The T.V. likes to keep telling us that phone polls are "scientific", while internet polls are unscientific, indidcating they are skewed.
How can this be?
Phone polls are definitely skewed. First, this assumes the person has a land line. Second, it assumes these people they bug at home are likely voters.
Who is a more likely voter, someone you call randomly at home at night on their land line, or someone going to political websites and voluntarily filling out a poll?
I would say the internet user is more likely a voter.
Of course, both polls are skewed, but for us to give full credence to one and ignore the other is ridiculous!
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Friday, June 22, 2007
Ron Paul on NPR
In case anyone missed it, Ron Paul was interviewed on NPR. Brilliant interview with a hostile host!
Click here to listen to the interview.
Again the theme of "Ron Paul has no chance" was brought up several times. The media wants to create a self-fulfilling prophecy but you can be sure we won't let them!
Click here to listen to the interview.
Again the theme of "Ron Paul has no chance" was brought up several times. The media wants to create a self-fulfilling prophecy but you can be sure we won't let them!
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Why I'm voting for Ron Paul over Dennis Kucinich
When you look at the field of presidential candidates, if you are not really into keeping our country at war endlessly, you only have a few choices.
Immediately you can eliminate the entire Republican field besides Ron Paul.
The Democrat field is a little more tricky.
Hillary is a war monger in the Bush mold and will have us contiuing our empire building in the middle east and elsewhere.
Obama, Edwards, Richardson and I think Dodd all say they are against the war in Iraq. But Obama is on record as saying he would not rule out war with Iran! Edwards VOTED for the war in Iraq!(now he says that was a mistake, but he hangs out with the CFR who decide our foreign policy- I completely do not trust him). Richardson is also a CFR-connected guy who claims to be against the Iraq war, but I gaurantee not much would change foreign policy-wise if he were president.
I like Mike Gravel, but his Iraq pullout plan is a little more complicated than just ending it, and I don't think it will work. Also, Gravel is 82 and is not gaining much grassroots support, mainly because nobody thinks he has a chance.
That leaves us with Kucinich. Kucinich is vehemontly anti-war. He even wants to create a department of peace! He is also one of the few congressmen to admit that there may be more to 9/11 than what we were told, and a new investigation is a good idea. Having said all that, Kucinich for all intents and purposes is a socialist. If elected president, he would take citizens' guns away. Therefore, he is unelectable- America is just not going to vote for a socialist with these kinds of policies.
Kucinich has a great heart and definitely means well. He's probably the best option if you had to vote democrat, because he is a true outsider.
But the choice is clear. If you want peace, elect Ron Paul. He not only will end things in Iraq, he will completely change the disasterous course of our foreign policy. He opposes the Federal Reserve, which is a huge part of the mess we are in. This would go much further towards bringing back the U.S. to a constitutional government, and have lasting peace that does not change because some tinpot dictator somewhere abused his power.
Immediately you can eliminate the entire Republican field besides Ron Paul.
The Democrat field is a little more tricky.
Hillary is a war monger in the Bush mold and will have us contiuing our empire building in the middle east and elsewhere.
Obama, Edwards, Richardson and I think Dodd all say they are against the war in Iraq. But Obama is on record as saying he would not rule out war with Iran! Edwards VOTED for the war in Iraq!(now he says that was a mistake, but he hangs out with the CFR who decide our foreign policy- I completely do not trust him). Richardson is also a CFR-connected guy who claims to be against the Iraq war, but I gaurantee not much would change foreign policy-wise if he were president.
I like Mike Gravel, but his Iraq pullout plan is a little more complicated than just ending it, and I don't think it will work. Also, Gravel is 82 and is not gaining much grassroots support, mainly because nobody thinks he has a chance.
That leaves us with Kucinich. Kucinich is vehemontly anti-war. He even wants to create a department of peace! He is also one of the few congressmen to admit that there may be more to 9/11 than what we were told, and a new investigation is a good idea. Having said all that, Kucinich for all intents and purposes is a socialist. If elected president, he would take citizens' guns away. Therefore, he is unelectable- America is just not going to vote for a socialist with these kinds of policies.
Kucinich has a great heart and definitely means well. He's probably the best option if you had to vote democrat, because he is a true outsider.
But the choice is clear. If you want peace, elect Ron Paul. He not only will end things in Iraq, he will completely change the disasterous course of our foreign policy. He opposes the Federal Reserve, which is a huge part of the mess we are in. This would go much further towards bringing back the U.S. to a constitutional government, and have lasting peace that does not change because some tinpot dictator somewhere abused his power.
Tuesday, June 5, 2007
Ron Paul and Corporations
The most consistent counterpoint I hear to Ron Paul as president is that libertarians, if they took the executive branch, would let corporations "run wild".
I'm honestly not sure what this means.
If a true small-government candidate like Ron Paul took office, corporations and big business would have far less influence into our lives. Currently, big business is totally in bed with big government to the point that you can even interchange the names of top government people and top business executives and it's all the same. Right now, the whole system is out of wack and running wild.
If businesses like Coca-Cola, Walmart, Budweiser, Haliburton, etc. have no lobbying power, how can they control or affect our lives as citizens?
Realize that under Ron Paul we would have a very small federal government but leave some things up to states and local governments.
People say there would be nobody to "stand up" to the corporations. What exactly does this mean? Right now they not only don't stand up to big business, but the government actually gives them corporate welfare and uses favortism, things that Ron Paul is completely against!
I'm honestly not sure what this means.
If a true small-government candidate like Ron Paul took office, corporations and big business would have far less influence into our lives. Currently, big business is totally in bed with big government to the point that you can even interchange the names of top government people and top business executives and it's all the same. Right now, the whole system is out of wack and running wild.
If businesses like Coca-Cola, Walmart, Budweiser, Haliburton, etc. have no lobbying power, how can they control or affect our lives as citizens?
Realize that under Ron Paul we would have a very small federal government but leave some things up to states and local governments.
People say there would be nobody to "stand up" to the corporations. What exactly does this mean? Right now they not only don't stand up to big business, but the government actually gives them corporate welfare and uses favortism, things that Ron Paul is completely against!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
