CNN promoting Rick Perry and Tea Party/9-12 Debate.

Author Topic: CNN promoting Rick Perry and Tea Party/9-12 Debate.  (Read 1810 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline IridiumKEPfactor

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,668
CNN promoting Rick Perry and Tea Party/9-12 Debate.
« on: August 30, 2011, 11:13:53 AM »
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/08/09/cnntea-party-debate-sept-12-in-tampa/

On Monday, Sept.12, 2011, CNN, along with the Tea Party Express and several other tea party groups, will produce a debate with the Republican candidates in Tampa, Florida, the site of the 2012 Republican National Convention.


I think that CNN is doing their part to Push Rick Perry to the top. This is the debate which will introduce the Rick Perry to the general public. This debate may be the make or break for many of the candidates and give Perry alot of momentum.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/08/29/new-cnn-poll-perry-sits-atop-gop-field/

Washington (CNN) – A new national survey is further proof that Texas Gov. Rick Perry's entrance earlier this month into the race for the White House has dramatically altered the battle for the Republican presidential nomination.

According to a CNN/ORC International Poll of Republicans and independent voters who lean towards the GOP, Perry now sits atop the list of Republican presidential candidates, with strong support from most demographic groups.


Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,964
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
Re: CNN promoting Rick Perry and Tea Party/9-12 Debate.
« Reply #1 on: August 30, 2011, 11:24:22 AM »
Why do Americans elect such awful Presidents? For the same reason they elect so many awful Congressmen, Senators and Governors: because they refuse to ask the right questions. Allow me to explain.

I think most of those reading this would agree that there's a world of difference between "being your own leader" and being a cheerleader for someone else. And most people, unfortunately, are always looking for excuses to be the latter, that way they can go on treating politics as just another spectator sport. But in doing so, they ignore

(a) the fact that feel-good platitudes designed to elicit cheers and applause from the already-converted are no substitute for specific ideas on how key governmental policies can actually be made conducive to securing a truly just, prosperous and free society;

(b) the fact that, although ideas themselves are indeed bullet proof, the political leaders who espouse them are not; and

(c) the consequential fact that, the more a nonviolent revolution is driven by the force of a particular person's popularity instead of by the force of ideas, the easier it is for the banker-owned political establishment to neutralize that revolution through either character assassination or -- if the political leader in question becomes too popular and/or advocates policy reforms that are too threatening to the institutionalized privileges of the parasitic ruling class -- literal assassination (as the anti-war followers of RFK and MLK all found out the hard way).

Now, that's not to say that an idea-driven nonviolent revolution is incompatible with supporting and promoting a particular candidate, just that the latter must be a mere supplement of, rather than substitute for, the former.

With regard to elections, aside from institutionalized election-rigging, the primary reason why establishment Democrats and establishment Republicans continue to get elected -- even when there are third party candidates on the ballot -- is that voters continually ask the wrong questions.

Instead of openly asking where the candidate in question actually stands on key issues, most voters -- both liberal and conservative alike -- silently ask to themselves meaningless questions such as...

* Does this candidate seem like someone I'd like to have a beer with?

* Does he pay lip service to preserving and defending the Constitution?

* Does he pay lip service to the importance of "freedom" and "liberty"?

* Does he pay lip service to the importance of feeling "safe" from evil terrorists?

* Does he pay lip service to the need for "change"?

* Is he able to read from a teleprompter more skillfully and articulately than his main opponent?

And so on and so forth, ad nauseum.

Corporate-whore Republicans like George Bush and corporate-whore Democrats like Barack Obama have repeatedly proven that they're able to answer such questions to the satisfaction of the easily-duped voters who ask them.  This is why our government continues to be a government of, by and for parasitic robber barons instead of a government of, by and for "the people," and hence why things continue to get worse and worse regardless of which of the two banker-owned major parties is in charge.

Bottom line: an answer is only as good as the question that elicited it, so if either corporate-whore Democrats or corporate-whore Republicans seem like the "answer" on election day, then we're asking the wrong damn questions!

Thus, if the American people are truly interested in changing things for the better, they must start asking better questions. It's as simple as that.

Instead of asking, "Is this someone I'd like to have a beer with?" or, "Does this candidate pay lip service to empty platitudes about liberty?" we must ask, "Does he advocate the right policy positions?"

To get a more specific idea of what I mean, here are the questions I ask when assessing a particular candidate:

On election reform, does this candidate support or oppose the reform measures listed at the beginning of this thread?

On monetary reform, does this candidate support or oppose

-- putting all derivatives-infected mega-banks through Chapter 11 bankruptcy and, in the reorganization proceedings, wiping out all derivatives;

-- liquidating all of the ill-gotten assets of criminal scam artists such as Henry Paulson and Bernard Madoff, and using the resultant proceeds to help replenish whatever retirement funds they raided;

-- replacing our current debt-based money system with a debt-free "Greenback" money system, whereby all new money -- instead of being loaned into circulation at interest -- is spent in at no interest; and

-- instituting a new round of international agreements modeled on the Bretton Woods Accords, with an aim towards replacing the current “floating” exchange rates for national currencies with a fixed rate that, as such, is pegged to the value of either an agreed-upon standardized price index or an agreed-upon “basket” of diverse, widely available, everyday commodities?

On foreign policy reform, does this candidate support or oppose

-- bringing an immediate end to our imperialist, terroristic, hornets' nest-stirring wars of aggression; and

-- abolishing the CIA?

On civil liberties, does this candidate support or oppose

-- repealing the "Patriot" Act;
-- repealing the Homeland "Security" Act;
-- repealing the Military Commissions Act;
-- repealing Presidential Directive 51;
-- repealing the Establishment of the Council of Governors; and
-- abolishing FEMA?

On national sovereignty, does this candidate support or oppose

-- withdrawing the U.S. from both NAFTA and the WTO; and

-- enacting the American Sovereignty Restoration Act?

On drug policy reform, does this candidate support or oppose

-- ending the drug war (and with it all of the corruption, hypocrisy and police state thuggery it breeds); and

-- abolishing the DEA?

On gun control, does this candidate support or oppose

-- repealing all federal gun control laws; and

-- abolishing the BATFE?

On health care reform, does this candidate support or oppose

-- repealing Obama's corporate fascist health care "reform" bill;

-- relegalizing alternative medicine;

-- making health insurance tax deductible (so long as there's an income tax) for individuals as it already is for business owners;

-- revoking bogus or overextended drug patents granted to Big Pharma for either "me-too" drugs or drugs developed primarily at taxpayer expense; and

-- informing the masses of the extent to which corporate-whore politicians from both major parties have precipitated a tremendous artificial surge in the need for health care services by either imposing or green-lighting such things as tainted vaccines, aspartame, GMO foods and flouridated water supplies, and by turning a blind eye to the endless regulatory violations of politically-connected factory farms (i.e., "Big Agri") while throwing the book at small family farms for even the smallest and pettiest of infractions?

On energy policy, does this candidate support or oppose

-- using antitrust action to break up the oil cartel;

-- educating the masses about the manufactured myth of "peak oil";

-- assuming public ownership of any and all domestic refineries that Big Oil shut down to create artificial scarcity, and bringing them up to full production in order to alleviate our dependence on foreign oil; and

-- revoking any and all patents purchased by the competition-hating oil cartel for alternative energy technologies currently not in use?

On environmental policy, does this candidate support or oppose

-- educating the public about ClimateGate, about the manufactured myth of man-made global warming, and about how Al Gore and his corporate cronies have been attempting to exploit this myth as a means of extorting billions if not trillions of dollars from the American people via the fraudulent "carbon tax" scheme;

-- passing stricter laws against the use of depleted uranium, and arresting and criminally prosecuting all former and current U.S. officials who violated international law by authorizing the use of depleted uranium in such countries as Iraq and Afghanistan;

-- levying a severance tax on oil extraction and devoting part of the resultant revenue to equipping all federal buildings with solar panels, and the rest to an Alaskan-style oil dividend; and

-- shifting the tax burden to the greatest extent possible off labor and capital and onto the economic rent of land, so as to alleviate (among other things) urban sprawl, and with it both (a) oil-wasting, carbon monoxide-spewing traffic congestion, and (b) excess deforestation?

On education policy, does this candidate support or oppose

-- eliminating federal involvement in so-called "education" and passing the tens of billions in savings onto the bottom 90% of income earners?

On the issue of "terrorism" and "national security," does this candidate support or oppose

-- sponsoring and promoting a nationally televised airing of (a) all of the admitted cases of false flag terror attacks orchestrated at least in part by U.S. officials, (b) all of the evidence pointing towards 9/11 being an inside job, and (c) all of the evidence pointing towards U.S. government involvement in any other acts of terrorism (e.g., the "underwear bomber");

-- arresting and criminally prosecuting any current or former high-level U.S. official who has admitted to authorizing torture, and/or for whom there is incriminating evidence of being either a participant in a false flag terror attack or an accomplice after the fact;

-- passing a federal law specifically against false flag terrorism in all its guises and variants, with the mandatory penalty for conviction being life in a maximum security prison without possibility of parole for any military person ranked Colonel or higher, and for any U.S. official who (at the time of the offense) either served as President or was seven or less heartbeats away from the Presidency; and

-- enforcing U.S. immigration laws, while continually reminding those obsessed with political correctness that doing so will in no way apply to the hundreds of thousands of Mexicans who immigrate here legally every year, and that Mexico's restrictions on immigration are far more exclusionary than those of the U.S. (which, if we apply the same standard to Mexico that the corporate whore "news" media applies to the U.S., means that Mexico is far more racist than the U.S.)?

On the issue of internet freedom, does this candidate support or oppose

-- repealing any and all "cyber security" laws or regulations that allow for Chinese-style censorship and control; and

-- enacting the Internet Freedom Preservation Act?


I could go on, of course, but I think you get the idea.
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://schalkenbach.org
http://www.monetary.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

Offline Highland

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 633
Re: CNN promoting Rick Perry and Tea Party/9-12 Debate.
« Reply #2 on: August 30, 2011, 11:36:41 AM »
The politicians are a part of a planed removal of manufacturing jobs and importation of illegal labor workers doing  much of what is left of the service work. The male is degraded and removed from the family. This was also planed. The Representative then voted themselves large cost of living increases but cut the poor. Then they blame the intire situation on the poor. I am sorry these type actions are not Christian. Commune slavery is not freedom and government subside workers are not a superior kind of eugenics human.