"If Ron Paul wins Iowa, We just take it out"

Keep following the money, we will be here for a while. you'll never guess whos at the top.
Think about it, Why does all the news say the same thing?

Example
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pl7sWtUu1Fc"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pl7sWtUu1Fc[/ame]

 

CBS<Viacom<National Amusements<Sumner Redstone

NBC<Comcast<Brian L. Roberts

ABC<Disney(publicly traded)<FMR LLC(Fidelity)*primary shareholder of Disney< The Johnson Family

Fox<News Corporation(publicly traded)<Rupert Murdoch*primary shareholder

CNN<Time Warner(publicly traded)----This one is extremely nerve racking. Even when searching on internet, can't find out the primary shareholder. Last CEO now at Citigroup, ties to Rockefeller. Extremely large company, with many ins and outs across the entire information spectrum.

These 5 families and individuals own every piece of information a person has access to outside of internet in the United States. I say Time-Warner as a 1/5 because one would assume eventually you would land on a name. However, T-W I would say is the one that those who believe in conspiracies would have their hands full with trying to get their mind's around.

 

do you really think ron paul will ever be president of the united states?

i'd like to have a direct yes or no reply to this, but i doubt you'll be able to give a straight answer, no paultards have just said, "yes", so far and i've asked many times

 

Just so you know I did notice how you edited "no paultards have just said, "yes"" in there. Nice touch.

But to your original question, yes. Most of us "paultards" would have expected you to be able to gather at least that much from what we have said.

 

Im willing to bet that if you follow the money further, you will find yourself at the Rothschilds...

Im not normally a betting man.

 

does that mean you're saying yes, you think ron paul will be the next president of the united states?

an answer like, "yes, i think ron paul will be the next president of the united states" will make your answer less ambiguous

 

4 if dujacs nonsense got taken out of this thread, it would shrink down to one page.

 

is that supposed to add relevant info to the discussion?

 

Talking about RP is senseless, he's a freaky broken clock that is correct twice a day and worthless otherwise. He can't carry a credible dialog whenever asked about the average Joe and the problems being faced my most people, he just goes blank! He get's that look on his face of 'uh oh' which way can I run!' just like he did about HIS bigotese newsletter. No wonder so many con-voluted think he's anything more than forgettable.

 

Sumner Redstone, owner of national amusements, born Rothstein, a Rothschild. Family changed the name when he was 17.

Brian L. Roberts, Comcast. There is a Rockefeller daughter who took the last name Roberts. Have tried and tried, but cannot seem to find out who she married. Ann Clark Rockefeller Roberts. Maybe related, maybe not.

The Johnson Family. Fidelity. Would love to have access to a family tree of these cats. There are Fidelity Johnson's(Investments). SC Johnson and son(Cleaning products). Johnson and Johnson(medical). Considering it takes money to make money, and all 3 took off in late 19th and early 20th century, one would think they would have to share a common ancestor.

Rupert Murdoch. Not a Rothschild.

Time-Warner??????????????

You will find most of these families were at one time as poor as anyone else. We were all cavemen at one time. Families who had an entrepreneur for a patriarch in the early 20th century are extremely lucky today, for back then opportunities were endless. I encourage you to really read up on families with wealth. It is really interesting stuff. It is easy for families to hide wealth through vast heirs and trust funds, so no telling how much older blood have. Families such as Du Ponts, Rockefellers and Rothschilds. I'm sure one day the relatives of Waltons and Gates will be able to claim on their tax forms 10 million. LOL. Such is the nature of the beast. Most enterprises, firms and endeavors are started by someone new to the game, the consolidation coming when that new comer wants to "cash in" and sells to greater wealth. One thing is for certain, media is not genuine. I would never argue that. There is definitely a global plot, or agenda so to speak, for one world. America must fall for the world to rise, and they are ensuring it. At this point however, we must realize for all the mantras of "wealth isn't a zero sum game", when the same globalists have committees on "sustainable growth", we must get control of our nation back or be screwed eternal. I am a capitalist. But if the richest man in the room isn't a nationalist, we would be wise to not leave him in control of our nation.

 

And your idiocy knows no bounds. Saying YES is clear. Yes, I think Ron Paul will be the next president of the United States.

 

clarifying an answer isn't idiocy, especially with youngsters that don't seem to understand how to make a clear, unambiguous statement

if you had just answered yes, it would have been clear, but you didn't do that

finally, a clear assertion

i can't help but wonder what excuses you'll make when ron is not elected

 

Oh look, you're wrong again.

 

how was i wrong?

 

Do I really need to spell it out for you? You said that I didn't answer with a simple yes. I clearly did. That is how you were wrong.

 

i said, "if you had just answered yes"

by the counter's estimation, there are 47 words in the following post, that's not just a yes or even a simple yes, it's muddied water

 

Huckabee won Iowa in 2008, so why is anyone concerned about who wins Iowa in 2012?

 

And your troll status is officially solidified.

I count approximately 4 sentences here. 1 of which pertained to your question. "But to your original question, yes." Now, the "But to your original question" part of that sentence was to add additional clarification to my answer. The "yes" part of the sentence is all you needed to understand my answer which is the same as answering "just yes". Even a young child is able to understand such simple grammar.

I'm done with you now. You have clearly shown that you are a troll or incredibly ignorant. In either case you have no place posting here. You can read all you want but to constantly argue semantics and post off topic is trolling.

 

i went through this with kids like you in 2007, when ron's campaign failed, they tried to wiggle out of what they'd said

despite your protests, my attempts at clarification are reasonable and necessary

good riddance, you've shown that you don't know what you're talking about

 

Ron Paul is winning, so Iowa doesn't matter [long version]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soHAOVZzXtA"]Ron Paul is winning, so Iowa doesn't matter [long version] - YouTube[/ame]

 

of course he is unelectable. Folks want a turd who promises free crap and easy answers. Then they want to complain that everything remains expensive and life remains so hard.

 

This video should show everyone, whether a RP supporter or not, that the media is playing them.

I'll be curious to watch the view count on YouTube for this one. It needs to be seen by everyone, especially Iowans.

Note that as of now the count is 343 views.

 

I agree. People who have been manipulated by the media into despising Ron Paul will be happy about this biased reporting because it `helps them` but sooner or later this same media will come back to haunt them.
America should send these media-barons a message this election and vote Ron Paul!

 

If people start waking up to this, it will only be bad news for any media darling. They will get painted with the same brush.

Talk about blowback...LOL

 

do you really think everyone that despises ron paul, has been manipulated into by media influence?

maybe it's showing how media is playing you