Ron Paul speaks out (breaking news)

[hangthebankersdotcom]

We've been waiting for Dr Ron Paul to speak out, here it is:
http://www.hangthebankers.com/ron-pa...to-supporters/

[bluegrazz]

-As I listen

"There's alot of good news and I want to present that because uh...uh...thats what this campaign is all about"- Ron Paul

-Finally the truth...The Campaign was never about winning but rather lip service to the good news (Gospel)

1 min 29 secs in and the Bullshit is up to my neck.

2 min 33 secs War story example is very patriotic and a great example of more bullshit.

3 min 22 secs "The successes have been magnificent..""new generation"... "no way it can be stopped"..."much larger than we ever dreamed of"..."optimism"

4 min 30 Starts the tone it down and be nice crap...

lol- He is knocking Santorum called him "authoritarian"- no mention of Romney@ 5 min 45

6 min 44 Total bullshit that "The opposition thinks more freedom is bad"-

Jesus Christ, anyone who fucking gives another dime or ANY of their time to this asshole is a fool...This whole speech is insane. Its like "yeah we are the verge of having a climatic effect at the end of this campaign"..."totalitarianism is losing"...Rick Santorum is bad....

Op is this really a new speech?

EDIT: Yeah its new- The Daily Paul people are hootin and hollering and celebrating over there...Its NOT over. lolz. Hook. Line and sinker.

[lizzyking]

Originally Posted by bluegrazz

-As I listen

"There's alot of good news and I want to present that because uh...uh...thats what this campaign is all about"- Ron Paul

-Finally the truth...The Campaign was never about winning but rather lip service to the good news (Gospel)

1 min 29 secs in and the Bullshit is up to my neck.

2 min 33 secs War story example is very patriotic and a great example of more bullshit.

3 min 22 secs "The successes have been magnificent..""new generation"... "no way it can be stopped"..."much larger than we ever dreamed of"..."optimism"

4 min 30 Starts the tone it down and be nice crap...

lol- He is knocking Santorum called him "authoritarian"- no mention of Romney@ 5 min 45

6 min 44 Total bullshit that "The opposition thinks more freedom is bad"-

Jesus Christ, anyone who fucking gives another dime or ANY of their time to this asshole is a fool...This whole speech is insane. Its like "yeah we are the verge of having a climatic effect at the end of this campaign"..."totalitarianism is losing"...Rick Santorum is bad....

Op is this really a new speech?

EDIT: Yeah its new- The Daily Paul people are hootin and hollering and celebrating over there...Its NOT over. lolz. Hook. Line and sinker.

Great deconstruction of the speech, BG. You should be blogging this stuff, its gold


Check this comment out, that somebody just now posted on youtube under the video of the speech:

Don't pay attention to or feed the troLLs. they are everywhere and they are SCARED.. They know the good doctor can win and are trying w/ everything they've go to discredit him and distract us.. aint no way it's gonna work.. No One but PauL 2012




PleaseSeeThis 2 minutes ago



video link: http://youtu.be/cOHlN5JWsw8

Some of them seem seriously, clinically delusional, and in total denial that its over ("It can't be over! It's not possible! He is not dead! He is standing here still, talking, saying all the right things! He MUST WIN! Ron Paul! Ron Paul! Ron Paul! Ron Paul!), and Ron Paul seems happy to keep feeding their delusions.

[dneif]

"more freedom" is quite the orwellian spin on removing safeguards and regulations that restrict corporations from raping society.

[tenzingnorgay]

Originally Posted by dneif

"more freedom" is quite the orwellian spin on removing safeguards and regulations that restrict corporations from raping society.

The major corporations write the regulations, the primary purpose of which is to protect their profits and to deter small competitors.

Did you really not know this?

[aheroicstand]

Originally Posted by tenzingnorgay

The major corporations write the regulations, the primary purpose of which is to protect their profits and to deter small competitors.

Did you really not know this?

Yeah I'm not sure why they think regulations are going to work. There are already too many regulations. And as you mention they work in favor of the major corporations.

The major corporations didn't become major because they're run by idiots. These are people who know what they're doing. They know far more than any regulator would know.

Why is that? Well if the regulator knew so much, why would he take on a low paying regulator job when he can be a businessman himself and significantly increase his earnings?

Do people think there's some white knights out there who are smarter than the businessmen and so pure of heart that they will forego the opportunity of being an entrepreneur or a CEO to be a regulator?

[dneif]

Originally Posted by tenzingnorgay

The major corporations write the regulations, the primary purpose of which is to protect their profits and to deter small competitors.

Did you really not know this?

Do you really think that statement is a revelation of corproate fascism or Ron Paul's position as the controlled "opposition"?

[tenzingnorgay]

Originally Posted by dneif

Do you really think that statement is a revelation of corproate fascism or Ron Paul's position as the controlled "opposition"?

The major corporations write the regulations, the primary purpose of which is to protect their profits and to deter small competitors. Every time you call for more regulations, you are supporting the corporations.

It's not complicated.

[bluegrazz]

Originally Posted by tenzingnorgay

The major corporations write the regulations, the primary purpose of which is to protect their profits and to deter small competitors. Every time you call for more regulations, you are supporting the corporations.

It's not complicated.

This is spin and half truth though. Regulation is not the problem.

I understand your point because it can seem that way. These poor over regulated companies... Remember that these "poor" unregulated companies make record profit while cutting pay and benefits and off shoring. They "claim" they are too regulated and taxed to hire more people and yet their bottom line grows.

We need more and fairer regulation.

It was once illegal to have a Corporation. A Corporation needed a charter and had to go before Congress and prove that it benefits the American People. Every X amount of years they had to renew this Charter or the Corporation was broken apart. Had this "regulation" remained, we would be in a pretty nice place right now where towns still had an identity left.

We need Fair regulation. Corporations either pay their fair share or GTFO. Resources should be Nationalized and tariffs placed so high that "exporting" labor is not good for business.

And if all Corporations leave, small businessmen will take up the slack.

The on Paul and Libertarian ideal is a nice theory which ends in the Rich owning all of our asses utterly and completely in REAL SLAVERY.

EDIT: Think about this if you will... Now that the regulations on media ownership is essentially gone, the entire thing is essentially owned by just a few people.

Were we not better off with strict regulations regarding media monopolies?

[believenothing]

Hmmm.... I'm not sure what to think. I think some Paulites always had the wrong idea. I think the Rand Romney endorsement spin-o-rama wasn't approved by dad and was the GOP maybe trying to gauge interest for a potential VP nomination for Rand to win over Paul voters. Part of me still thinks that based upon his word and the fact that he hasn't flip-flopped like other politicians do, he is the real deal.

The government shouldn't be involved with big corporations. Too much government is bad. If the US government didn't bail those guys out, they would have fallen. Instead the government wound up owning land as in real estate foreclosures. Not a good thing by the way. Those execs went on business as usual.

Paul was shunned by the MSM. If that's part of the conspiracy, then we're all fucked because there is nowhere to draw the line and people find conspiracy anywhere. I think that nationalism (even fascism) is a vastly superior alternative to globalization. I love watching the EU fall apart. Like the USSR before it. These banksters are so fucking stupid. That they think they are destined to rule us is a terrible joke.

[lizzyking]

Originally Posted by bluegrazz

This is spin and half truth though. Regulation is not the problem.

I understand your point because it can seem that way. These poor over regulated companies... Remember that these "poor" unregulated companies make record profit while cutting pay and benefits and off shoring. They "claim" they are too regulated and taxed to hire more people and yet their bottom line grows.

We need more and fairer regulation.

It was once illegal to have a Corporation. A Corporation needed a charter and had to go before Congress and prove that it benefits the American People. Every X amount of years they had to renew this Charter or the Corporation was broken apart. Had this "regulation" remained, we would be in a pretty nice place right now where towns still had an identity left.

We need Fair regulation. Corporations either pay their fair share or GTFO. Resources should be Nationalized and tariffs placed so high that "exporting" labor is not good for business.

And if all Corporations leave, small businessmen will take up the slack.

The on Paul and Libertarian ideal is a nice theory which ends in the Rich owning all of our asses utterly and completely in REAL SLAVERY.

EDIT: Think about this if you will... Now that the regulations on media ownership is essentially gone, the entire thing is essentially owned by just a few people.

Were we not better off with strict regulations regarding media monopolies?

+1 Great post

[infinityandlove]

Campaign never about winning ? So, the supporters were just literally taken for a ride.

Nice...

[aheroicstand]

Originally Posted by bluegrazz

EDIT: Think about this if you will... Now that the regulations on media ownership is essentially gone, the entire thing is essentially owned by just a few people.

Were we not better off with strict regulations regarding media monopolies?

I'm not familiar enough with the specific regulations(or lack thereof) in the media, but the media's always been a tool used by the government and corporate interests. From newspaper to radio to television to the internet.

I'd say we're better off today with the internet than past generations were with regulated media. I don't think we want the government imposing regulations on the internet, do we?(inb4 child porn/assorted appeals to fear).

[lizzyking]

Originally Posted by aheroicstand

I'm not familiar enough with the specific regulations(or lack thereof) in the media, but the media's always been a tool used by the government and corporate interests. From newspaper to radio to television to the internet.

I'd say we're better off today with the internet than past generations were with regulated media. I don't think we want the government imposing regulations on the internet, do we?(inb4 child porn/assorted appeals to fear).

Net Neutrality?

The possibility of regulations designed to mandate the neutrality of the Internet has been subject to fierce debate, especially in the United States.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality

[lizzyking]

The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses to both present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was, in the Commission's view, honest, equitable and balanced. The FCC decided to eliminate the Doctrine in 1987, and in August 2011 the FCC formally removed the language that implemented the Doctrine.


The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented.


The main agenda for the doctrine was to ensure that viewers were exposed to a diversity of viewpoints. In 1969 the United States Supreme Court upheld the FCC's general right to enforce the Fairness Doctrine where channels were limited. But the courts did not rule that the FCC was obliged to do so. The courts reasoned that the scarcity of the broadcast spectrum, which limited the opportunity for access to the airwaves, created a need for the Doctrine. However, the proliferation of cable television, multiple channels within cable, public-access channels, and the Internet have eroded this argument, since there are plenty of places for ordinary individuals to make public comments on controversial issues at low or no cost.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine

*

[bluegrazz]

To also add- They limited ownership in Media by region.

You could only own a certain amount of the Media- The major Newspapers, Radios and Television stations in an area (say Detroit) would be owned by many separate people so as to present a wider variety of views... So the News could not be Monopolized. They repealed this and quickly the Media all went into a few hands.

No, it was never Great. Yes it was always controlled- But not nearly as much.Not even close.

[lizzyking]

"...and the Internet have eroded this argument (Fairness Doctrine, which was to insure a variety of viewpoints could be heard), since there are plenty of places for ordinary individuals to make public comments on controversial issues at low or no cost."


Okay, now read up on Net Neutrality.

[lizzyking]

Originally Posted by bluegrazz

To also add- They limited ownership in Media by region.

You could only own a certain amount of the Media- The major Newspapers, Radios and Television stations in an area (say Detroit) would be owned by many separate people so as to present a wider variety of views... So the News could not be Monopolized. They repealed this and quickly the Media all went into a few hands.

No, it was never Great. Yes it was always controlled- But not nearly as much.Not even close.

Yap, there was something about Banksters and region at one time, too.

[bluegrazz]

-Another thing about Regulation. Look at places Corporations do buisness where there are no regulations.

Here is an example of what these corporations will do http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...s-suicide.html

Apple, Microsoft and the rest will exploit, enslave and do anything they wish in the name of "free market" and little to no regulation. They would do this us as well.

[aheroicstand]

Originally Posted by bluegrazz

-Another thing about Regulation. Look at places Corporations do buisness where there are no regulations.

Here is an example of what these corporations will do http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...s-suicide.html

Apple, Microsoft and the rest will exploit, enslave and do anything they wish in the name of "free market" and little to no regulation. They would do this us as well.

Only with the help of government regulations.

But don’t expect the masses to “occupy” against the top 1 percent any time soon. Laborers threaten suicide because they usually have no other way of making demands, since going on strike is illegal. “In China workers don’t have the right to speak, the right to take part in decision making, or the right to demonstrate,” Professor Hu said.