PDA

View Full Version : This isn't some grand conspiracy




realtonygoodwin
06-15-2011, 04:02 PM
I keep seeing my fellow Ron Paul supporters saying things that concern me. We are not understanding how Herman Cain or Michele Bachmann or Mitt Romney get the support they do. Some have suggested its something to do with polling that isn't accurate, or Cain is the establishment-appointed opposition, or whatever.
Also, people are think Ron Paul is saying and doing wonderful and profound things, and then crying foul when they see poll results.
Here is the real deal: we exist in a bubble, for the most part. We see things through our liberty-colored glasses. We need to try to understand how things appear to the average voter. The Federal Reserve and monetary policy and sound money make sense to us, but the average voter doesn't care or know about that stuff. Ron tends to talk over their heads (which we can understand), and they don't get it. I interact with a lot of people who are not Ron Paul supporters, and Herman Cain is very popular among them. Many Republican voters view the PATRIOT Act as a necessary evil. Many view Ron Paul as having crazy ideas. Sure, some of this is driven by the media narrative, but much of it is because these issues are not on their radar.
I just want to make sure people understand this. Ron Paul is more popular than previously, his ideas are making traction, the party is coming closer to him. However, he is still considered by most to be a long-shot candidate, regardless of how well he does in online polls. This is not a giant conspiracy by the media and other people to shut Ron Paul out...he is not considered a threat to the status quo. I hope that gives us the time to sneak under the radar a bit, gain support, and then outlast the other candidates. If it comes down to Romney vs. Paul, I guarantee Paul gets more than 10 or 15%. He still may not win though. Romney has the perception (currently) of being able to beat Obama. Keep plugging away, realize we have a long way to go still. It's going to get harder before it gets easier. Even if we win Ames, that means we will have to fight even harder in the actual elections. Yes, we will pick up a lot of momentum, but Ron will also become a target like you haven't seen before.

God Bless!

acptulsa
06-15-2011, 04:07 PM
Sure, some of this is driven by the media narrative, but much of it is because these issues are not on their radar.

And the narrative has nothing to do with their radar?

No, RG, it's too systematic to be denied. This doesn't mean you don't have a point. Not at all. It just means that the truth is in between.

There's just no denying the pattern, my friend.

specsaregood
06-15-2011, 04:07 PM
This isn't some grand conspiracy
How do you know? Were YOU in on the meetings?

Brandon Todd Carr
06-15-2011, 04:11 PM
There is a system. There is an establishment. Money is involved. A front runner is chosen and paid. And then given air time.

Guitarzan
06-15-2011, 04:14 PM
The establishment says....Romney/Rubio.


We'll see how it plays out.

RonPaulVolunteer
06-15-2011, 04:17 PM
how do you know? Were you in on the meetings?

lmao

acptulsa
06-15-2011, 04:19 PM
'Eliminate the impossible, and whatever is left, no matter how improbable, must be so.'--Arthur Conan Doyle

They haven't exactly been subtle...

RonPaulFanInGA
06-15-2011, 04:20 PM
The polling conspiracy is annoying. Too many discount polls simply because they don't like what they say. Pollsters pride themselves on accuracy, it's how they make their money. They're not going to rig it to show Herman Cain above Ron Paul just to make Paul look bad.

2007: "The polls are a lie, it's a conspiracy."
2008: *Caucuses/Primaries take place* :( (Or, hilariously: "Diebold robbed us!")

RonPaulVolunteer
06-15-2011, 04:21 PM
There is a system. There is an establishment. Money is involved. A front runner is chosen and paid. And then given air time.

Indeed. There _IS_ a grand conspiracy, and if you think not, might you suggest why the Bilderberg meeting with the most powerful people in the world admit to it rather openly? When someones fights for the people, ala JFK, the price is a high one. The point is not to run around like a chicken with its head cut off, ala Alex Jones, but to admit the issue and then systematically undermine it. Conspiracies for leadership in the USA have existed since Washington, and it's _never_ going to be different. To deny this makes you weaker and less effective.

sailingaway
06-15-2011, 04:33 PM
Some conspiracy theories are farfetched. Some common things could be TERMED conspiracies but that is merely an insult to the person discussing the idea.

For example, it is a fact that some polls are more accurate than others. Some of this is merely sloppiness or lack of a good polling model. Some, such as PPP, seem to poll favorably for Dems until the 20 day window before an election, and Rasmussen is reputed to do the same in reverse. Partisanship is a kind of conspiracy, I suppose, but conspiracy isn't what I think if I note that they are a declared 'Democratic' polling firm and outright root for the Dems. Sometimes use of the word 'conspiracy' to label common manipulation of polling data 'within accepted standards' taints the discussion more than it illuminates.

When you lump everything together under the term 'conspiracies', it isn't helpful.

Ron Paulfan in GA, explain the PPP polls over the last month before Rand's election, then. I think they always use 'accepted practices' just as accountants for wall street do, but to say they don't look at the different impact using different accepted practices would have in influencing the story line seems a bit naive. I don't work with pollsters per se, but I work with consultants creating studies, and there are usually a variety of ways to slice data, some more favorable appearing than others. Not only is it acceptable to use the best model for your client, it is the reason experts are hired, at all.

Jake Ralston
06-15-2011, 04:34 PM
We need to try to understand how things appear to the average voter. The Federal Reserve and monetary policy and sound money make sense to us, but the average voter doesn't care or know about that stuff. Ron tends to talk over their heads (which we can understand), and they don't get it.

Conspiracy theories aside, I too was an "average voter" up until the campaigning season of 2008. I knew very little about the Fed and monetary policy. Who did I have to blame for that? Myself. I'll admit, Ron talked right over my head in 2007 on the debate stage. But like I said before in another post, I took a little initiative and did some research.

We can't pander to these average voters like children. They are responsible adults and it is their own personal responsibility to take a vested interest in our nation and economy. I'm not saying that from an arrogant point of view that they all must agree with us. But rather, they need to be educating themselves and choosing candidates based on solid due diligence.

I can't find the link right now, but there was a video here of a liberty supporter that went to a Herman Cain rally. He interviewed the supporters and "surprisingly" enough, they didn't know much about his past at all. That is simply foolish ignorance.

PaulConventionWV
06-15-2011, 04:38 PM
Indeed. There _IS_ a grand conspiracy, and if you think not, might you suggest why the Bilderberg meeting with the most powerful people in the world admit to it rather openly? When someones fights for the people, ala JFK, the price is a high one. The point is not to run around like a chicken with its head cut off, ala Alex Jones, but to admit the issue and then systematically undermine it. Conspiracies for leadership in the USA have existed since Washington, and it's _never_ going to be different. To deny this makes you weaker and less effective.

Conspiracies are the norm, not the exception. How anyone can deny that the media is biased against Paul is beyond me. It's rather obvious. World leaders talk about their conspiracy to integrate into a one-world government, and we see no outrage over this. We just see it as political mumbo-jumbo now. It's quite astonishing, really.

Johncjackson
06-15-2011, 05:48 PM
The problem I see with all the conspiracy theorists ( by that I mean those who blame EVERYTHING on a conspiracy/bias), is that their schtick really distracts from a lot of the things that really matter and in some way actually legitimizes what the mainstream/media does.

What I mean is, when someone calls you "crazy" and then you make yourself look crazy/nuts by lying yourself and going out of your way to make every perceived slight into some kind of grand conspiracy.

I think dealing with REALITY would be far more effective. By that, I mean not pretending Ron Paul has 70% ( or 50%, 30%, whatever) support in any meaningful way. Because he doesn't. The official polling numbers are much closer to what he would actual get from a real vote. Pretending it's not true doesn't change the reality. Neither does picking polls you like and spending energy complaining about the polls you dislike. The only thing that's going to change that is voting and getting others to vote the way you would like.

I would also extend this to the hysteria and irrational need to win every online poll. Haven't we learned over the past 4 years that winning online polls by huge majorities really does nothing to help in the real world politics? Every time I see a frantic post like " OMG Guys, Herman Cain is Winning This Meaningless Poll. let's Roundup the Troops and WIn!" I just think: Why do you care about these things that don't matter. Maybe someone else should win some of these polls. What does it matter if Ron Paul gets 70% on an online poll if he's getting 8% of the actual vote? How much effort and energy are people using to ensure Ron Paul wins every meaningless poll and finding every slight by the media compared to the energy spent on dealing with the REAL support ( Whether that's 8% or 15% or whatever) and working on actually improving that?

Outsiders can see this for what it is, and even "insiders" do. And it's just ineffective and pointless.

Yes, there ARE conspiracies. That doesn't change the fact that people spend a lot of effort on things that are counterproductive, and by finding conspiracies where they don't exist you are making the real conspiracies more acceptable and palatable.

acptulsa
06-15-2011, 05:52 PM
Winning a poll is just a way to prevent them from using it to marginalize our man. That's all.

I still don't think this is unimportant. I've seen this tactic used against too many potentially good candidates over the years. This doesn't mean you're wrong when you say it doesn't necessarily make people want to jump on the bandwagon by itself. Just that there is a purpose in it.

american.swan
06-15-2011, 05:55 PM
I think the OP makes a very good point. He's likely very correct. We have to WORK and educate the people FOR Paul.

Travlyr
06-15-2011, 05:56 PM
It is a conspiracy. Our opposition owns the printing press. The one world government has been tyrannizing the world for almost 100 years ... WWI, WWII, Korea, Viet Nam, Cambodia, Chile, Columbia, Middle East, and all around the world. The fight is between central bank counterfeiting vs. honest money.

Our fight is liberty vs. tyranny, honesty vs. dishonesty, truth vs. lie, real vs. fake.

Implementing Honest Sound Money into the world is the challenge... A Cross of Gold is the answer.

wgadget
06-15-2011, 05:57 PM
The establishment says....Romney/Rubio.


We'll see how it plays out.

But Bilderberger is saying....Rick Perry. EW.

m72mc
06-15-2011, 06:13 PM
Time to wake up.

Joey Fuller
06-15-2011, 06:17 PM
DISAGREE.
Ron Paul is a serious threat to the Status Quo.

Thus, the neocons were changing their talking points in the New Hampshire debates, FAUX news altering the CPAC straw poll footage, and CNN altering the straw poll results.

LibertyEagle
06-15-2011, 06:44 PM
The fact still remains that most of the voting public has no clue whatsoever what Ron Paul is talking about. If he plans to reach them, he is going to have to simplify it. A LOT.

Oh, and to the OP, the media IS biased. There really is no denying that.

Dr.3D
06-15-2011, 06:47 PM
The fact still remains that most of the voting public has no clue whatsoever what Ron Paul is talking about. If he plans to reach them, he is going to have to simplify it. A LOT.

Oh, and to the OP, the media IS biased. There really is no denying that.
Perhaps the OP hasn't seen this video.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6632255652046262625#

PastaRocket848
06-15-2011, 06:47 PM
I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Some people go way overboard. Some people just have a tendency to believe in conspiracy theories. They usually fit a few criteria:

1: they overvalue their own intellect (i.e. "we know stuff 'the sheeple' can't wrap their heads around")
2: they accept an inverse scientific process as being legitimate (i.e. they form conclusions then find evidence to support them afterwards).
3: they alter their logic to fit the issue at hand. (i.e. they simultaneously argue two contradicting points when discussing different topics. this is because the logic isn't there to provide an informed basis for an opinion, it's there to prove what they view as fact to a 'denier', so the path is taken which does so most effectively, regardless of that logic's implications on the persons other beliefs)
4: they're almost (emphasis on the almost) always 18-35 and male.

those people are dangerous to campaigns. especially in todays "guilt by association" crazed media. that was the primary tactic (beyond total blackout) of marginalizing Ron's support in the last campaign: "crazy people like him so he must be crazy". definitely not gonna help win Iowa...

that said, they're not always wrong. most of the time, sure, but not always. there are, without a doubt, power players in the news media. there are people like ailes who get to pick who gets coverage and whether or not that coverage will be favorable. there was a story on drudge report just the other day exposing, oddly enough, drudge report for this same sort of thing. it definitely happens, and I'm willing to bet most of those guys aren't ron paul supporters.

however i think the issue is not a matter of overcoming some vast nefarious conspiracy by the media. i think it's more a matter of maintaining a campaign that is as mainstream, first-tier, and dignified as the man it's for. we need to refuse them ammunition. we need to keep using every other possible form of communication to blow directly past the media and take it anyway. they can only try to stop the movement, if we take it directly to the end consumer, the voter, bypassing their bullshit firewall then we win. we just have to get face to face with voters and do the kind of stuff mitt romney has to pay people for.

the media is not in our camp for sure, but they damn sure aren't as powerful as a few million empowered citizens. you just gotta knock on their door and pull them away from O'Reilly for a minute.

acptulsa
06-15-2011, 07:17 PM
I guess it all depends. Was NAFTA the result of a 'plan' or a 'conspiracy'?

We're stuck with the crap either way, aren't we?

realtonygoodwin
06-15-2011, 07:34 PM
The fact still remains that most of the voting public has no clue whatsoever what Ron Paul is talking about. If he plans to reach them, he is going to have to simplify it. A LOT.

Oh, and to the OP, the media IS biased. There really is no denying that.

Oh, it is absolutely biased. That doesn't make it a conspiracy.

realtonygoodwin
06-15-2011, 07:38 PM
Conspiracy theories aside, I too was an "average voter" up until the campaigning season of 2008. I knew very little about the Fed and monetary policy. Who did I have to blame for that? Myself. I'll admit, Ron talked right over my head in 2007 on the debate stage. But like I said before in another post, I took a little initiative and did some research.

We can't pander to these average voters like children. They are responsible adults and it is their own personal responsibility to take a vested interest in our nation and economy. I'm not saying that from an arrogant point of view that they all must agree with us. But rather, they need to be educating themselves and choosing candidates based on solid due diligence.

I can't find the link right now, but there was a video here of a liberty supporter that went to a Herman Cain rally. He interviewed the supporters and "surprisingly" enough, they didn't know much about his past at all. That is simply foolish ignorance.

The thing is, you "took a little initiative and did some research."

Most people do not do that. That is what I mean. They are not giving the election their due diligence. That is why we don't win.

Travlyr
06-15-2011, 07:39 PM
Oh, it is absolutely biased. That doesn't make it a conspiracy.

Read Eustace Mullins, "The Secrets of the Federal Reserve."

acptulsa
06-15-2011, 07:43 PM
Oh, it is absolutely biased. That doesn't make it a conspiracy.

So, it's a means to an end but the ends aren't specific? Lotta money to invest in a hunch, friend.

LibertyEagle
06-15-2011, 07:47 PM
Oh, it is absolutely biased. That doesn't make it a conspiracy.

You're saying that there is no plan of 2 or more people to bias the news? Is that what you honestly are telling me?

LibertyEagle
06-15-2011, 07:48 PM
Let's get real, it is a conspiracy. Take the time to read Eustace Mullins, "The Secrets of the Federal Reserve", and then come back and tell the rest of us what you learned.

It's only takes about 3 -> 5 hours of your valuable time.

Or, he could read the UN's Agenda 21 that is permeating our local communities as we speak.

realtonygoodwin
06-15-2011, 07:58 PM
You're saying that there is no plan of 2 or more people to bias the news? Is that what you honestly are telling me?

Away from Ron Paul specifically? To make him lose an election? No. I don't believe that. It is possible, but it would be on a very small scale. I do not believe there is a group of people with power and influence saying, "If we don't do everything we can to prevent Ron Paul from winning the election, our plans will fall apart."

MelissaWV
06-15-2011, 08:01 PM
The polling conspiracy is annoying. Too many discount polls simply because they don't like what they say. Pollsters pride themselves on accuracy, it's how they make their money. They're not going to rig it to show Herman Cain above Ron Paul just to make Paul look bad.

2007: "The polls are a lie, it's a conspiracy."
2008: *Caucuses/Primaries take place* :( (Or, hilariously: "Diebold robbed us!")

Eh, I don't think it's done just to make Paul look bad. Frankly, even the frontrunners must be discounting polls, don't you think? (Spammers! Rigged! Inaccurate!)

Polls are becoming decreasingly accurate due to their methods. A lot of folks don't have a home phone, and the demographics of those that do tend to skew results. In-person polls are notoriously inaccurate. Internet polls can be spammed so easily and ridiculously. I disbelieve all of them --- even the ones that put Dr. Paul in the lead.

* * *

As for the OP, I get what you're saying, and I don't get how you think we're in a bubble. Many on here have talked about why it is that the candidates are ranked how they are, and have managed to see that one might be charismatic, or another have name recognition, or another youth and vigor. However, meet halfway and realize that McCain was not the darling of the 2008 race. McCain did pretty damned badly in the state I was living in at the time, and had far fewer delegates at the GOP Convention there than Romney or Huckabee. Both Romney and Huckabee, though, bowed out and strangely seemed to disengage just as things should have been ramping up. People who were just attacking McCain were suddenly saying the party needed to unite. That happens every election, and to all parties (even the L's had that hilarious effort to get behind Barr, for pity's sake). The party does push one candidate more than others, and not always for the win. That is fact, and not some strange tinfoil theory.

Travlyr
06-15-2011, 08:30 PM
Or, he could read the UN's Agenda 21 that is permeating our local communities as we speak.

For sure.

realtonygoodwin
06-15-2011, 08:44 PM
Eh, I don't think it's done just to make Paul look bad. Frankly, even the frontrunners must be discounting polls, don't you think? (Spammers! Rigged! Inaccurate!)

Polls are becoming decreasingly accurate due to their methods. A lot of folks don't have a home phone, and the demographics of those that do tend to skew results. In-person polls are notoriously inaccurate. Internet polls can be spammed so easily and ridiculously. I disbelieve all of them --- even the ones that put Dr. Paul in the lead.

* * *

As for the OP, I get what you're saying, and I don't get how you think we're in a bubble. Many on here have talked about why it is that the candidates are ranked how they are, and have managed to see that one might be charismatic, or another have name recognition, or another youth and vigor. However, meet halfway and realize that McCain was not the darling of the 2008 race. McCain did pretty damned badly in the state I was living in at the time, and had far fewer delegates at the GOP Convention there than Romney or Huckabee. Both Romney and Huckabee, though, bowed out and strangely seemed to disengage just as things should have been ramping up. People who were just attacking McCain were suddenly saying the party needed to unite. That happens every election, and to all parties (even the L's had that hilarious effort to get behind Barr, for pity's sake). The party does push one candidate more than others, and not always for the win. That is fact, and not some strange tinfoil theory.

Well, I don't mean ALL of us are in a bubble, but countless times I have seen people complaining that, for example, people think Romney and Bachmann did the best in the debate the other day. They seem to think that there is no way people really feel that way. We all feel like Dr. Paul did the best, because he talks about the Federal Reserve, etc. That is what I am referring to.

PastaRocket848
06-15-2011, 09:20 PM
Let's get real, it is a conspiracy. Take the time to read Eustace Mullins, "The Secrets of the Federal Reserve", and then come back and tell the rest of us what you learned.

It's only takes about 3 -> 5 hours of your valuable time.

that reminds me of my fifth common feature of a conspiracy buff: circular sourcing.

all conspiracy web sites/books/etc use circular sourcing, only referencing other conspiracy sites/books/etc as their sources. take for instance the (in)famous Kennedy quote that never was, the old "The high office of President has been used to foment a plot to destroy the American's freedom, and before I leave office I must inform the citizen of his plight." or something like that. It flat out never happened. Someone just made that up, a bunch of other conspiracy sites/book/whatever then use it as a source in their "research" and all the sudden BAM! it's fact lol.

whatever you do just don't get into science...

RonPaulFanInGA
06-15-2011, 09:52 PM
Polls are becoming decreasingly accurate due to their methods. A lot of folks don't have a home phone, and the demographics of those that do tend to skew results.

People have been saying this since 2004 with Bush-Kerry. It hasn't been true and it's not going to be anytime soon. Fact is: older people are most likely to vote and they pretty much all have home phones.

Barack Obama supposedly got the most cell phone-owning youth votes in modern history. And even still the polls accurately pegged him winning by around eight points just before the election.

jacmicwag
06-15-2011, 10:05 PM
The problem I see with all the conspiracy theorists ( by that I mean those who blame EVERYTHING on a conspiracy/bias), is that their schtick really distracts from a lot of the things that really matter and in some way actually legitimizes what the mainstream/media does.

What I mean is, when someone calls you "crazy" and then you make yourself look crazy/nuts by lying yourself and going out of your way to make every perceived slight into some kind of grand conspiracy.

I think dealing with REALITY would be far more effective. By that, I mean not pretending Ron Paul has 70% ( or 50%, 30%, whatever) support in any meaningful way. Because he doesn't. The official polling numbers are much closer to what he would actual get from a real vote. Pretending it's not true doesn't change the reality. Neither does picking polls you like and spending energy complaining about the polls you dislike. The only thing that's going to change that is voting and getting others to vote the way you would like.

I would also extend this to the hysteria and irrational need to win every online poll. Haven't we learned over the past 4 years that winning online polls by huge majorities really does nothing to help in the real world politics? Every time I see a frantic post like " OMG Guys, Herman Cain is Winning This Meaningless Poll. let's Roundup the Troops and WIn!" I just think: Why do you care about these things that don't matter. Maybe someone else should win some of these polls. What does it matter if Ron Paul gets 70% on an online poll if he's getting 8% of the actual vote? How much effort and energy are people using to ensure Ron Paul wins every meaningless poll and finding every slight by the media compared to the energy spent on dealing with the REAL support ( Whether that's 8% or 15% or whatever) and working on actually improving that?

Outsiders can see this for what it is, and even "insiders" do. And it's just ineffective and pointless.

Yes, there ARE conspiracies. That doesn't change the fact that people spend a lot of effort on things that are counterproductive, and by finding conspiracies where they don't exist you are making the real conspiracies more acceptable and palatable.

Bingo - but there are so many different ways to win when you are a RP supporter and many of those ways are showing up every time our opponents take the stage during a debate and recite the "message" according to Paul. I'm not sure I need a primary win when I see Mitt talking about us not being the policeman of the world. All talk of course but satisfying all the same. Still your points are valid but will never really influence the other half in this crazy world we all share as Ron Paul supporters.

realtonygoodwin
06-15-2011, 10:07 PM
that reminds me of my fifth common feature of a conspiracy buff: circular sourcing.

all conspiracy web sites/books/etc use circular sourcing, only referencing other conspiracy sites/books/etc as their sources. take for instance the (in)famous Kennedy quote that never was, the old "The high office of President has been used to foment a plot to destroy the American's freedom, and before I leave office I must inform the citizen of his plight." or something like that. It flat out never happened. Someone just made that up, a bunch of other conspiracy sites/book/whatever then use it as a source in their "research" and all the sudden BAM! it's fact lol.

whatever you do just don't get into science...

+rep

BlackTerrel
06-15-2011, 10:09 PM
People also look for spin where it doesn't exist.

Ron Paul comes off more favorably than Cain in this article yet the OP is claiming it is biased towards Cain:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?298128-CNN-major-media-spin-about-Herman-Cain-s-quot-impressive-quot-resume.&p=3339411#post3339411

And this one: A 23 year old kid who voted for Ron Paul when he was 19 now says he will vote for Obama. MUST be a conspiracy:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?298189-From-Ron-Paul-to-Obama-WTF

I also think by the way we shoot ourselves in the foot with our over aggressiveness. I just saw an online poll posted here where Ron Paul won 81% of the vote. I don't even think Ron Paul thinks he'll get 81% of the vote. Put him at 30% would actually be more believable (and thus a better result) than 81%.

acptulsa
06-15-2011, 10:23 PM
Well, I can't deny that I'm too anxious to see connections and conspiracies where there are none. This is just the truth. There is a whole generation of us who watched the older folks of the day take in the truth about Nixon, and saw how slowly the disbelief faded. The bastard sure changed the world in that way.

Act and you may well feel a fool. Don't act and the Nixons of the world have their way. Stop and research to be sure you're not--or find out you are--crazy and how much more damage can be done? Money and power have led to a great many evils in the world, and getting power for the purpose of doing good requires you to piss off ruthless people. It's just that simple.

I don't know where the happy middle ground is. But I do know that eternal vigilance can be wearing. And wearing people out isn't exactly a surefire way to sell someone on something.

The lobbyists hate Dr. No. We should probably just leave it at that.

HarryBrowneLives
06-15-2011, 11:28 PM
I just want to make sure people understand this. Ron Paul is more popular than previously, his ideas are making traction, the party is coming closer to him. However, he is still considered by most to be a long-shot candidate, regardless of how well he does in online polls. This is not a giant conspiracy by the media and other people to shut Ron Paul out...he is not considered a threat to the status quo. God Bless!

I agree with some of your statements within the entirety of the post. I agree that in order to expand his base and reach; he needs a coach to simplify his message into a sound bite driven world. He could use some coaching ... especially debate coaching to get to the better answer from his principles that is more easily understood.

But, I disagree very much with your point about the media and that he's not a threat to the status quo. I'm actually writing an article on this basis now.

Via the MSM and talk shows, it's not a conspiracy per se ... It's something of a MEME or bias that has being used to the point of absurdity. "Ron Paul does third in this poll ... but he can't win. (Get's big debate applause) But, instead of giving him credit, I, Mr. TV guy will play a clip and add in some goofy music and tell people I have no idea what he was talking about with this “Keynesian Economics" ...that's been taught in every high school Econ 101 class for the last 50 years and has dominated economic thought throughout our lifetimes? Back ache? ... It would be better if it weren't for that Ron Paul guy.

It is a page taken from the Joseph Goebbels school of journalism ... if you say something long enough and loud enough, people begin to believe it with little question in terms of a soft public sentiment. Ron Paul = Bad. It's not a conspiracy but rather a bias perpetuated by self interests within the power resources of our time ..."Newspeak" via 1984.

Which leads us to the question why must many members of this power resource called the radio and TV media go to such absurd lengths to discredit this guy? Shutting down online polls, shutting him out of debates, asking weird questions never posed to others, changing media clips of the CPAC straw poll to one far less flattering, telling us that 54 people know who you should vote for and none of those is Ron Paul, omission, debasement, exclusion, etc? The pattern over the past few years is consistent and undeniable.

Has Ron Paul shot up a school? Has Ron Paul said a cross word about someone in public? Has Ron Paul lied about something in the public sphere? Does Ron Paul have a sex tape?

Then why is it that a soft-spoken, country Dr. turned Congressman apparently such a threat to these people??? Under almost any social metric of public life it makes no sense.

He has ideas that are a threat to the very foundation of the status quo.

As Goldwater speechwriter Karl Hess once so eloquently wrote:

"This is not a time of radical, revolutionary politics. Not yet. Unrest, riot, dissent, and chaos notwithstanding, today's politics is reactionary. Both Left and Right are reactionary and authoritarian. That is to say, both are political. They seek only to revise current methods of acquiring and wielding political power. Radical and revolutionary movements seek not to revise but to revoke. The target of revocation should be obvious. The target is politics itself

Radicals and revolutionaries have had their sights trained on politics for some time. As governments fail around the world, as more millions become aware that government never has and never can humanely and effectively manage men's affairs, government's own inadequacy will emerge, at last, as the basis for a truly radical and revolutionary movement. In the meantime, the radical-revolutionary position is a lonely one. It is feared and hated, by both Right and Left – although both Right and Left must borrow from it to survive. The radical-revolutionary position is libertarianism, and its socioeconomic form is laissez-faire capitalism"

If you're simply saying what's on your mind, then you don't need the political establishment …

Billions are now tied to what Menken called "The advance auction of stolen goods" or elections. Lobbyists, consultants, fundraisers, campaign managers, pollsters, book marketers, authors, lecturers, talk show hosts who need the red team vs. blue team debate, the Wienergates, and the drama to tell you who to support or oppose and the advertisers have a vested interest too along with the media corporations. This is BIG business. These people are fighting for the right for the elite to imprison us within a soft despotism. With Ron Paul, most all these people are irrelevant ... thus; he must be opposed by most all of them.

"... government's own inadequacy will emerge, at last, as the basis for a truly radical and revolutionary movement."

We didn't stack a room full of people in the NH debate. Those average people cheered for our ideas. Conversely, the candidates spent hundreds of thousands on the political infrastructure ... Consultants and focus groups. No one talked about staying in some Middle East country for the next 50 years. No one championed Nation Building. No one lauded the Next Government Program …

“… Although both Right and Left must borrow from it to survive."

The message can no longer be denied so its messengers must be opposed. Pandora’s Box on political discourse in this country has been opened by us. Thus, Ron Paul, as our current figurehead, has become the target for the media’s goal to limit acceptable political discussion to a uniformed type attempting by any means to close the Box with “Government’s own inadequacy” emerged. Despite the best laid ends of the status quo’s desired warfare/welfare state, the means no longer exist.

In short, in the eyes and ears of our Noble Saviours, the Truth is Still Treason.

Paul Or Nothing II
06-15-2011, 11:59 PM
I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Some people go way overboard. Some people just have a tendency to believe in conspiracy theories.

I agree. People act in their PERCEIVED self-interest & obviously there are people who'd be hurt by an honest president Ron so many people might be acting independently & not like they're all "in" on it, at the some time, people with similar views do come together & consprire but again that doesn't mean the whole system is a conspiracy, even Ron doesn't agree with that as he's stated before. So in short, I agree that the truth lies somewhere in the middle.


that reminds me of my fifth common feature of a conspiracy buff: circular sourcing.

all conspiracy web sites/books/etc use circular sourcing, only referencing other conspiracy sites/books/etc as their sources. take for instance the (in)famous Kennedy quote that never was, the old "The high office of President has been used to foment a plot to destroy the American's freedom, and before I leave office I must inform the citizen of his plight." or something like that. It flat out never happened. Someone just made that up, a bunch of other conspiracy sites/book/whatever then use it as a source in their "research" and all the sudden BAM! it's fact lol.

whatever you do just don't get into science...

Yeah, the whole "JFK was killed for issuing new currency" myth just won't die, it's just not true but so many Ron Paul supporters believe it - http://www.freedomforceinternational.org/freedomcontent.cfm?fuseaction=jfkmyth&refpage=issues


I agree that in order to expand his base and reach; he needs a coach to simplify his message into a sound bite driven world. He could use some coaching ... especially debate coaching to get to the better answer from his principles that is more easily understood.

Yes, he DEFINITELY needs to learn to get his message across concisely & in words that masses can easily understand his views on various issues.

Travlyr
06-16-2011, 08:20 AM
that reminds me of my fifth common feature of a conspiracy buff: circular sourcing.

all conspiracy web sites/books/etc use circular sourcing, only referencing other conspiracy sites/books/etc as their sources. take for instance the (in)famous Kennedy quote that never was, the old "The high office of President has been used to foment a plot to destroy the American's freedom, and before I leave office I must inform the citizen of his plight." or something like that. It flat out never happened. Someone just made that up, a bunch of other conspiracy sites/book/whatever then use it as a source in their "research" and all the sudden BAM! it's fact lol.

whatever you do just don't get into science...

Eustace Mullins spent much of his life studying in the "Library of Congress" so his works are a well researched and documented history of the United States. Read it if you want to learn some truth.

"The Secrets of the Federal Reserve" by Eustace Mullins exposes the conspiracy of international bankers (The Warburg brothers, et.al.) and politicians (Senator Nelson Aldrich, et.al.) to gain control of the United States government. The bankers and politicians were successful in that endeavor with the passing of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. Now, the younger generations are paying the price for the disastrous central banking schemes with monstrous un-repayable debts.


"The matter of a uniform discount rate was discussed and settled at Jekyll Island." -- Paul M. Warburg.

Prof. Nathaniel Wright Stephenson, Paul Warburg's Memorandum, Nelson Aldrich A Leader in American Politics, Scribners, N.Y. 1930

Warburg writes, "The results of the conference were entirely confidential. Even the fact that there had been a meeting was not permitted to become public." He adds in a footnote, "Though eighteen years have since gone by, I do not feel free to give a description of this most interesting conference concerning which Senator Aldrich pledged all participants to secrecy."

Paul Warburg, The Federal Reserve System, Its Origin and Growth, Volume I, p. 60 Macmillan, New York, 1930.

So your "fifth common feature of a conspiracy buff: circular sourcing" doesn't hold water in this case.

PastaRocket848
06-16-2011, 09:12 AM
i didn't say they were wrong all the time. there are elements of the history of the fed which lend itself to conspiracy theories. this is the nature of secretive organizations. it always plays out that way. however, the conspiracy nuts have a tendency to go one step past reality and start extrapolating on facts.

the fed is probably the only modern source of conspiracy theories that hold any actual factual basis supported by anything other than circular sourcing and the other things i mentioned before. the reason for this is that what they do is, by nature, conspiratorial. so, sure, bankers helped set up the fed. go figure, it's a banking cartel. you can find true facts to back up assertions about the fed because much of the conspiracy is based on an extrapolated view of reality.

there was no absolutism in my post, you only inferred it.

Travlyr
06-16-2011, 09:24 AM
all conspiracy web sites/books/etc use circular sourcing, only referencing other conspiracy sites/books/etc as their sources.
This is absolutism, and it is not true. Many conspiracies have been proven as fact.

PastaRocket848
06-16-2011, 09:31 AM
.....and it's true. when conspiracy nuts want to assert a basis for their factually incorrect positions, they do so by citing other conspiracy nuts. it's common practice. go to any conspiracy website and see how many links go to other conspiracy websites.

again, the case of the fed is different because the facts they are asserting are actual facts, that legitimately back up their assertions to some degree, and thus don't require circular sourcing, and are not by definition a "conspiracy theory" to begin with. there are legitimate concerns about the fed that are commonly voiced in conspiracy circles. that doesn't make them conspiracy theories.

now i promise you that if you look into some of the more "extrapolated" views of the fed that have been published over the years, you will find plenty of examples of circular sourcing. the subject you reference in the context you reference it simply isn't a conspiracy theory to begin with. everyone knows bankers set up the fed. that's no mystery, no one is trying to hide it or rewrite history. it's shady, sure, but it's not a conspiracy theory.

Travlyr
06-16-2011, 09:38 AM
it's shady, sure, but it's not a conspiracy theory.

You are right. It is not a conspiracy theory anymore, it is a conspiracy fact. It was criminal in nature, it is immoral, and it is theft of the highest order. The reason Daddy Warbucks did "not feel free to give a description of this most interesting conference concerning which Senator Aldrich pledged all participants to secrecy." was because he knew that the Coinage Act of 1792 called for the death penalty for anyone who debased currency. Even at his age at the time he didn't want a rope around his neck to hang in public.

PastaRocket848
06-16-2011, 09:42 AM
You are right. It is not a conspiracy theory, it is a conspiracy fact. It was criminal in nature, it is immoral, and it is theft of the highest order. The reason Daddy Warbucks did "not feel free to give a description of this most interesting conference concerning which Senator Aldrich pledged all participants to secrecy." was because he knew that the Coinage Act of 1792 called for the death penalty for anyone who debased currency. Even at his age at the time he didn't want a rope around his neck to hang in public.

absolutely. i agree 100%. the fed is conspiratorial in nature, and that opinion has a basis in fact. my "bullet points" apply to actual conspiracy *theories*, and they are quite accurate. I've done much research on the subject and am in the process of writing a book about it. i've done my homework. these patterns have been repeated throughout history. from 9/11 to JFK to the moon landing to shape-shifting aliens, they do, at least in general, hold true to some varying degree.

Travlyr
06-17-2011, 04:15 AM
absolutely. i agree 100%. the fed is conspiratorial in nature, and that opinion has a basis in fact. my "bullet points" apply to actual conspiracy *theories*, and they are quite accurate. I've done much research on the subject and am in the process of writing a book about it. i've done my homework. these patterns have been repeated throughout history. from 9/11 to JFK to the moon landing to shape-shifting aliens, they do, at least in general, hold true to some varying degree.
I don't agree that your bullet points apply. A conspiracy theorist is seeking the truth; people who do not seek the truth are willing to accept the lie. The government invites conspiracy theories in order to confuse and control the people by obfuscating the truth.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g11iyhhT5Hg

MaxPower
06-17-2011, 04:59 AM
I keep seeing my fellow Ron Paul supporters saying things that concern me. We are not understanding how Herman Cain or Michele Bachmann or Mitt Romney get the support they do. Some have suggested its something to do with polling that isn't accurate, or Cain is the establishment-appointed opposition, or whatever.
Also, people are think Ron Paul is saying and doing wonderful and profound things, and then crying foul when they see poll results.
Here is the real deal: we exist in a bubble, for the most part. We see things through our liberty-colored glasses. We need to try to understand how things appear to the average voter. The Federal Reserve and monetary policy and sound money make sense to us, but the average voter doesn't care or know about that stuff. Ron tends to talk over their heads (which we can understand), and they don't get it. I interact with a lot of people who are not Ron Paul supporters, and Herman Cain is very popular among them. Many Republican voters view the PATRIOT Act as a necessary evil. Many view Ron Paul as having crazy ideas. Sure, some of this is driven by the media narrative, but much of it is because these issues are not on their radar.
I just want to make sure people understand this. Ron Paul is more popular than previously, his ideas are making traction, the party is coming closer to him. However, he is still considered by most to be a long-shot candidate, regardless of how well he does in online polls. This is not a giant conspiracy by the media and other people to shut Ron Paul out...he is not considered a threat to the status quo. I hope that gives us the time to sneak under the radar a bit, gain support, and then outlast the other candidates. If it comes down to Romney vs. Paul, I guarantee Paul gets more than 10 or 15%. He still may not win though. Romney has the perception (currently) of being able to beat Obama. Keep plugging away, realize we have a long way to go still. It's going to get harder before it gets easier. Even if we win Ames, that means we will have to fight even harder in the actual elections. Yes, we will pick up a lot of momentum, but Ron will also become a target like you haven't seen before.

God Bless!
We need to define things clearly, here.Personally, I do not believe there is a "conspiracy" in the sense that media outlets are in collusion with one another to keep Ron Paul down, but I believe that nearly all mainstream media outlets do, in fact, represent the interests of the "status quo," because they are (factually, verifiably) owned by individuals and corporations who benefit from the status quo, and as such, it is in their interest to limit the public political discourse to a certain range of special-interest-approved positions and candidates; Ron Paul falls well outside the criteria for "approval" by any of the corporate interests which drive MSNBC, FOX News, etc. (in fact, it would be disastrous for said interests for him to take the presidency), and as such these media outlets consistently marginalize him and skew their coverage against him- case in point, the recent poll of 54 hardcore neoconservative bigwigs and lobbyists which was presented by several major media outlets as though it were a random sampling of the Republican base. Said poll favored Romney, who is a thoroughgoing corporate stooge and establishmentarian, and gave Ron Paul a "0%"- a fact which was loudly trumpeted by the likes of Bill O'Reilly.

Working Poor
06-17-2011, 05:33 AM
I think the establishment republicans are starting to feel the power of Ron's supporters which is why in the debates all the candidates were leaning a little more towards Ron's views.

They can laugh all they want to but they won't win the election without Ron Paul's supporters on board they can't.

Paul Or Nothing II
06-17-2011, 06:03 AM
We need to define things clearly, here.Personally, I do not believe there is a "conspiracy" in the sense that media outlets are in collusion with one another to keep Ron Paul down, but I believe that nearly all mainstream media outlets do, in fact, represent the interests of the "status quo," because they are (factually, verifiably) owned by individuals and corporations who benefit from the status quo, and as such, it is in their interest to limit the public political discourse to a certain range of special-interest-approved positions and candidates; Ron Paul falls well outside the criteria for "approval" by any of the corporate interests which drive MSNBC, FOX News, etc. (in fact, it would be disastrous for said interests for him to take the presidency), and as such these media outlets consistently marginalize him and skew their coverage against him- case in point, the recent poll of 54 hardcore neoconservative bigwigs and lobbyists which was presented by several major media outlets as though it were a random sampling of the Republican base. Said poll favored Romney, who is a thoroughgoing corporate stooge and establishmentarian, and gave Ron Paul a "0%"- a fact which was loudly trumpeted by the likes of Bill O'Reilly.

+1
Conspiracy theorists just go too far sometimes. All it takes is individuals & may be smaller groups acting in their respective self-interests to avoid Ron Paul presidency but that doesn't mean the system as a whole is a conspiracy against Ron Paul.

It's like those communists/socialists who oppose free market because they think all the businesses would collude to keep the wages down but they don't realize that businesses needn't collude, they can act in their self-interest to reduce costs & that'd result in some of the wages automatically being low for unskilled jobs.

Travlyr
06-17-2011, 06:31 AM
+1
Conspiracy theorists just go too far sometimes. All it takes is individuals & may be smaller groups acting in their respective self-interests to avoid Ron Paul presidency but that doesn't mean the system as a whole is a conspiracy against Ron Paul.

It's like those communists/socialists who oppose free market because they think all the businesses would collude to keep the wages down but they don't realize that businesses needn't collude, they can act in their self-interest to reduce costs & that'd result in some of the wages automatically being low for unskilled jobs.
Ron Paul said just that in the video about government inviting conspiracies. "You have to be careful to only believe in the ones that are true." Conspiracies are time consuming to study, and when one hits a dead end, then a lot of time has been wasted and it is frustrating as well as expensive.

Yet, in a free world, the greatest conspiracy concern is a conspiracy to take over the government. That happened in the United States on December 23, 1913 when President Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.

As Eustace Mullins so eloquently wrote in "The Secrets of the Federal Reserve",
History proved that on that day, the Constitution ceased to be the governing covenant of the American people, and our liberties were handed over to a small group of international bankers. Central banks have held power ever since, and they have been inviting conspiracy theories in order to keep their power.

Follow the money. Who owns the media? Who controls it? FCC? A Ron Paul presidency does indeed threaten a huge swift power change from the central planners back to the people. Conspiracy? Collusion? Call it what you will, but if you don't recognize your opponent, they are tough to beat.

Rothbardian Girl
06-17-2011, 07:21 AM
The problem I see with all the conspiracy theorists ( by that I mean those who blame EVERYTHING on a conspiracy/bias), is that their schtick really distracts from a lot of the things that really matter and in some way actually legitimizes what the mainstream/media does.

What I mean is, when someone calls you "crazy" and then you make yourself look crazy/nuts by lying yourself and going out of your way to make every perceived slight into some kind of grand conspiracy.

I think dealing with REALITY would be far more effective. By that, I mean not pretending Ron Paul has 70% ( or 50%, 30%, whatever) support in any meaningful way. Because he doesn't. The official polling numbers are much closer to what he would actual get from a real vote. Pretending it's not true doesn't change the reality. Neither does picking polls you like and spending energy complaining about the polls you dislike. The only thing that's going to change that is voting and getting others to vote the way you would like.

I would also extend this to the hysteria and irrational need to win every online poll. Haven't we learned over the past 4 years that winning online polls by huge majorities really does nothing to help in the real world politics? Every time I see a frantic post like " OMG Guys, Herman Cain is Winning This Meaningless Poll. let's Roundup the Troops and WIn!" I just think: Why do you care about these things that don't matter. Maybe someone else should win some of these polls. What does it matter if Ron Paul gets 70% on an online poll if he's getting 8% of the actual vote? How much effort and energy are people using to ensure Ron Paul wins every meaningless poll and finding every slight by the media compared to the energy spent on dealing with the REAL support ( Whether that's 8% or 15% or whatever) and working on actually improving that?

Outsiders can see this for what it is, and even "insiders" do. And it's just ineffective and pointless.

Yes, there ARE conspiracies. That doesn't change the fact that people spend a lot of effort on things that are counterproductive, and by finding conspiracies where they don't exist you are making the real conspiracies more acceptable and palatable.

This is how I have been feeling for a little while now. I couldn't have said it any better. +rep

Paul Or Nothing II
06-17-2011, 08:09 AM
Ron Paul said just that in the video about government inviting conspiracies. "You have to be careful to only believe in the ones that are true." Conspiracies are time consuming to study, and when one hits a dead end, then a lot of time has been wasted and it is frustrating as well as expensive.

Yet, in a free world, the greatest conspiracy concern is a conspiracy to take over the government. That happened in the United States on December 23, 1913 when President Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.

As Eustace Mullins so eloquently wrote in "The Secrets of the Federal Reserve", Central banks have held power ever since, and they have been inviting conspiracy theories in order to keep their power.

Follow the money. Who owns the media? Who controls it? FCC? A Ron Paul presidency does indeed threaten a huge swift power change from the central planners back to the people. Conspiracy? Collusion? Call it what you will, but if you don't recognize your opponent, they are tough to beat.

It's alright if you think everything is a conspiracy but I'm sorry I can't agree, as I've said, there may be conspiracies among smaller numbers of people but that doesn't mean everyone is in on it.

As for Ron, he'd be first to discard a lot of conspiracy theories, Ron believes that Bernanke is genuine in what he tries to do & not an evil man on a mission like a lot of people here might like to believe & even though I do tell people that to get them to consider Ron (fear works with masses I guess) but I also tend to concur with Ron, same holds true for many other conspiracy theories. Fed may have been born out of a conspiracy & people do benefit from it but saying that everyone supporting the system is in on it is erroneous IMO; same can be said about media, there may be a conspiracy but that doesn't mean everyone who opposes or ridicules Ron is somehow in on it

Again, I do believe conspiracies happen since people with similar self-interests often do join hands & work in unison but that's not enough to make me (or Ron & many others for that matter) believe that the whole system is part of some super-conspiracy.

Many separate variables acting more or less independently can generate intricate patterns that may easily be confused for pre-meditated design; free markets, evolution, languages, origin of money, etc are some of its examples.

Teaser Rate
06-17-2011, 08:12 AM
I agree with the OP, but I think he might be missing some of the motivation behind conspiratorial thinking. Being fully rational, this election (like all elections) is about a number of candidates vying for an office with limited power constrained by a large political structure of competing interests. Ron Paul might be the best candidate for that position, but even he wouldn't be able to do very much to alter the fundamental core of our government without significant outside help. The difference between Ron Paul or Barack Obama as President would probably not be noticeable in most people's lives. (if you really believe everything will change the moment he gets elected, then you're as naive as the Obama voters who believed he was somehow going to fix everything)

As such, most hardcore activist are ultimately motivated by emotion rather than rationality. The primal call of us vs them is one of the most powerful driving force we can experience as humans. It's a lot more fun to believe that we're in an epic battle against the media, the political establishment, the Fed, the bankers, the Bilderbergers, the NWO, etc. than to accept that elections don't really mean that much to our lives and that our actions likely not change anything to the process.

Travlyr
06-17-2011, 08:26 AM
It's alright if you think everything is a conspiracy but I'm sorry I can't agree, as I've said, there may be conspiracies among smaller numbers of people but that doesn't mean everyone is in on it.
I don't think everything is a conspiracy.


"You have to be careful to only believe in the ones that are true."


As for Ron, he'd be first to discard a lot of conspiracy theories, Ron believes that Bernanke is genuine in what he tries to do & not an evil man on a mission like a lot of people here might like to believe & even though I do tell people that to get them to consider Ron (fear works with masses I guess) but I also tend to concur with Ron, same holds true for many other conspiracy theories. Fed may have been born out of a conspiracy & people do benefit from it but saying that everyone supporting the system is in on it is erroneous IMO; same can be said about media, there may be a conspiracy but that doesn't mean everyone who opposes or ridicules Ron is somehow in on it

Again, I do believe conspiracies happen since people with similar self-interests often do join hands & work in unison but that's not enough to make me (or Ron & many others for that matter) believe that the whole system is part of some super-conspiracy.

Many separate variables acting more or less independently can generate intricate patterns that may easily be confused for pre-meditated design; free markets, evolution, languages, origin of money, etc are some of its examples.

I agree with Ron on Bernanke being genuine. He is just on the wrong side. I don't think he is evil.

Central banks printing money out-of-nothing to enrich the power elite at the expense of the taxpayer was born of conspiracy. Eustace Mullins proves this fact in "The Secrets of the Federal Reserve."

I also did not say that the media was conspiring against Ron Paul. I did however ask the question because only by asking the questions can one find the answers.


Follow the money. Who owns the media? Who controls it? FCC? A Ron Paul presidency does indeed threaten a huge swift power change from the central planners back to the people. Conspiracy? Collusion? Call it what you will, but if you don't recognize your opponent, they are tough to beat.

FrankRep
06-17-2011, 08:28 AM
Two fold.

1.) Ron Paul threatens the Establishment and the Establishment owns the mass media.

2.) The General population has no clue what Ron Paul is talking about.

PaulConventionWV
06-17-2011, 12:57 PM
The facts are that history is just a long chain of conspiracies. Do those disagreeing honestly think that people with the authority and the know-how will not find a way to exploit the system to gain more of it? The idea that there are a "few people with interests" stops just short of acknowledging the inevitable, that people like that will join others with the same interests and try to further their agenda. If there is a way for it to happen, somebody's going to find it and create a machine inside the system with a group of people who will work toward that goal. This would all be fine and dandy if there were no evidence that this was, indeed, the case, but there are mounds of evidence. The federal reserve bank is just one facet of that, and people who acknowledge the fed but not the motivation behind it stop short of the inevitable: it was put there for a reason.

Travlyr
06-18-2011, 07:17 AM
I agree with the OP, but I think he might be missing some of the motivation behind conspiratorial thinking. Being fully rational, this election (like all elections) is about a number of candidates vying for an office with limited power constrained by a large political structure of competing interests. Ron Paul might be the best candidate for that position, but even he wouldn't be able to do very much to alter the fundamental core of our government without significant outside help. The difference between Ron Paul or Barack Obama as President would probably not be noticeable in most people's lives. (if you really believe everything will change the moment he gets elected, then you're as naive as the Obama voters who believed he was somehow going to fix everything)
Actually, Teaser Rate... you are being either naive or deceitful. You know, as well as I do, that Ron Paul believes in the Christian Just War Theory. He believes that people shouldn't lose their freedom for growing hemp. He believes in honesty and truth.

Ron Paul has proved consistent in his beliefs, principled in his stands, and he has the power of knowledge on his side. He also has a large following of boots on the ground who have sworn an oath to uphold and defend our Constitution.

A Ron Paul presidency is going to be a STARK difference from miserable failures of President Obama. Unfortunately for Barack, he doesn't have the luxury that Wilson, FDR, Bush, and others before him -- history going forward is going to be told honestly because the Internet is documenting everything.


As such, most hardcore activist are ultimately motivated by emotion rather than rationality. The primal call of us vs them is one of the most powerful driving force we can experience as humans. It's a lot more fun to believe that we're in an epic battle against the media, the political establishment, the Fed, the bankers, the Bilderbergers, the NWO, etc. than to accept that elections don't really mean that much to our lives and that our actions likely not change anything to the process.

Said like a true elite. Those teaser rates really worked well for the bankers in the early part of the game, didn't they? "Past performance does not guarantee future results."

What you don't yet seem to know is that it is not fun to be stolen from, enslaved, and in constant fear of the ruling class. It sucks. Fortunately, it is already changing. Honesty, truth, peace, and free-markets always win in the end. This time is no different.

Hopefully it will not get too much bloodier than it already is. The elite are WAY outnumbered. I doubt the people in media are really as dumb as they are pretending to be. Many of them will "jump ship" and come to the side of truth and honesty when they realize that they'll just get thrown under the train as it goes off the cliff if they keep protecting the tyrants. At least the smart ones will.

MRoCkEd
06-18-2011, 08:29 AM
The problem I see with all the conspiracy theorists ( by that I mean those who blame EVERYTHING on a conspiracy/bias), is that their schtick really distracts from a lot of the things that really matter and in some way actually legitimizes what the mainstream/media does.

What I mean is, when someone calls you "crazy" and then you make yourself look crazy/nuts by lying yourself and going out of your way to make every perceived slight into some kind of grand conspiracy.

I think dealing with REALITY would be far more effective. By that, I mean not pretending Ron Paul has 70% ( or 50%, 30%, whatever) support in any meaningful way. Because he doesn't. The official polling numbers are much closer to what he would actual get from a real vote. Pretending it's not true doesn't change the reality. Neither does picking polls you like and spending energy complaining about the polls you dislike. The only thing that's going to change that is voting and getting others to vote the way you would like.

I would also extend this to the hysteria and irrational need to win every online poll. Haven't we learned over the past 4 years that winning online polls by huge majorities really does nothing to help in the real world politics? Every time I see a frantic post like " OMG Guys, Herman Cain is Winning This Meaningless Poll. let's Roundup the Troops and WIn!" I just think: Why do you care about these things that don't matter. Maybe someone else should win some of these polls. What does it matter if Ron Paul gets 70% on an online poll if he's getting 8% of the actual vote? How much effort and energy are people using to ensure Ron Paul wins every meaningless poll and finding every slight by the media compared to the energy spent on dealing with the REAL support ( Whether that's 8% or 15% or whatever) and working on actually improving that?

Outsiders can see this for what it is, and even "insiders" do. And it's just ineffective and pointless.

Yes, there ARE conspiracies. That doesn't change the fact that people spend a lot of effort on things that are counterproductive, and by finding conspiracies where they don't exist you are making the real conspiracies more acceptable and palatable.
Great post...

It can be very tempting to think the whole world is out to get you, and that everything is some vast conspiracy that "they" don't want you to know about. When you get into that whole conspiracy realm, it becomes self-perpetuating; confirmation bias makes you construct explanations that fit into your broader theories. What starts off as reasonable suspicion can too quickly become uncontrolled paranoia.

There are powerful groups and individuals that do conspire to achieve un-libertarian objectives, such as perpetual war and global governance. However, you shouldn't get trapped into believing that everyone that opposes your objectives is part of the "NWO," or some other shadow operation.

Laura Cole
06-18-2011, 10:33 AM
To "keep it real," I sometimes like to compare actual news with "sports news," like what can be found on ESPN. Sports news commentators provide objective, acute, and diverse analysis. Although reporters for sports news are frequently ex-athletes (and presumably not professional thinkers) their descriptions and explanations (of sports) are by far more purely informational than anything found through "real" news.

Our news is highly managed. I think that should be pretty apparent. The Neo-Marxist consensus of opinion established itself roughly seventy years ago. That was about when televisions started making their way into every American home. The various media outlets are not independently owned. The vast majority are subsidiaries of the few conglomerates that dominate the news and entertainment media industry.

It should be said that unless you (one) grant that there is a media conspiracy, you must otherwise have a very low opinion of the American people.

Elwar
06-18-2011, 10:51 AM
The Fox News radio that I listen to in Florida literally said during their news stories when mentioning Chris Cristie vs Marco Rubio "Marco Rubio is the conservative in this race". Look into how Fox News turned Rubio into the Tea Party candidate and you'll see how it works.

People still believe Marco Rubio is a symbol of the Tea Party even though he constantly tries to distance himself from it now that he's elected.

Theocrat
06-18-2011, 11:01 AM
I keep seeing my fellow Ron Paul supporters saying things that concern me. We are not understanding how Herman Cain or Michele Bachmann or Mitt Romney get the support they do. Some have suggested its something to do with polling that isn't accurate, or Cain is the establishment-appointed opposition, or whatever.
Also, people are think Ron Paul is saying and doing wonderful and profound things, and then crying foul when they see poll results.
Here is the real deal: we exist in a bubble, for the most part. We see things through our liberty-colored glasses. We need to try to understand how things appear to the average voter. The Federal Reserve and monetary policy and sound money make sense to us, but the average voter doesn't care or know about that stuff. Ron tends to talk over their heads (which we can understand), and they don't get it. I interact with a lot of people who are not Ron Paul supporters, and Herman Cain is very popular among them. Many Republican voters view the PATRIOT Act as a necessary evil. Many view Ron Paul as having crazy ideas. Sure, some of this is driven by the media narrative, but much of it is because these issues are not on their radar.
I just want to make sure people understand this. Ron Paul is more popular than previously, his ideas are making traction, the party is coming closer to him. However, he is still considered by most to be a long-shot candidate, regardless of how well he does in online polls. This is not a giant conspiracy by the media and other people to shut Ron Paul out...he is not considered a threat to the status quo. I hope that gives us the time to sneak under the radar a bit, gain support, and then outlast the other candidates. If it comes down to Romney vs. Paul, I guarantee Paul gets more than 10 or 15%. He still may not win though. Romney has the perception (currently) of being able to beat Obama. Keep plugging away, realize we have a long way to go still. It's going to get harder before it gets easier. Even if we win Ames, that means we will have to fight even harder in the actual elections. Yes, we will pick up a lot of momentum, but Ron will also become a target like you haven't seen before.

God Bless!

I think it's a mixture of conspiracy and general public ignorance. I do agree with you that Congressman Paul needs to bring his message down so the average voter can understand it. He uses big words (a lot of -isms), so the average voter can't relate to what he's saying, and consequently, they view him as being too extreme or on the fringe.

Like the other candidates, Dr. Paul needs to bring his message closer to home by telling the public what he has done better than the other candidates, instead of just arguing on philosophical levels. Ron also has to be more optimistic by assuring the voters that things can get better, rather than always addressing what's wrong with the system. People already know things are wrong. He just needs a "Reagan moment."

Teaser Rate
06-18-2011, 12:44 PM
Actually, Teaser Rate... you are being either naive or deceitful. You know, as well as I do, that Ron Paul believes in the Christian Just War Theory. He believes that people shouldn't lose their freedom for growing hemp. He believes in honesty and truth.

Ron Paul has proved consistent in his beliefs, principled in his stands, and he has the power of knowledge on his side. He also has a large following of boots on the ground who have sworn an oath to uphold and defend our Constitution.

You're ignoring the legal and political constraints a President faces. Any President who want to implement substantial changes to any facet of the government needs to play nice with special interests and persuade congress to support him. Ron Paul can't just walk into the Oval office and snap his fingers to change everything. At best, he might accomplish one or two major policy shifts in his first term.


A Ron Paul presidency is going to be a STARK difference from miserable failures of President Obama. Unfortunately for Barack, he doesn't have the luxury that Wilson, FDR, Bush, and others before him -- history going forward is going to be told honestly because the Internet is documenting everything.

This is the exact same thing Obama supporters used to believe before he got into office.


Said like a true elite. Those teaser rates really worked well for the bankers in the early part of the game, didn't they? "Past performance does not guarantee future results."

What you don't yet seem to know is that it is not fun to be stolen from, enslaved, and in constant fear of the ruling class. It sucks. Fortunately, it is already changing. Honesty, truth, peace, and free-markets always win in the end. This time is no different.

Hopefully it will not get too much bloodier than it already is. The elite are WAY outnumbered. I doubt the people in media are really as dumb as they are pretending to be. Many of them will "jump ship" and come to the side of truth and honesty when they realize that they'll just get thrown under the train as it goes off the cliff if they keep protecting the tyrants. At least the smart ones will.

I don't know of any people in America who are being stolen from, enslaved, and in constant fear of anything.

MelissaWV
06-18-2011, 12:58 PM
I don't know of any people in America who are being stolen from, enslaved, and in constant fear of anything.

Do you really want to admit that nobody you know pays taxes? The IRS frowns upon that. Additionally, if you ask people why they pay taxes, there is a good healthy chunk of them that will say "Well, I don't want to go to jail... duh!" or something similar. No, that's not "constant" fear in the conscious sense, but it is why those folks don't just work for cash or compensation that they can easily not report. "Enslaved" is the wrong term for things, I agree, but the other two are easy to spot.

Teaser Rate
06-18-2011, 01:08 PM
Do you really want to admit that nobody you know pays taxes? The IRS frowns upon that. Additionally, if you ask people why they pay taxes, there is a good healthy chunk of them that will say "Well, I don't want to go to jail... duh!" or something similar. No, that's not "constant" fear in the conscious sense, but it is why those folks don't just work for cash or compensation that they can easily not report. "Enslaved" is the wrong term for things, I agree, but the other two are easy to spot.

If you want to make the taxation is theft argument, fine. But don’t use words like stolen from, enslaved, or in constant fear if only out of respect for the millions of people around the world who actually are forced to live under those conditions in a very real way, and not a philosophical one.

Paul Or Nothing II
06-18-2011, 01:25 PM
You're ignoring the legal and political constraints a President faces. Any President who want to implement substantial changes to any facet of the government needs to play nice with special interests and persuade congress to support him. Ron Paul can't just walk into the Oval office and snap his fingers to change everything. At best, he might accomplish one or two major policy shifts in his first term.

This is the exact same thing Obama supporters used to believe before he got into office.

While agree that it would be foolish to think that Ron Paul would fix everything with a magic wand but maybe.....possibly......you're missing one BIG thing when you compare him with Obama, HE'S NOT A PUPPET LIKE OBAMA.

But more than anything else, if Ron becomes president then he'll give the country a vision to strive for in the longer term & that's what counts the most; not just what he does in office but what ideas he instills into the electorate which might lead the country in the direction he'd want the country to go; he & ideas of liberty are very powerful & addictive & his rabid following among especially the youth demostrates just that, they will be the many RonPauls that'll keep the brushfires burning even when he's long gone; just like Ron invigorated the fires that Founders had ignited.


I don't know of any people in America who are being stolen from, enslaved, and in constant fear of anything.

That's a joke, right? :confused:

Teaser Rate
06-18-2011, 01:42 PM
While agree that it would be foolish to think that Ron Paul would fix everything with a magic wand but maybe.....possibly......you're missing one BIG thing when you compare him with Obama, HE'S NOT A PUPPET LIKE OBAMA.

But more than anything else, if Ron becomes president then he'll give the country a vision to strive for in the longer term & that's what counts the most; not just what he does in office but what ideas he instills into the electorate which might lead the country in the direction he'd want the country to go; he & ideas of liberty are very powerful & addictive & his rabid following among especially the youth demostrates just that, they will be the many RonPauls that'll keep the brushfires burning even when he's long gone; just like Ron invigorated the fires that Founders had ignited.

I don't think Obama is a puppet, I think he's just constrained by the same basic forces which constrain all modern Presidents.

Good intentions don't mean very much if you don't have the political capital to go along with them. So in that sense, I agree that Ron Paul's ability to affect any change as President would largely be determined by popular support, but even in that case, I wouldn't be very optimistic.


That's a joke, right? :confused:

See my previous post on the subject.

libertybrewcity
06-18-2011, 06:03 PM
totally agree with what was said. the media is owned by corporations that exist to make money. whatever they do, they do it to make money.

noneedtoaggress
06-18-2011, 07:40 PM
I agree with some of your statements within the entirety of the post. I agree that in order to expand his base and reach; he needs a coach to simplify his message into a sound bite driven world. He could use some coaching ... especially debate coaching to get to the better answer from his principles that is more easily understood.

But, I disagree very much with your point about the media and that he's not a threat to the status quo. I'm actually writing an article on this basis now.

Via the MSM and talk shows, it's not a conspiracy per se ... It's something of a MEME or bias that has being used to the point of absurdity. "Ron Paul does third in this poll ... but he can't win. (Get's big debate applause) But, instead of giving him credit, I, Mr. TV guy will play a clip and add in some goofy music and tell people I have no idea what he was talking about with this “Keynesian Economics" ...that's been taught in every high school Econ 101 class for the last 50 years and has dominated economic thought throughout our lifetimes? Back ache? ... It would be better if it weren't for that Ron Paul guy.

It is a page taken from the Joseph Goebbels school of journalism ... if you say something long enough and loud enough, people begin to believe it with little question in terms of a soft public sentiment. Ron Paul = Bad. It's not a conspiracy but rather a bias perpetuated by self interests within the power resources of our time ..."Newspeak" via 1984.

Which leads us to the question why must many members of this power resource called the radio and TV media go to such absurd lengths to discredit this guy? Shutting down online polls, shutting him out of debates, asking weird questions never posed to others, changing media clips of the CPAC straw poll to one far less flattering, telling us that 54 people know who you should vote for and none of those is Ron Paul, omission, debasement, exclusion, etc? The pattern over the past few years is consistent and undeniable.

Has Ron Paul shot up a school? Has Ron Paul said a cross word about someone in public? Has Ron Paul lied about something in the public sphere? Does Ron Paul have a sex tape?

Then why is it that a soft-spoken, country Dr. turned Congressman apparently such a threat to these people??? Under almost any social metric of public life it makes no sense.

He has ideas that are a threat to the very foundation of the status quo.

As Goldwater speechwriter Karl Hess once so eloquently wrote:

"This is not a time of radical, revolutionary politics. Not yet. Unrest, riot, dissent, and chaos notwithstanding, today's politics is reactionary. Both Left and Right are reactionary and authoritarian. That is to say, both are political. They seek only to revise current methods of acquiring and wielding political power. Radical and revolutionary movements seek not to revise but to revoke. The target of revocation should be obvious. The target is politics itself

Radicals and revolutionaries have had their sights trained on politics for some time. As governments fail around the world, as more millions become aware that government never has and never can humanely and effectively manage men's affairs, government's own inadequacy will emerge, at last, as the basis for a truly radical and revolutionary movement. In the meantime, the radical-revolutionary position is a lonely one. It is feared and hated, by both Right and Left – although both Right and Left must borrow from it to survive. The radical-revolutionary position is libertarianism, and its socioeconomic form is laissez-faire capitalism"

If you're simply saying what's on your mind, then you don't need the political establishment …

Billions are now tied to what Menken called "The advance auction of stolen goods" or elections. Lobbyists, consultants, fundraisers, campaign managers, pollsters, book marketers, authors, lecturers, talk show hosts who need the red team vs. blue team debate, the Wienergates, and the drama to tell you who to support or oppose and the advertisers have a vested interest too along with the media corporations. This is BIG business. These people are fighting for the right for the elite to imprison us within a soft despotism. With Ron Paul, most all these people are irrelevant ... thus; he must be opposed by most all of them.

"... government's own inadequacy will emerge, at last, as the basis for a truly radical and revolutionary movement."

We didn't stack a room full of people in the NH debate. Those average people cheered for our ideas. Conversely, the candidates spent hundreds of thousands on the political infrastructure ... Consultants and focus groups. No one talked about staying in some Middle East country for the next 50 years. No one championed Nation Building. No one lauded the Next Government Program …

“… Although both Right and Left must borrow from it to survive."

The message can no longer be denied so its messengers must be opposed. Pandora’s Box on political discourse in this country has been opened by us. Thus, Ron Paul, as our current figurehead, has become the target for the media’s goal to limit acceptable political discussion to a uniformed type attempting by any means to close the Box with “Government’s own inadequacy” emerged. Despite the best laid ends of the status quo’s desired warfare/welfare state, the means no longer exist.

In short, in the eyes and ears of our Noble Saviours, the Truth is Still Treason.


I'm quoting this because it's so spot on. Fantastic post. +rep

Travlyr
06-19-2011, 11:01 AM
I agree with some of your statements within the entirety of the post. I agree that in order to expand his base and reach; he needs a coach to simplify his message into a sound bite driven world. He could use some coaching ... especially debate coaching to get to the better answer from his principles that is more easily understood.

But, I disagree very much with your point about the media and that he's not a threat to the status quo. I'm actually writing an article on this basis now.

Via the MSM and talk shows, it's not a conspiracy per se ... It's something of a MEME or bias that has being used to the point of absurdity. "Ron Paul does third in this poll ... but he can't win. (Get's big debate applause) But, instead of giving him credit, I, Mr. TV guy will play a clip and add in some goofy music and tell people I have no idea what he was talking about with this “Keynesian Economics" ...that's been taught in every high school Econ 101 class for the last 50 years and has dominated economic thought throughout our lifetimes? Back ache? ... It would be better if it weren't for that Ron Paul guy.

It is a page taken from the Joseph Goebbels school of journalism ... if you say something long enough and loud enough, people begin to believe it with little question in terms of a soft public sentiment. Ron Paul = Bad. It's not a conspiracy but rather a bias perpetuated by self interests within the power resources of our time ..."Newspeak" via 1984.

Which leads us to the question why must many members of this power resource called the radio and TV media go to such absurd lengths to discredit this guy? Shutting down online polls, shutting him out of debates, asking weird questions never posed to others, changing media clips of the CPAC straw poll to one far less flattering, telling us that 54 people know who you should vote for and none of those is Ron Paul, omission, debasement, exclusion, etc? The pattern over the past few years is consistent and undeniable.

Has Ron Paul shot up a school? Has Ron Paul said a cross word about someone in public? Has Ron Paul lied about something in the public sphere? Does Ron Paul have a sex tape?

Then why is it that a soft-spoken, country Dr. turned Congressman apparently such a threat to these people??? Under almost any social metric of public life it makes no sense.

He has ideas that are a threat to the very foundation of the status quo.

As Goldwater speechwriter Karl Hess once so eloquently wrote:

"This is not a time of radical, revolutionary politics. Not yet. Unrest, riot, dissent, and chaos notwithstanding, today's politics is reactionary. Both Left and Right are reactionary and authoritarian. That is to say, both are political. They seek only to revise current methods of acquiring and wielding political power. Radical and revolutionary movements seek not to revise but to revoke. The target of revocation should be obvious. The target is politics itself

Radicals and revolutionaries have had their sights trained on politics for some time. As governments fail around the world, as more millions become aware that government never has and never can humanely and effectively manage men's affairs, government's own inadequacy will emerge, at last, as the basis for a truly radical and revolutionary movement. In the meantime, the radical-revolutionary position is a lonely one. It is feared and hated, by both Right and Left – although both Right and Left must borrow from it to survive. The radical-revolutionary position is libertarianism, and its socioeconomic form is laissez-faire capitalism"

If you're simply saying what's on your mind, then you don't need the political establishment …

Billions are now tied to what Menken called "The advance auction of stolen goods" or elections. Lobbyists, consultants, fundraisers, campaign managers, pollsters, book marketers, authors, lecturers, talk show hosts who need the red team vs. blue team debate, the Wienergates, and the drama to tell you who to support or oppose and the advertisers have a vested interest too along with the media corporations. This is BIG business. These people are fighting for the right for the elite to imprison us within a soft despotism. With Ron Paul, most all these people are irrelevant ... thus; he must be opposed by most all of them.

"... government's own inadequacy will emerge, at last, as the basis for a truly radical and revolutionary movement."

We didn't stack a room full of people in the NH debate. Those average people cheered for our ideas. Conversely, the candidates spent hundreds of thousands on the political infrastructure ... Consultants and focus groups. No one talked about staying in some Middle East country for the next 50 years. No one championed Nation Building. No one lauded the Next Government Program …

“… Although both Right and Left must borrow from it to survive."

The message can no longer be denied so its messengers must be opposed. Pandora’s Box on political discourse in this country has been opened by us. Thus, Ron Paul, as our current figurehead, has become the target for the media’s goal to limit acceptable political discussion to a uniformed type attempting by any means to close the Box with “Government’s own inadequacy” emerged. Despite the best laid ends of the status quo’s desired warfare/welfare state, the means no longer exist.

In short, in the eyes and ears of our Noble Saviours, the Truth is Still Treason.

Very well said. +rep

Carson
06-19-2011, 11:31 AM
They decide which globalist shills we are allowed to vote for.

BucksforPaul
06-19-2011, 03:02 PM
Can those who say that the Lame Stream Media is not conspiring against Ron Paul explain where the current lie about the Paul campaign busing in people came from? This is just one example out of the many in the last month alone and if you doubt what I say then just go over to the media spin section. If any one was around in 2007 you will have no doubts about the blatant media bias against us.

MelissaWV
06-19-2011, 03:40 PM
Can those who say that the Lame Stream Media is not conspiring against Ron Paul explain where the current lie about the Paul campaign busing in people came from? This is just one example out of the many in the last month alone and if you doubt what I say then just go over to the media spin section. If any one was around in 2007 you will have no doubts about the blatant media bias against us.

I haven't heard that one, nor seen it. I've seen a dozen or so high-profile accusations of Hunstman doing that, though.

BucksforPaul
06-19-2011, 04:09 PM
I haven't heard that one, nor seen it. I've seen a dozen or so high-profile accusations of Hunstman doing that, though.

Much proof in the following thread. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?299273-RLC-straw-poll-results

And I would like to know from the gullible who still defend the media where this lie came from and why it was repeated many times? Interestingly, these same people blame the campaign for not correcting this blatant lie, but do not acknowledge the propaganda which is obvious for anyone to see.

MelissaWV
06-19-2011, 04:16 PM
You call one line by one person about something they might have heard on Fox Radio "much proof"? Seriously?

Edit to add: Oh, wait, there were some more mentions earlier about a news site I'd never heard of saying it, too. Of course I had to read through 16 pages of crud to find it. Thank you, Mr. Helpful! :(

This "lie" came from the reports about Huntsman, I am guessing. I don't see this as some concentrated conspiracy. There are numerous attempts to discredit and marginalize Dr. Paul, but someone allegedly getting their candidates mixed up on a little-heard news broadcast doesn't seem like one of them.

FrankRep
06-19-2011, 04:25 PM
I haven't heard that one, nor seen it. I've seen a dozen or so high-profile accusations of Hunstman doing that, though.

A few I've found

2010: Paul, Romney backers stacking straw poll deck
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0410/Paul_Romney_backers_stacking_straw_poll_deck.html? showall

2011: Loser Ron Paul Stacking Polls Again! Ron Paul the 7% man strikes again!
http://www.redstate.com/retiretherinos/2010/04/09/loser-ron-paul-stacking-polls-again-ron-paul-the-7-man-strikes-again/

2010: Ron Paul Accused Of Buying Straw Poll Votes!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzMYzmIRTHM

MelissaWV
06-19-2011, 04:31 PM
You do notice you had to post two links from 2010 and one from redstate.com?

1836
06-19-2011, 04:33 PM
Depends on what you label a conspiracy. I think the troofers are a conspiracy group.

The Republican Party most certainly would prefer to have a select few candidates to seriously contend the nomination, people who are vetted and would not hurt the party. Is that a conspiracy? Nah. It is politics.

The media has not treated Ron Paul seriously in the same way they don't treat Dennis Kucinich seriously, or other "perennial" candidates with far-out ideas. Is that a conspiracy? No, I don't think so. More like an attitude.

People like Alex Jones tell us about all the things that are coming to a grinding halt in the world and that if we do not stock up on non-hybrid seeds we are as good as dead. Is that a conspiracy? Yes, that guy is nuts.

libertarian4321
06-19-2011, 06:23 PM
Depends on what you label a conspiracy. I think the troofers are a conspiracy group.

The Republican Party most certainly would prefer to have a select few candidates to seriously contend the nomination, people who are vetted and would not hurt the party. Is that a conspiracy? Nah. It is politics.

The media has not treated Ron Paul seriously in the same way they don't treat Dennis Kucinich seriously, or other "perennial" candidates with far-out ideas. Is that a conspiracy? No, I don't think so. More like an attitude.

People like Alex Jones tell us about all the things that are coming to a grinding halt in the world and that if we do not stock up on non-hybrid seeds we are as good as dead. Is that a conspiracy? Yes, that guy is nuts.

I agree. Yes, Ron Paul does get snubbed and slighted in the media.

But I don't think it's a conspiracy cooked up by shadowy figures meeting at "one world government" headquarters or at the latest Bilderberger group meeting.

It's simply that the GOP wants a candidate who toes the party line- a good party hack like John McCain or Mitt Romney, not a Maverick like Ron Paul.

On top of that, the people who you see on TV or radio (Hannity or whomever) are of a similar mindset. They aren't receiving orders from the Trilateral commission or planet Xenu Xenu 9 or the Bilderberger group or the "Illuminati" to disrespect Ron Paul, they are doing it because he doesn't fit their PERSONAL belief in what the GOP candidate should be.

So yes, RP will be disrespected in the main stream media, but it is NOT a shadowy conspiracy.

And yes, I know that according to CT rules, by denying the conspiracy I automatically become part of the conspiracy.

Whatever...

BucksforPaul
06-19-2011, 11:16 PM
Depends on what you label a conspiracy. I think the troofers are a conspiracy group.

The Republican Party most certainly would prefer to have a select few candidates to seriously contend the nomination, people who are vetted and would not hurt the party. Is that a conspiracy? Nah. It is politics.

The media has not treated Ron Paul seriously in the same way they don't treat Dennis Kucinich seriously, or other "perennial" candidates with far-out ideas. Is that a conspiracy? No, I don't think so. More like an attitude.

People like Alex Jones tell us about all the things that are coming to a grinding halt in the world and that if we do not stock up on non-hybrid seeds we are as good as dead. Is that a conspiracy? Yes, that guy is nuts.

Oh yes no conspiracy against Dr. Paul even despite the following.

Rockefeller writes on page 405 of his memoirs:

"For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure — one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."

And btw, we on ronpaulforums are conspiring to get Dr. Paul elected to the highest office of the land. If you go out to dinner with your family then you are conspiring to to eat with your family, etc..

BucksforPaul
06-19-2011, 11:23 PM
Or how about this one:


"We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected the promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world-government. The supranational sovereignty if an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries"--

David Rockefeller in an address to a Trilateral Commission meeting
in June of 1991

Nothing to see here, move along mundanes, how dare you question the obvious? Don't believe what you see with your own eyes and instead carry the water for the Lame Stream Fucks who want to enslave all of humanity.

tpreitzel
06-19-2011, 11:24 PM
Oh yes no conspiracy against Dr. Paul even despite the following.

Rockefeller writes on page 405 of his memoirs:


And btw, we on ronpaulforums are conspiring to get Dr. Paul elected to the highest office of the land. If you go out to dinner with your family then you are conspiring to to eat with your family, etc..

The problem isn't the definition of conspiracy, it's the negative connotations attached to the word by those people with an agenda.

James Madison
06-19-2011, 11:39 PM
The problem isn't the definition of conspiracy, it's the negative connotations attached to the word by those people with an agenda.

So, what do we do then?

Look. I'm doing all I can to help Ron win in 2012, and I'm sure you are too. HOWEVER, we need to realize that even with a Congress full of Ron Pauls, the people who run this planet have an agenda and will stop at NOTHING to see it brought to fruition. Especially since they've committed so many crimes against humanity, they really don't have a choice but to go for broke. Do you honestly believe TPTB will just lay down if Ron is elected? No, they won't. They will do everything in their power to remove him from office. Look what happened to JFK. Say what you want about the guy, he was moving to end the Fed and withdraw from Vietnam. Everyone knows how that turned out.

realtonygoodwin
06-19-2011, 11:49 PM
"the people who run this planet"

Which are?

James Madison
06-19-2011, 11:55 PM
"the people who run this planet"

Which are?

Hmmmmm. Maybe the people with all the money?

BucksforPaul
06-20-2011, 02:51 AM
So, what do we do then?

Look. I'm doing all I can to help Ron win in 2012, and I'm sure you are too. HOWEVER, we need to realize that even with a Congress full of Ron Pauls, the people who run this planet have an agenda and will stop at NOTHING to see it brought to fruition. Especially since they've committed so many crimes against humanity, they really don't have a choice but to go for broke. Do you honestly believe TPTB will just lay down if Ron is elected? No, they won't. They will do everything in their power to remove him from office. Look what happened to JFK. Say what you want about the guy, he was moving to end the Fed and withdraw from Vietnam. Everyone knows how that turned out.

I mostly agree with your post and would like to add that fortunately for all of us we happen to live in the age of information. Anyone in the world with access to the internet is just a few clicks and a search away from finding out intricate details about almost any subject matter. The globalists' playbook, although very organized, is outdated and unsuitable for our current times. Their monopoly on the control of information is decaying before our eyes which is leading to an awakening rarely seen throughout history. A very simple example of this is the discussion of the never before discussed Federal Reserve. This is why you see them scrambling by propagating outright lies which are akin to libel and slandering. Too bad they have immunity to tell these lies because they are protected by law as per the supreme court judgments. Unfortunately, for them, the more desperate they get the more they expose themselves to the general public.

Paul Or Nothing II
06-20-2011, 03:00 AM
They will do everything in their power to remove him from office. Look what happened to JFK. Say what you want about the guy, he was moving to end the Fed and withdraw from Vietnam. Everyone knows how that turned out.

Can you back up your claim that "JFK was moving to end the Fed" with solid evidence? I think it's just a myth that goes around, he never issued any new currency or anything - http://www.freedomforceinternational.org/freedomcontent.cfm?fuseaction=jfkmyth&refpage=issues

Now, if you talk about him being killed by Military-Industrial-Complex for opposing Vietnam war then that's more likely.

James Madison
06-20-2011, 11:02 AM
Can you back up your claim that "JFK was moving to end the Fed" with solid evidence? I think it's just a myth that goes around, he never issued any new currency or anything - http://www.freedomforceinternational.org/freedomcontent.cfm?fuseaction=jfkmyth&refpage=issues

Now, if you talk about him being killed by Military-Industrial-Complex for opposing Vietnam war then that's more likely.

I probably should have clarified what I meant by the 'Fed'. I'm not really familiar with the EO in the link, but I'd have to look into it further before coming to any conclusions. When I say the 'Fed', I'm referring to the entire shadow government that rules this country, which is run through the private, run-for-profit Federal Reserve. And Kennedy definity was taking steps to reduce their influence over US politics by moving away from Vietnam and refusing to go forward with Operation Northwoods.

Paul Or Nothing II
06-20-2011, 01:20 PM
I probably should have clarified what I meant by the 'Fed'. I'm not really familiar with the EO in the link, but I'd have to look into it further before coming to any conclusions. When I say the 'Fed', I'm referring to the entire shadow government that rules this country, which is run through the private, run-for-profit Federal Reserve. And Kennedy definity was taking steps to reduce their influence over US politics by moving away from Vietnam and refusing to go forward with Operation Northwoods.

It's one of the myths circulating out there, especially among Ron Paul supporters so I thought I should mention it. The EO specified in the link & its misinterpretation is what started the myth & that EO obviously wasn't about ending the Federal Reserve or starting any new currency; JFK was a well-known socialist, he was against wars only so that he could waste that money on local welfare.
Keep in mind that the author of that article is the author of "The Creature from Jekyll Island" which is one of the most exhaustive pieces on Federal Reserve, its origins & its workings.

Another thing I'd like to point is that earning "profit" isn't the purpose of Federal Reserve (94% of its profits actually go to the Treasury) but it is about its power to manipulate money, interest-rates & the markets.

James Madison
06-20-2011, 01:51 PM
It's one of the myths circulating out there, especially among Ron Paul supporters so I thought I should mention it. The EO specified in the link & its misinterpretation is what started the myth & that EO obviously wasn't about ending the Federal Reserve or starting any new currency; JFK was a well-known socialist, he was against wars only so that he could waste that money on local welfare.
Keep in mind that the author of that article is the author of "The Creature from Jekyll Island" which is one of the most exhaustive pieces on Federal Reserve, its origins & its workings.

Another thing I'd like to point is that earning "profit" isn't the purpose of Federal Reserve (94% of its profits actually go to the Treasury) but it is about its power to manipulate money, interest-rates & the markets.

Thanks for the info. I'll look into it more.:collins:

FrankRep
06-20-2011, 03:53 PM
I haven't heard that one, nor seen it. I've seen a dozen or so high-profile accusations of Hunstman doing that, though.

Ron Paul Watch: Why does Ron Paul keep winning all these GOP straw polls? (http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2011/06/paul-watch-why-does-ron-paul-keep-winning-all-these-gop-straw-polls/)

The Houston Chronicle
June 20, 2011


1. His devoted followers flood the straw polls

Paul’s niche group of supporters is large enough to make waves at events like CPAC — but too small to contribute significantly on a national scale. With Paul’s well-oiled web machine, he does particularly well with Internet polls.

MelissaWV
06-20-2011, 04:04 PM
That, Frank, is about followers flooding straw polls. I don't see an accusation of using a bus paid by the campaign to get them there.

PastaRocket848
06-20-2011, 04:09 PM
i was under the impression that the campaign DID in fact pay for meals, tickets, and bus fare for supporters. am i wrong? also, i was under the impression that this is standard operating procedure. it also brings up an opportunity to discuss how a ron paul presidency would be different in it's methodology from that of his competitors.

when jon hunstman wanted to win SRLC, he sent his wife there, organized a closed door, back-room meeting with "establishment" social-warrior types, and somehow miraculously came out with 300+ votes to go with his <1% national poll data.

when ron paul wanted to win SRLC, hundreds of people from all over America took it upon themselves to get there and make their voice heard. no back-room meeting, no pandering to "the base" for support. he won it on merit: he simply had more supporters willing to make the trip than his competitors did. whether or not the supporters got free tickets and a ride is immaterial.

James Madison
06-20-2011, 04:34 PM
That, Frank, is about followers flooding straw polls. I don't see an accusation of using a bus paid by the campaign to get them there.

Didn't Romney do this at Ames back in '08?

MelissaWV
06-20-2011, 04:39 PM
Didn't Romney do this at Ames back in '08?

Various politicians have done this. Specifically referring to this RLC, though, there was supposedly a widespread effort to discredit Ron by saying he paid folks' way. I asked where these allegations were. So far I have a story from politico, two stories from 2010, and many stories showing that Huntsman likely bought his 2nd place finish.

Oh, and the Frank article about flooding polls (which doesn't mean Ron paid their way, or even imply it).

Todd
06-20-2011, 06:30 PM
The problem I see with all the conspiracy theorists ( by that I mean those who blame EVERYTHING on a conspiracy/bias), is that their schtick really distracts from a lot of the things that really matter and in some way actually legitimizes what the mainstream/media does.

What I mean is, when someone calls you "crazy" and then you make yourself look crazy/nuts by lying yourself and going out of your way to make every perceived slight into some kind of grand conspiracy.

I think dealing with REALITY would be far more effective. By that, I mean not pretending Ron Paul has 70% ( or 50%, 30%, whatever) support in any meaningful way. Because he doesn't. The official polling numbers are much closer to what he would actual get from a real vote. Pretending it's not true doesn't change the reality. Neither does picking polls you like and spending energy complaining about the polls you dislike. The only thing that's going to change that is voting and getting others to vote the way you would like.

I would also extend this to the hysteria and irrational need to win every online poll. Haven't we learned over the past 4 years that winning online polls by huge majorities really does nothing to help in the real world politics? Every time I see a frantic post like " OMG Guys, Herman Cain is Winning This Meaningless Poll. let's Roundup the Troops and WIn!" I just think: Why do you care about these things that don't matter. Maybe someone else should win some of these polls. What does it matter if Ron Paul gets 70% on an online poll if he's getting 8% of the actual vote? How much effort and energy are people using to ensure Ron Paul wins every meaningless poll and finding every slight by the media compared to the energy spent on dealing with the REAL support ( Whether that's 8% or 15% or whatever) and working on actually improving that?

Outsiders can see this for what it is, and even "insiders" do. And it's just ineffective and pointless.

Yes, there ARE conspiracies. That doesn't change the fact that people spend a lot of effort on things that are counterproductive, and by finding conspiracies where they don't exist you are making the real conspiracies more acceptable and palatable.

best post in thread

It's would do better to become or get involved with a local precinct leader for Ron Paul than worry about the grand conspiracy.