Ron Paul Black Out Campaign

[BooG690]

Ron Paul 2012 Official Campaign Website
Black THIS Out Money Bomb for Ron Paul! October 19th, 2011

Ron Paul pushing hard to raise $6M today as a means for him to finally get some of the media coverage he deserves.

I would love to see him surface as the Republican nominee.

[bikes]

ron paul isn't going to win shit other than the ron paul nomination

[2Cord McCord]

Wouldn't vote for him, but would like to see him in the running. It would be nice to have a candidate that wasn't owned by corporations.

[BooG690]

Did you watch the debate last night? He pretty much pwnd. Sadly, the media still doesn't give him credit and, therefore, shaping the thoughts of the mainstream.

[bikes]

ron paul has run the streets on most every debate he's been in. his ideas are far too radical (practical) for him to ever ever get the nomination. or not slammed by the media.

[Hawk]

I'm not sure that I'd vote for him, but I can say for sure that he's the only republican I'd consider.

[eugmac]

I'm not sure I like all of his policies, but he seems like somebody who is not afraid to tell it as it is, which is practically unheard of from a politician these days.

His admitting to not support the theory of evolution is a major minus though.

And I'm now not so sure about all that the racist material on his newsletter which he denies knowing about.
Ron Paul's Racist Quotes - YouTube

[a500lbgorilla]

I'm not sure that I'd vote for him, but I can say for sure that he's the only republican I'd consider.

+ John Huntsman. I can say this with confidence because I'll almost certainly never be faced with the choice of Obama vs either of the two, but I hope for the day when a John Huntsman is the boring Romney type and Ron Paul is the popular other guy the debates focus on.

[wufwugy]

Paul is a tough nut to crack because we don't actually know his positions on a ton of stuff, and he contrasts the scumbag GOP establishment. You might be able to say I support him like 25%, whereas I support the GOP 0% and virtually any non-blue dog Dem >25%

Paul's overall ideas are dreadful. Like you don't even know dreadful. Free Marketeerism will fuck your society in the ass like no other. We don't pay too much less in taxes than several other nations (if at all), yet they have an enormously more valuable and constructive economy than we do. It's all because they boast central planning in key areas. For example, no matter how great you want an economy to be, it really can be only as good as the transportation network. And the transportation network is not something the free markets call for. So with econ strategies like Paul's, we could do everything right, and still be fucking poor because they refuse to mandate the collective necessities

What we don't know about Paul is huge too because he sidesteps EVERYTHING by claiming states rights. FWIW I'm probably a big states rights guy too, as societies operate better when they're smaller and more regional, but Paul never actually clarifies any of his social positions because his bottom line is states rights. Or at least that is a merited impression. He plays both sides in that when it comes to getting the federal government out of peoples' lives, he's down; but he has not once said that the states dont have the right to intrude however they please

Paul is the best guy in the GOP, but the king of scumbags isn't a hefty accomplishment, while as long as he's in the scumbag party, he wouldn't really be able to do much they don't want. That said, I wish that Paul and Huntsman were the frontrunners in GOP

[eugmac]

ya his ideal 0% income tax is borderline lunacy imo. he also made it clear that if you come from a poor background well then dang, you're gonna have much less of a chance at a decent education and that's the way it should be, 'cause education ain't a right. at least that's the way i understood his words... although his "corruption-fighting" promises has an obvious appeal to most people, in reality if he truly got his way then there will be no government intervention vs corporate criminality.

[IowaSkinsFan]

ya his ideal 0% income tax is borderline lunacy imo.

Yeah because no government has ever run on 0 income tax before!!!

[IowaSkinsFan]

What we don't know about Paul is huge too because he sidesteps EVERYTHING by claiming states rights. FWIW I'm probably a big states rights guy too, as societies operate better when they're smaller and more regional, but Paul never actually clarifies any of his social positions because his bottom line is states rights. Or at least that is a merited impression. He plays both sides in that when it comes to getting the federal government out of peoples' lives, he's down; but he has not once said that the states dont have the right to intrude however they please

I agree with a lot of your points here, he does seem to sidestep philosophical issues and say "whatever the states want." I guess he just really believes in the states doing whatever they please.

[eugmac]

Yeah because no government has ever run on 0 income tax before!!!

United Arab Emirates's tax revenue to GDP is 1.4%, I guess. They seem to have no income tax at all. Is that what you're talking about?

[Vinland]

If you want more info on his ideas, read "the Revolution". Its not very long and you get a good glimpse of his stance on topics and why he believes in them.

[wufwugy]

I think I would vote for Ron Paul btw

I could go on for days about what he does right, what he does wrong, and what he would actually be able to do if he was POTUS, but I think the bottom line for me is how anti-drug war he is

Not only do I believe that drugs like LSD and marijuana would save civilization if fully embraced, but the economic cost of the drug war is beyond enormous. Creating/prosecuting/housing criminals is probably the most costly thing in the entire US, but there's a type of blowback in that it makes Mexico run by cartels, which kills their economy, then makes a bunch of Mexicans looking for work, then they come across into the country and depress wages and increase unemployment simply by adding to labor supply as well as cheaper labor

We need to go back to a time like in the early 1900s when Ford decided to pay their workers a whole bunch, then they turned around and bought Ford products, and Ford became hugely successful. But there is a zero percent chance we do that as long as super cheap labor is produced out of a drug war

[BooG690]

If China Attacks America (JUST IMAGINE) - YouTube

Please watch. This is so good.

[wufwugy]

pretty sick dude

[Vinland]

yeah...good stuff.
Check out Ron's "what If" speech in congress which can be found on tube
Ron Paul: What If? (speech on House floor 2/12/09) - YouTube

[CoccoBill]

While I do disagree with many of his positions (economic policies as a whole, educational and environmental positions, how he's pro-life, against universal health care, he supports capital punishment and some other smaller issues) overall he's not the worst option out there. Certainly the only R candidate I'd even consider voting for.

[Vinland]

^ I won't go into too much detail on his environmental issues but I will say he IS NOT for capital punishment. That is one of the few items he has "flipped" on, and he did it a while ago. His concern with DA wrong-doings and the chance of getting a judgement wrong has convinced him to think otherwise.

[givememyleg]

If China Attacks America (JUST IMAGINE) - YouTube

Please watch. This is so good.

wicked awesome.

[kiwiMark]

I mean that makes a lot of sense, is probably a pretty courageous comparison to put out there as a presidential candidate and the video is presented in a badass way, but last election Matt Damon told me old people shouldn't be president so I'm torn.

[kiwiMark]

And I'm now not so sure about all that the racist material on his newsletter which he denies knowing about.
Ron Paul's Racist Quotes - YouTube

TYT tilts me so hard. The guy can't talk without random pauses in the middle of sentences, takes about three minutes to make a simple point, in this video he said in the beginning either written by Ron Paul or written on Ron Paul's behalf, but then later simply says "written by Ron Paul" which is surely libel, he starts a supposed quote by saying "quote:" but then stumbles over his sentence changing it halfway through and the "quote" returns about 7 google search results on pages that came after this video so iunno.

Don't get me wrong a lot of that stuff seems pretty damning for Ron Paul and I'm in position to defend or damn him due to my ignorance on the subject, I just hate TYT.

[wufwugy]

TYT is best news show, Cenk is my hero (not really, but he's still super cool), and I've seen lots of people express dislike for Cenk's style. I would describe it as discomfort with a no-teleprompter news television style. Once you get past the expectation that shows should be pre-written and pre-formatted, you'll be fine. He's quicker on his feet than any other pundit I've seen, but when you do five hours a day of unscripted news description and discussion, you'll find hiccups

[kiwiMark]

what about it/him is good?

[kiwiMark]

^tone is curiosity not "YOU SO STUPID"

[wufwugy]

I'll try to nutshell it

- They're the most popular politics source that controls all its own content. Every other outlet of similar size is bought by somebody. MSNBC tried to give Cenk his own show, but they wanted to curb the message, so he didn't take it

- The analysis, while not always correct, is the most correct I've found so far

- The format is simply better. They only pull punches when they get really mad. It's run by Cenk, but it's a bit more community oriented in that they're a team of long time friends that include a black guy, hispanic guy, jewish guy, a mediterranean chick, a dude with a beard, and that actor who Charlie tried to discuss Bird Law with, among others. Just by default, a show that organically develops into that is way better than the standard paradigm of making everything specific and flashy (like how Roger Ailes watches with no sound and uses only blonde women)

- They tell it how it is. Every other big program has an agenda that involves money, their's is really just to tell it how it is and get things fixed. Cenk quit his lawyer profession to work on this show which has made him next to no money for many years. TYT is about doing what they love to do and what is right

- TYT is actually a bit more popular than people think. One of the disconnects is that there aren't any established methods to compare their numbers to standard shows. However, they get a TON of viewers through the internet, and I predict that they will be an even larger show than O'Reilly within a decade.

- The message is purely about doing what's right, is a populist message, and the punditry is much more real. For example, they crack jokes while discussing stories all the time. The show is often more of a conversation than a lecture; which makes it more like radio than television news

- Nobody's talking about NDAA except TYT, nobody's talking about SOPA except TYT, nobody calls it how it is on Ron Paul except TYT. This is pretty much always the case

[kiwiMark]

tyty

I'll be honest probably what tilts me most is that I don't find the jokes at all funny (but I feel mostly the same way about the likes of the daily show and the colbert report and put that down to flat-out cultural differences because it's very american humor, and clearly americans are the target audience rather than me, so fair play) and so then because I'm annoyed by the jokes my brain is automatically in hatorade shuddupidiot mode.

The thing about the teleprompter is interesting too, because I think another thing that irks me is that it's presented like a news show and then just comes across as What This Guy (and his friends) Thinks About Shit - the joke entirely on me being that of course that's what it is and of course there can't be anything else, and I should be stoked that that's being presented honestly in contrast to all the news networks that are trying to pretend like they're telling me the ultimate objective truth.

Also not living in the USA but watching your guys news whenever I travel 'cause it tends to be what's on TVs in places (if not BBC), I feel like your guys' normal news programs (I'm thinking CNN and Fox, maybe these aren't what actual americans consider normal) are riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiidiculous and seem like hollywood movies, which probably makes something like TYT even more refreshing.

tl;dr: Thanks for explaining. I'm definitely not gonna become a regular viewer but the hate inside me has been diminished greatly.

[wufwugy]

Cultural differences are big. I don't understand British humor in the slightest even though I've tried pretty hard to get it

[Jack Sawyer]

Restore the American Dream for the 99% Act - YouTube


TYT pwns imo

[BooG690]

Cultural differences are big. I don't understand British humor in the slightest even though I've tried pretty hard to get it

Meh, TYT just isn't funny. I'm not a huge fan either. I feel like I'm watching a left Fox News whenever I watch TYT. Just report what's happening, quit giving me your fucking opinion.

[wufwugy]

Meh, TYT just isn't funny. I'm not a huge fan either. I feel like I'm watching a left Fox News whenever I watch TYT. Just report what's happening, quit giving me your fucking opinion.

I didn't mean to allude to them being funny. They get something solid from time to time, but not with any kind of density. It's more like they have brevity and facetiousness the way normal people do instead of just being robotic like the standard media. Unger and Mankiewicz can get funny. Also Unger's character on Sunny in Philadelphia seems to be who he is IRL

And they don't consider themselves journalists, they're pundits. You could call them a left-wing Fox Noise, but my problem with that is that it suggests that Faux News is something other than propaganda. The line between journo and pundit isn't entirely clear, however, since the whole "just report the news, don't give a slant" is impossible. The closest you get to that idea is NewsHour, but it's still not close at all

[boost]

ya, something about the guy kinda rubs me wrong. It's probably just that I am not a fan of punditry. John Daily is ok, but I've come to hate Colbert (not because of his message... I just really really really do not enjoy his show). With Cenk, I just don't like his delivery I guess. Maybe I'll watch some more over the next week and try to pinpoint what it is that doesn't jive.

[wufwugy]

Good promo on TYT, and why I like them

The Young Turks With Cenk Uygur (Webby Awards) - YouTube

[a500lbgorilla]

I had a suprisingly a-political holiday season. It was awesome.

ya, something about the guy kinda rubs me wrong. It's probably just that I am not a fan of punditry. John Daily is ok, but I've come to hate Colbert (not because of his message... I just really really really do not enjoy his show).

wat

Since you said Jon Daily over Jon Stewart Im going to assume you're not a major consumer of The Daily Show/Colbert Report.

In terms of quality, political commentary, and consistent humor value Colbert > Stewart especially this last year. The only thing Stewart has over Colbert is the ability to hold an actual interview and make his observations part of the news cycle and general political conversations at home. But Stewart is careful to keep his seat right where it's really supposed to be - the higher road.

The rally to restore sanity was a big circlejerk bomb where Stewart had the stage and chose to do nothing while Colbert is actually using his Super PAC to get Citizens United ballot initiatives on tickets for voters to make themselves heard on the issue of Corporate Personhood. While also educating people on the money whos and hows of political elections.

Also, the writing of Colbert > Stewart. Colberts The Word consistently crushes in humor and commentary value. And Colbert himself plays the role of fake conservative pundit and master rhetorician v well.

[boost]

ugh, ya Jon Stewart... I knew something was wrong as I was writing that.

And ya, I really don't watch them anymore, as I don't have TV and couldn't care enough to torrent them. I'm not sure I disagree with what you say, but I just don't find the satire of Colbert all that amusing.

[sweetlemon69]

Cicero finally emerges to save your country... the world begs you to vote him in.

[boost]

btw, I had fun pwning a libertarian that frequents the bar I work at.

he posits: I am infringing on his freedoms by forcing him to pay into the common pool to support all of the agencies and programs he does not support ideologically.

I counter: He is infringing on my freedoms just the same by trying to dictate what the government should and shouldn't be based on a subjective ideology.

him: But no, I am advocating less government, which does not infringe on your freedoms at all.

me: Oh, fair enough, I think you are right, I am in fact infringing on your freedoms, and I actually think I am starting to understand your point of view. Help me out though... what agencies should we keep?

him: well for one, we need to defend our boarders, blah blah

me: Oh, well I agree we should have less government, but I think we should get rid of everything except the Department of Education.

him: WHAT? That is preposterous! We need to defend our boarders, otherwise we are not a nation!

me: I'm not so sure I'm a big fan of nationalism in the first place..

him: But we need boarder patrol, the military, etc etc.. because blah blah..

me: Please don't infringe on me freedoms.

[a500lbgorilla]

Laura Ingraham - The Colbert Report - 2010-03-08 - Video Clip | Comedy Central

It's hard to find all of his great stuff when I only remember quotes from them but here he makes Ingraham his plaything.

[a500lbgorilla]

Cicero finally emerges to save your country... the world begs you to vote him in.

Who was Cicero? I looked at his wiki page but it didn't strike me what you're getting at

[boost]

ya, that was pretty fucking awesome. Maybe it is just the over-the-top (I know it's supposed to be, but that doesn't help me stomach it) intro sequence that puts me in a bad mood for the rest of the show.

On the topic of that Laura person... it makes me sick that the Twilight series sells millions and millions of copies-- but for Ingraham's trash to be a best seller? That is truly disturbing.

[wufwugy]

I should probably post something about Ron Paul since Iowa caucus is tomorrow, and I've been paying a lot of attention to Paul lately, but for some reason I haven't posted anything on this board. I'll do just a couple bulletpoints


- I'm 51/49% in favor of somebody in Obama vs Paul. Not sure yet who. It probably should be Paul, but there's always more information to learn.

- Paul's opposition to SOPA alone should be enough to garner my vote

- The foreign wars and drug war are the two worst economic policies of our time. They don't get the press for that problem, but they are. Federal tax dollars are hugely corrupted by the wars, and the drug war so deeply fucks the nation by way of the enormous expense of "criminal" justice and cheap labor gluts from Mexican refugees. Go back in time and eliminate both the foreign and drug wars, and I believe we'd be at full employment today. No joke.

Obama is shit on these issues. Paul is fantastic.

- States rights is good stuff. The majority of governmental corruption is federal. The US has a really shitty dynamic that subsidizes the federal government through local governments and commerce. This is because the federal government is able to cherry pick what they want to be involved in; this is rather unlike how well-functioning governments of other nations operate. An example of this would be education policy. The federal government's education policy is shit. They have no control over how schools operate, that's all a state and local issue, yet they still impose taxation and "incentive" programs. The problem is that this just doesn't work; if the federal government wants to be involved in education they need the kind of policy control that states have, but nobody wants that, I don't even want that. Another example is in the foreign wars being an enormous priority of the federal government. So then contrast your federal tax dollars to war and education; a bunch of it goes to wars that ultimately make the nation poorer, and very little of it goes to education that arguably is ineffective in the first place

Then we have issues like California trying to fix their drug laws, but the fed fuckheads slam the hammer. Progress is almost always localized, then grows outwards. This is how Europe got so much further down the road than US. The whole EU "centralized government and economy" has actually been throwing them back. The EUR is nothing other than a bankster scheme of stealing from the poor EU members

I really want to see a push towards decreasing the power of the feds while increasing the power of the states

- There is an argument to be made that Obama is scum due to his position on indefinite detentions. Paul is the only guy who actually doesn't want to rape civil liberties.

- A lot of the negatives about Paul are blown out of proportion. The gold standard for example, it's not happening, and he won't even try to make it happen. His position on social programs like Social Security aren't as bad as you'd think. Personally, I feel like SS and Medicare should possibly be set on a path to be dictated by the states. Over the long run, this would actually work better because the states would be forced to make things work due to a lot of constraints and responsibilities they have that the federal government doesn't. And when one state makes good policy, it spreads. A big reason US has problems with this is because we're sooooooo focused on national politics where entirely different cultures are being told they have to get along. Governance doesn't work well when you tell rednecks that they have to get along with yankees. A lot about liberalism and conservatism are the same, just artificial divides have been created that make people think we're so much different



I really hope Paul wins Iowa, but he probably won't. Iowa always goes for the evangelical, and Santorum is rising high at the right time just like all the other not-Romneys. Paul does have a strong base of support in Iowa, but Romney is the guy that anybody focused on electability will look at, and he's got some establishment backing that will help him a bit on turnout to the polls

I want to see enough evangelicals go to Paul, then Romney gets his normal 25%, while the others split up the other evangelicals, so that Paul wins Iowa. Then Romney crushes NH, then somehow SC and Florida see the demise of everybody else, then we get a Romney/Paul hu match, and the evangelicals finally say they're for Paul. Then the general election campaign will involve so much of the progressive policy that Obama refuses to endorse. Obama vs Paul would be so good for shifting the national dialogue to things that really need fixing. Also it would be a huge fuck you to the GOP establishment and corporate establishment, who pretty much hate Paul. It'll be so damn hard for Paul to win the GOP though, especially after Fox decides to endorse Romney. Not sure why they haven't already, probably because they want one of the not-Romneys. But if their hand is forced, they will back Romney then fight full bore against Paul, which will basically kill Paul since what Fox says is what the GOP base believes

But then on the flip side, Paul will run as an independent, then we're in for some craziness. Chances are very low that he could win, but we don't yet know the effect of disenfranchised liberals. I'm the world's biggest liberal, and I'm probably would support Paul over Obama, as an example. But Paul running third party would definitely kill Romney's chances

Then onto 2016 when Obama is no longer incumbent, and the GOP favorite, Christ Christie, decides to run. My hope is that my gf Elizabeth Warren crushes the next four years in what's going to become her Mass Senate seat, then runs for president in 2016, and then we get a strong, savvy, charismatic, female real progressive who would crush any GOPer on the planet

[givememyleg]

- Obama signs ndaa into law saying "hey guys i don't wanna do this but i'm doing it anyway, peace."

enough to deter me.

[wufwugy]

Yeah it's really bad. He basically said "hey I won't torture any more people than I already do, but I'm making it legal for any future president to torture as many people as he wants"

I have a really hard time thinking of Obama as a good person

[a500lbgorilla]

He should have veto'ed that bitch. Even if it has to bounce back to getting the congressional majority (2/3rds Senate or whatever we learned about in high school). If you're not going to veto this, what are you going to veto?

Also, this practice of attaching bills that would be impossible to pass as stand alone bills as addendum to defense spending needs to stop.

[wufwugy]

Pretty sure Obama wanted the indefinite detentions. Word is that he threatened to veto the bill when it had a clause that eliminated the detentions, but then after that was removed, they moved forward.

His signing statement is such bullshit. The bill has wording for indefinite detentions of Americans being both legal and illegal, but the wisdom is that what it really says is they're legal. Especially with Obama's bullshit signing statement of "I ain't gonna use em" do we know that the detentions in the bill are very real.

The whole "of Americans" thing bugs me too. Indefinite detentions should be illegal for anybody anywhere no matter what.

[Vinland]

Wuf, I could swear that less than 8 months ago you called Ron Paul a wolf in sheeps clothing.....now you'd possibly vote for him?

p.s. I think RP kicks ass

[wufwugy]

Wuf, I could swear that less than 8 months ago you called Ron Paul a wolf in sheeps clothing.....now you'd possibly vote for him?

p.s. I think RP kicks ass

I probably did. Obama is as well

I have said a TON of really stupid stuff over the years. I used to be a creationist, alternative medicine hippie, Bush-loving ignoramus. The only reason I have ever been right about anything was because I learned how to admit when I'm wrong

Anyways, that's why I said I'm 51/49 in favor of either. I also donated to Paul's 08 campaign, then gradually thought he was a complete tool as I learned more about economics, and now my position is still reforming the more I learn

[boost]

Wuf, do you actually think there is any chance that RP puts an end to the drug war? If this were to be his focus, and I thought he could get it done, there's a good chance that I'd vote for him.

[givememyleg]

i'm generally a pessimist but i find it hard that a lot (any?) of his controversial ideas go through congress and the house if he somehow manages to win the nomination and beat obama. admittedly, i'm more ignorant than i should be about the whole process but things like ending the war on drugs just seem like it would take a huuuuuuuuge change in our perception and education about drugs. not to mention the money given to congress from the corporations that profit on locking up millions of americans.

granted, it just has to happen at some point though, right? any intelligent person who looks at the situation can see how fucked up it is.

[wufwugy]

Wuf, do you actually think there is any chance that RP puts an end to the drug war? If this were to be his focus, and I thought he could get it done, there's a good chance that I'd vote for him.

Not entirely, but he would set things in motion

Breaking this thing down is kinda hard because we live under multiple and somewhat incompatible governments (federal as well as state). Our current drug policy is based in the federal government making sure states enforce the federal laws. What this does, even though the vast majority of "drug war" stuff is all handled by the states, is makes it impossible for the states to change their laws. California, for example, has been trying to change things, but it can't because the feds put the kibosh on it. This dynamic runs really deep into ways you wouldn't think. For example movement on drug policy in many parts of the world is dependent upon the US federal government changing their policy. I don't know exactly why this is, but from what I've seen from expert analyses, this is a really big deal.

Anyways, if Paul stuck to his word, he would pardon any federal non-violent drug offenders (which isn't much because they're all state), he would tell his DoJ to lay off what the states want to do, he would introduce legislation to try to legalize drugs, and he set in motion a sort of "Arab Spring" in the national conversation on US drug laws. He may also try to not give blowjobs to big pharma anymore, then I think we'd be set on a road to legalize marijuana in most states

We are in desperate need of a debate change in this country. Everything is a war and a competition, and it's what hurts us the most. It's not a coincidence that so much of our culture is about fighting, then our social and economic policy reflects. I have a theory that our entertainment culture is primarily responsible for our destructuve social policy, but that's a different matter

[BooG690]

Ron Paul To Everyone But Mitt: Drop Out

Great article.

[wufwugy]

Yeah my thoughts have been that the only way Paul wins is HU vs Romney, and Paul hits him with a sledge hammer over and over. Romney would have a pretty easy 60% default in that race, but Paul could still beat that if he fought hard enough

The evangelicals are definitely not-Romneys, but also largely not-Pauls. I think with enough crushing from the Paul campaign, they could switch to just not-Romneys though

[givememyleg]

yeah i think that is pretty much the only way at this point. but... it just can't happen, too big of ego's and disagreements with paul.

[BennyLaRue]

Ron Paul is just paving the way for Rand 2016.

[wufwugy]

A guy named after a writer who popularized the idea of social darwinism in a modern context. Sigh

When are we gonna go back to the social darwinism of monarchies and despotism? Or maybe we'll just launch forward into the social darwinism of oligopolies and coporatocracies

[bikes]

FOR A FEW TO BE IMMORTAL MANY MUST DIE!

[kiwiMark]

biketsche for el presidento

[wufwugy]

This is why I watch TYT

Police officers torture a regular American to death and the district attorney refuses to investigate. And no media covers it except TYT and some blogs

Meanwhile US has greater wealth inequality and more civil abuses than Iran. Not as bad as North Korea or Rwanda, but the theocratic plutocratic corporatocracy is working on getting us there.

Pepper Sprayed To Death In Jail - YouTube

[wufwugy]

BTW as much as I love TYT, their segment on this story should have been nothing but loading shotguns. How have we become so desensitized to this unspeakably evil shit? It is spoken of as if it's "just another story of bad stuff that happens but hey somebody didn't understand something so hey just a slap on the wrist and hey let's go back to corporate tabloid robot consumption and talk about how we supposedly took out Saddam because he did exactly what we do but hey"

It's a good thing I don't own a news network. If I did we'd run nothing but "The Outlaw Josey Wales" over and over with intermittent captions saying "This is what we must do to the establishment powers because they have demonstrated that they will rape, torture, and pillage at all costs"

[Roid_Rage]

Holy shit... Ron Paul 2012 imo

[Roid_Rage]

» Ron Paul Receives “Game Changing” Endorsement From South Carolina Senator Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

Nice, thats nice.

[Vinland]

^ it should be but the endorsement received virtually no media coverage. Anytime some endorses newt or mittens its front page MSN news.
Ron Paul has such an uphill battle due to the terrible media coverage he gets leading up to primaries and in general imo. Its tough for undecided voters to give him much mind when most articles written about the last debate are 3/4 about newt/romney exchanges, 1/4 Rick "foamy" Santorum and then one paragraph says "Ron Paul was the 4th candidate on the stage".....wow thats all the substance he had in the debate?
Your media sucks bad imo.....they prop guys up to be frontrunners based on nothing.....eg. Rick Perry, the guy blasted out into the lead the moment news agencies labelled him as a texas legend. He hadnt even set foot on a debate stage yet. The guy lead or was 2nd in polls for sometime before his debate performances showed how useless he would be...

Paul's going to need a tremendous showing in Nevada and Minnesota imo b/c SC and Florida are going to fuck him up bad.

[Roid_Rage]

Yea read 2 or 3 articles on how he's just giving SC and Florida a token trip or three just so he can say he was there and then moving on to Nevada, Minnesota, etc. Which is a pretty good idea. Don't think he'll get roughed up in SC too bad today though. 3rd at worst, distant 2nd at best. Not the best case scenario, but in a state where pretty much all the GOP is against your ass, not a bad showing at all.

Just hope him getting ahead of the bus down the line is worth it and he has very solid finishes the next couple months.

[Vinland]

I'm ready for him to come in 4th in SC, bc he's not that far ahead of Santorum. But yes 3rd or 4th today which is expected but bad nonetheless.

A great example of them not giving him a proper chance; at the last debate they had a question on abortion. If you knew there was a MD on the stagre would you want to know his thoughts?
Ron Paul is a OBGYN who's delivered 1000's of babies...they asked the question and tried to skip him....the crowd booed out the moderator and yelled at him to ask RP the question....since he should be most qualified to answer it...
whatever thats my rant....

[BooG690]

What If "They" Are Lying to Us about Ron Paul? - YouTube

[eugmac]

What If "They" Are Lying to Us about Ron Paul? - YouTube

I thought only trash is supposed to come from Fox.

[kiwiMark]

What if we had a better format for this section than a billion fucking what if questions.

[Roid_Rage]

lol i thought the same thing when watching. started to get tilted by it, especially when the title is called 'THE PLAIN TRUTH.'

If its the truth, then speak in plain motherfucking statements.

[Roid_Rage]

Ron Paul - Watch this presentation to see why so many people are endorsing Ron Paul for President - YouTube

This video literally gave me goosebumps multiple times.

[Galapogos]

Ron Paul - Watch this presentation to see why so many people are endorsing Ron Paul for President - YouTube

This video literally gave me goosebumps multiple times.

Boobs and bush at 8:26, I don't need to tell you what this video gave me.

[eugmac]

Ron Paul introduces bill to repeal NDAA indefinite detention clause - OpenGlobe

Even though I feel there are many unknowns to really get a full picture of what he'd actually be like if he were elected president, at least he's one of the few people in congress who actually are against the US increasingly becoming a creepy, secretive, oppressive, tyrannical police state. If he's the only presidential candidate opposed to unlawful indefinite arrest and detention of US citizens, what sane alternative does one have?

[kiwiMark]

I just laff'd that Ron Paul has a campaign to get the black out.

[BankItDrew]

The two biggest reasons for this man to not be elected president:

1. The people of the U.S. would still rather vote for him than any republican.

2. He's not well spoken and thus does not come across as a very confident person.

[eugmac]

Never mind if he has an actual chance, but of course his libertarian ideals are going to be highly controversial since it questions so many things people take for granted in their daily lives. I would love to live in a world where individual responsibility was the key element that drives society, but I'm not sure it could work, at least not in the US where there are too many people weakened by a dependancy-creating culture.

From personal experience (I'm of Japanese descent) I'd say it works this way in Japan because personal responsibility is a virtue that's much more strongly emphasized during the upbringings of most people than the average American. Japan has low taxes. And yet its income disparity between rich and poor is comparable to Sweden, a country with highly socialized income re-distribution through taxation. There was a TED-Talk video that compared equality with overall happiness of a society, and Japan and Sweden both scored highly in that study. USA scored miserably alongside UK.

edit: ok so here's the referenced vid Richard Wilkinson: How economic inequality harms societies | Video on TED.com