Re: POLITICS ZMAG: RON PAUL IS NOT YOUR SAVIOR

January 4, 2008

--- Masterjohn <chrismasterjohn@...> wrote:

> That is, there was no way to tell at the moment whether he'd need a

> miraculous finish.

I do admire you're optimism

January 4, 2008

>> >

>> > --- Ancient Eyeball Recipe <implode7@...> wrote:

>>> >> My endurance training has flagged since Thanksgiving.

>> >

>> > Gene, don't forget that Tabata training you told me about. You'll

>> > need extra stamina and endurance to spar with and

>

> The problem is that I fall asleep during the 20 second rest periods.

>

>> >

>>> >> If he really believed in miracles, would he need to cite polls?

>> >

>> > has told us that he doesn't think it will take a miracle.

>> > But I do admire his optimism

>

> I¹d be an optimist too, but there¹s just no future in it.

>> >

>>> >> Well, or reaffirm your belief in the stupidity of the American

>>> >> people.

>> >

>> > Yes, I have to admit my confidence in U.S.A. intelligence reached a

>> > new low after Bush was re-elected. Must be all the drugs, vaccines,

>> > and fast food that we love so much.

>

> I actually say that because in a way I believe it, but I also believe that the

> propaganda in this country is so pervasive that most people who think that

> they are thinking Œoutside the box¹ just don¹t realize that the box has been

> carefully drawn for them. But, of course, this is because they are stupid.

>> >

>> > BTW, I was recently reminded that the U.S.A isn't the only country in

>> > America, there are quite a few others, both in North and South

>> > America.

>

> I don¹t have a map in front of me, but I think you¹re wrong on that one.

>

>> > We're just the only country that pretends to own all of the

>> > Americas by calling ourselves Americans, to the exclusion of all the

>> > others

>> >

>> > South of the border they call us Norte Americanos,

>> > among other things

>

> The other things are what you tend not to hear about from the U.S. Media,

> except of course when they are referring to Œcrackpots¹ like Hugo Chavez. Btw,

> have you ever noticed that ANY speech by an official enemy of the U.S. is

> ³rambling²

>> >

January 4, 2008

--- Ancient Eyeball Recipe <implode7@...> wrote:

> I'd be an optimist too, but there's just no future in it.

Gene, that's a good one.

Reminds me of: " no good deed will go unpunished " .

Or is that just yin and yang?

> > BTW, I was recently reminded that the U.S.A isn't the only country

> > in America, there are quite a few others, both in North and South

> > America.

>

> I don¹t have a map in front of me, but I think you're wrong on that

> one.

No map needed. If South America is not part of America, then why is

it called *South* America? People who live in South America are just

as much " Americans " as people who live in Mexico or Canada or the USA.

> The other things are what you tend not to hear about from the U.S.

> Media, except of course when they are referring to " crackpots " like

> Hugo Chavez. Btw, have you ever noticed that ANY speech by an

> official enemy of the U.S. is " rambling " .

Yes, and I'm afraid I'm rambling, so I'm gonna shut up

January 4, 2008

CNN story of Fox excluding Ron :

http://youtube.com/watch?v=7offuHK3mZI

The NH Republican Party is threatening to withdraw its sponsorship of

the Fox forum but Fox isn't budging.

Chris

January 4, 2008

>> >

>> > --- Ancient Eyeball Recipe <implode7@...> wrote:

>>> >> I'd be an optimist too, but there's just no future in it.

>> >

>> > Gene, that's a good one.

>> >

>> > Reminds me of: " no good deed will go unpunished " .

>> > Or is that just yin and yang?

>

> Don¹t know them. Must have been before my time.

>

>> >

>>>> >>> BTW, I was recently reminded that the U.S.A isn't the only country

>>>> >>> in America, there are quite a few others, both in North and South

>>>> >>> America.

>>> >>

>>> >> I don¹t have a map in front of me, but I think you're wrong on that

>>> >> one.

>> >

>> > No map needed. If South America is not part of America, then why is

>> > it called *South* America? People who live in South America are just

>> > as much " Americans " as people who live in Mexico or Canada or the USA.

>

> Sorry totally joking...but it¹s somehow informative that even if I play

> INCREDIBLY dumb, people take me seriously.

>

>> >

>>> >> The other things are what you tend not to hear about from the U.S.

>>> >> Media, except of course when they are referring to " crackpots " like

>>> >> Hugo Chavez. Btw, have you ever noticed that ANY speech by an

>>> >> official enemy of the U.S. is " rambling " .

>> >

>> > Yes, and I'm afraid I'm rambling, so I'm gonna shut up

>> >

January 4, 2008

>> >

>> > CNN story of Fox excluding Ron :

>> >

>> > http://youtube.com/watch?v=7offuHK3mZI

>> >

>> > The NH Republican Party is threatening to withdraw its sponsorship of

>> > the Fox forum but Fox isn't budging.

>> >

>> > Chris

>> >

While I agree that Ron should receive more coverage, somehow given the

main propaganda technique of the U.S. media what to include in Œthe news¹

and what to exclude, I find this almost trivial. Much more important matters

and important people are marginalized by the media that a nutcase like Ron

.

January 4, 2008

On 1/5/08, Ancient Eyeball Recipe <implode7@...> wrote:

> While I agree that Ron should receive more coverage, somehow given the

> main propaganda technique of the U.S. media what to include in Œthe news¹

> and what to exclude, I find this almost trivial. Much more important matters

> and important people are marginalized by the media that a nutcase like Ron

> .

Really. Well, Ron is the only one I seem to see who says

anything about the moral outrage of killing innocent civilians in

Iraq. Might be a small part of what he says, but I don't see anyone

else saying it, and I'd say their loss of life pretty marginalized by

the media.

Chris

January 4, 2008

> On 1/5/08, Ancient Eyeball Recipe <implode7@...> wrote:

>

>> While I agree that Ron should receive more coverage, somehow given the

>> main propaganda technique of the U.S. media ¡© what to include in ¨«the news

>> ©ö

>> and what to exclude, I find this almost trivial. Much more important matters

>> and important people are marginalized by the media that a nutcase like Ron

>> .

>

> Really. Well, Ron is the only one I seem to see who says

> anything about the moral outrage of killing innocent civilians in

> Iraq. Might be a small part of what he says, but I don't see anyone

> else saying it, and I'd say their loss of life pretty marginalized by

> the media.

>

Really!? Anyone? I know I've said it, and many, many others (not covered by

the mainstream media) have said it. Oh...you mean presidential candidates.

Well, obviously, due to the way that candidates are filtered out in this

country, that'd be true of all the major ones. Now, of course, you're sure

that Dennis Kucinich hasn't said anything about it?

I did like the image, in the article that I cited, that even a stopped clock

is right twice a day, or something like that. Just because someone has a few

correct positions doesn't mean that he isn't a nutcase. But, admittedly, it

is fun to exaggerate an eensy bit to get your dander up a bit - after all,

you've made this the Ron for president list, and well, I think that

he's an ass.

January 5, 2008

On 1/5/08, Ancient Eyeball Recipe <implode7@...> wrote:

> I did like the image, in the article that I cited, that even a stopped clock

> is right twice a day, or something like that. Just because someone has a few

> correct positions doesn't mean that he isn't a nutcase. But, admittedly, it

> is fun to exaggerate an eensy bit to get your dander up a bit - after all,

> you've made this the Ron for president list, and well, I think that

> he's an ass.

I think it's debatable whether I or you are the one who did that.

You're the one that started this thread...

Chris

January 5, 2008

" " oz4caster@... wrote:

--- Ancient Eyeball Recipe <implode7@...> wrote:

> >I'd be an optimist too, but there's just no future in it.

>Gene, that's a good one.

No real future free of human error from the past anyway.

>Reminds me of: " no good deed will go unpunished " .

>Or is that just yin and yang?

Must be that two rights make a wrong and two wrongs make an authority. Referring

to political, corporate economic corruption.

Last night Bill Moyers interviewed both Ron and Dennis Kucinich on his

PBS Journal. Some contradictions to RP discussion here or conflicts of

supporter's beliefs to his answers.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/index-flash.html

Wanita

________________________________________________________________________________\

____

Be a better friend, newshound, and

know-it-all with Mobile. Try it now.

http://mobile./;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ

January 5, 2008

--- Masterjohn <chrismasterjohn@...> wrote:

> Really. Well, Ron is the only one I seem to see who says

> anything about the moral outrage of killing innocent civilians in

> Iraq. Might be a small part of what he says, but I don't see anyone

> else saying it, and I'd say their loss of life pretty marginalized by

> the media.

to the contrary, I think the U.S. media focuses heavily on

war-related deaths in Iraq and that is what drives sentiment to leave

Iraq. However, you hardly ever hear about the 40,000 or so U.S.

highway deaths each year or the 15,000 to 20,000 U.S. murders each

year in the national media. And both of these issues, as well as the

national obesity epidemic and health care crisis tie into drugs,

vaccines, and diet IMO.

January 5, 2008

--- Ancient Eyeball Recipe <implode7@...> wrote:

> > Or is that just yin and yang?

>

> Don't know them. Must have been before my time.

Gene, I think they're related to Cheech and Chong.

But maybe that was before your time too ;-)

> > People who live in South America are just as much " Americans "

> > as people who live in Mexico or Canada or the USA.

>

> Sorry totally joking...but it's somehow informative that even if I

> play INCREDIBLY dumb, people take me seriously.

I have to admit that I was surprised by your response, but

don't play the part unless you want the world to see you that way

January 5, 2008

" " slethnobotanist@... wrote:

,

> " slethnobotanist@... wrote:

> >He certainly in the past has supported the abolishing of the FDA and

> >the FTC.

>

> >So doesn't Bush support abolishing the FDA.

>Not on this planet.

Abolishing the FDA to let big agriculture and pharma run free might be harder

than turning oversight over to private corporations. Privitization isn't a

model uncorruptible by lobbyists, corporate interests and dollars.

>> Tell me who then is going to be

>> responsible when a pharmaceutical that tested so in trials bleeds

someone

>> internally to death or causes them to take their own life?

>Who is responsible now? And how is such responsibility adjudicated?

>> The Congressional

>>fund for those oops, like now?

>I have no idea what you are referencing.

A recent court award to the family of an autistic child for mercury in vaccines

was to be paid from a Congressional fund that pays individuals harmed by

pharmaceuticals. You're probably as confused and irate as me that this buffer

has been set up by government to protect big pharma.

>> Who is responsible then for any unethical,

>> undisclosed, possibly fraudulent corporate practices and what

consumer

>> rights haven't been legislated away to corporate interest?

>I am having difficulty understanding what you are trying to say but

>I'm think you are saying who is responsible if a corporation harms a>

>consumer. If so, the same people who are responsible now. Perhaps what

>you are really asking is what sort of redress would someone have if

>they were harmed. I think they would have the same redress they

>currently do. The existence or lack of existence of the FDA wouldn't

>change that.

Was referring to FTC responsibilities here. Could be the FDA as well.

>> More lawyers like

>> or more insurance? My car insurance presently is being

sued by

>> State Attorney General for overcharging. Ask anyone in New Orleans if

they

>> were paid for the insurance coverage they bought on the spot or it

was

>> twisted to a non covered incident. Rather than personal liability

insurance

>> an insurance against humans that put themself in a position to play

god,

>> fail miserably and hurt the many would be my kind of insurance.

>I fail to understand how this applies to what I am saying.

Presently there is not an individual, government agency or attorney not tied up

in restrictions and hurdles that protect those responsible from full restitution

and/or criminal accountability for physical and/or monetary harms of their

business practices and products. Nothing can end this until double standards and

inequality between social classes ends. There's no time for that because the tip

of the iceberg, the subprime mortgage market along with the underwater part of

the iceberg (business practices leading up to and not talked about) has already

hit the Titanic.

Wanita

________________________________________________________________________________\

____

Looking for last minute shopping deals?

Find them fast with Search.

http://tools.search./newsearch/category.php?category=shopping

January 5, 2008

>> >

>> > On 1/5/08, Ancient Eyeball Recipe <implode7@...

>> > <mailto:implode7%40comcast.net> > wrote:

>> >

>>> >> I did like the image, in the article that I cited, that even a stopped

>>> clock

>>> >> is right twice a day, or something like that. Just because someone has a

>>> few

>>> >> correct positions doesn't mean that he isn't a nutcase. But, admittedly,

it

>>> >> is fun to exaggerate an eensy bit to get your dander up a bit - after >>>

all,

>>> >> you've made this the Ron for president list, and well, I think that

>>> >> he's an ass.

>> >

>> > I think it's debatable whether I or you are the one who did that.

>> > You're the one that started this thread...

>> >

>> > Chris

>> >

³Debatable²? First of all, my thread is definitely not supportive. Second of

all, it was in response to YOUR repeated ŒRon for President from the

MODERATOR of the list. EVERYONE VOTE FOR RON PAUL¹ posts.

January 5, 2008

>> >

>> > --- Masterjohn <chrismasterjohn@...> wrote:

>>> >> Really. Well, Ron is the only one I seem to see who says

>>> >> anything about the moral outrage of killing innocent civilians in

>>> >> Iraq. Might be a small part of what he says, but I don't see anyone

>>> >> else saying it, and I'd say their loss of life pretty marginalized by

>>> >> the media.

>> >

>> > to the contrary, I think the U.S. media focuses heavily on

>> > war-related deaths in Iraq and that is what drives sentiment to leave

>> > Iraq. However, you hardly ever hear about the 40,000 or so U.S.

>> > highway deaths each year or the 15,000 to 20,000 U.S. murders each

>> > year in the national media. And both of these issues, as well as the

>> > national obesity epidemic and health care crisis tie into drugs,

>> > vaccines, and diet IMO.

>> >

>

> Actually, you rarely (NEVER) hear media emphasis on IRAQI civilian casualties

> in Iraq. This incident or that incident, yes, but the only mention you hear is

> the criminally deflated Iraq Body Count (or whatever their exact name is)

> estimates, which uses only deaths that appear in the press, against more

> scientific estimates that place the total at more than a million at this

> point. And you never (with the exception of a couple of people) hear any

> emphasis other than about OUR deaths from members of Congress...almost solely,

> because of this propaganda of omission, antiwar support in this country is

> based on the fact that our soldiers are being killed, the fact that we were

> lied to, etc, but it¹s mostly only the Œsubversives¹ who recognize this as a

> true war crime of great magnitude.

>

>> >

January 5, 2008

--- <oz4caster@...> wrote:

> > Or is that just yin and yang?

>

--- Wanita <wanitawa@...> wrote:

> Must be that two rights make a wrong and two wrongs make an

> authority. Referring to political, corporate economic corruption.

Wanita, that's a good one too. I guess the question is how can we

have a government and economy that is not unduly influenced by wealthy

special interests? I would like to see more restrictions placed on

lobbying - maybe allow no more than one person per interest group to

perform all lobbying efforts on behalf of that group. That would

considerably level the playing field. We also need to have better

ways for individuals to communicate concerns to our elected officials.

I would like to see reliable internet communication channels opened

for this purpose.

And, of course, we need to keep the internet free and clear of

restrictions that might favor wealthy interests. I think the current

unfettered internet has been a major factor in giving people greater

exposure to information and truth that is often hidden by the fettered

news media and wealthy special interest groups.

And I'm not sure what to do about all the brainwashing advertisements.

Ask your drug pusher, er doctor, if this drug might be right for you.

Buy our healthy no-fat zero-calorie fluff, you'll be glad you did

Maybe the real power is to spread the word to more individuals to

recognize this crap for what it is. Our society has been conditioned

to want instant gratification. Look at our huge individual credit

debt, not to mention the huge federal debt. Most people want to take

a drug to relieve boredom or illness. More instant gratification at

the expense of long-term health and welfare.

January 5, 2008

On 1/5/08, Ancient Eyeball Recipe <implode7@...> wrote:

> And you never (with the exception of a couple of people) hear any

> > emphasis other than about OUR deaths from members of Congress...almost

> solely,

> > because of this propaganda of omission, antiwar support in this country is

> > based on the fact that our soldiers are being killed, the fact that we

> were

> > lied to, etc, but it¹s mostly only the Œsubversives¹ who recognize this as

> a

> > true war crime of great magnitude.

This was my impression also -- that Iraqi deaths are largely ignored.

Maybe we're wrong, as I don't watch enough tv to know for sure, but

this has been my impression. Ron always makes mention of Iraqi

deaths, and he also talks about the war not in terms of a strategic

failure, but an injustice and an invasion and occupation of a foreign

country and a war crime. When Wallace asked him if he thought

we should take our marching orders from Al Qaeda, he said he takes his

marching orders from the constitution and from international law, both

of which prohibit this war (i.e it's a war crime).

I probably slighted Kucinich by implying that is the only one

mentioning this, but, has a much broader network of support, so I

think he's a more effective voice, but yes, I've accidentally slighted

Kucinich on this point a couple of times.

Chris

January 5, 2008

Actually in war enemy casualties are rarely given unless for propaganda

purposes; then numbers are inflated. I absolutely hate wars.

Katy Brezger

http://to-reverse-diabetes.blogspot.com/

Be a Blessing, Find ways to be someone's Santa Claus all year 'round. May

you be so richly blessed that you will bless others with what overflows from

your cup.

" If people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they

take, their bodies will soon be in a sorry state as are the souls of those

who live under tyranny. "

~ Jefferson~

Re: Re: POLITICS ZMAG: RON PAUL IS NOT YOUR SAVIOR

On 1/5/08, Ancient Eyeball Recipe <implode7@...> wrote:

> And you never (with the exception of a couple of people) hear any

> > emphasis other than about OUR deaths from members of Congress...almost

> solely,

> > because of this propaganda of omission, antiwar support in this country

> > is

> > based on the fact that our soldiers are being killed, the fact that we

> were

> > lied to, etc, but it¹s mostly only the Œsubversives¹ who recognize this

> > as