reply to post by ScienceDada
I guess I should have taken the time to look up the numbers Ross drew down for the '92 & '96 elections. But without doing that I can remember how
the MSM made him look like a fool.
You sound as if you voted for Ross and yes so did I.
Ok this '08 is it really 16 / 12 years later? and what do we have? The MSM making anyone talking about the budget or freedoom issues into a fool.
Same old story, only difference is 16 / 12 years ago we were a whole lot better off.
What happened to us after 92' /'96 ? We lost something more than an election we lost hope. Can we afford to go hopeless for another 4 or 8 or 12?
So here is our answer....
Ron Paul Statement to the National Press Club
September 10th, 2008 by Don Rasmussen
The American Majority
"The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish
idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can
‘throw the rascals out’ at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy.
Carroll Quigley – Author of Tragedy & Hope
The coverage of the presidential election is designed to be a grand distraction. This is not new, but this year, it’s more so than ever.
Pretending that a true difference exists between the two major candidates is a charade of great proportion. Many who help to perpetuate this myth are
frequently unaware of what they are doing and believe that significant differences actually do exist. Indeed, on small points there is the appearance
of a difference. The real issues, however, are buried in a barrage of miscellaneous nonsense and endless pontifications by robotic pundits hired to
perpetuate the myth of a campaign of substance.
The truth is that our two-party system offers no real choice. The real goal of the campaign is to distract people from considering the real issues.
Influential forces, the media, the government, the privileged corporations and moneyed interests see to it that both party’s candidates are
acceptable, regardless of the outcome, since they will still be in charge. It’s been that way for a long time. George Wallace was not the first to
recognize that there’s “not a dime’s worth of difference” between the two parties. There is, though, a difference between the two major
candidates and the candidates on third-party tickets and those running as independents.
The two parties and their candidates have no real disagreements on foreign policy, monetary policy, privacy issues, or the welfare state. They both
are willing to abuse the Rule of Law and ignore constitutional restraint on Executive Powers. Neither major party champions free markets and
Those candidates who represent actual change or disagreement with the status quo are held in check by the two major parties in power, making it very
difficult to compete in the pretend democratic process. This is done by making it difficult for third-party candidates to get on the ballots, enter
into the debates, raise money, avoid being marginalized, or get fair or actual coverage. A rare celebrity or a wealthy individual can, to a degree,
overcome these difficulties.
The system we have today allows a President to be elected by as little as 32% of the American people, with half of those merely voting for the
“lesser of two evils”. Therefore, as little as 16% actually vote for a president. No wonder when things go wrong, anger explodes. A recent poll
shows that 60% of the American people are not happy with the two major candidates this year.
This system is driven by the conviction that only a major party candidate can win. Voters become convinced that any other vote is a “wasted”
[edit on 10-9-2008 by lunchmanstan]