Why is the Media Ignoring Ron Paul?

I agree....
Ive seen no evidence that he is any more perfect than most of his collegues ,whom he routinely bashes.

Lets see whats so new about Ron Paul? Going back to the gold standard? Ignoring the global geopolitical dynamic? Dismissing obvious threats to world stability? Denying US exceptionalism? All impossibilities due to the situation the world is in......new isnt always better.

 

Which is? ......

 

http://www.infowars.com/corporate-media-switches-tactics-attacks-ron-paul/

 

So Murdoch doesnt hate Paul? Cuz you link a Fox interview?

I also was reading Ron Paul declined to appear on the some of the news outlets that supposedly "snubbed" him.

And Alex Jones? Gawd.....

 

The vids are online. Find the statement and tell me how many minutes it is into the vid. I'll be happy to watch it. My only issue with you is that you make a statement and provide a link that does nothing to support the statement, apparently thinking no one will actually look at it. For you to say Paul said something and, as proof, show that someone else said that he said it, doesn't prove that he said it.

 

Hope this helps. He explains that he supports ear marks and all tax credits and why:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoD5Yk1imBk"]Ron Paul Slams Cavuto on Earmarks - Fox News - 3-10-2009 - YouTube[/ame]

 

That's why I provided a link with the Youtube video right from the Fox republican debate
so everyone could see for themselves what I speak of.

Start at about 1:51 of the video where the moderator Chris Wallace specifically asks Ron Paul to confirm that he
was advocating no sanctions against Iran due to their obtaining nukes and a hands off Iran policy. See what he says and if I'm dreaming this or not.

My only issue with you is that when I encapsulate and summarize Paul's entire position on Iran's nuclear weapons (as my cited video proves) in a single sentence (because that's the most economical and
efficient way of conveying this copious information) you, and your ilk, dishonestly try to dispute Ron Paul's very own message!

I say Ron Paul says who cares if Iran has nukes because Ron Paul himself
defends Iran's "right" to nuclear weapons (indeed, he promotes it) and says we have no business meddling in their affairs, as if gifting some of the planet's most zealous, crazy theocrats with an unopposed nuclear bomb doesn't make everyone (ourselves especially as Iran's main checking force) immeasurably more unsafe and threatened by disaster.
Ron Paul doesn't deserve to be anywhere near the White House, even as a visitor, when he abdicates his responsibility to keep the American people, and the globe in general, safe and secure in favor of some lunatic
need to be of service to the mullahs in Tehran.

 

Thank you, there is more context behind why he got the earmarks. The money is just sitting there and refusing to spend it won't make us save it, the president would just be able to spend that on what ever they choose to later. So Ron is just taking the spending out of the POTUS hands and putting towards his people. And someone said Ron wouldn't listen to the masses if he was president.

 

You fail, there is no logic in your thinking.
A) Zero evidence that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon

B) Iran has done nothing but defend itself for the last two centuries

c) Sanctions do not hurt the Iranian Government, they hurt the good people of Iran and their children. This is something you should fear because blow back is a bit ch.

D) Israel can wipe Iran off the map without our help.

E) They had and have every right to pursue nuclear power we should not of stood in their way but instead helped them as the Russians (who will be taking our astronauts into space) did. This is how you become friends with other nations.

As Ron Paul has said many times we should trade and be friends with all nations and ally with none.

You want to talk about "crazy theocrats" you need not look any further than in the United States for there are lots of them!

Ron Paul is the only one that is deserving of the White House.

 

So let me get this straight: Ron Paul shouldn't be POTUS because Iran is a potential threat to Israel? Is Dr. Paul running for the Israeli presidency? Do Israeli citizens pay American taxes? Did they become a US territory while I wasn't looking?

 

No, they are the chosen people in the chosen land. We must, at all costs, defend Israel or else we can't go to heaven.

 

I'd caught it after I posted. You hid the vid inside a link to www.thoughtsfromaconservativemom.com. I naturally thought it was another opinion piece. It certainly would have helped if you had just linked the vid, but there is absolutely nothing requiring you to do so.

I will certainly own the first part of that. I should have checked the link, even though I was (wrongly) sure it was just another opinion piece. I apologize.
But for the second part, I, and therefore my ilk, am not dishonest nor did I try to dispute Paul's message. I only disputed your support, which you remedied.

You're interpretation of his motives are light years off target.

Iran is a sovereign nation, just as the United States is. Iran has no right to meddle in the affairs of the United States (even though it is in their best interest to do so), and the United States has no right to meddle in the affairs of Iran (even though it is in their best interest to do so). Do you dispute this?

 

Oh, really? Well let's see if that's true.

I've linked to the evidence that you say does not exist.
You live in a Bizarro alternate reality and Israel has already once had to bomb a secret (not that secret however) facility where Iran was refining spent uranium for bomb making. You fail right off the bat. Not too good for you.

I don't know what you mean by this. Iran is the number one sponsor of global jihad and for this alone we should be putting sanctions in place (if they are not there already).

There is a movement inside of Iran that is highly dissatisfied with the long bearded mullahs that control all aspects of Iran. People already know there are problems. If sanctions help galvanize this anger then they will have been a success.
The other two options (do nothing, or invade Iran) are unacceptable.

Uh huh. And how likely is this to happen? One suitcase nuke smuggled in from Iran through it's sponsored minions in Hezbollah or Hamas would make for a really awful day in Israel (or what remains in Israel, if anything).
So your point is pointless.

Real Ron Paul thinking for you. I suppose we had no right to oppose Nazi Germany either (to the meager extent that we did, in isolationist Ron Paul-like pre WW2 America). You nut jobs are frightening.

A noble goal that is childishly naive and about as realistic as shaking hands with Santa Claus next Christmas. That's Ron Paul in a nutshell.

Oh, certainly! roll It's the crazies from the local Baptist church that pass out fliers at the bus stand we should be wary of.....Right?
Not the zealots in Tehran that want a bloody world wide conflagration so the 12th Imam can return from his 13th century hiding place (literally...the 13th century) to restore "order" to the world.

Well, that's just common sense.

Just as soon as pigs and monkeys fly over the White House.

So, did any of your points make any sense at all? It seems not. You Paul-nuts
are a real hoot and thank God you have no political power whatsoever.
Your ignorance and naivete is dangerous.

 

The video, as you discovered eventually, was inside the link.
If you don't look (especially when I specifically mentioned the video), whose fault is that?

Okay, though I don't know what you mean by "my support". My support of what? What "support"?

His motives, I'm sure, are well meaning. They are just so naive and
unrealistic they amount to a dangerous mindset that shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the White House. In Paul's economic dealings, I'm behind him 100%. But not when it comes to foreign relations, I'm afraid.

I do, of course, dispute this. Substitute the words Nazi Germany for Iran and see what you get.

Paul's foreign policy is isolationist, in nature and I thought everyone (after 1941) understood the folly of "minding your own business" while your neighbor's house is burning down . Pretty soon your house catches on fire too. Perhaps I gave people too much credit for their wisdom, however.

Lest you think I want to invade Iran, let me tell you that's the worst thing in the world that we could possibly do. But the second worse thing, would be to ignore the globe's number one sponsor of terrorism and sit idly by (on our thumbs) while the mullahs get their nuclear bomb. That's what Ron Paul wants to do. He's a dangerous naive fool.

 

I posted about it earlier. It's not important any more.

You're wrong, but who knows? Maybe I can bring you around.

I get Nazi Germany still inside Germany with no reason to attack them. Sorry, but preemptive strikes, invading countries, and preventing sovereign nations from operating within their borders as they see fit is simply wrong.

Wrong.

Iran is not Germany; at least not yet. As threatening as you see them, we have no right to violate their sovereignty until they violate someone else's.

What's the next step, then, if they refuse to stop pursuing a nuclear weapon? This is not a rhetorical question.

Look, We've screwed up enough in the Middle East and all over the rest of the world. The time has come to reel in our military empire and stop being the neighborhood bully.

 

I'm not wrong so I don't see how you could.

The problem with you people is you just assume that "doing something" equals a military invasion. It does not!

How about having Hezbollah as a wholly owned subsidiary of the Iranian government? And if you wait for Iran to use their nuclear bomb, you've already guaranteed failure. The time to act is before they do.

I've already said that Israel has done our dirty work for us by bombing a secret Iranian nuclear weapons facility, but how many times can they do that?
I don't know what the next step is, not being privy to super classified information. But doing nothing, ala Ron Paul's advise, is dangerous...not just foolish!

Paul's non interventionist policy is childishly foolish in that it takes one solution (mind your own business) and tries to force it to fit every single situation, whether that's wise or not.

It might well be wiser, in the long run, to keep Iran away from a nuke bomb.
But Paul never seems to consider this and that's just one reason why it will be a cold day in hell when Paul is elected president...of anything!

 

They are covert weapons stationed all around the country. Even if Iran could explode a nuke within Israel, it wouldn't cripple them to the point they couldn't retaliate. Believe me, Israel can take care of itself. For some reason, American war hawks want to portray Israel as a defenseless kitten to give them an excuse to babysit it.

And the best deterrence is non-interventionism.

Nope. In fact, what I've heard is that there is no hard evidence. But I don't get my news from the war-drum echo chamber.

So you're saying Khamenei doesn't believe his own religious decrees. So he must not be very religious. So he's hardly likely to start a suicidal nuclear war with Israel over religious, right?

By NOT meddling in the Middle East anymore! The United States has been meddling there for sixty years. It overthrew a popular elected leader in Iran to prop up a ruthless dictator, who was then overthrown by the current relgious. It supported both sides of the Iran-Iraq War. It imposed trade sanctions in Iraq the lead to the deaths of 500 thousand children. And you're surprised their hostile to the United States? And you're surprised they're radicalized? I'd be radicalized as well.

 

Did you miss the part where God said He would protect them from total annihalation? No harm would come the Israel when the enemy of the north attacked? It isn't our job to protect God's people.

 

Is it for the media to decide that?

 

What law says the U.S president or the government has a right to decide what another Country chose to do within its borders? And what evidence is there that proves that Iran wants nuclear weapon? What Country can you name that has nuclear weapon ever used it other than the U.S?

 

I don't see how you can seriously state this as fact. But I suppose anyone can claim anything on the internet.

There is nothing defenseless about Israel. But it's a minuscule nation (that is smaller than New Jersey), surrounded on all sides by enemies (mostly armed and financed by Iran) , and it can hardly take a nuclear hit and function at any level of efficiency.

Perhaps you should read what Princeton educated Purdue international school of law professor Louis Rene Beres has to say about the aftermath of a nuclear attack on Israel, http://standupamericaus.com/a-waste-land-israel-and-iran-after-nuclear-war:37006.
Be a man, and force yourself.

Oh, of course! Everyone knows that. Because when you stand by and do nothing you have so much leverage against the Iranians....right?
If this Zen diplomacy B.S. comes from Paul himself, then he is even nuttier and more difficult to even imagine as president than I thought.

So what was it that Israel bombed in the Iranian wastelands? A mirage? And why did the UN vote to impose sanctions on Iran due to their efforts to gain a nuclear bomb? For fun, perhaps?

And why does the departing head of Israel's Mossad (one of the top intelligence agencies in the world) say that it will be 2015 before Iran is capable of producing a nuclear weapon due to "measures" taken against Iran? And why did the world's global nuclear inspection agency says it has proof that Iran has been working on a highly sophisticated nuclear triggering device?
And why would you claim that the NY Times is a "war drum echo chamber"?
But, you've heard differently...so I suppose it's all a wash...right?
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/...ndterritories/iran/nuclear_program/index.html

You can draw your own conclusions about mullah Khomeini. All I have is the fact that Iran is indeed hard at work developing the technology for a nuclear bomb. The rest is just the buzzing background noise of your incredulous posts (which don't count for much).

We can't jump in our time machines and erase our mistakes in the past. All we can do now is greatly compound those mistakes by standing by idly while Iran gets their beloved nuclear bomb so that (who knows), they are able to set off world chaos to summon forth, from his 13th century hiding place, the 12th Imam. Is that what you want to see?

As much as I detest Barry Obama at least he has sense enough to be on board with continuing sanctions against Iran. Ron Paul will be president when French speaking pigs fill the skies, in large part, because he sees no problem at all with Iran obtaining nuclear bombs.
This carries non intervention to it's dangerously ridiculous conclusion and makes everyone on the planet that much closer to possible disaster.

 

AV and I don't agree on much, but we agree on this one.

Israel and the rest of the Middle East can go screw itself for all I care.

I'd much rather we shift our energy trade to Latin America and to domestic markets.

If Iran and Israel want to kill each other, they can have fun with that. No American lives need to be involved.

 

Soylent cowpies is the newer American media product.

Ed Schultz said on his radio gig that "If you're a good American, you should buy an American car."

Sucking up for ad revenue Ed, or are you just a hack in general?

 

I'm assuming Ed doesn't realize that even cars assembled in America are predominantly made of foreign parts.

It's kind of funny how every car is truly international in composition. Where it's assembled has no bearing on the ownership of the company.

 

No kidding. And the Buicks and Chryslers are STILL junk. The asians can only help us SO MUCH. Pretty soon we'll need an assembly line for something besides crappy NBC sitcoms.

That was a few weeks ago after Ed got suspended and I think he went on a bender the previous nite, he sounded hungover.

The thought police are alive and well.