The Observation Deck

Referring to the two political parties we have, who can you really believe?

I've gone from one party to the other, and most of the time since turning 18, I found out I was lied to by the guy and /or his administration I supportedr.

They had all made promises that they did not keep and stated what the public wanted to hear at the time while campaigning, then all lied, after being elected.

At this moment I don't have time to show all the links that are easy enough to google up. Stephen Eisel had a post some time ago, with a long list of lies and moves that endangered the country that Bill Clinton, who was my candidate at the time, did. I'm not even paying attention to his sex thing. That seems to be another common element with most of the Presidents.
Most just didn't get caught.

I fought hard for Bush and he and his cabinet have turned out to be a 0 in my book along with Bill Clinton.

Now we have a whole set of new people running for the presidency who are already suddenly changing their minds against what they have been for or against for a long period of time. Hillary Clinton comes to mind on this case.

So who can we really believe? This election will be dictated by the media, more than any election in the past, I believe.

To make the best use of my vote, and to anyone out there reading this, I would suggest ignoring most of what anyone says from this point on.
If you find someone you think should lead our country, then research not what they are saying now, since winning is the name of all their games, but research what they have said, what they have supported and not supported in the past, to give you a more realistic indication of the person.

Once the person gets in office, they will, for the most part, go back to their roots in how they were politically, before the campaign.

While the next president will take office with a war going on, what they say while they campaign is, to me, of no use. The war, being the most emotional part of this election cycle, will be used in all ways, shapes and forms during the campaign. This is why I suggest looking at how and what the candidates have said and done for as long as you can find information before announcing their candidacy.

I suggest that the media, namely the big newspapers and major "news" channels on cable will be taking quite a bit out of context, so again I suggest the media be basically ignored. We need truth and the truth is the newspapers across the country is what the owners decide it will be, by either omission or focusing on certain items, and not entire pictures of events, statements, or what have you.

The Congressional Record might be a good source to start with.

I suppose I am advocating being an independent thinker regarding this presidential election, listening to no one, and doing some deep study. Every vote counts, the past is gone and what is coming is of utmost importance to all of us.

Who can we really believe? Only our own inner selves, after we have done our homework regarding the potential use of our own one and important vote.

Mark Allan Crnolatas

Mark Crnolatas wrote:Referring to the two political parties we have, who can you really believe?
...

Who can we really believe? Only our own inner selves, after we have done our homework regarding the potential use of our own one and important vote.

Mark Allan Crnolatas

Sometimes I wonder if we can even trust ourselves. We've been conditioned from birth to believe....The US is GOOD.....In (name your god)....We are FREE (as long as you follow the rules)...The Democrats are for the little guy....The Republicans are Conservative?... What a joke. It's as if most people are mind controlled junkies and their drug of choice is watching the TV.

Turn off the TV people. Stop watching sports and play them. Don't listen to the garbage you're being fed by the corporate media and as Mark says: Do your homework. I've done mine and Ron Paul, at this point, would be my choice.

Strange times are ahead for this election. The disparity between the attention Ron Paul gets on the democratic media (user driven) verses the corporate media (broadcast) is astounding at this point.

I have heard a few.. ahem... theories, but the most likely reason is that his message is so nuanced and technical that the broadcast media simply can't handle it. He doesn't have the swagger of a leader that plays very well on TV. He seems to take this very seriously and "serious" no longer works on TV. Public discourse now comes through tag-lines, yelling and smack-downs - not with long-winded, well thought out orations on history.

On the other hand, reading Paul's stance on issues such as monetary policy, foreign policy and civil liberties provides the reader with enough drama to fill a mini-series.

It also occurs to me that social issues like abortion, guns, health care, and education are often pushed to the forefront as they spark extremism on both sides. It doesn't take much to get drama out of these issues and there are plenty of people buying commercials for them.

There are more complicated forces at work here and the two parties are not used to the average guy understanding what is really important. Issues that truly affect 100% of us vs. issues that are tailored to get you riled up and to the polls.

I invite people to watch these two clips from the Bill Maher show... 2 months apart.

3-30-07
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xo6KIusCBoU

5-25-07
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9KWISuvZWs


and then this one from 9-18-07 (Wolf's response is telling)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgD-VnA4Aec

Can you imagine any mainstream TV network giving any attention to this guy? They design the polls that have so far kept him out of the running. But watch to see if things change once Ron Paul has enough money to run some commercials on these networks.

Funny how the ability to "re-edit" TV will undoubtedly weaken it's control over messages in the long run. (hopefully anyway)

I will continue writing in Ross Perot.

Ron Paul's ideas about Gold currency are knaive: Unregulated banks issuing notes backed by gold led to a much more wreckless fiat system in the past than anything we've got going today. Gold is psychological. The dollar is weak because of our trade deficits, which exist because of our modern free trade policy. Our oil addiction exists because of our free trade policy, and our oil wars are financed by borrowing from countries that have trade surpluses with us.

Maybe we could get by without the Department of Education, the DEA, the Marines, most of the Navy, bases in Japan and Korea and Guam and Phillipines, mail delivered only twice a week, no cable television, no bureau of Alcohol, tobacco, and Firearms, no FHA, no missions to Mars and the Moon, etc. What's left still won't be funded by tariffs and excise taxes.

The big jetliner and aerospace companies would collapse in about two years without big government contracts. Perhaps the passenger rail system in the U.S. would function without overt subsidies, if we hadn't massively oversubsidized individual automobile travel.

I can respect that Ron Paul's ideology has kept him un-entrenched in the giant web of mainstream nonsense. His ideas look good in comparison, but on their own and taken to their natural conclusion, they are just goofy. However, if there is a big difference between what he wants to do and what he is able to do there might be a reason to vote for him.

ryan costa wrote:if there is a big difference between what he wants to do and what he is able to do there might be a reason to vote for him.

There is a HUGE difference between what candidates want to do and what they can do in every level of a democracy. The same does not hold true in a dictatorship.

If we really cared about promises, would there be such a high divorce rate?

How can promises be made when it is not within the candidates power to fulfill them?

ryan costa wrote: His ideas look good in comparison, but on their own and taken to their natural conclusion, they are just goofy. However, if there is a big difference between what he wants to do and what he is able to do there might be a reason to vote for him.

He would probably be the first to agree with you. In fact - if "President Ron Paul" was able to force his own agenda, then "Citizen Ron Paul" would not vote for him. He has stated over and over that the office of the President has put things out of balance and that more things need to be put through congress.

There really does seem to be a monetary issue on the horizon and none of the other candidates seem to talk about it, though.

ryan costa wrote:I will continue writing in Ross Perot.

Ron Paul's ideas about Gold currency are knaive: Unregulated banks issuing notes backed by gold led to a much more wreckless fiat system in the past than anything we've got going today. Gold is psychological. The dollar is weak because of our trade deficits, which exist because of our modern free trade policy. Our oil addiction exists because of our free trade policy, and our oil wars are financed by borrowing from countries that have trade surpluses with us.

...

I have to disagree. When you have unregulated hedge funds borrowing 1000 to 2000:1 on capital assets owing at least 500 Trillion dollars, that's a problem. Fractional banking is a joke. Print one dollar loan out 20 to a bank. Let that bank loan out 20:1 on those dollars. That's crazy. The dollar only has perceived worth. The full faith and backing of the US government is a 8 Trillion dollar debt. Gold is not the answer but it is some sort of control over uncontrolled printing of money with no capital assets backing them. If you don't like gold, make it barrels of oil, pork bellies or televisions. It really doesn't matter as long as the paper can be traded in for a fixed quantity of something. The system is so out of control now that a collapse is eminent.

I was a fan of Perot too. I busted my ass on his campaign the first time he ran and he let us all down. His ideas were better than any of the current crop of vegetables running in 2008 and I'm inclined to declare a vote of no confidence in all of them.