| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| rubylith |
Posted - 05/10/2007 : 10:19:49 AM
Only Ron Paul Can Defeat Hillary Clinton
Which is why the corporate elite that have already selected the New York senator are doing their best to blackball the Texas Congressman - including Yahoo! who lied by claiming Paul had not filed papers to officially run, and omitted him from their website coverage
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Thursday, May 10, 2007
There is only one Republican candidate that can prevent Hillary Clinton from walking into the Oval Office after the next election and that's Ron Paul - which is why the corporate interests that have already selected Hillary are busy trying to stem the tide of a populist onslaught to bring the Texas Congressman to the attention of the American people.
Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate to carry a message that resonates with the American people, his thoroughbred anti-war and anti-big government stance, but the establishment press have done their level best to keep Paul in the shadows while lying in claiming that every participant featured in last week's debate was pro-war.
Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate to have voted against the Iraq war.
Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate who will not seek to lead the U.S. into a military confrontation with Iran, something also that Democrats Obama, Clinton and Edwards have all vowed to keep "on the table."
Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate who is not compromised while the likes of Giuliani and Romney have more skeletons in their closet than a fancy dress boutique. He holds true conservative values unlike the vehemently pro-abortion Giuliani and Romney.
Ron Paul is the only candidate period who has promised to abolish to IRS and end the fraudulent fiat-based money system that is crippling America's economy while lining the pockets of the ultra-rich.
Every other Republican candidate besides Ron Paul stands no chance of coming out on top if they go up against Hillary Clinton for the 2008 presidency.
This is a message particularly directed at people who consider themselves conservatives despite voting for George W. Bush on two occasions - get behind Ron Paul or Hillary Clinton is guaranteed to be the next President of the United States.
For all the reasons mentioned above, we are witnessing a clear agenda to marginalize and discredit Ron Paul on behalf of the corporate media, while burying the fact that he won last Thursday's debate hands down.
Nowhere was this more evident than in a May 8th Washington Post editorial entitled 'Building a Better Debate' in which the Post exposed itself as perhaps the most prominent media organ for those who wish to control and suffocate the democratic process in America.
The editorial was basically a manifesto for restricting the debates to include only the establishment's most well groomed appointees and kicking Ron Paul off the podium.
The wider media plot to censor and sideline Ron Paul has been documented here all week and the latest example was Yahoo's decision to include Mike Huckabee and Duncan Hunter, whose combined support in the polls trails Ron Paul's, on their 2008 coverage page, yet omit the Texas Congressman altogether.
"Stunned, I actually called Yahoo and left a voicemail message for their chief communications officer, and included my email address," writes Thomas E. Woods, Jr. of the Ludwig von Mises Institute. "In their emailed reply, I was told: "According to the latest FEC filings, it is our understanding that Congressman Paul has not officially entered the 2008 Presidential race, but has only gotten to the stage of forming an exploratory committee."
"Huh? Unannounced candidates are allowed into the debates? Can't possibly be true, I thought. So I simply went to the Federal Election Commission website, and after three seconds of searching I found Ron Paul's filing statement, dated March 12. (That's funny: I was told Yahoo had consulted "the latest FEC filings.") Well, here are Ron Paul's documents right here.
So Yahoo! are now stacking lies on top of their censorship in claiming that Ron Paul has not even officially entered the race, despite the fact that this was announced on CSPAN by Paul himself two months ago.
Yahoo! have made numerous promises to add Ron Paul to their list but it hasn't happened yet.
In addition, ABC News, who initially also scrubbed Ron Paul from their online poll, are deleting comments supportive of Paul from their messageboards.
Other large media organizations are deleting votes from Paul's tally on polls, citing multiple voting by the same people as the reason, despite the fact that the polls only allow one vote per IP address.
Though Ron Paul is still obviously a long shot for the Oval Office, purely because he's the only candidate besides Gravel that isn't completely bought and paid for, the fact that the corporate media have to go to these lengths to try and stem the wave of popular support for Paul only exposes their true agenda.
And for that we thank them and invite them to continue their tactics - because by acting like bullies, censors and hostile to the true democratic process, more people will be turned off by their lies and seek alternative avenues for the truth.
|
| 24 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| dan p. |
Posted - 05/13/2007 : 12:03:41 PM
look, you can assume i just looked it up on google if it makes you feel smarter, or can accept that perhaps as a guy who is about 3 inches away from a degree in english concentrating in journalism, he hasn't escaped my radar, as you will. because what you think of me and how smart i am or am not doesn't matter. at all. you are arrogant without reason to be. where you've been and what you've "studied" don't mean fuck if you haven't learned that people who believe differently than you are wrong by default. you also don't know anything about me and my "lifetime," so try not to be too fucking retarded for 5 seconds and assume because you read some books and have been to a couple other countries that you're somehow a fucking master. and even if you are, appeals to authority are hollow unless you back them up.
but yeah, i totally agree you shouldn't respond, because if you're going to keep spouting your holier-than-thou, arrogant conceited bullshit, it'll be better for us all if you just keep your fucking mouth shut. you clearly don't have anything useful or worthwhile to say. for someone who is so enlightened, so smart, and so worldwise, you're acting like a goddamn child. |
| PJK |
Posted - 05/13/2007 : 07:59:07 AM
Nice google search dan, I don't believe for a moment that you knew who VB was. LOL yep, "None Dare Call It Treason" I'm smarter than you because I have studied extensively, traveled the world and I have years on you kid, face it, in your lifetime you can't come close to catching up to me.
I won't comment more on this topic because it isn't worth it. Reply, don't reply its up to you, my thought is you'll have to have a come back because that is how you are, so go for it. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 05/13/2007 : 12:19:47 AM
quote:
Originally posted by PJK
[quote]That's the biggest crock of shit I ever heard, dan! Forget it, trying to say anything even remotely intelligent on some threads on this board is just fucking impossible. I would mention Vincent Bugliosi but I am sure you have no clue who he is, or what he wrote.
Also, I didn't fucking vote for Bush, I marched to protest the fucking war BEFORE it started, so don't tell me, you little snot, that I am the fucking reason for Bush or the war! There are people I love and care about in the service, some over in Iraq now, so don't even lightly insult me and say I am the reason they are there. You may think you are funny being so fucking ignorant, but I fail to see the humor. Not voting is fucking Un-American!
on the topic of being un-american, telling someone they have "no right to complain," which is the view you take, because they didn't vote is pretty much the pinnacle of being un-american, and 2 seconds worth of thought will reveal this to be true. but let me spell it out for you, since your emotions have obviously mastered your reason. by believing this, you're essentially saying that people who do not do as you do shouldn't have opinions on something. that's bullshit. don't fucking sit there and trivialize my opinions, or the opinions of others on this board because we don't vote. we can believe as we please and be right in our beliefs regardless of if we partake in the same act of voting as you do. i don't understand how you can, in all of your righteous indignation, fail to see this obvious truth.
i don't know if you realized this, but the system of voting you cherish so much has put the people you care about in iraq. this system of voting consistently puts assholes and corrupted individuals into power, and this is a system you take part in. and not only that, you take pride it, and demand that others do it? it doesn't matter what you protested, or who you know in iraq. the system you perpetuate sends the people you care about over to die. how can you not see this?
by the way: vincent bugliosi is a lawyer and an author. most related to this discussion, he wrote The Betrayal of America: How the Supreme Court Undermined the Constitution and Chose Our President about a year after the 2000 election. try not to be so condenscending. you're not smarter than me just because you vote. it's really fucking irritating to presume that someone's ignorant just because they don't do or think as you do.
in short, get yourself under control and try to string some words together that actually mean something. if you feel that the board is lacking intelligent discourse, perhaps you should give some instead of perpetuating that. |
| PJK |
Posted - 05/12/2007 : 10:04:00 PM
quote:
well what we have to do is put your refusal to accept the validity of the opinions of people who don't vote into perspective.
you, that is to say voters, voted in george bush the second time (more on that later.) you voted in the people who voted for the war. you voted for all of the people who fucked up. in short, if you believe voting means anything, then it can only follow that it is the fault of voters for voting in the people that started and perpetuate this war. way to go on using your voting right. bang up job. the blood is on your hands as much as mine or bush's, because bottom line is that both our actions, you voting for someone else, and me not voting, resulted in the same thing. in fact, i would argue that if you vote, you have no right to complain. after all, you did something and everything went wrong. i, though, had nothing to do with it. i stayed home.
That's the biggest crock of shit I ever heard, dan! Forget it, trying to say anything even remotely intelligent on some threads on this board is just fucking impossible. I would mention Vincent Bugliosi but I am sure you have no clue who he is, or what he wrote.
Also, I didn't fucking vote for Bush, I marched to protest the fucking war BEFORE it started, so don't tell me, you little snot, that I am the fucking reason for Bush or the war! There are people I love and care about in the service, some over in Iraq now, so don't even lightly insult me and say I am the reason they are there. You may think you are funny being so fucking ignorant, but I fail to see the humor. Not voting is fucking Un-American!
|
| dan p. |
Posted - 05/12/2007 : 3:51:18 PM
well what we have to do is put your refusal to accept the validity of the opinions of people who don't vote into perspective.
you, that is to say voters, voted in george bush the second time (more on that later.) you voted in the people who voted for the war. you voted for all of the people who fucked up. in short, if you believe voting means anything, then it can only follow that it is the fault of voters for voting in the people that started and perpetuate this war. way to go on using your voting right. bang up job. the blood is on your hands as much as mine or bush's, because bottom line is that both our actions, you voting for someone else, and me not voting, resulted in the same thing. in fact, i would argue that if you vote, you have no right to complain. after all, you did something and everything went wrong. i, though, had nothing to do with it. i stayed home.
now, you also labor under the impression that voting means dick at all. it doesn't. you needn't look any further than the first "election" of george bush jr to see that the popular vote doesn't really mean anything. it's possible that this shit is rigged anyway. personally, when i masturbate, i stay at home.
also, saying someone's opinion isn't valid because they don't vote is argumentum ad hominem, and therefore not a valid standpoint itself. i can be right about something regarding government without voting. your stance is narrow-minded and petty. |
| PJK |
Posted - 05/12/2007 : 12:46:02 PM
It is still too far away to predict who will be the Republican or Democratic candidate.
Back in 1968 Johnson, the incumbent, withdrew from the race after the New Hampshire primary because he only had a marginal lead over the third party candidate Eugene Mc Carthy.
That was the same year MLK and RFK were assassinated.
These are tumultuous times and the world is as unsettled as it ever was.
Put all your talk in perspective, all of our opinions could change depending on the state of the world.
AS for voting, if you don't vote, I don't care what your opinion is, as far as our government is concerned.
I don't believe voting is enough, I believe in the good old SDS philosophy of Participatory Democracy.
|
| Ranting Thespian |
Posted - 05/12/2007 : 01:34:02 AM
I don't know dan, we disagree and don't fight. This is a damn messed up place. I'm heading back to my Pac-Man thread |
| Muskrat |
Posted - 05/11/2007 : 10:43:06 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Infant Eyes
quote:
Originally posted by Arthen
I don't have 50 friends...
Me either because I'm a self righteous mouth breather that thinks he knows it all...
Anyway, Dan I think we pretty much agree.
No offense to anyone but that struck me funny and I laughed out loud... |
| dan p. |
Posted - 05/11/2007 : 10:42:22 PM
why do we agree, but only find out after arguing? |
| Infant Eyes |
Posted - 05/11/2007 : 9:29:21 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Arthen
I don't have 50 friends...
Me either because I'm a self righteous mouth breather that thinks he knows it all. I've only got maybe 35. And not very many close ones.
Anyway, Dan I think we pretty much agree. I mean that's why democracy doesn't work in reality is because no one gives a shit or however it was you phrased it. That's why I say don't vote or vote third party. Either way you're not really voting, but at least you don't have to pretend that we have a democracy. |
| Hopeful Rolling Waves |
Posted - 05/11/2007 : 7:51:12 PM
Hillary is a cunt. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 05/11/2007 : 01:06:56 AM
yes, i suppose that could happen, in that it isn't technically impossible. but a lot of things that never happen could happen. i'm very utilitarian when it comes to this sort of thing. it doesn't matter what could hypothetically happen if everyone, or enough people, did one specific thing, because it won't happen. that amount of people won't ever agree on enough shit to all vote in a new government or whatever.
the trouble with "making a statement" through your vote is two-fold. the first, and most important, being that no one gives a fuck. i really tried to phrase that in a nicer manner, but i couldn't. man, not enough people care who anyone votes for for it to any kind of statement. yes, it may feel good to you to do that, and that's fine, but a statement? really? the second is that, supposing your statement is noted, one way or another, i doubt it would do anything. i really don't see anyone in power saying "whoa shit we lost a lot of votes to third party candidates, we better start being better, selfless, non-corrupted leaders." mostly because it's hard to say anything through the shit-eating grin that the democratic or republican candidate will be wearing when that person finds out he won anyway. |
| Arthen |
Posted - 05/10/2007 : 9:25:04 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Infant Eyes
Yes but you're forgetting that if I vote against the mainstream and say about 50 of my friends and 50 of there friends and so on did the same. We'd elect a new government. So either don't vote or vote outside the mainstream corporate funded shit candidates.
Is it realistic? I don't know. Probably not which is why democracy doesn't work. Everyone in this country knows that the vast majority of democrats and republicans are completely dishonest criminals and yet they still vote for them. Look at the percentage of congress people that re-win their seats again and again. So either don't participate in the democracy or actually vote for someone. That's the only options I see as viable if you want to make a statement through elections. The percentage of patriots and citizens here is so small now though that people have lost all hope, and electing in a new form of government seems impossible.
I don't have 50 friends... |
| Ranting Thespian |
Posted - 05/10/2007 : 8:26:30 PM
Who says Hillary is going to be on that democratic ticket. She might have a lot of money, and her husband was the president, but so many others have better ideas. I wouldn't rule out any other candidate at this early stage. I just know that any repulbican that runs with support of Bush, or agrees with him, will lose. |
| Infant Eyes |
Posted - 05/10/2007 : 7:03:53 PM
Yes but you're forgetting that if I vote against the mainstream and say about 50 of my friends and 50 of there friends and so on did the same. We'd elect a new government. So either don't vote or vote outside the mainstream corporate funded shit candidates.
Is it realistic? I don't know. Probably not which is why democracy doesn't work. Everyone in this country knows that the vast majority of democrats and republicans are completely dishonest criminals and yet they still vote for them. Look at the percentage of congress people that re-win their seats again and again. So either don't participate in the democracy or actually vote for someone. That's the only options I see as viable if you want to make a statement through elections. The percentage of patriots and citizens here is so small now though that people have lost all hope, and electing in a new form of government seems impossible. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 05/10/2007 : 4:50:35 PM
no, ultimately voting for a third party will result in the same thing as not voting, which is one of the two "corrupted" parties in office.
it works like this chart shows
who you voted for---->who is in office
no one------------>republican or democrat
third party------->republican or democrat
where is this "better result" of which you speak? |
| rubylith |
Posted - 05/10/2007 : 2:41:27 PM
I totally agree that the Democons and Republicrats are all the same, however Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul are the only valid representatives of those parties.
A good 3rd party would be nice, but the government has such a strangle hold on the media that getting their names and messages out their is nearly impossible.
Doesn't matter what they say, just matters how many commercials they have on and who counts the votes. |
| Infant Eyes |
Posted - 05/10/2007 : 2:05:59 PM
quote:
Originally posted by dan p.
i would also say voting for a third party is throwing your vote away, because they're not going to win and you change nothing by voting for them, much the same way you would by not voting at all. people would like to argue that, but there's no escaping the bottom line, which is that voting for a third party and not voting yield identical outcomes.
Ultimately though it achieves a better result than voting for one of the two corrupted parties. Democracy here is a sham anyway. That's why people should throw their vote away. There's no point to voting if all you're going to do is ensure the status quo or allow things to continue down the same path as they're on. At least voting third party or not at all means one more person didn't support evil.
This whole debate about voting though is the very reason why democracy sucks and I can't even begin to figure out how if became synonymous with good government. Mob rule is great though right? Maybe that's why the founding fathers wanted so badly to limit democracy and took steps constitutionally to do so. |
| rubylith |
Posted - 05/10/2007 : 1:53:57 PM
That picutre of Gilary rules. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 05/10/2007 : 1:47:14 PM
i would also say voting for a third party is throwing your vote away, because they're not going to win and you change nothing by voting for them, much the same way you would by not voting at all. people would like to argue that, but there's no escaping the bottom line, which is that voting for a third party and not voting yield identical outcomes. |
| Infant Eyes |
Posted - 05/10/2007 : 1:37:41 PM
Don't vote or vote third party or non-corporate funded non-mainstream. If you want to throw your vote away on a mainstream Democrat or Republican candidate go ahead, but if you're going to do that why even vote. I wish people would stop with the voting already. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 05/10/2007 : 1:01:47 PM
mitt romney is fucking evil. i mean, guliana is nuts, but man, romney. what a nightmare. |
| rubylith |
Posted - 05/10/2007 : 12:46:33 PM
Haha I know right...thank God for the fair system of electronic voting! |
| Robin |
Posted - 05/10/2007 : 12:24:22 PM
There is no way the Republicans are gonna let this guy win the campaign. Peace, Robin |
|
|
