Red herrings. They're everywhere. Now, I'm no fan of Ron Paul. Really. I am liking him more and more as a human(or how he portrays himself and is received)...but I have no use for "change" within the system. Firstly, it will never happen. The very fact that the entire system is corrupt tells you that nothing will happen within that government which will destroy it...or even impinge it in any meaningful way. No matter who you have in the white house or who he/she brings as their cabinet. Ain't gonna happen. Never did(for the betterment of mankind anyway). It never will. Period. Don't look for it. Secondly, as our system of government has now morphed into a "democracy" and our democracy is now on talmud-vision, it would take a jewish pogrom to clean it out anyway. So to insure this absence of meaningful change in the United Snakes, every four years they release their red herrings.
This time around we still have leftover Ron Paul. We also have Cain. These are candidates that the media can slaughter so that you will seriously consider their puppets as the logical alternative..."promising change". You shouldn't even consider radicals or undereducated nut-jobs...so you look at their politicians. Anyone that can't see that, shouldn't be left on their own without supervision.
I have had conversations with people about Paul. The reaction to his campaigns are always predictable...just as scripted by the JPTB. He is TOO radical. He wants TOO much change.
A couple weeks ago I read an article covering the presidential debates on CNN. To wit, the following quote(emphasis mine):
"The new front-runner got the first question of the night, which sparked a feud with the libertarian-leaning Texas Rep. Ron Paul over the USA Patriot Act.
"I would look at strengthening it because the dangers that are posed are so great," Gingrich said about the legislation.
Paul, who has been sharply critical of the Patriot Act since it was signed into law by former President George W. Bush in October 2001, called it "unpatriotic" because it "undermines our liberty."
Paul took on the role of the lonely isolationist throughout the debate, calling on the administration to withdraw American troops from commitments overseas as a way to slash government spending.
He also questioned the point of humanitarian aid, including money to combat AIDS and other diseases in Africa.
"I think the aid is all worthless," Paul said. "It doesn't do any good for most of the people. You take money from poor people in this country and you end up giving it to rich people in poorer countries."
Republicans agree: We love Israel: Tuesday's debate made clear that in the wake of George W. Bush's eight years in office, the Republican Party lacks any sort of cohesive foreign policy vision.
There remains one point of consensus, however: That the United States should do whatever it takes to protect and defend Israel.
With the exception of Paul, the Republican candidates have all taken stridently pro-Israel positions throughout the campaign.
The ante was upped Tuesday by Romney, who made this promise: "If I'm president of the United States, my first trip -- my first foreign trip will be to Israel to show the world we care about that country and that region."
Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum said he would do the same.
Cain said he would side with Israel if it launched an attack on Iran to disable its nuclear capabilities.
Huntsman went out of his way to praise Israel later, saying this: "Our interest in the Middle East is Israel. And our interest is to ensure that ... Iran does not go nuclear."
And Bachmann said Obama has undertaken "a doctrine of appeasement" toward Iran.
Paul was the lone voice of dissent, telling the debate crowd that "Israel should take care of themselves."
Now, let's take a look at those white spaces between all the words. I have highlighted the key words that this author wants you to pick up on. Ron Paul is "libertarian-leaning"(whatever that means but it doesn't sound very good) and "sharply critical". He doesn't want to live up to our "commitments" as a nation. He wants to "slash" something. He even questions "humanitarian aid" for those poor African people. The bastard. He thinks aid is worthless! If he was a Republican worth his salt he would "Love ISRAEL"...the way all the rest of our candidates do. Only a radical wing-nut wouldn't. He even had the nerve to say that our beloved israel should "take care of themselves"! How can he say that about her? No wonder he is a "lone voice of dissent".
So what is the author really saying in this piece? He is saying that the reader should beware of those that...don't love israhell; are sharply critical of anything; don't want to live up to military commitments of former administrations; want to "slash" government spending or humanitarian aid(especially to israhell);and generally those that are "exceptions" to the normal candidates. After all...they ALL agree on certain issues...all but their red herring. You should pay attention to their brightly colored fish, while the more mundane...one of their "agree-ers"... takes the fast track to Pennsylvania Avenue.
Not that there will ever be a REAL election. They just want to sway enough of the popular vote(before they make their appointment of the latest zionist Gentile), to give the appearance of a plausible victory...so there won't be any of those nasty re-counts. And whether or not Paul is a willing red herring is not the message...or the massage. The fact that he was omitted from the latest officially jewish sponsored debate(as opposed to unofficially) only confirms who he works for...voluntarily or not.
This my friend...is how to write subjectively. Not only did the writer crucify the candidate...he pushed his own agenda in so doing. Textbook spin. Almost too obvious. Something we would have laughed over in that lit class. But something that...without critical thinking...is taken in by the general public on a daily basis. Oh well.
Ed. Note - Notice how in this official photo of the debates: It looks like a game show(for after all, that's what it is), and how Ron Paul and Cain are looking to the left, while everyone else(save the WOMAN) is looking right? Just sayin...