    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!



    posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 09:54 PM
    link   
    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]



    posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 11:00 PM
    link   
    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]



    posted on Oct, 16 2007 @ 01:09 AM
    link   

    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]



    posted on Oct, 16 2007 @ 02:22 AM
    link   
    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]



    new topics

    top topics


    active topics

     
    32
    <<   2  3  4 >>

    log in

    join