Fox News Ignores Ron Paul

[MasterKiller]

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mo...--the-top-tier

[BJJ-Blue]

I noticed this too, but it wasn't just Fox. The man just doesn't get coverage. I wonder if maybe it's because alot of people look at him as a nut. He is the only GOP candidate calling for a pullout of Iraq and Afghanistan, getting rid of the Federal Reserve, and legalizing drugs.

BTW, I know it's of topic but what stances (if any) of Ron Paul's do you disagree with?

[David Jamieson]

Ron Paul is an anarcho capitalist libertarian.

He's isolationist and is about cutting programs and not replacing them with much of anything.

he wants to catapult America back into the past that he thinks is in some way a better America which is debatable of course due to huge population change, demography, gdp, the state of the world etc etc.

I am one of those who considers him a Utopiast and ... a nutter. lol

He has some good ideas, but the big picture has this guy painted as loony as the day is long when it comes to running a nation like the USA.

[Hardwork108]

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mo...--the-top-tier

Anyone here still believe in the free press. That is, a free press that is not for the large part owned and run by the same people who own the private banking cartel we know as the Federal Reserve?

There is a lot more stuff like this (by the way, many thanks for posting it) out there, the problem is that most of the masses are in a hypnotic state and are incapable of connecting the dots that will only lead the conclusion that we live in a ONE party state and it is on its way to join a one party world government, if we don't do anything about it!

[Hardwork108]

Ron Paul is an anarcho capitalist libertarian.

He's isolationist and is about cutting programs and not replacing them with much of anything.

Perhaps his plan to tie the dollar to the Gold Standard again will create an economic stability that will compensate for this.

he wants to catapult America back into the past that he thinks is in some way a better America which is debatable of course due to huge population change, demography, gdp, the state of the world etc etc.

I doubt that he wants to go that far. So far it seems that he wants to stop America from spending trillions of dollars of tax payers money (that could by the way be spent on important programs within the country) and stop the country from participating in ritualized mass murder all over the planet.

By the way, the trillions of dollars spent are from loans from the private banking cartels, the payback of which falls on the US tax payers. So, where do all the profits (arms sales, reconstruction programs, the control of oil supplies) from the war go? Yes, to the bankig cartels or more appropriately their owners!

Who are the owners of the private banking cartel known as the Federal Reserve? Why don't we wait for an citizen of the "free" country of the USA to tell us?

I am one of those who considers him a Utopiast and ... a nutter. lol

That comment is very unfair, specially considering that recent US presidents have included the likes of George W Bush, Father Bush and Bill Clinton, all of whom can be easily classified as psychopaths and who have also been actively actively involved in the illegal drugs trade, which is still going on courtesy of the CIA in the US, as well as Mossad and MI6 in other parts of the world!

He has some good ideas, but the big picture has this guy painted as loony as the day is long when it comes to running a nation like the USA.

That is the real world we live in. Anyone who has good ideas that promote peace and economic INDEPENDENCE from banking and corportate cartels, will be painted as a looney by the media and governments that are owned by those same cartels, that is if they don't happen to die in plane crashes or sudden heartattacks.....

[bawang]

america didnt prosper because of democracy. it prospered from ruthless exploitation. now americans are too soft.

[SimonM]

I don't see why people are so attached to the idea that shiny yellow rocks of minimal utility have value.

[David Jamieson]

Ron Paul will be in the spotlight more and he will be viewed more and more as disconnected from reality.

The fact he doesn't understand the law that makes a corporation a legal individual and went to the extent of arguing against Mitt Romney's correct assertion that a corporation IS an individual is yet another strike against Paul.

If you don't understand why gold and silver are not the standard anymore, perhaps you don't understand global economics enough.

you know how all these people say the taliban will throw countries into the stone age?

Ron Paul will have you all living in the 1700's with his ideas. the dude is seriously out of touch on so many things. It's ridiculous. I believe he is the same type of character as Ralph Nader. Takes a good idea and twists it into an emotional issue then bangs on it like a drum.



You'll get Obama again in '12 and you'll have 4 more years of status quo.
suck it up.

[BJJ-Blue]

The fact he doesn't understand the law that makes a corporation a legal individual and went to the extent of arguing against Mitt Romney's correct assertion that a corporation IS an individual is yet another strike against Paul.

I recall having to educate someone on this site about that as well.

you know how all these people say the taliban will throw countries into the stone age?

That would be an improvement for many people living in Islamic countries.

Ron Paul will have you all living in the 1700's with his ideas. the dude is seriously out of touch on so many things. It's ridiculous. I believe he is the same type of character as Ralph Nader. Takes a good idea and twists it into an emotional issue then bangs on it like a drum.

Well maybe he wants to roll back all these job-killing regulations to 1776 levels, which would fix alot of problems. But how you can call a guy out of touch who for decades has been prediciting the economic problems we are currently facing is beyond me.

Of course in terms of the economy, the 1700s were alot better than economy of the last 2.5 years.

[Syn7]

america didnt prosper because of democracy. it prospered from ruthless exploitation. now americans are too soft.

yeah, thats always overlooked... most people believe what they want to be true...

[BJJ-Blue]

america didnt prosper because of democracy. it prospered from ruthless exploitation. now americans are too soft.

yeah, thats always overlooked... most people believe what they want to be true...

You guys sound like a bunch of Ward Churchills.

This country was founded on democracy. George Washington and the Founders didn't have to give us liberty, the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, the right to vote, protest, and a free press that could criticize even them. They could have just taken control like previous leaders of revolutions did.

Then we legally purchased alot of land, the Louisiana Purchase, Alaska, and the Gadsden Puchase. We got some land by wars, the War of 1812 and the War vs Mexico for example. And many States joined the Union of their own free will, Texas being the largest example.

Exploration like the Lewis and Clark expedition, Daniel Boone, and the Western settlers in the 1800s made our country larger.

And fighting WWII made us a superpower. And we were attacked in that one.

And as for exploitation, we freed places we could have absorbed. Places like Guam, Cuba, and the Phillippines were given independence by us.


You want examples of exploitation, look at the collectivism in the USSR and Communist China that starved millions of people. I'm not so knowledgable on Chinese history, but in the USSR under Stalin there was not a food shortage to blame. The gov't came into places like Ukraine and Georgia and forcefully took the crops harvested by those people and left them to starve by the millions.

[bawang]

you are insecure and overreacting.

i was saying ruthlessness and exploitation are neccesary for a countries well being.

[Taixuquan99]

We didn't extend democracy to the people whose land we were taking, Bawang is quite technically correct.

And France didn't legally own a good chunk of the land Napolean sold to us.

[Syn7]

You guys sound like a bunch of Ward Churchills.

This country was founded on democracy. George Washington and the Founders didn't have to give us liberty, the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, the right to vote, protest, and a free press that could criticize even them. They could have just taken control like previous leaders of revolutions did.

Then we legally purchased alot of land, the Louisiana Purchase, Alaska, and the Gadsden Puchase. We got some land by wars, the War of 1812 and the War vs Mexico for example. And many States joined the Union of their own free will, Texas being the largest example.

Exploration like the Lewis and Clark expedition, Daniel Boone, and the Western settlers in the 1800s made our country larger.

And fighting WWII made us a superpower. And we were attacked in that one.

And as for exploitation, we freed places we could have absorbed. Places like Guam, Cuba, and the Phillippines were given independence by us.


You want examples of exploitation, look at the collectivism in the USSR and Communist China that starved millions of people. I'm not so knowledgable on Chinese history, but in the USSR under Stalin there was not a food shortage to blame. The gov't came into places like Ukraine and Georgia and forcefully took the crops harvested by those people and left them to starve by the millions.

should have some dude hum the anthem for you while you read that out...

[bawang]

america bragging about its success due to democracy, is like a steroid abuser saying its from his training plan.