Just another Ron Paul site? Admins please consider...
Posted by Libertas341 on Sun, 05/04/2008 - 05:06 in I posted similar thoughts in a reply a week ago or so, but I feel it's worth it's own thread.
I voted for Ron Paul and I'd say 80+% of the people on this site voted for him as well. In order to more closely approach 0 on the unbiased scale (there is no true unbias), I think you guys should advertise BTM in other circles to attract like minded individuals that may have other political views. That way a Hilliary supporter that may be on the fence doesn't see the site and see that it's just another "Ron Paul Site", know what I mean?
Now having the "Ron Paul specific" forum further markets this site as a "Ron Paul site". Where's the Kucinich forum or the Gravel Forum?
I think you're setting yourself up for pigeon hole where you don't want to be.
Remember this?
"Basic Media, Inc. is not a political entity, and we will not affiliate with existing or future campaigns of Ron Paul or any other candidate for elective office. We will fully and cheerfully comply with all “equal time” requirements of the Federal Election Commission and other election authorities. Indeed, we welcome the opportunity to compare (and contrast) our values and philosophies of freedom, prosperity, peace and hope with those of candidates seeking election under the banner of any political party. We can sponsor debates; host candidate forums; and provide analysis of candidate positions. Our content delivery platform can be used to shed the light of truth on any serious candidate for office, and we will work to replace the existing closed media system with a free marketplace of political ideas. Picture, for example, a debate session organized by Basic Media, Inc. where Ron Paul, John McCain and Hillary Clinton/Barack Obama all receive “equal time.” An intriguing thought, isn’t it? Nothing more need be said on the subject of political activism."
Your stated objectives seem to be straying already..
I look forward to being a part of the site while it grows and watching the direction the current will take.
Thanks for reading.
Subscribe to this thread- Flag as offensive
- Login or register to post comments
- 481 reads
Man...agnostic about your Nut-worship already, Tom? For shame.
And guess what...you're a hijacker, too! (Seriously, let's drop the religion banter before we get booted off this thread.)
Wow, Tom. Cool...you're a Nut worshipper!
Hey, I've done the historical-probey thing...for 20 years. My conclusions are different from yours, and I'm taking Pascal's Wager. We'll both know the truth soon enough (trust me, you won't win any arguments with the worms in the casket; they win that one. I'm doing the cremation thing.)
If you haven't read C.S. Lewis, I recommend him; not as to all of his theology or certainly not to his ecclesiology...but as to his research and conclusions. A professor of Medieval Literature at Oxford and Cambridge, Lewis was a keenly talented writer himself. He once held many of the beliefs you've just proposed (he was an intensely cerebral, inquisitive atheist). Lewis probed all the early religions from Nut to Gilgamesh, and truly had Christianity figured out...but something happened, and the rest is history.
I realise that no serious person's mind is changed on such a seminal issue by the appeals of another man, author or not. As I see it, God must come in and do it, if the transformation of mind/heart is to occur at all. Jesus Christ said that not all men make the trip.
Of course, you may posit that your deity Nut has something waiting for you, too, after the worms finish. That's just peachy.
I love the fact that we can hold our various religious positions with freedom and safety because America is a free country.
Even for Nut worshippers.
David
The tombstone of a civilization is set at precisely that point where truth is no longer defended, because it cannot be known.
D.M. Zuniga, This Bloodless Liberty
Thanks for the reply, DM. I am not particularly smitten with the Egyptian mother-goddess - I prefer redheads, myself. :) I am completely convinced that mankind has been compelled to tell this story since the very beginnings of language, and it constantly amazes me to see the lengths people will go to to try to refute any argument, now matter how overwhelming the evidence is, that the Jesus story is not history. I believe, deep down, that people become so emotional about it because, as you present the facts to them, they become afraid THAT WHAT YOU ARE TELLING THEM MIGHT BE TRUE.
It is unfortunate, in my opinion, because the Jesus stories are powerful myths that hold the secrets of existence and salvation, insofar as the ancients understood it, as long as you are not led down the wrong path of taking them as literal history. They lose most of their value that way.
Tom Mullen
www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs
To Tom Mullen:
..............................
I like Ron Paul's position about Christ in the political sphere; though Dr. Paul does not disavow his allegiance to Christ, he does not mix his faith with politics. Indeed, the two don't mix...as Christ Himself said.
Like you, I have a problem with Christianity in politics. I'm a follower of Christ (stumbling, not walking, in His train), yet I agree with you about religion generally, and especially political religions.
Having said that, I believe you are rejecting religion (i.e., a caricature of Christianity) rather than the real gospel of Jesus Christ. You do well to reject American "church" institutions and religious careerists, but I'm willing to bet you've never seen the real thing: Christ's gospel, lived out.
Guess what? You may not even be the cutting-edge bad-boy you think you are. Christ the revolutionary rejected religion just as you appear to do!
Religion is grossly overrated in the minds of religious people (and nations), but it's a very effective cause celebre for violence and plunder, so of course it's a terribly popular tool for people that don't do productive work, or that want to take what others have, with the least struggle possible, while appearing to be "good". America would be better off if 100% of religious careerists and plastic-banana "churches" were out of business tomorrow. Even before Mohammedans learned how to use religion for plunder and profit, Christians had learned to do so.
Christ was anything but "religious", incidentally. The religious leaders hated Him (in fact, killed Him). He railed against religious impostors and political posturers.
Man's nature is to sin (continually, if not for God's grace). Religious people are no exception, be they Hindu, Muslim, Jewish, Christian, New Age, Animist...whatever.
But did you know that 90% of the customs and practices of American "Christianity" is not found in the New Testament, or even suggested therein?
In the New Testament you will find no corporate institutions, no special buildings, no steeples, no pulpits, no "sermon" by a paid cleric, no full-time pay for clerics, no formal 'officers' in local assemblies; you see no "music ministry" or trained choir, no "order of worship", no "sacrament of the eucharist" (just a meal with bread and wine commemorating His death)... I could go on.
I recommend a book, Pagan Christianity: Origins of our Modern Church Practices by Frank Viola and George Barna, which documents these amazing claims so damning to Christianity, Inc.
The popular pagan (pre- and post-Christian) accoutrements to the gospel delivered to the original followers of Christ, are man-made religion, NOT Christianity.
Religious men have used strong-arm politics (including torture and murder) to twist Christianity into an unrecognizeable religious-political institution that allows men to use Christ's Name for political and personal careers.
This is germane to this thread; men have used POLITICS to twist the body of Christ over the centuries, and Ron Paul doesn't do that. Because supposed "reformers" won political hegemony in Europe 500 years ago, and because America was planted as a political outpost for Calvinians, the real gospel of Jesus Christ has very seldom been heard on these shores. But His Name is dropped in politics all the time by social-gospel Roman Catholics (I won't even start to list that organization's sins!) and by militarist right-wing 'evangelicals'.
This is terribly wrong, all of it, and NOT of Christ.
David Zuniga
The tombstone of a civilization is set at precisely that point where truth is no longer defended, because it cannot be known.
You make wonderful points, David. I never thought of myself as a "cutting-edge bad boy," though, but I like the way it makes me sound! :)
I agree with most of what you said. Now, let me get the stones flying at me from far and wide. I don't believe Jesus Christ was a real person. Let me get some bigger stones flying at me. I don't believe that it was the intention of the writers that their followers believed that Jesus was a real person.
What?
I have done a lot of research into this, and until 1999, you had to read an awful lot of books to piece this together. However, two British authors wrote two wonderful books on the subject. The first was THe Jesus Mysteries: Was the Original Jesus a Pagan God? The second was Jesus and the Lost Goddess. These two books made an eloquent case for what I already believed - that the Christian movement was started by Hellenized Jews (probably in or around Alexandria) that wished to bring the ancient mysteries to the Jewish people.
One of your comments is very true - there is a lot of pagan influence on the gospel stories. I will go one step further: If you removed everything from the gospels that had been taken from earlier pagan myths, there would be no gospel left. It is ALL taken from earlier pagan myths that had the same, life-redeeming message. Earlier pagan savior gods had miraculous births in caves or stables before three shepherds, they worked great signs and wonders, they turned water into wine, they celebrated a meal of bread and wine signifying their body and blood, they were killed unjustly to redeem the world of its sins, they rose from the dead to eternal life, they became the judge of the dead, they promised to come again....
The Christian myths were nothing new to the ancient civilizations of the Roman empire - but you could make a case that since they were the LAST to retell the story, rather than the first, that the Christian version may have been the best, building on the accumulated wisdom of the ages.
The Christian movement was a small but diverse one, with as many different "schools" as there were different peoples in the Roman empire. The catholic church was the least interesting, and ridiculed by the rest as "an imitation church," as it interpreted the meaning of Christianity so superficially. It was only when Constantine adopted it as the state religion that it gained any significant following - at that was at swordpoint. Since then, "true Christianity" has been a hijacked religion, under the rule of the authoritarian Roman Catholic Church, or its later misguided Protestant Churches, all who mistake the Jesus story as the history of a real man, missing completely the point of this powerful and transformative myth.
If you wish to look into the books, you can get them at www.timothyfreke.com.
Again, I wish to emphasize that my position on this was not formed by these books, any more than my libertarianism was formed by Ron Paul. Rather, I found both as bright lights in a dark world.
I will end with a quote from the Pyramid Texts of Egypt (c. 3,000 B.C.). They are spoken by Nut, the mother goddess, about Osiris, her son (who would later die and rise from the dead). The words might sound familiar.
To say by Nut, the brilliant, the great: This is my son, my first born, opener of my womb;
this is my beloved, with whom I have been satisfied.
Tom Mullen
www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs
I agree that this group should dump the "Ron Paul" group label.
Not because I have anything against that great statesman (fellow Texan, hurrah!) but because following any politician is a bad business.
Dr. Paul has never sought sycophants, either; he's always been about the ideas of liberty. But because most Americans alive today have been raised by government schools, Hollywood, the NFL, NBA, and NASCAR, they really have to cheer for a celebrity; they want pom poms and a cold beer.
We who care about the future of liberty, about restoring the rule of law in America, and about beginning to repair the horrible excesses of empire our government has committed overseas, need to begin thinking VERY differently about how to bring the 'average' American into action as a self-governing citizen. It's not about joining a political 'team' at all! It's about restoring a neighborhood-and-township-level sense of common cause.
It's us against them. Our enemies have known it for 150 years; it's about time We the People stop being stuck on stupid. The value of Ron Paul, the Texas statesman and patriot, is that for his time he has been incredibly fresh-thinking...very radical: "Hey! Let's obey the Constitution!"
Too many people think that the political machines and the whole D.C. al-Qaeda is rejecting Ron Paul's ideas. Hogswallop! They know all too well that he is speaking the truth! But you need to get inside the head (don't worry; plenty of empty space in there) of the average member of Congress today: the fellow (or woman) has been a self-seeking, self-promoting, posturing demagogue since first winning the class president seat in junior high. (S)he is building one hell of an estate for his/her family, who also plans to live a career in politics. This career socialist/fascist parasitism is the corrupt mark of mature governments worldwide.
These are NOT stupid people; they DO understand all the same things that Ron Paul likes to rail on about...but it is simply not in their interests to listen, and to start preserving, protecting, and defending the US Constitution. Their families have a very good gig violating it instead.
Do you get the picture now? Men aren't angels. Go read the founding fathers.
And guess what? No matter whom you vote into office...even 10-20 of them at a time (remember the Newt Gingrich 'freshmen' and their Contract With America? What a joke....and the fellow an historian, to boot!) you will NOT reform the D.C. al Qaeda.
No; it's time to use force. But I am talking about the force of law, and the force of principle, and the force of great numbers of average citizens, inspired and emboldened by TACTICAL WISDOM, that will only proceed from humble, repentant, deliberate, diligent hearts.
Ron Paul is a great man of his time, who is helping the people of this once-great and godly republic to understand and own up to our duty for self-government. But Dr. Paul still limits his thinking to yesterday's politics -- not those of our framers and founders, and not those of tomorrow's internet plebiscite with power to end-run the political process at will.
We shall either see a thousand anarchistic tails begin to wag the dog to death, or we will begin -- by the grace of God and nothing else -- to operate with tactical wisdom! In this order, read:
1) Jefferson's 1799 Kentucky Resolution.
2) William Still's "Monetary Reform Act" left side of the page at http://www.themoneymasters.com
3) Dr. Edwin Vieira's book, Constitutional Homeland Security, Volume I
4) the America Again! Declaration http://www.america-again.blogspot.com
...and you will understand that there is, indeed, a way for EVERY one of us to preserve, protect, defend, and ENFORCE the Constitution against its domestic enemies in American bureaucracy, in elective office, and in the globalist oligarchy.
This bold, simple, upbeat, patriotic, lawful, local-yet-nationwide (535 cities) plan can galvanise 50 times more Americans than are currently on-board with Ron Paul.
The America Again! project presents a viable, logistically achievable course to restore local militias, reclaim our currency and credit, and hold every member of Congress personally, criminally liable for each and every violation of law unless and until (s)he stops the shenanigans and begins co-sponsoring the specific pieces of legislation we demand.
Dr. Paul has always conducted himself as a statesman, not as a baby-kissing politician. His reforms were radical for his time, but are too little, too late. There is great and growing unrest on the Left and the Right in America -- and millions of practical anarchists will glom onto any chaos movement, just for the thrill of "change".
In the 'Ron Paul Revolution' I see a good many 'toothless yahoo patriots' (as some have referred to them, calling themselves 'militia' or promulgating the most bizarre theories of history, law, economics, and fluouridated drinking water. These fringe elements have a virtual 0% chance of making systemic change in America.
We the People must go to work, and we must do it as a "mainstream" population or it simply will not happen. But never in history does the majority actually get the job done; it only takes a relative few, if the message is upbeat and lawful and if the project is actually "fun" (i.e., not fringe-conspiracy/scary).
So picture just 15 diligent planner/activist citizens in each of those 535 hometowns of every member of Congress; that's only 8,000 citizens out of maybe 150 million American adults. If they are winsome, diligent, and compelling, that small group can win wide public support from fellow citizens even if those citizens are not formal 'activists' in the project...you want the support in the court of public opinion. You don't need a million-man-march.
This point of the patriotic spear can successfully divide and conquer the D.C. al-Qaeda, by bringing the scoundrels home and showing them how the cow ate the cabbage. Any scoundrel that refuses to show up (and I suspect most will refuse, at least the first year) will only dig a deeper hole for himself under charges of conspiracy to defraud the citizens of his U.S. congressional district (or of his State, in the case of a senator).
Under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, We the People had the enforcement authority for the Constitution since a decade before Jefferson made the suggestion in the KY Resolution. We simply never had a tactical plan to get back control of the money and the weapons, peacefully and lawfully, with nary a tar-and-feathers bucket in sight. Nothing but the Rule of Law, and the moral authority of five hundred American neighborhoods saying, "No more!"
Ron Paul has "tilted at windmills" on the floor of the House for decades. It is not that the members didn't "get it"; it's that they're simply corrupt. Obviously, the future of this republic is in the hand of the Lord, as our past has been. Though few of his fellow congressmen have heard Ron Paul, the Lord God has heard him, and we few have heard him.
I have no illusions; God may show us justice or mercy at this point in history. If all the plans of Ron Paul and countless others (like us) fall to the ground in a thousand directions, cohesionless and directionless...then I suppose this is God's justice on our land. I and my family may weep for our republic, but God knows we've certainly earned it.
On the other hand, if -- despite our sinful majority of godless, listless 'consumers' -- something like the America Again! project begins to move like a California brush fire, with Americans beginning to exercise self-government that is a world apart from the mere 'politics' of our fathers, then I will praise God, for He has shown mercy.
http://www.america-again.blogspot.com
The tombstone of a civilization is set at precisely that point where truth is no longer defended, because it cannot be known.
D.M. Zuniga, This Bloodless Liberty
"Camping" is a common human trait. The Ron Paul "camp' is just another way for humans to coagulate into a social structure for a period of time.
"Movement" has always been the word used to describe this phenomenon, but "movement" has its fecal implications to avoid, as well...
You won't be able to avoid it, so it is going to be hard to alter it.
May I suggest mosquito repellant and a book for when you're bored and to pack in your own tp?
Understanding what it is you all are really after may help give this camp some movement...
I agree that we should take care not to let BTM become recognized as a "Ron Paul site." I was quite startled to discover that there was a candidate that espoused my beliefs so completely. I will point out a few disagreements or at least reservations I have about Dr. Paul.
1. He has stated, reluctantly, that Jesus Christ is his personal savior. Although he qualified that comment by saying that he was reluctant to bring his religious beliefs into a public discourse, it still smacked to me of a much more fundamentalist Christian perspective than I am comfortable with. I have devoted many years of study to the true origins of Christianity, including studying ancient Greek, and am suspicious of anyone that seems to ultimatey link the freedom movement with any loyalty to modern Christian doctrine of any kind - although I believe the gospels are among the greatest philosophical works of all ages. My opinion, having listened to Ron Paul now for over a year, is that he does not allow his personal religious beliefs to influence his political policies, which I believe is noble and worthy of admiration. However, it still bothers me, just a bit. Our founding fathers, while paying plenty of lip service to "the Creator," still had a healthy skepticism about organized religion, as even a cursory reading of their writings or recognition that so many were Scottish Rite Freemasons will bear out. I share their reservations.
2. He is "pro-life." What makes me open to his position is that he does not make it on religious grounds, but on philosophical grounds that are more rooted in Locke than the Bible or some other religious dogma. Ultimately, he does not advocate making abortion illegal, but rather that the federal government should stay out of it and leave it to the states. I am comfortable with that position insofar as he is running for federal office. In my heart of hearts, I believe that he is ultimately right - the unborn fetus is a human life, and worthy of protection. However, the issue is so complicated due to the fact that a woman's life is also inextricably bound to any law that could ever be written, so I favor no law whatsoever. I would rather let each woman make her own moral choice and live with the consequences. I believe this is the real position of individual liberty, but I admit that my position is clouded with doubt. Where there is doubt, I advocate leaving the government out of it. While Ron safely leaves the federal government out of it, he opens the door for the state governments. If there is one issue that disturbs me about him, this is it.
Other than that, I cannot find a single word that he has said that I disagree with. While I don't want the site labeled as a "Ron Paul site," I also believe that Gravel and others that might agree with some of Ron Paul's positions also espouse views that are completely inconsistent with individual liberty, and therefore I don't want to see BTM "watered down" in an attempt to be "inclusive."
Ok, I am a newcomer and have made a lot of comments today, and this is the one that is wide open to criticism for being wishy washy. Nobody's perfect. :)
Tom Mullen
www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs
You might be a new comer, but it seems you have a lot to offer. That was a nicely written comment. I have to say that you wrote what a lot of Ron Paul supporters feel, including myself.
Boris in Miami
While I agree for the most part with all comments on this page, I would like to offer an idea. We see all these lopsided polls online; why not run a poll of our own?
Comparisons like Paul vs Obama, Paul vs Clinton, Paul vs McCain, Paul vs Romney, Paul vs Huckleby, and any other combinations.
Wouldn't each of these polls, presented separately, give everyone a chance to not only vote, but to add commentary on each separate issue.
How about it Trevor? Why not?
Paul supporters are diverse. Even if this site is all Ron Paul supporters there is enough diversity of opinion within the group to generate lively debate. Pro-life, Pro-choice, Pro environmental protection, Pro-private property rights, Pro-Gun control, full support of the 2nd Amendment, Pro-hemp, Pro-Drug War, Pro 9/11 conspiracy anti conspiracy. The list goes on and on. I would hope that Paul supporters don't support everything Dr. Paul says and think for themselves.
Surely the content of BTM in the long run will reflect a varied set of facts, current events and opinions that do not get adequate airing, or are completely absent, from the MSM.
My feeling is that most people on BTM are not truly traditional GOP conservatives (as opposed to neoconservative) as Dr. Paul continues to maintain he is. I submit that the truly unifying political ideology amongst all BTM people is revulsion for the neoconservative movement and the disappointment, and indeed deep seated hatred of the Bush admin. Me personally, I do believe that the Islamist movement is a real worldwide threat. Islamists are a pan-hemispheric movement from Thailand to Sudan to Algeria to Pakistan to Indonesia. However, I do believe that Dr. Paul has the right approach. Reach out through a humble foreign policy to build trade relations with moderates in those countries. There was a good frontline that discussed the how moderates in Iran were reaching out to the Bush administration only to be thwarted. Thus we are now looking at war with Iran instead of moving forward with a positive relationship from the hand that was offered.
Yo
Our time is NOW.
It doesn't matter that we are all Ron Paul supporters; the fact is that our voices were totally obliterated by our national media. Chomsky is again proven to be correct. Our media is in bed with the status quo politicians. Is it no wonder that Noam Chomsky was voted the leading intellectual in world?...and he is an anarchist...
I happen to agree with Libertas. This site is dominated by Ron Paul supporters. The content that I have reviewed has been Pro Ron Paul. I, like other like minded individuals, were excited about this site due to the fact that we could argue our issues. If 80% of the site is Ron Paul supporters, who are we going to argue with? Everyone seems to feel the same as I do and I'm bored. I go to different profiles and different people have the same content whether it be video's, articles or arguements. While I find the site comforting that so many people feel the same as I do and I also feel I have seen some original information that I didn't know previously, I would like to argue with some intelligent Clinton, Barrack or McCain supporters over specific issues and I'm not able to do this yet. The only person I've seen who has a different view point is NeoCon, and he seems to be a plant or just extreamley ignorant. The problem is, Ron Paul supporters are people who have educated themselves by the internet. Clinton, McCain and Barrack supporters have educated themselves by the media. Therefore, this site will only attract Ron Paul supporters. I will continue to look through the content of this site and I only hope that one of these days, I will get to read some different view points from my own. LMW
I think that's a great point Orchid. We're going to be reaching out beyond RP supports soon. There are plenty out there that want better reporting about important issues like the war, etc and that are not RP supporters.
If anyone knows people in other camps.. ask them to join! :)
I see good points from both writers-- and it is definitely true that we are not a political site per se. Striking the right balance between those supporters who find us through Ron Paul and our definite objective of reaching beyond a narrow niche will take some time and careful effort. But thanks for the thoughtful comments, which frame both sides of the issue. R
Libertas, you bring a valid point to mind. Perhaps this site should open forums representing other political views. It is safe to say that the Ron Paul campaign attracted a significant number towards this type of media format; but it is obvious that other views have been marginalized by the same media that this site professes to condemn.
I, too, would welcome other political views for the sake of discourse and dialog. I appreciate your imput, and will read your other postings.
Christine,
Thank you for your reply and I appreciate your viewpoint. I will pose some further thoughts. Take them for what they're worth. I do not wish to antagonize you, only make one attempt to clarify my stance. If you would like to continue our discussion via private message, I would be more than happy to, but I would hate to see our disagreements escalate beyond rationality.
First, you did miss my point. I am glad this has been an outlet for your political ideas, but I am backing my viewpoint up with the stated objective from the creators of this website. The quoted portion of my post was taken directly from an official email that BTM sent out to it's supporters. BTM originally took up the unbiased viewpoint stance, not I. I am just holding them to it. I think BTM could get a lot more accomplished by not being biased as much as possible.
To pose a different way, you wouldn't buy a car solely by going to the manufacturers website, would you? Of course they're only going to tell you why you should buy it. You're going to research it from third party sources to see if people have had problems with it or if there are long term maintenance concerns, etc. Understand what I'm getting at? People aren't going to accept alternative viewpoints by going to a resource that is openly marketing Ron Paul, which was not BTM's stated purpose.
Also, I am not sure where you got that I am a camera man and reporter. I have never been either. I am a communication consultant, which may or may not qualify me any further in your eyes than being a "camera man", but this post isn't about you or me personally. I was posing an objective question on previously stated ideas to the community (yourself included) and the organizers of this site. Please keep this topic objective and not personal.
So, in closing, I again appreciate what you are trying to accomplish overall and we do hold similar views. We just need to work on delivery in a manner that isn't intrusive.
I do apologize that my comments were taken offensively by you.
-libertas
----------------------------------
Libertas Quae Sera Tamen
Libertas341, while you have a point, I must add its nearly impossible to state that we want new govt, reform, and to have our Constitution back without mentioning the person that is currently the only national name representing all those ideas. Ron Paul is synonymous with the ideals of bringing this country back to a pre-1913 era of a sovereign nation, pre-fascist country that now has government/corporations working in a parasitic/symbiotic manner.
I have spent the past couple years doing nothing but organizing against and protesting things like Real ID/National ID, the use of Radio Frequency microchips and tattoos on anything, our participation in the UN(which has now turned into the UN controlling the entire USA), working against the National Animal Identification System(NAIS), etc, etc. Quite honestly I have about killed myself in my efforts to bring about awareness and trying to get bills passed in the Legislature, etc, etc.
When I see that one guy running for President stands against the same things I do and for the same things I do, I must say that I can either plan on killing myself in my current efforts, or I can join in the revolution happening behind this man and help to further his plan. Its a common sense strategy of killing about a million birds with one stone. Either I can work against the machine fruitlessly for the next millenia, or I can promote the guy that actually put a stop to the unAmerican garbage that is happening right now.
-When I say, get the UN out of the USA, hmm....Ron Paul says the same thing.
-When I say Get rid of the NAFTA Highway and Cintra(The Spanish Owners of the NAFTA Highway),
hmmm........Ron Paul says the same thing.
-When I say tell Congress and the President to stuff the whole Real ID agenda, hmm....Ron Paul
says the same thing.
-When I say I'm sick of watching the dollar become worthless on foreign markets as we borrow
over a billion dollars per day from CHINA of all places for God's Sake so we can continue to be in
Iraq, and Ron Paul says stop the war in Iraq immediately, wow, he's the guy for me on that one
too!
-When I say absolutely no way to NAIS, and Ron Paul says no to NAIS and that it is
unconstitutional, well, that right there will save me an entire day's worth of work every day for
the rest of my life, so that's my guy!
So while you are trying to present an unbiased viewpoint and hoping to get this website to take up that stance as well, it is impossible at this point for anybody to ask for reform of any kind and not find Ron Paul as being the only real shortcut to that reform. If its not Ron Paul that fixes most of this crap, it will take a civil war. Quite honestly it is MUCH easier to just vote for a person that will put a stop to all of that from the top, instead of all of us having to flop around at the bottom for the next millenia while getting nothing accomplished.
So political correctness of not mentioning Ron Paul here needs to be left in the tidy little corporate media world. This is no place for sissies and the controlled media. You being a cameraman and reporter can only know about a controlled media at this point, so of course you are saying what you are saying. But no thanks- we get enough of the controlled media on a daily basis!