Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Ron Paul’

Finally for the first time Ralph Nader will be on a presidential debate. Although he is not debating John McCain or Barack Obama, he is still debating. Chuck Baldwin will be an excellent opponent. Ron Paul recommend that his supporters abandon the mainstream candidates and instead support a 3rd party, to which he recommended Baldwin of the Constitution party.  Tune in tonight live at 9pm EST to see them compete for the 3rd party vote. It will defiantly be more inspiring then those parallel interviews from McObama.

http://www.cspan.org/ has it live

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

Independent President candidate, Ralph Nader, wrote a letter today asking the debate commission if they would allow him to at least be in the audience and access the press and offer his responses to the questions that will be asked. The Commission on Presidential Debates is a corrupt and biased establishment that is owned and operated by the Democratic and Republican parties and has consistently raised the poll requirement used to qualify for a spot on the debate. Furthermore, the poll that the commission has used in the past, Gallup, doesn’t include Ralph Nader or any of the other third parties in their questions, instead they choose to generalize and just ask whether the person is going to vote for someone else.

What is the media’s logical argument for blacking out the third parties from any major coverage? Could it be that their motives are monetary? Could it be because the third parties candidates are publicly against corporations? If this is true then the public broadcasting would offer air time, but they don’t. Could it be that the public air waves are biased as well? I urge you all to ask yourselves these questions.

When we retire our opposition and accept the Democratic and Republican candidates, we are effectively destroying our democracy. These smaller voices that come from the third party candidates speak on behalf of the majority of Americans. They are asking for single payer health care, an end to the wars, getting the budget under control, and holding Wall street accountable. Yet, we don’t here anything from them. Yet our news doesn’t cover them. Yet they don’t win.

There is a good example behind the bias of American media it it goes by the name of Ron Paul. I recommend that you go to Google Trends and see the comparison between Internet searches for Ron Paul and his mainstream news coverage. The difference is outstanding. Had the news media covered Ron Paul equally to the demand of the public, then we could very well have Paul for the Republican nominee. Now that would be someone worth our vote.

Despite that fact the Ralph Nader isn’t going to win in 2008, I am convinced that what he is doing is for the betterment of our democracy. If things are ever going to get better, then we need to open the debates and allow these third parties to have a voice. The duopoly of government is the cancer of our society. As the third parties push harder and achieve more and more votes and get on more and more ballots, they are making it easier for a third party to one day be in the White House. Then and only then, my dear Obama supporters, will we really have change.

Read Full Post »

The second presidential debate only had 2 of the possible 6 candidates on the stage. The other 4 candidates that were missing were Ralph Nader – the Independent candidate, Bob Barr – the Libertarian candidate, Cynthia McKinney – the Green party, and Chuck Baldwin – The Constitution party.

There are four major differences between the major parties, Democrat and Republican, and the third parties listed above:
1. Single-Payer Health Care, like Canada
2. End all war and bringing all troops home, 6 month withdraw from Iraq
3. Cutting the national debt, 50% of all taxes goes straight to war funding
4. Cut down on Corporate Crime, Wall Street needs to be held accountable.

Here are the videos of Ralph Nader’s responses to the questions asked:
1.

2.

3.

Read Full Post »

This is in response to the following article:
http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080920/NEWS01/809200491/1008

I’m an US citizen, who has lived on the East coast and the West coast of our beautiful country. I have also lived in Germany and Spain. I have seen first hand the difference of the health care industry when it is nationalized, how it is in Spain and how it is for the most part in Germany.

Here is the basic concept. Two sectors: private and public. The United States has its health care industry (for the most part) in the private. The sole purpose of the private sector is to make money. In the health care industry this results in adverse effects. It is more profitable for people to remain ill and continue to need medication than it is for the people to get better and no longer need any services. Thus a privatized health care system is counterproductive to the health of the people. There are ways around this. In Germany the private sectors is under strict regulation from the public sector, which ensures that contradictions like the one above don’t exist. In the US we pride ourselves on our free market economy, where the government imposes little to no restrictions on the private sector: allowing more fluidity in the market and increasing trade and commerce. That is all changing now. With the government buy out of Freddie Mae, Fannie Mac, and AIG, these private institutions are effectively now nationalized, thus a part of the public sector. The free market economy that the US was once so proud of is now a thing of the past.

That being expressed, I pose a question:
If were are willing to nationalize the worst of the gamblers and risk takers of the speculative investment firms, whose negligence has brought on a disaster in the market, then why don’t we nationalize the health care industry, an industry which will profit the government and ensure the health of the people?

Listen to Ron Paul; you know he’s a rare breed of a politician. Vote third Party. A vote for Nader is not futile, in fact it has more impact because along with being counted like a vote for the other parties, it also sends a message: no more two party system; we will no longer be slaves to the least worst candidate.

Read Full Post »

Below is one of Ron Paul’s Texas straight talks. In this text he compares the economics polices of the liberals, far left, with the neo-cons, far right, and expresses their similarities. In polarized politics leaning too far in one direction will inevitably inverse the effect as if playing an old-school space shooter, horizontally scrolling, video game.  I’m not a Republican and I’m not a Democrat, I’m Independent, because our two party system is the cancer of our democracy. Vote Nader and Ron Paul is also awesome.

As a side note, on Ron Paul’s website there are more great texts like this one along with corresponding videos. I recommend that everyone go and read what he has to say and watch his speeches. I only wish that all of our politicians took their jobs as seriously as Paul, then we wouldn’t have to blog so much.

NOTE: This text below is taken off of Ron Paul’s website and is written by Ron Paul. This is not my text. I only wish to share it.
– Johnofsilence

The dangers inherent in the foreign policy advocated by the neo-conservatives are well known. While many Americans have become increasingly aware of those dangers, far less attention has been focused on the dangers of neo-conservative economic policies. This issue is of critical importance right now, because many are mistakenly pointing their fingers at the free market as the culprit behind our current economic plight.

There are only a few in elected office who have any real loyalty to free markets and limited government. The agenda of neo-conservatives in the economy calls for a very active central government. Indeed, while there are some neo-conservatives who continue to use the rhetoric of limited government, and who oppose increases in the federal income tax as a way to maintain the political benefits that apply to those who talk about free markets, it is now the neo-conservatives who promote fiat monetary policies even more than those on the liberal left.

While I have been a strong proponent of cutting taxes on all Americans, and therefore supported the tax reductions offered by President Bush, the neo-cons argue that tax rate reduction alone is the key to “getting the government out of the way” of economic growth. Moreover, they invariably argue for tax reductions targeted toward the wealthy, and toward multinational corporations.

Over the years, I have offered several tax plans designed to assist hard working middle-class Americans to pay for their needs, whether these needs be health-care related, educational or to pay the costs of fuel. A few years back when I introduced one such bill, a prominent Republican approached me on the House Floor and asked, half in anger and half in amazement “why did you do that?” Shortly after that, the committee chairman at the time, also a Republican, sent out a release strongly attacking my tax cut bill.

So, while the liberal economic agenda includes more taxes and spending, the neo-con economic program simply looks to target some tax cuts to preferred groups, but ignore the economic big picture. The neo-con economic agenda is to “borrow and spend” and it is that agenda, even more than the tax and spend ways of many liberals, that has cast us in economic peril at this time.

Simply, on spending, the neo-cons and the liberals share views, just as they share similar views on foreign policy. While each side tries to claim the mantle of change, reality is that more of the same is not change.

The fiat monetary policy we now follow is the most significant factor contributing to our economic peril, and it is central to the neo-con agenda. As we hear new calls to empower the Federal Reserve Board, we should be aware that underlying all neo-conservative policies is the idea of monetary inflation. Inflation is the technique used to pay for the regulatory-state and the costs of policing the world.

Posted by Ron Paul (07-28-2008, 01:08 PM) filed under Monetary Policy

Read Full Post »