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.

 

Complete Cover-up of Ron Paul!!!!

page: 2
3
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 05:33 AM
link   
Unless the US adopts a more representative and democratic political system candidates like Paul will do nothing but sing to the choir . IMO there is a degree of media manipulation at work just look how Richards was excluded from the latest debate the dems held . Maybe bias is a better term in this case I'm not sure.

Now Ron Paul worshippers heed this next part for those of us who don't support Ron we don't like to be preached to . Ron is not at the centre of the Universe other candidates such as Richards and Hunter have suffered the same fate .

Now not every case of Ron not making the headlines is the media ignoring him and because Paul supporters over play the "media black out " card. The result of this is that people like me simply ignore or glaze Ron Paul topics. All of this means there is no debate concerning the influence of the corporate .

I don't expect Ron supporters to take into account my point .




posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 08:13 AM
link   
reply to post by xpert11
 


I can't speak for all RP supports, xpert, but many of us hear you. Consider this: Ron Paul has never complained about the media handling of his campaign. There's been no whining from that camp.

Personally, I see the media 'thing' as real and unfair. But forget that. What really frosts me are these free political ads hosted by the networks and euphemistically called 'debates'. Now I realize that there is no law that requires the sponsor of a debate to invite every candidate. But once candidates ARE invited, if the event really IS a debate then it should be structured as a debate. That is, EVERY participant should get equal time on EACH question posed. There are rules for debates. They should be followed if the event is to be called a debate. Otherwise call them a political cotillian or something. It isn't a debate.



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
Maybe you are smarter and more informed than the rest of us. Maybe the 3 to 6% that support Paul is in fact the most intelligent segment in the country.

I would not bet on that, but hey, anything is possible. Like you being wrong when the rest of the country disagrees...

Semper


Actually, that is probably the most likely scenario: the faction supporting Paul IS a highly intelligent segment of our population. The fact is, the government and the media do not want free and independent thinkers, because we are harder to control...That is why Paul and his message have been subject to ad hominem attacks by the mainstream media from the beginning. He appeals to those of us who actually know how to use our brains to think for ourselves without having to be tv-fed sheep.



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by keeb333
 


or it could just be that ron paul is a crap candidate whose policies would be horribly corrosive to the nation.

i highly doubt that ron paul supporters are any more intelligent than the rest of the populace..all i see is a tendency towards fanaticism in them.



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by keeb333

Actually, that is probably the most likely scenario: the faction supporting Paul IS a highly intelligent segment of our population. The fact is, the government and the media do not want free and independent thinkers, because we are harder to control...That is why Paul and his message have been subject to ad hominem attacks by the mainstream media from the beginning. He appeals to those of us who actually know how to use our brains to think for ourselves without having to be tv-fed sheep.


RP's platform isn't appealing to most of the American public so we are now all ignorant. Yep, that's a sure fire way to get people to want to vote for Ron Paul. The reality is that the man can't win not matter what any of the Paulites claim. As I have posted on other threads concerning RP. Just look at the numbers from realclearpolitics.com, RP is averaging 4.8 percent nation wide. In otherwords, he's dead last in the Presidential race.

I simply refuse to consider a candidate that has zero chance of winning.



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
Look...

The simple fact is he gets exactly, or close to exactly the amount of coverage time as his popularity equates him. I showed you the numbers, EXACT numbers and you still cry...

I guess if you found out he was really a mutant reptile, with Nazi leanings, you would all have an excuse for that too? That would all be someone else's fault as well...


I really don't like your attitude.

While I do appreciate your statistics and they do make sense, i just don't think a candidate should be given an amount of exposure proportionate to that of his polling numbers. If a debate host is going to invite a Paul or Huckabee (or Tancredo, Hunter, Kucinich, Richardson, Etc.) to participate in the debate, the time they're given to speak shouldn't be based on the percentage of polling they've received. They should be given equal time on the debate stage if they are invited. Nobody said CNN MUST invite these candidates, after all. But if they do, they should at least be fair about it.

Case in point: Rudy Giuliani consistently placed BELOW Ron Paul throughout the primaries and he was given ample time to speak while other candidates were not. So this essentially defeats your point. Sorry.


Originally posted by semperfortis
The excuses are wearing as thin as his campaign is. He is NOT getting any significant numbers, because the American public wants someone else. YOU may say they are stupid, but that's what we call "Sour Grapes". Everyone that loses thinks the public is stupid. It's the winners that agree with the votes, remember?


The American public wants who the MSM tells them they have to choose from. Don't you understand that? It's called thinking for yourself. The powers-that-be already do enough for me, i don't need them telling me who to choose from as well.


Originally posted by semperfortis
I think that McCain is an idiot and possibly the only candidate worse than he is is Hillary. I would vote for Paul over McCain, but only just barely. I'm sorry but I don't think Paul has what it takes. For some of the same reasons as Madness and more as well. Apparently America agrees with me and Madness and not you.
Again, no conspiracy, cover up or secret agenda, just the way it is.

Semper


Oh, Semper. I do agree that i can't decide whether Hillary is worse than McCain or McCain is worse than Hillary. I do respect your decision that you don't think Ron Paul has what it takes, but now is not the time to rub RP supporters noses in the dirt because their candidate isn't doing so well.

I mean, can't we be more civilized here? That goes for RP supporters and anyone else. I have supported Dr. Paul since day one and i have never been insulting to someone because they didn't support him. I only want people to go out and think about their choice rather than wait for Ted kennedy to tell them who to pick, etc. If a thinking American voter base decides on McCain, then McCain it is. At least then it'll be legitimate.



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 12:14 AM
link   

now is not the time to rub RP supporters noses in the dirt because their candidate isn't doing so well.


How is it I am "rubbing" anyones anything in anything by pointing out the truth? Remember I did not start this thread on a forum board that invites, nay encourages our replies and opinions be posted...

As for my attitude, what does that have to do with the topic?

Semper



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 02:52 AM
link   
I stopped reading the arguments and such. Ron Paul on the day of November 5th, 2007 raised $5.08 million in that quarter. he is on track. most of the country agree with him. if he does not get the election the we know it is rigged.

Gore (even though he is a boring chap) got the vote above bush in 2000. but still lost. Florida(bush owned) let mister retard into office.... that is why most of DC threw eggs at the car.



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 02:57 AM
link   
reply to post by xpert11
 


If he doesn't get this rigged election then he wi the next.
Thw NWO does not want you to know they are pulling the strings. So ROn is playin his cards right.



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 03:04 AM
link   
I wonder how things would be if the media ignored Romney, McCain, Huckabee, Giuliani, Thompson, Hilary, Edwards and Obama. And Paid more attention to Paul, Hunter, Brownback, Tancredo, Kucinich, Biden, Gravel, Richardson and Dodd.



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 03:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Timmyboi23
he is on track. most of the country agree with him. if he does not get the election the we know it is rigged.


Your kidding right ?
The internet and keyboard hype does not decide US elections . Media cover issues aside most of Paul support exists in a sort of internet driven bubble.

Nobody will take Paul supporters seriously if to many of those kinds of statements make there way around. Paul will never have any real influence unless the US political is reformed. But Paul and his supporters don't advocate or support such measures.



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 09:41 AM
link   
reply to post by xpert11
 


I LOVE IT!!!!!

"If I don't get my way, I know you cheated"

I think it so it is whats best for the rest of the world!!!!!

These guys just get better and better...

Before I just considered him a "not so valid candidate. Now after seeing the Nazi like rabid, foaming at the mouth, unreasonable and pretentious support he garners, I don't think I would support him as Dog Catcher.

There are several PAC here that are considering contacting his home state and inquiring about possible alternative candidates to run against him supported by the National Republican Party.

This kind of madness is not wanted or welcome in politics. Well not since Hitler anyway.

Semper



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by semperfortis
 


semp, it's good to finally find a political issue where you and i agree

granted, you did sway my opinions on gun control substantially...


Originally posted by Timmyboi23
I stopped reading the arguments and such. Ron Paul on the day of November 5th, 2007 raised $5.08 million in that quarter.


alrighty...but he seems to not be using that money to win the campaign. doesn't matter if you have 1000 bullets if you can't hit 2 targets



he is on track.


not breaking 10% is on track?



most of the country agree with him.


no, they don't
in fact, most of the country DOESN'T agree with him
most of his own party doesn't agree...
i think the only place where you can find a significant amount of support for him is on the internet



if he does not get the election the we know it is rigged.


um...
so...
yeah..
that statement kind of stands as a pinnacle of irrational thought



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by semperfortis
 



There are several PAC here that are considering contacting his home state and inquiring about possible alternative candidates to run against him supported by the National Republican Party.

This kind of madness is not wanted or welcome in politics. Well not since Hitler anyway.


Well they better stick their noses in these people's districts too then, because they all support liberty and are running for office and you know how 'mad' people can be when liberty is involved.

Barry Hess
T. Lee Horne
Donald Tabor Jr.
Theodore Terbolizard
Jim Guest
Dean Santoro
Brent Sanders
Jim Forsythe
Murray Sabrin
Ted Brown
Steven McDuffie
Jason Thompson
Ken Arnold
Eric Schansberg
Linda Goldthorpe
Joe Arminio
Richard Pryce Matthews
Christopher Panasuk
Robert Broadus
Peter James
Michael Moeshe Starkman
Collins Bailey
Mike Hargadon
Jay Roberts
B.J. Lawson
Bryan Greene
Peter Bearse
Joe Carraro
Christie Taylor
David R. Grate
John Wallace
Tom Brinkman
Michael Smitley
John Mitchel
Dave Ryon
John D. Diamond
Tom Lingenfelter
Frank W. Szabo
Kevin George
Paul Jost
Vern McKinley
Dave Redick
Cale Case



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 11:52 AM
link   
I don't know why people are making this complicated. Listen, it's plain simple. Time after time, candidates that performed BELOW Paul were given MORE time to talk than Paul did. There are at least a dozen examples of this. There is no need to elaborate, the media bias is CRYSTAL CLEAR. That simple fact in itself discredits your flawed logic.

Jeez...the media brainwash is doing its work better than I thought....



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Time after time, candidates that performed BELOW Paul were given MORE time to talk than Paul did.


According to who? You?

I for one have not seen anyone perform below Paul.

I was at the SC debate and thought RP performed like a child around adults. He was uncoordinated and out of touch, unprofessional and basically without a clue.

I have not seen him perform even on the same level as the other candidates. At that debate or any other.

Apparently the rest of America agrees with me. Well 97% anyway. But apparently you all think that 97% of America is not as intelligent or as informed as your 3%. I have no idea how you come to that conclusion, but there are threads that actually state that... LOL


Wonder what other excuses the RP supporters will come up with next.

Stolen votes? Nope used that one.
No coverage? Nope, done to death.
Money? Nope touched on that one too...

Going to be interesting to see what other excuses they come up with to define plain, simple losing.

Semper



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 12:14 PM
link   
Are you serious? Do I really have to dig up every time Giuliani and Fred had substantially more time than Paul even though they placed below him from the previous primary? The instance when he placed 2nd in Nevada and the news reported that he came out 3rd?




According to who? You?


Yes according me, and every other citizen that paid enough attention to notice.




I was at the SC debate and thought RP performed like a child around adults.


I get the feeling you are acting like a child around adults now.

The proof is there, you are so suckered in that you wouldn't see it if it were right under your nose.




Stolen votes? Nope used that one.


Oh? Can you prove there were no stolen votes? Especially with those darn reliable diebold's eh?

I am at a loss. You are the kind of people who cannot disconnect from the mass media propaganda. Go ahead, vote for whoever you want. You are voting for the same agenda anyway.



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 12:18 PM
link   
madnessinmysoul,

You son, obviously have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to Ron Paul or politics. You assume that Ron Paul is only favored by 10% of Americans. You assume that his policy will demolish our country. Do you know what happens when you assume? You make and ass out of you and me.

Ron Paul will get this country stable, our debt will go down. It may not go all the way down, but he will get a great start on it. He does not agree with intervention of other wars/countries, but he does not like terrorism. He will go after the terrorists, but not intervene in foreign wars.

You need to check his website out. www.ronpaul2008.com... If you don't agree with going by the constitution, or his policies, then you my friend are Un American.

[edit on 3-2-2008 by jca2005]



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 12:57 PM
link   

The instance when he placed 2nd in Nevada and the news reported that he came out 3rd?


REGARDLESS.. FACT... less than 15% total every time.. FACT He only got double digits in Nevada .. PERIOD.


Yes according me, and every other citizen that paid enough attention to notice.

That is the real problem... All of you RP Fanatics truly believe that if I don't think the same way you do, if I don't believe your made up notions, I am not paying attention... HOGWASH.. I know every bit as much as you do about politics, the economy and the candidates. I am every bit as informed and educated. I just don't like Ron Paul, his politics or his stance. And that sentiment is echoed by the VAST majority of this nation.

The more and more I hear you people, the more I understand how dangerous you all are. The last time in history someone said "If you don't think like I do, your wrong", we had to defeat Adolph in a World War.


I get the feeling you are acting like a child around adults now.

The proof is there, you are so suckered in that you wouldn't see it if it were right under your nose.


Again, more ridiculous hyperbole and rhetoric unsubstantiated by the facts and the knowledge of your statements.


Oh? Can you prove there were no stolen votes? Especially with those darn reliable diebold's eh?


Why should I prove a negative? Can you PROVE there were? Prove now, not guess, opinionate or expect us to believe you because you say so.
If you do, then you MUST prove there were not also stolen votes on other candidates. YOU MUST in order to substantiate your claims or they continue to be so much hot air.


You are the kind of people who cannot disconnect from the mass media propaganda


Again with the Nazi concept of "Believe as I do, or you are wrong".
Perhaps they were not so far off, those that accused him of Nazi connections.

jca,


You assume that Ron Paul is only favored by 10% of Americans. You assume that his policy will demolish our country. Do you know what happens when you assume? You make and ass out of you and me.


Your kidding right?

Madness did not have to assume.... YOU however must by the very definition be assuming...

Madness has actual votes, polling numbers and campaign results on his side to substantiate all he is saying.

What do you have?

Allegations, hyperbole and opinions. In other words assumptions...

YOU ASSUME the rest of the country does not know about RP.
YOU ASSUME he is doing poorly because of your ASSUMED unfair debates.
YOU ASSUME some votes were stolen and again YOU ASSUME they were all against RP

You can't prove any of this, yet you continue on as if we are wrong for not just believing you.. SHEESH.. Can you at least try and be factual and scientific for a change instead of emotional and assuming?

Again the fascist and totalitarian attitude of "If you don't think like I do, no matter how many facts you have, you are wrong and you must be punished" is prevalent in all of your supporting posts for RP.

Think that does not scare a free person?

Semper



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 01:20 PM
link   


if I don't believe your made up notions, I am not paying attention... HOGWASH..


What?? My made up notions? what made up notions? I saw it on the television. This isn't an intangible theory. IT'S RIGHT THERE ON THE NEWS. I don't want you to believe anything, but if you SEE it happening and then claim that it's a notion, do NOT blame me for your unwillingness to accept the facts. That's what they are. FACTS.




YOU MUST in order to substantiate your claims or they continue to be so much hot air.


Pay attention, I never said there was any fraud. Why didn't I say that? Because I'm not sure. It is PROBABLE but that doesn't mean it happened. There are many things that point to fraud but it can't be pointed into a single point. That doesn't mean it did not happen. Judgment is needed to come to a conclusion.

And if you want to rely on hard FACTS as you like to do, you will remember that they did not count the votes of those families. They had to admit it. It was less than 50 votes. That doesn't change the FACT that their votes were not counted. Wouldn't make you wonder if they tampered with the diebolds in other counties would they? No, of course not, the news doesn't say so!





Again with the Nazi concept of "Believe as I do, or you are wrong".


Again, pay attention, I never forced you to believe anything. I am stating my opinion. Do not twist it.


I almost wasn't going to reply, because you are beyond the point of no return.



Have fun voting for the biggest flip flopper since Kerry.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join