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.

 

Left Out Again!! :(

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 06:09 PM
link   
I just saw Catie Curic's little special on TV. Jan 29th at 6pm Central Time. Because of the debate tonight, she asked each Presidential Candidate if they could pick only one book to tell people they need to read, except the Bible, what would it be?

Take a WILD guess who's the only candidate that didn't get asked? LOLOL Yes, you guessed it, Ron Paul. Ding, ding, ding. They are so afraid to give that poor man the time of day. That chaps my A**!!!! Main stream media, what a joke.




posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 01:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Quazi176
 

Ron Paul's new motto for the MSM
should resemble the title of that George Strait tune

"I've come to expect it from you"

flagged and starred



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 10:57 AM
link   
wow, a candidate that isn't even receiving 10% of the vote is left out?!

what a shocker


he's a non-candidate... get over it.



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Madness you are truly a piece of work. Paul has been treated this way by the MSM form the start. One of the primary reasons he polls so low is BECAUSE he gets no exposure. Most of the deaf-dumb-and-blind that make up this country havn't a clue what the candidates stand for and get 100% of their 'education' in that regard from the MSM.

I mean who voted GWB into his job not once, but twice? We're nearly bankrupt as a country yet the leading Republican candidate is singing 'bomb, bomb, bomb... bomb, bomb Iran'. Give me a break. It's not up to the MSM to decide who We The People should hear. They're a frigging news outlet. They have (at least in theory) a professional obligation to present all sides. They don't. On purpose. God Bless America.



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by jtma508
Madness you are truly a piece of work. Paul has been treated this way by the MSM form the start. One of the primary reasons he polls so low is BECAUSE he gets no exposure. Most of the deaf-dumb-and-blind that make up this country havn't a clue what the candidates stand for and get 100% of their 'education' in that regard from the MSM.


ok mister high-horse, where you do you get your information on candidates from?



I mean who voted GWB into his job not once, but twice?


less than half of the electorate?



We're nearly bankrupt as a country yet the leading Republican candidate is singing 'bomb, bomb, bomb... bomb, bomb Iran'.


as if ron paul is a saint...



Give me a break. It's not up to the MSM to decide who We The People should hear. They're a frigging news outlet.


no, they're a news BUSINESS.
we're deciding who we hear...
if the american people truly wanted to hear ron paul, they would do the logical, profitable thing and put him on the air more



They have (at least in theory) a professional obligation to present all sides. They don't. On purpose.


yes, because that's how CAPITALISM works.
they do it on purpose because the way they do it brings in more viewers and more ad revenue.



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 

so madness what I guess you're saying is that Ron Paul is not
a viable electable candidate due to he's not in bed with
every Washington politician ??

I would expect that to be a good thing
if we want change in our gubment



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by SimonSays
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 

so madness what I guess you're saying is that Ron Paul is not
a viable electable candidate due to he's not in bed with
every Washington politician ??


...i never said that

ron paul isn't a viable candidate because his positions lack support...not to mention the various reasons not to vote for him
honestly, a significant chunk of his campaign is "get us out of iraq"
well...a lot of candidates are saying that
and i've yet to see his exit strategy
another part is switching to the gold standard
and he's yet to show how it would work

ron paul is a candidate with a shiny surface but really no substance to back up his positions.



I would expect that to be a good thing
if we want change in our gubment


i dont' like ron paul's kind of change
change isn't good on its own...



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 08:07 PM
link   
"ron paul isn't a viable candidate because his positions lack support...not to mention the various reasons not to vote for him.....

He isn't allowed time anywhere to give detail of his strategies to the masses. If he did, maybe America would realize he is the only Pro American up there.

Trust me, he has firm strategies. Maybe a little research, would help you out? Instead of just mindless media backwash, please break it down, why it won't work? Because he's unelectable? What argument is that?

Both the Federal Income tax and Federal Reserve are both unconstitutional. More so, they have ruined our economy. Just because we have been forced to live with them for the last 80+ or so years, does not mean that ending them will end us. The Opposite would occur. That is change for the better. I am sick of paying a tax that is not allocated and unconstitutional.

It would actually free us, and the market would fix itself instead of being manipulated by the FED (as evident in the last week of the market).

When we go back to backing money with gold or silver, instead of just printing it up, and having it backed with debt. Imagine that, a dollar being backed by a commodity (something that is always in demand).

Centralized banks and democracy do not work. They are opposite in their philosophy.

Oh and about leaving Iraq, and a lot of Candidates saying it? Not true, seems everyone likes how things have gotten since the almighty surge.

Paul's the only one who has never flipped flop. Probably one of a handful out there, who sticks to their proverbial guns. Everyone seems to be pro war, and pro military industry.

Exit Strategy of Iraq? His exit strategy and foreign policy would curb the crumble of liberty, our liberty. What ever happened to them using their Oil to rebuild? Why are we still there, paying both sides to continue with a civil war we created. We have no right to be there, now or forever.

Since when does invading countries and staying there forever become the American way? Oh, thats right, since the end of WW2, and the growth of the Military industrial giant (owned in part by the owners of mass media, energy and the rest, our masters).

Stop regurgitating what you've heard from the media, it gets boring to hear the same mindless babble without merit.

You want to debate his policies and plans, bring evidence, next time. You will not find any, except for media bs.



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 04:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by squidboy
He isn't allowed time anywhere to give detail of his strategies to the masses.


he doesn't even have it on his own website...



If he did, maybe America would realize he is the only Pro American up there.


well, i think he's very pro-18th century america...



Trust me, he has firm strategies. Maybe a little research, would help you out?


i've done the research...which is actually how i found out his connections to the despicable and orwellianly named constitution party...



Instead of just mindless media backwash, please break it down, why it won't work? Because he's unelectable? What argument is that?


his positions aren't supportable.
please, show me how a gold standard solves for...anything
or how he'd prevent the chaos that would ensue from a pull out of iraq
or anything



Both the Federal Income tax and Federal Reserve are both unconstitutional.


how can a tax that was brought about through a constitutional amendment be unconstitutional?



More so, they have ruined our economy. Just because we have been forced to live with them for the last 80+ or so years, does not mean that ending them will end us. The Opposite would occur. That is change for the better.


ok...how is it ruining the economy?
the american economy in the last 80 years was stronger than it was in the 80 years prior to those...



I am sick of paying a tax that is not allocated and unconstitutional.


again, it's not unconstitutional.
16th amendment



It would actually free us, and the market would fix itself instead of being manipulated by the FED (as evident in the last week of the market).


"the market would fix itself" isn't an argument
show me the causation of how it would fix itself.



When we go back to backing money with gold or silver, instead of just printing it up, and having it backed with debt. Imagine that, a dollar being backed by a commodity (something that is always in demand).


um...but how would that actually make things better?
i mean, it sounds like a swell idea, but what would it necessarily improve?



Centralized banks and democracy do not work. They are opposite in their philosophy.


more unbacked statements!



Oh and about leaving Iraq, and a lot of Candidates saying it? Not true, seems everyone likes how things have gotten since the almighty surge.


i never said the popular candidates supported leaving iraq...
and obama supports a timely withdrawal



Paul's the only one who has never flipped flop. Probably one of a handful out there, who sticks to their proverbial guns.


that also shows that he's unwilling to realize that he's wrong...
i don't want a stubborn leader who only values the ideas that s/he currently has



Everyone seems to be pro war, and pro military industry.





Exit Strategy of Iraq? His exit strategy and foreign policy would curb the crumble of liberty, our liberty.


ok...but what is his exit strategy?
you're saying it's so wonderful, but what is it?



What ever happened to them using their Oil to rebuild? Why are we still there, paying both sides to continue with a civil war we created. We have no right to be there, now or forever.


we didn't have a right to be there in the first place...but now we have a responsibility to fix the mess we made



Since when does invading countries and staying there forever become the American way? Oh, thats right, since the end of WW2, and the growth of the Military industrial giant (owned in part by the owners of mass media, energy and the rest, our masters).


actually...since prior to the first world war with teddy roosevelt and cuba...
we've been occupying a part of cuba for quite a while now



Stop regurgitating what you've heard from the media, it gets boring to hear the same mindless babble without merit.


it's kind of ironic that i'm not doing so... as i've actually examined ron paul's policies in depth and have found no backing...
yet you keep saying that his policies are great without showing me exactly how they'd work...just telling me that they would

seems like i'm not the one regurgitating



You want to debate his policies and plans, bring evidence, next time. You will not find any, except for media bs.


um...where's your evidence?
you haven't shown me what ron paul's exit strategy is
you haven't shown me how a commodity standard would improve things in a modern economic system
you haven't shown me how ANY of ron paul's policy would work and yet you have the gall to ask me to bring evidence?

i think you're the one that's parroting here.



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 08:36 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Gee madness. I've tried to find Obama's Iraq 'Plan' but the best I can come up with is a 'phased re-deployment beginning in May and ending the following March during which time Iraqi troops will be trained to take over our role'. This from several speeches he has given. Then, from his website:


Bringing Our Troops Home
Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.


This is a plan? Has he conferred with military leaders to assess the feasibility of this plan? How? We havn't been able to train the Iraqi's sufficiently all these years but somehow he'll manage to pull that off in either 11 or 16mos, depending upon which version of his 'Plan' you're referring to. And this will somehow forestall the civil war of which you speak. Am I missing something?

Are you under the impression that Ron Paul, if elected President, would load our entire Iraq deployment on transports the following day and bring them back? It's logistically impossible. Obama doesn't offer any credidble source to say that it's even do-able in 11 or 16 months (again depending upon which version of his plan we're talking about). I just don't see where his re-bop is a plan as opposed to political-speak.



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 08:56 AM
link   
reply to post by jtma508
 


the difference is that at least obama has a proposal. he may not have it thoroughly worked out, as he lacks the resources to do so, but he has an idea.
ron paul just says "let's get the troops home" and ends it there...

sure, obama isn't the ideal candidate, but i just see his policies as far better than paul's



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 09:13 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Wow madness. That's naive in the extreme. I don't dislike Obama. But his 'Plan' is nothing but talk-talk. It's like saying, 'we're going to mars. We're gonna build a spaceship in 16mos, make some rocket fuel and go.' Exactly what edge does that have over saying 'we're going to go to mars'?

Nothing. It makes it sound (to some) that he has a plan but in fact he has nothing more than anyone else who says "we need to get out of Iraq immediately'. Sorry. I just don't get it.



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by jtma508
 


except obama isn't saying that we need to get out immediately... and you seem to be deflecting here

i've yet to see how any of ron paul's policies will work

on the elimination of central banking: the market will fix itself
on the gold standard: it's just better

i want to know why these policies are so damn good...

oh, and i'd like to know why withdrawing from the UN would be a good idea

...or why ron paul thinks that something established under a constitutional amendment is unconstitutional.



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 



Your more outspoken on the Roul matter then RR Conservative is. What gives? Hate to burst your bubble its MSN"S CNN, Fox to report the news not totally ignore canadates. Its not right. Thats not what America is about since Bush is in I watched this country falling into a tailspin of debt. And this Iraq deal has been going on and off since the 90's I say enough!!!

Put Ron Paul in office.



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 07:55 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Madness... get your facts straight. Obama DOES say he will begin removing troops immediately. Check his website and the excerpt I posted a few posts back. His words. Not mine.

RP advocates Jeffersonian economics. He's not the first and won't be the last. The current PTB favor Hamiltonian economics. That enables the government to marshall the resources of the wealthy and elite. Personally, I've had enough of the current tack. It isn't working.

And as for Obama being a 'catalyst for change', why would he bring the likes of Zbigniew Brzezinski into his organization as foreign policy advisor? Brzezinski is the poster-boy for the status quo.

Business-as-Usual

To me, it also underlines the fact that Obama is just an extension of the current ruling elite.



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join