Ignore Ron Paul are the new marching orders?

[CA renter]

[quote=Arraya]He was ignored in a coordinated fashion.

Looks likes he wins frequently
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/why-ron-paul-keeps-winning-straw-polls/2011/06/20/AGu2qvcH_blog.html
Texas Republican Rep. Ron Paul may be the single best straw poll candidate in the 2012 field.

Paul easily won the straw vote at this weekend’s Republican Leadership Conference in New Orleans, outdistancing the likes of former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney and Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann.

That victory comes on the heels of Paul’s straw poll win at the Conservative Political Action Conference earlier this year — a straw vote he also won at the 2010 CPAC gathering.

And yet, for all of Paul’s straw poll success, he remains a marginal figure — at best — in the 2012 field. What gives[/quote]

You don’t hear about Ron Paul for the same reasons you didn’t see widespread coverage of the bailout protests on Wall Street — the ORIGINAL motivation behind the Tea Party movement was to prevent a taxpayer bailout of various bondholders. The original, grassroots TP organization include people from all political parties, and had nothing to do with Republicans…or “Obamacare.” Now, they’ve “magically” morphed into advocating on behalf of bondholders, and against seniors who receive SS and Medicare.

Even though you didn’t see the bailout protests (which were huge), you DID see plenty of media coverage of the supposed “Tea Party” movement consisting of anti-healthcare seniors at Town Hall Meetings (most of whom I think were paid plants). This is why I believe the healthcare bill was trotted out when it was — it neutralized the REAL Tea Party, and gave Republicans control over the activists who were truly pissed, and the final bill ended up funnelling even more money to the FIRE sector because it forced practically everyone to buy PRIVATE insurance. It was an obviously intended to distract the angry masses from what the top 1% was doing — which was, correctly, the original target of the anger. By having the Dems introduce it, and the Repubs fight against it, they managed to, once again, put citizens back into their neat, little, two-party, mind-control boxes.

You don’t see the MSM coverage of protests against privatization of public assets, the protests against the demonization of union workers, etc. But you WILL see plenty of coverage showing the grandstanding b@stards as they rant about the need to cut SS and Medicare so that bondholders can be made whole.
—————-

During the convention’s first three days, more than 300[3] individuals were detained by police,[54] including journalists (AP photographer Matt Rourke was one),[55] healthcare workers and lawyer observers.[56] Some were released, but nearly half received felony charges.[56] Of these felony arrests, many cases were dropped or reviewed, some times for lesser charges, and about 21 were found to be prosecutable.[3] About 102 persons were arrested for unlawful assembly at a Rage Against the Machine concert in downtown Minneapolis.[57]

Over the four days of the convention, more than 30 journalists were arrested while reporting on the protests. The arrests included journalists from national organizations such as AP and Democracy Now!, journalists from local radio and TV stations, as well as university journalism students and advisors.[58]

Three journalists from Democracy Now!—including principal host Amy Goodman—were detained by police during their reporting on the protests.[59] According to a press release by Democracy Now!, Goodman was arrested after confronting officers regarding the arrest of her colleagues. The officers were in the midst of crowd control, and ordered Goodman to move back. She was arrested after refusing the officer’s orders.[60] all were held on charges of “probable cause for riot”.[61] Several news sources have criticized the arrest as unlawful and a violation of the freedom of the press,[62] and warned of the “chilling effects” of such measures.[63]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Republican_National_Convention
———–

And this:

Media Blackout: CNN Fox News and MSNBC Ignore 100,000 WI Protesters

Hundreds of thousands of Americans around the country march on their governments in an event that would be a perfect fit for the 24 hour cable news cycle. Even better, the protests were occurring during the news cycle dead zone of Saturday afternoon. The coverage should have been everywhere in the media, but if you turned on your television in hopes of watching the rally from Wisconsin live, you were disappointed.

http://www.politicususa.com/en/cnn-fox-msnbc-ignore-wi
—————

May 13, 2011

By Mark Brenner

Wall Street protest

Sick of bankers and corporate honchos making out like bandits, 15,000 people marched through the caverns of Wall Street yesterday. Unions and community groups rallied together against staggering layoffs and budget cuts.They aimed much of their fury at Mayor Michael Bloomberg. He plans brutal cuts to education and services for the poor, while millionaires will pay even less tax next year and banks continue to rack up huge tax breaks.

PAYBACK TIME: UNIONS, ACTIVISTS MARCH ON WALL STREET vs. BILLIONAIRES, BANKERS

—————

You didn’t see this plastered all over the news, either:

[Navydoc]

[quote=njtosd][quote=jpinpb]I just have such a hard time seriously considering Ron Paul mostly b/c of his stand on abortion.

And during his years in medicine, never once did he find an abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman.

Off the top of my head, molar pregnancy comes to mind. [/quote]

FWIW – a molar pregnancy does not result in a fetus, but an unformed cluster of cells. Removal of the mass would not be considered an abortion, because there would be no fetus to abort. A better example of a pregnancy that would compromise the mother’s health would be an ectopic pregnancy or preeclampsia/eclampsia occurring prior to the date that a fetus could be successfully delivered by C-section.[/quote]

Not quite true- there are two kinds of molar pregnancy. A complete mole is as you’ve described, no fetus, the pregnancy is made up entirely of chorion. The other type, a partial mole DOES include a fetus, usually abnormal with a triploid chromosome pattern. Both types of moles are potentially life threatening and need to be terminated, but the incomplete moles are much harder to convince a patient about the need to terminate, as she can often see a heartbeat on the ultrasound.

I realize RP was likely a general OB/GYN when he was practicing, but I would like to have introduced him to the patient I took care of with pulmonary hypertension with twins. She refused to terminate despite multiple warnings of her likely high mortality. I can’t introduce her to him now, but I can point him at her tombstone. The babies didn’t make it either.

This discussion has absolutely no place in the political realm, an I find it completely sickening that it is used for political ends.

[Navydoc]

[quote=njtosd][quote=jpinpb]I just have such a hard time seriously considering Ron Paul mostly b/c of his stand on abortion.

And during his years in medicine, never once did he find an abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman.

Off the top of my head, molar pregnancy comes to mind. [/quote]

FWIW – a molar pregnancy does not result in a fetus, but an unformed cluster of cells. Removal of the mass would not be considered an abortion, because there would be no fetus to abort. A better example of a pregnancy that would compromise the mother’s health would be an ectopic pregnancy or preeclampsia/eclampsia occurring prior to the date that a fetus could be successfully delivered by C-section.[/quote]

Not quite true- there are two kinds of molar pregnancy. A complete mole is as you’ve described, no fetus, the pregnancy is made up entirely of chorion. The other type, a partial mole DOES include a fetus, usually abnormal with a triploid chromosome pattern. Both types of moles are potentially life threatening and need to be terminated, but the incomplete moles are much harder to convince a patient about the need to terminate, as she can often see a heartbeat on the ultrasound.

I realize RP was likely a general OB/GYN when he was practicing, but I would like to have introduced him to the patient I took care of with pulmonary hypertension with twins. She refused to terminate despite multiple warnings of her likely high mortality. I can’t introduce her to him now, but I can point him at her tombstone. The babies didn’t make it either.

This discussion has absolutely no place in the political realm, an I find it completely sickening that it is used for political ends.

[Navydoc]

[quote=njtosd][quote=jpinpb]I just have such a hard time seriously considering Ron Paul mostly b/c of his stand on abortion.

And during his years in medicine, never once did he find an abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman.

Off the top of my head, molar pregnancy comes to mind. [/quote]

FWIW – a molar pregnancy does not result in a fetus, but an unformed cluster of cells. Removal of the mass would not be considered an abortion, because there would be no fetus to abort. A better example of a pregnancy that would compromise the mother’s health would be an ectopic pregnancy or preeclampsia/eclampsia occurring prior to the date that a fetus could be successfully delivered by C-section.[/quote]

Not quite true- there are two kinds of molar pregnancy. A complete mole is as you’ve described, no fetus, the pregnancy is made up entirely of chorion. The other type, a partial mole DOES include a fetus, usually abnormal with a triploid chromosome pattern. Both types of moles are potentially life threatening and need to be terminated, but the incomplete moles are much harder to convince a patient about the need to terminate, as she can often see a heartbeat on the ultrasound.

I realize RP was likely a general OB/GYN when he was practicing, but I would like to have introduced him to the patient I took care of with pulmonary hypertension with twins. She refused to terminate despite multiple warnings of her likely high mortality. I can’t introduce her to him now, but I can point him at her tombstone. The babies didn’t make it either.

This discussion has absolutely no place in the political realm, an I find it completely sickening that it is used for political ends.

[Navydoc]

[quote=njtosd][quote=jpinpb]I just have such a hard time seriously considering Ron Paul mostly b/c of his stand on abortion.

And during his years in medicine, never once did he find an abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman.

Off the top of my head, molar pregnancy comes to mind. [/quote]

FWIW – a molar pregnancy does not result in a fetus, but an unformed cluster of cells. Removal of the mass would not be considered an abortion, because there would be no fetus to abort. A better example of a pregnancy that would compromise the mother’s health would be an ectopic pregnancy or preeclampsia/eclampsia occurring prior to the date that a fetus could be successfully delivered by C-section.[/quote]

Not quite true- there are two kinds of molar pregnancy. A complete mole is as you’ve described, no fetus, the pregnancy is made up entirely of chorion. The other type, a partial mole DOES include a fetus, usually abnormal with a triploid chromosome pattern. Both types of moles are potentially life threatening and need to be terminated, but the incomplete moles are much harder to convince a patient about the need to terminate, as she can often see a heartbeat on the ultrasound.

I realize RP was likely a general OB/GYN when he was practicing, but I would like to have introduced him to the patient I took care of with pulmonary hypertension with twins. She refused to terminate despite multiple warnings of her likely high mortality. I can’t introduce her to him now, but I can point him at her tombstone. The babies didn’t make it either.

This discussion has absolutely no place in the political realm, an I find it completely sickening that it is used for political ends.

[Navydoc]

[quote=njtosd][quote=jpinpb]I just have such a hard time seriously considering Ron Paul mostly b/c of his stand on abortion.

And during his years in medicine, never once did he find an abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman.

Off the top of my head, molar pregnancy comes to mind. [/quote]

FWIW – a molar pregnancy does not result in a fetus, but an unformed cluster of cells. Removal of the mass would not be considered an abortion, because there would be no fetus to abort. A better example of a pregnancy that would compromise the mother’s health would be an ectopic pregnancy or preeclampsia/eclampsia occurring prior to the date that a fetus could be successfully delivered by C-section.[/quote]

Not quite true- there are two kinds of molar pregnancy. A complete mole is as you’ve described, no fetus, the pregnancy is made up entirely of chorion. The other type, a partial mole DOES include a fetus, usually abnormal with a triploid chromosome pattern. Both types of moles are potentially life threatening and need to be terminated, but the incomplete moles are much harder to convince a patient about the need to terminate, as she can often see a heartbeat on the ultrasound.

I realize RP was likely a general OB/GYN when he was practicing, but I would like to have introduced him to the patient I took care of with pulmonary hypertension with twins. She refused to terminate despite multiple warnings of her likely high mortality. I can’t introduce her to him now, but I can point him at her tombstone. The babies didn’t make it either.

This discussion has absolutely no place in the political realm, an I find it completely sickening that it is used for political ends.

[The-Shoveler]

Even China uses inflation to it’s advantage when it needs to.

[The-Shoveler]

Even China uses inflation to it’s advantage when it needs to.

[The-Shoveler]

Even China uses inflation to it’s advantage when it needs to.

[The-Shoveler]

Even China uses inflation to it’s advantage when it needs to.

[The-Shoveler]

Even China uses inflation to it’s advantage when it needs to.

[The-Shoveler]

Also I think I just saw that china want us to focus on our economy,
Maybe print money and create job’s ?
(really china is an expert at this)

[The-Shoveler]

Also I think I just saw that china want us to focus on our economy,
Maybe print money and create job’s ?
(really china is an expert at this)

[The-Shoveler]

Also I think I just saw that china want us to focus on our economy,
Maybe print money and create job’s ?
(really china is an expert at this)

[The-Shoveler]

Also I think I just saw that china want us to focus on our economy,
Maybe print money and create job’s ?
(really china is an expert at this)

[Author]

Posts