Bradylama
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
The more I think about it the more I honestly fear for the future of our lives and freedoms. Ron Paul won the MSNBC debate's online polls and came in 3rd place on Drudgereport. Despite this there's no mention of him in the mainstream media at all.
I sat there last night watching CNN Headline Prime host Glenn Beck pick out Paul's answer to the question of what major leadership decisions he's had to take as the worst answer of the night. Nevermind that the big talk is Giuliani's inability to define his abortion stance as crucifying his candidacy. The videos are all over youtube, so rather than sift through all of them for the specific questions here are all of Paul's statements. You'll note that when the question comes up he fumbles because he's a congressman and not in an actual leadership position. His job is to represent his district, not act as a leader, which is why he struggled to tie in his medical experience and then came away with citing his opposition to the war. What Glenn Beck did was nothing short of character assassination, and yes they cut off the clip right before he mentioned his opposition to Iraq.
Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate who opposes the war, and is perhaps the only candidate period who is proposing a withdrawal and an end to interventionist policy next to Gravel. Neither of them are being talked about and are the proverbial elephants in the room for the mainstream media. In response to Gravel attacking the other Democratic candidates for rattling sabers at Iran, The Daily Show likened him to a crazy old prospector. Yet despite the response Paul has received on the internet nobody wants to talk about him.
In this discussion on public television, all of the pundits made absolutely no mention of Ron Paul's anti-war platform, or his adamant opposition to the National ID Card, wanting to abolish the IRS and the Federal Reserve, or any other issues that resonated with the people who are supporting Paul online. They talk about a narrow orthodoxy among the candidates, say that nobody distinguished themselves, and that none of them would resonate with young voters (save Obama). None of them want to talk about the proverbial elephant in the room, Ron Paul. John McLaughlin had to slip in an endorsement for Paul at the end of the segment.
It's revolting. Whenever somebody comes up to the forefront of politics in order to speak the truth, like Paul and Gravel have done they are either ignored by the media, or treated as wide-eyed wing bats. Essentially the same thing which occurred to Ross Perot.
The media has hand-picked the candidates that we should vote for. From the Democrats it's Obama, Clinton, and Edwards (despite the character assassination they performed on him last time), and for the Republicans it's Giuliani, McCain, and Romney. All of them huge phoneys, and double-speaking political finks.
Don't believe me? Remember when Paul answered the question on ammending the constitution in order to allow foreign-born nationals to become president? Paul ended the statement by saying he supports the "original intent" and Chris Mathews can no longer hold back his contempt with an audible "oh God."
Consider this segment following the debates. First I'd also like to note no mention of Paul's understanding of why Republicans did poorly in the last elections (Iraq). Towards the end of the segment, however, Keith Olbermann interrupts with an outburst of "Who is in the lead!?" That outburst was clearly in regards to the poll results, citing Ron Paul as the winner of the debate which as of the time of my posting this entry is still the highest rated. A lead position met with forced laughter from those surrounding Olbermann.
It's not just that they don't think he will win, the media doesn't want Ron Paul to win. Men like Paul and Gravel shake up the establishment, and nothing scares the shit out of cronyist corporations more than when men who can't be bought run for a position of authority. The Republican National Congress itself funds a man to run against Paul in his own district for Galveston in every election, and despite that he's been elected to 10 consecutive terms.
Men like Paul and Gravel, men who understand the values of personal freedom and the danger of foreign entrapment are the ones we need in the White House so desperately. Don't get wrapped up in Paul's supporting of the Gold Standard or Gravel's support of universal healthcare. In the long run they're minor issues compared to our personal freedoms and the safety of serving men and women abroad.
Paul/Gravel '08.
I sat there last night watching CNN Headline Prime host Glenn Beck pick out Paul's answer to the question of what major leadership decisions he's had to take as the worst answer of the night. Nevermind that the big talk is Giuliani's inability to define his abortion stance as crucifying his candidacy. The videos are all over youtube, so rather than sift through all of them for the specific questions here are all of Paul's statements. You'll note that when the question comes up he fumbles because he's a congressman and not in an actual leadership position. His job is to represent his district, not act as a leader, which is why he struggled to tie in his medical experience and then came away with citing his opposition to the war. What Glenn Beck did was nothing short of character assassination, and yes they cut off the clip right before he mentioned his opposition to Iraq.
Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate who opposes the war, and is perhaps the only candidate period who is proposing a withdrawal and an end to interventionist policy next to Gravel. Neither of them are being talked about and are the proverbial elephants in the room for the mainstream media. In response to Gravel attacking the other Democratic candidates for rattling sabers at Iran, The Daily Show likened him to a crazy old prospector. Yet despite the response Paul has received on the internet nobody wants to talk about him.
In this discussion on public television, all of the pundits made absolutely no mention of Ron Paul's anti-war platform, or his adamant opposition to the National ID Card, wanting to abolish the IRS and the Federal Reserve, or any other issues that resonated with the people who are supporting Paul online. They talk about a narrow orthodoxy among the candidates, say that nobody distinguished themselves, and that none of them would resonate with young voters (save Obama). None of them want to talk about the proverbial elephant in the room, Ron Paul. John McLaughlin had to slip in an endorsement for Paul at the end of the segment.
It's revolting. Whenever somebody comes up to the forefront of politics in order to speak the truth, like Paul and Gravel have done they are either ignored by the media, or treated as wide-eyed wing bats. Essentially the same thing which occurred to Ross Perot.
The media has hand-picked the candidates that we should vote for. From the Democrats it's Obama, Clinton, and Edwards (despite the character assassination they performed on him last time), and for the Republicans it's Giuliani, McCain, and Romney. All of them huge phoneys, and double-speaking political finks.
Don't believe me? Remember when Paul answered the question on ammending the constitution in order to allow foreign-born nationals to become president? Paul ended the statement by saying he supports the "original intent" and Chris Mathews can no longer hold back his contempt with an audible "oh God."
Consider this segment following the debates. First I'd also like to note no mention of Paul's understanding of why Republicans did poorly in the last elections (Iraq). Towards the end of the segment, however, Keith Olbermann interrupts with an outburst of "Who is in the lead!?" That outburst was clearly in regards to the poll results, citing Ron Paul as the winner of the debate which as of the time of my posting this entry is still the highest rated. A lead position met with forced laughter from those surrounding Olbermann.
It's not just that they don't think he will win, the media doesn't want Ron Paul to win. Men like Paul and Gravel shake up the establishment, and nothing scares the shit out of cronyist corporations more than when men who can't be bought run for a position of authority. The Republican National Congress itself funds a man to run against Paul in his own district for Galveston in every election, and despite that he's been elected to 10 consecutive terms.
Men like Paul and Gravel, men who understand the values of personal freedom and the danger of foreign entrapment are the ones we need in the White House so desperately. Don't get wrapped up in Paul's supporting of the Gold Standard or Gravel's support of universal healthcare. In the long run they're minor issues compared to our personal freedoms and the safety of serving men and women abroad.
Paul/Gravel '08.
