reply to post by turbokid
Ahh...touche' my friend but, at least in theory, controlling a few key politicians to influence political events and/or markets should be a lot
easier than controlling an entire company's employees to sway the polls. And, as always please correct me if I'm wrong, but to my knowledge there
has been absolutely no evidence to show that the "national polls" have been rigged? Not one poller or employee, that I am aware of, has come
forward to say that their company is rigging polls to support one candidate or another. In fact, the companies that do most of the big opinion polls
specifically set up methodologies to assure their results are as accurate as possible. After all, if a polling company's results aren't accurate,
who's going to hire them?
Now one can easily make the argument that Ron Paul's true level of support is not shown by the national polls because most of them only poll
registered republican voters and Ron Paul's supporters come from both sides of the aisle as well as from independents. I would absolutely agree with
that assertion. However, since Ron Paul, right now, is only
running for the republican nomination, and has publicly stated that
"I can't conceive of (running on a third party ticket) "
(Newsweek interview) then at this
stage of the game only his level of support among registered republican voters matters.
reply to post by StellarX
Stellar, with all due respect, if you'd care to further enlighten me as to why I should "just move on", I'd love to hear it. For while it is
true that I am not very familiar with Mr. Estulin's record, I see no way in which that changes my arguments. I was simply stating that one should
question an anonymous source, especially when their claims are extraordinary. I did not dismiss the claim in question entirely on that
basis, nor did I accuse Mr. Estulin of being untruthful. In my opinion, even the best of reporters get fed a load of b.s. every now and then. Thus the
source of the claim is very important.
I also fail to see the point you were trying to make in comparing the emergence of ideas from Ron Paul's campaign, to the situation in Haiti. Are you
referring to the American Invasion of 1915, to the 1994 invasion to depose the military dictator, Raoul Cedras, and re-install democratically elected
Jean-Bertrand Aristide, or to the history of Haiti as a whole, and how do any of these incidents have anything in common with the ideas espoused by
Ron Paul and his supporters?
As for the rest of your arguments, no personal offense intended, but I think they are weak at best. You admit in your response that you believe that
the elite are powerful enough to control the elections, but claim that Ron Paul's message is so strong that they may kill him simply for speaking
those ideas. Again I'm sorry, but I have seen no evidence that his message is
that strong. Now, please don't get me wrong, I am not
denigrating Ron Paul or his supporters, in fact as a long time republican, I am encouraged by the activism that the Ron Paul campaign has engendered
amongst a historically lackluster republican base, but when you are talking about the American voter base as a whole, Ron Paul supporters are
a small minority. Further, even if one assumes that Ron Paul's message is as strong as you believe, the evidence you cite that the elite
kill those who threaten their supposed power is suspect. You cite the killings of JFK and RFK to support your theory, but in my opinion both of those
killings are highly debatable as conspiracy theories and as such offer no real proof for a threat against those who speak out on Constitution rights.
As for your comment that "the republican party would... love to see him dead for perpetually voting against almost anything that is obviously bad for
Americans"; this is plainly ignorant and partisan. I don't feel the need to point out specifically why this is so, as it should be obvious, but I
did want to address it.
Originally posted by StellarX
I can't see how they will let Ron Paul get too far along in the process but given how far he has come i am wondering just how much they can allow
before they step in to silence his ideas if not him. Maybe the time of assassinating important American politicians is over but how much money are you
willing to stake on it?
And I can't imagine them (if they truly exist in the form that has been proposed here) doing anything to stop Ron Paul. I foresee Ron Paul doing
relatively poorly in the individual primaries, with the possible exception of a
state or two and the quietly fading back into obscurity.
It's my belief that the possibility of Ron Paul winning the republican nomination is slim, and the chances of him winning the Presidency in a third
party run are even smaller. I also believe the chances of Ron Paul being assassinated by any NWO, elitist conspiracy are infinitesimally small and am
willing to stake some of my money on it. God forbid it should happen, but if it does, simply offer me convincing proof, or even a reasonable, sound
argument to the possibility that it was a conspiracy and I'll gladly pay you 500 American dollars to fund your "revolution".
[edit on 19-12-2007 by Cypher]