"Tell me again why he isn't the Republican presidential candidate?"

Because the media is pwnd by the CFR and they were told to suppress positive coverage of Mr. Paul and lie about the polling stats. If you look at the Fox news front page (the most blatant of the violators) you'll see they have a poll listing that has not changed in many months that shows Ron Paul at 6.5% with Huckabee and McCain leading with much higher percentage points. However whenever they would run polls that they couldn't falsify so quickly they would show Ron Paul in the lead EVERY time.

MSNBC would suppress any talk about Ron Paul. Olbermann would rarely ever mention him (often choosing to cover Paris Hilton instead (at the time)). In fact I would watch him each day hoping he'd talk about Ron Paul, Kucinich and Gravel but he never did. CNN rarely would speak of him at the time choosing instead to focus on Hillary/Obama/Edwards and Giuliani/McCain/Huckabee.

Basically.. they would only focus on the candidates that are in the pocket of the CFR. There are vids out there that will show statistics of the media coverage of the debates on the Republican and on the Democratic sides.

They did the same thing to Kucinich and Gravel too. We've been once again force-fed CFR candidates with catchy slogans and bad policies because my friend.. the game is rigged.

I really like Ron Paul I even donated money to his campaign, but he needs to realize who he is talking to. Intelligent or informed people might be able to understand what he's saying but the average person sitting on a sofa watching tv who gets all their information from the news is gonna look at this and say "huh?"

"pyramiding of derivatives" who the hell is going to know what that means. He needs to dumb his message down A LOT, if he wants to get his message to a wider audience. This level of detail might be appropriate for a technical paper, or a book--but it is not appropriate for daytime television.

^ Easy to fix if more people paid attention. It's not as if they disinvited Paul from every debate (though they did once he flopped in the Iowa caucus).

I think Paul also failed to use his campaign funds properly. Did he hire a campaign strategist? Did he flood the airwaves in Iowa? Had he been making appearances there nonstop for the 6 months beforehand?

If he'd won the Iowa caucus, he'd have been taken seriously by the media -- no laughing him off would be possible then. Heck, even a 2nd place finish would've kept him in the media spotlight.

I think the traditional right-wing noise machine would've ripped him apart because he's not part of their pro-corporation, anti-citizen agenda, like they did with Huckabee and McCain. Doesn't seem to have worked on McCain, unfortunately.

I also think you're overestimating the Republican base's committment to real conservative philosophy. I think most of the base thinks it's all about babies, guns, and jesus, and talking in simple, absolute terms. Small government just means tax cuts -- domestic wiretapping is okay. Refusing to testify before Congress is a sign of strength, and they want a strong leader.

In short, I think there's a better case for the CFR theory if you follow the campaign of John Edwards, rather than Ron Paul.

He beat Hillary for 2nd spot in Iowa, but the media completely ignored him, and his numbers fell sharply after that.

Back to the economics, I'm in agreement with Paul about the need for the losers in charge of these companies, and their shareholders to pay a price for the failures they've wrought. I'm thinking he's painting too rosy a picture about what would happen if the companies outright failed, though. I'm pretty sure in the short term that would be seriously ugly, though in the long term (decade-scale) it'd probably make the recovery faster.

Question is, do you want a sharp, short downturn that makes people lose their homes, or a longer, wider one where people can keep them, but are just moderately worse off for a longer period of time?

There's probably more area under the 2nd curve, but isn't there a case to be made that it's better for people to have the shallower, broader downturn?

^I agree, I like him as a candidate but I'm pretty pissed at how he ran his campaign. He had several million dollars but what did he even do with it?

I think you are wrong about the economy and I think Ron Paul/myself will be proven correct in the next 5 years. American is about to be f*cked.

^ America being fucked is my prediction too. I think everything that's been done by government in the last year w/regard to the economy has been designed to delay failure, not avert it, and the delays are just going to make the problem worse when the bubble finally bursts.

At this point, I'm happy the delay tactics have worn off so we get the crash before the election, so the fingers can be pointed at the right people (though Republicans are already trying to say it's Clinton's fault alone, somehow).

I'm hoping we get to see my philosophy tried, because yours isn't on the menu from either major party.

I'm worried about what the Republican party's idea of a big-government bailout looks like, because they have a bad habit of structuring everything to benefit the people at the top making mistakes, and punishing the rest of us for those failures.

If you think there is such a difference between the democrats and republicans, and that the democrats would "handle it" any better than what the morons are doing now, you are a fool.

The problem here has nothing to do with the Fed. The problem is that the officers of the corporation have no liability for the corporation's failure. They're all still multimillionaires.

It's funny how Ron Paul fans still talk about the polls being skewed, even after the results came in and they turned out to be about exact in every state. Based on 5%, the media covered him a lot more than other Republican/Democratic candidates in that same range, mostly just because of his fund raising abilities though.
I am not sure what to think about his views on the economy. While other economics seem to have a very laissez faire viewpoint, they admit this sort of government interaction is needed to calm extreme times, since the market can't stand a complete 2 day meltdown and recovery (if nothing is done). I think Ron Paul just can't think past his philosophy, and can't look at the situation critically rather how it just hasn't implemented true free markets.

I'm always so torn on these issues. On one hand, I want someone like Ron Paul to swoop in and save us.

On the other hand, I love the idea of this country collapsing on itself, so I can do some looting and raping.

*sigh* C'est la vie.

>> ^vermeulen:
It's funny how Ron Paul fans still talk about the polls being skewed, even after the results came in and they turned out to be about exact in every state. Based on 5%, the media covered him a lot more than other Republican/Democratic candidates in that same range, mostly just because of his fund raising abilities though.
I am not sure what to think about his views on the economy. While other economics seem to have a very laissez faire viewpoint, they admit this sort of government interaction is needed to calm extreme times, since the market can't stand a complete 2 day meltdown and recovery (if nothing is done). I think Ron Paul just can't think past his philosophy, and can't look at the situation critically rather how it just hasn't implemented true free markets.


you are showing clear signs of not knowing facts and relying heavily on an opinion not based on facts.

and saying that he "cant look at the situation critically" is nothing short of a joke. Ron Paul understands the economy better than 95% of the people out there and about better than 99% of politicians. But you know better than him dont you? :-D The guy has probably been in office longer than you've been alive

^NetRunner

When I say "America will be f*ckd" I don't just mean there will be a great depression...there will be a great depression which dwarfs that seen in the early 20th century...I mean this country as you know it will be gone.

^ Well, aren't you just a ray of sunshine.

^haha. sometimes the truth hurts. at least im trying to do something about it

Yall are thinking small time here. We are talking about the potential collapse of the dollar in general...very much akin to the fall of the soviet union. It isn't quite the same as no one in the world wants to see the dollar collapse, so others are helping with the cover up (short term bail outs and debt lending). At the very least, we are looking at a 20% devaluation of the entire us market. That means everything you own is now 20% less valuable than it was before, you make 20% less, the works

Being the dollar is the world currency, this will be a world wide problem...investing in euros and yen at this point won't help you as most of the world banks are going to have the same problem if the dollar busts. Sad times ahead. Now is the time to adjust your living patterns.

As for Netrunner, I don't think there is any long slow way out of it. The only real solution is liquidation. You have to let the market fall on the debt to give value back to the currency. There is no amount of stimulus or governement bail outs that will do this, this will just put less trust in the markets where the money is being played with by powers other than the market

It is really bad yall. The more and more data I review , the worse the outcome looks. The best bet for those sifters that are interested is to get all of your stocks and investments out of the financial sector. At this point, things that are hard money based, like gold and precious metals are your most realiable bet.

*dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by campionidelmondo.

Awarding rasch187 with one Power Point for fixing this video's dead embed code.