gilliganscorner
12-01-2007, 05:02 AM
Hello Folks,
In the spirit of discussing attack ads, where campaigners hit below the belt, I thought this article would be of interest to Ron Paul supporters. I suggest you read the CNN article here (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/29/attack.ads/index.html) (blech) and meet me back here with your thoughts. Essentially, the article starts with its lead-in:
Sucker punches and below-the-belts can be expected as we enter the slugfest season of political attack ads. They're already taking off the gloves for what promises to be nasty 2008 campaigns that use the newfound enormous strength and reach of the Web.
But where it gets interesting is where they state that attack ads have been used against historical Presidents:
Negative campaigning is as old as the Republic. Thomas Jefferson's opponents predicted in their brochures that if he became president, "murder, robbery, rape and incest will be openly taught and practiced."
In the 1828 presidential campaign, Andrew Jackson's opponents accused him of murder, gambling and treason and said his wife was a prostitute.
"What we do on television today, they did 200 years ago," McKinnon said. "In fact, back then it was even tougher."
Notice the two Presidents they picked? What are the similarities?
They both won.
Both of them fiercely fought the establishment of a Central Bank (i.e. the Federal Reserve is America's third incarnation of a Central Bank - established by a banking cartel), and won.
With respect to Jefferson:
His opposition to the Bank of the United States was fierce: "I sincerely believe, with you, that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies; and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale."[19] Nevertheless Madison and Congress, seeing the financial chaos caused by the lack of a national bank in the War of 1812, disregarded his advice and created the Second Bank of the United States in 1816.(source) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_jefferson)
With respect to Jackson:
Jackson followed Jefferson as a supporter of the ideal of an "agricultural republic" and felt the bank improved the fortunes of an "elite circle" of commercial and industrial entrepreneurs at the expense of farmers and laborers. After a titanic struggle, Jackson succeeded in destroying the bank by vetoing its 1832 re-charter by Congress and by withdrawing U.S. funds in 1833.(source) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_jackson#Opposition_to_the_National_Bank)
Isn't that interesting? Sounds to me like the opposition, heavily funded by the banking elite (they financed both parties), created attack ads and perpetuated in mainstream media (also owned by the banking elite and their cronies) to discredit Jackson/Jefferson.
Any of this sound familiar? Real familiar?
In the spirit of discussing attack ads, where campaigners hit below the belt, I thought this article would be of interest to Ron Paul supporters. I suggest you read the CNN article here (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/29/attack.ads/index.html) (blech) and meet me back here with your thoughts. Essentially, the article starts with its lead-in:
Sucker punches and below-the-belts can be expected as we enter the slugfest season of political attack ads. They're already taking off the gloves for what promises to be nasty 2008 campaigns that use the newfound enormous strength and reach of the Web.
But where it gets interesting is where they state that attack ads have been used against historical Presidents:
Negative campaigning is as old as the Republic. Thomas Jefferson's opponents predicted in their brochures that if he became president, "murder, robbery, rape and incest will be openly taught and practiced."
In the 1828 presidential campaign, Andrew Jackson's opponents accused him of murder, gambling and treason and said his wife was a prostitute.
"What we do on television today, they did 200 years ago," McKinnon said. "In fact, back then it was even tougher."
Notice the two Presidents they picked? What are the similarities?
They both won.
Both of them fiercely fought the establishment of a Central Bank (i.e. the Federal Reserve is America's third incarnation of a Central Bank - established by a banking cartel), and won.
With respect to Jefferson:
His opposition to the Bank of the United States was fierce: "I sincerely believe, with you, that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies; and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale."[19] Nevertheless Madison and Congress, seeing the financial chaos caused by the lack of a national bank in the War of 1812, disregarded his advice and created the Second Bank of the United States in 1816.(source) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_jefferson)
With respect to Jackson:
Jackson followed Jefferson as a supporter of the ideal of an "agricultural republic" and felt the bank improved the fortunes of an "elite circle" of commercial and industrial entrepreneurs at the expense of farmers and laborers. After a titanic struggle, Jackson succeeded in destroying the bank by vetoing its 1832 re-charter by Congress and by withdrawing U.S. funds in 1833.(source) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_jackson#Opposition_to_the_National_Bank)
Isn't that interesting? Sounds to me like the opposition, heavily funded by the banking elite (they financed both parties), created attack ads and perpetuated in mainstream media (also owned by the banking elite and their cronies) to discredit Jackson/Jefferson.
Any of this sound familiar? Real familiar?