Friday, 2 May 2008

What? Ron Paul not on the Time 100 most influential people?

What's so special about Barack Obama anyway? Apart from the media frenzy around him, there's really nothing special about that guy. He's just one of those conformists who will just be president and then start wars and interfere in other people's business.

Ron Paul should be at the top, if people ever got their way. 

Very disappointing "Main stream Media"

It 's time that a conscious legion of Ron Paul supporters take over not just the national and state conventions for the elections, but also the Main stream media. 

Just look at what happens when Ron Paul supporters infiltrated the Nevada convention, while others rose up the convention ranks to hold vital positions - an unorganized McPain group was completely obliterated. The party officials became angry and closed down the convention without choosing national delegates. This just goes to show how corrupt the system has become - if a small minority don't get what they want, they just close down the system and secretly choose their own delegates. 

This just goes to show that a conscious bunch of individuals can do a lot. And Ron Paul isn't trying to take over the government, he just wants to help the country by getting it back to its constitutional roots. So please don't compare us to those demented neo-cons.

And stop calling the movement an anarchist movement, because restraining government so that it doesn't take away your liberties or overspend is not anarchy. 

Your silent resistance will not do much, unless you gather up a decent number of people to join you. 



4 comments:

Samuel Poon said...

I think what's special about Obama is his charisma and that he's handsome. Hey, voters are people too, and subjected to "personal bias".

I think the US elections are somewhat messed up, because election funds are just as important (if not more important, but people don't want to admit it) as support in the polls.

Eugene said...

Not true.

The media controls what most americans think. Now go figure out who controls the media.

I have read what Barack Obama says and I cannot convince myself that his speeches contain substance.

Personal bias... guess which sex has more "personal bias". There are actually some who say that women should not be allowed to vote.. LOL.

I won't totally agree with that, but there is some substance in that. Voting for the more handsome one? This is bad.

I'm thinking whether love is actually rational or irrational, because for most these days, it is so subjective(eg. you're so hot). And I even have divorce rates to back that up - the more subjective people are towards love and sex and romance, the less likely marriages will hold.

Marrying someone on the grounds of initial attraction and instinct is no good most of the time.

Samuel Poon said...

Yes, I agree that the media we have today isn't totally "free". So fortunately we have blogs today, or what they call "new" or "emerging" media.

Voting for someone pretty or handsome has happened before. Think JFK or Ma Ying Jeou (not to discredit their merits).

I'm skeptical of flowery speech. I mean, politicians are professionals at it. They make their living on it, after all. Not that we shouldn't be careful about it, though.

Eugene said...

The media cannot be called free at all. I mean, can you go and tell the news anchor stuff?

It's not just about freedom. It's about not being biased in terms of air time. Media and politics ought to be separate. Why should Hillary and Barack get so much air time for crap talk that doesn't address what the people actually worry about?

I am beginning to doubt the possibility of women in general being able to think without personal subjectiveness.

Flowery speech... very dangerous. But that's not the main point. If Ron Paul was that flowery, would the media pay attention? No, they won't. Hence that is not always the deciding factor.

I bet most Americans are thinking very simplistically - they think that George W.Bush screwed up, and a mostly Republican congress contributed too, so the Republican Party must suck. So, they vote for the opposite - the Democrats.
Now, the problem is that there are two of them. Tough choice - two democrats. To make it worse, people see the differences between them immediately, as we are educated to. So, not bothering to do their own research and stop being spoon-fed by the media, they take to personal preference. Do we want a black guy, or a white woman as president? Tough choice, and so the proportions are so close. It shows that people are not thinking for themselves. So far though, Obama is getting more of the attention and charm.

Most Americans are accustomed to paying attention to celebrity news. Use that way of judging celebrities to the presidential elections and that's what you get. It is a very dangerous thing, and the flowery speech you talk about is only part of it.