PDA

View Full Version : Ron Paul (2010-2011)



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7

Rantaak
16th December 2011, 07:13
"This video is private"...

daledo
16th December 2011, 07:58
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zGCdHelRvE

Rantaak
16th December 2011, 09:08
Well they have their definition of Zionism a bit backwards but what can you expect?

RON PAUL 2012!!!

Lochinvar
16th December 2011, 11:39
The two things I like most about Ron Paul is that he wants America to stop harassing and murdering people in the rest of the world and that he wants to stop the war on drugs. I think getting rid of the Fed is a good plan but I don't know whether it can be accomplished.

Is there a war on drugs? Addicts in my town are still shooting up. Afghanistan still grows poppies despite the UK taxpayer being charged 10's (maybe 100's) of millions of pounds for the crop to be destroyed. Does anybody know what the US taxpayer is being charged (maybe the US GAO know from the checks that they do)?

Unified Serenity
16th December 2011, 13:18
The two things I like most about Ron Paul is that he wants America to stop harassing and murdering people in the rest of the world and that he wants to stop the war on drugs. I think getting rid of the Fed is a good plan but I don't know whether it can be accomplished.

Is there a war on drugs? Addicts in my town are still shooting up. Afghanistan still grows poppies despite the UK taxpayer being charged 10's (maybe 100's) of millions of pounds for the crop to be destroyed. Does anybody know what the US taxpayer is being charged (maybe the US GAO know from the checks that they do)?

Yes, the war on drugs is just as successful as the war on poverty. Both empower the government to run our lives, steal our liberties, and justify it all through security, safety, and caring for those unable to care for themselves. (insert disgusted look on my face)

jimmer
16th December 2011, 14:33
pure b.s.
I know, let's make friends with Iran.
wishful thinking can be dangerous.
isolationism has always backfired.

Unified Serenity
16th December 2011, 14:36
Isolationism is NOT what RP recommends. I don't even see how you can say this after watching this video.

Unified Serenity
16th December 2011, 14:47
I just posted a new thread dealing with proven conspiracies. This one which I am about to share deals exactly with the things RP talks about that create "blow back".


21. The CIA Assassinates A Lot of People (Church Committee) (http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_nwo102.htm)

The Church Committee is the common term referring to the United States Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities, a U.S. Senate committee chaired by Senator Frank Church in 1975.



A precursor to the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, the committee investigated intelligence gathering for illegality by the CIA and FBI after certain activities had been revealed by the Watergate affair.



The Committee uncovered, among many other things, that the CIA had violated its charter to perform only gathering of intelligence.

For example, the assassinations of Allende in Chile and Mossadegh in Iran. Assassinations against Central and South American leaders and revolutionaries, as well as Africa, Middle East and East Asia. The list was tremendous.



They even declassified a “Heart Attack Gun” the Agency had made for the use of killing someone without it being detected. Cancer, car accidents, skiing accidents, suicide, boating accidents, heart attacks, and just plain being shot were common assassination methods. The hearings, although recorded in full in congressional record, the mainstream media and official policies, is still largely not taught in American schools on recent history.



The American public still has no idea this was ever actually confirmed or even took place. It is common for people to still refer to any of these assassinations as a joke or made up conspiracy.

Watch "Secrets of The CIA".




We continue to do such actions, we use our military in pre-emptive wars and kills over a million Iraqis. How the hell would you feel if some country just marked into your state and started killing Americans, patrolling your streets, harassing your neighbors and family? I would imagine if your government would not put a stop to it, that you might take up arms and practice gorilla warfare, and you would be called a terrorist. We have done this for decades, and terrorist organizations have used these actions as their biggest recruiting tool.

Iran is NOT a thread to us militarily.

Lochinvar
16th December 2011, 15:31
The two things I like most about Ron Paul is that he wants America to stop harassing and murdering people in the rest of the world and that he wants to stop the war on drugs. I think getting rid of the Fed is a good plan but I don't know whether it can be accomplished.

Is there a war on drugs? Addicts in my town are still shooting up. Afghanistan still grows poppies despite the UK taxpayer being charged 10's (maybe 100's) of millions of pounds for the crop to be destroyed. Does anybody know what the US taxpayer is being charged (maybe the US GAO know from the checks that they do)?

Yes, the war on drugs is just as successful as the war on poverty. Both empower the government to run our lives, steal our liberties, and justify it all through security, safety, and caring for those unable to care for themselves. (insert disgusted look on my face)

People have been voting for hundreds of years for a fairer distribution of wealth (and often their party gets into power). Rarely, if ever, is wealth more fairly distributed though. Voting looks to me to be a relinquishment of an individuals power. Maybe if people want something they have never had before they will have to do something they have never done before.

alienHunter
16th December 2011, 15:58
pure b.s.
I know, let's make friends with Iran.
wishful thinking can be dangerous.
isolationism has always backfired.

Innocent people are routinely sent to the death chamber based on bad information, yet, the feeling is 'oh well, no system is perfect, a little collateral damage is to be expected.' You're right...total bullsh*t.

I am quickly becoming disgusted with what I have found here...

Unified Serenity
16th December 2011, 16:00
I'm equally disgusted with the message some try to claim regarding RP's positions. Twisting of words and messages given in simple truth is rather disgusting.



pure b.s.
I know, let's make friends with Iran.
wishful thinking can be dangerous.
isolationism has always backfired.

Innocent people are routinely sent to the death chamber based on bad information, yet, the feeling is 'oh well, no system is perfect, a little collateral damage is to be expected.' You're right...total bullsh*t.

I am quickly becoming disgusted with what I have found here...

alienHunter
16th December 2011, 16:02
I'm equally disgusted with the message some try to claim regarding RP's positions. Twisting of words and messages given in simple truth is rather disgusting.



pure b.s.
I know, let's make friends with Iran.
wishful thinking can be dangerous.
isolationism has always backfired.

Innocent people are routinely sent to the death chamber based on bad information, yet, the feeling is 'oh well, no system is perfect, a little collateral damage is to be expected.' You're right...total bullsh*t.

I am quickly becoming disgusted with what I have found here...

The most valuable skill we have is to be able to read between the lines.

Arrowwind
16th December 2011, 16:26
Well Ron Paul is moving up in opinion amongst a lot of people


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=V_eqYB7h85c (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=V_eqYB7h85c)

norman
16th December 2011, 16:36
Hey, let's not be isolationist!........let's get in our bombers and go meet and greet people...sheesh.....

Arrowwind
16th December 2011, 16:52
The Great What IF Speech

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rn8jNdnGqYQ=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rn8jNdnGqYQ&feature=related)

Arrowwind
16th December 2011, 17:09
Ron Paul Is the Quentiessential Physician for he understands that true health can only be born out of mental, emotional and physical freedom... these essential freedoms guaranteed to us within our constitution.

risveglio
16th December 2011, 17:13
If you are convinced that Ron Paul is at least going to "try" to fix things then today is a day when he could really use your help.

Donate if you can, any amount will help. http://www.ronpaul2012.com/

Arrowwind
16th December 2011, 17:20
Ron Paul challenges Obama and the UN regarding UN resolutions and Nato to start wars

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v==relmfu (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhIASI6ONtw&feature=relmfu)

Arrowwind
16th December 2011, 17:25
:wave: Having difficulty posting links here.

risveglio
16th December 2011, 17:33
:wave: Having difficulty posting links here.

mhIASI6ONtw

NancyV
16th December 2011, 17:39
Ron Paul, in my opinion, is right in what he says in many way and the What If video is inspiring, but:

What if he is a visionary, ahead of his time?
What if he is ignoring human nature and the almost certain probability that human nature will not change?
What if the US becomes more isolationist, who will step into that void? China or Russia most likely.
What if the world then comes under the domination of China or Russia when the US becomes a lesser power?
What if their human rights violations are even worse than the human rights violations of the US?

I consider Ron Paul's foreign policy ideas to be dangerous. In an ideal world we could all just get along, but that is not going to happen any time soon. Reality often sucks and in the case of world politics, wars, etc. it sucks big time. Radical Islam has been engaged in wars of conquest for a couple of thousand years. Communism has been engaged in conquest and oppression for not quite 200 years. Fascism is equally dangerous. We ignore these realities at our peril. Anyone who thinks these dangers don't exist or can be ignored and avoided needs to study history.

Our aspirations towards peace and love will only work on an individual level. We can attempt to influence others, BUT we will not change human nature. Humans (mostly men) are a warlike species who have engaged in wars of conquest and subjugation of others as far back as we have records of history.

alienHunter
16th December 2011, 17:41
Ron Paul, in my opinion, is right in what he says in many way and the What If video is inspiring, but:

What if he is a visionary, ahead of his time?
What if he is ignoring human nature and the almost certain probability that human nature will not change?
What if the US becomes more isolationist, who will step into that void? China or Russia most likely.
What if the world then comes under the domination of China or Russia when the US becomes a lesser power?
What if their human rights violations are even worse than the human rights violations of the US?

I consider Ron Paul's foreign policy ideas to be dangerous. In an ideal world we could all just get along, but that is not going to happen any time soon. Reality often sucks and in the case of world politics, wars, etc. it sucks big time. Radical Islam has been engaged in wars of conquest for a couple of thousand years. Communism has been engaged in conquest and oppression for not quite 200 years. Fascism is equally dangerous. We ignore these realities at our peril. Anyone who thinks these dangers don't exist or can be ignored and avoided needs to study history.

Our aspirations towards peace and love will only work on an individual level. We can attempt to influence others, BUT we will not change human nature. Humans (mostly men) are a warlike species who have engaged in wars of conquest and subjugation of others as far back as we have records of history.

I agree, but that's not my real problem. My problem is that Paul's vision applies only to those who are at the same spiritual, emotional, physical, and philosophical level as he. He is a very, very ugly human being.

risveglio
16th December 2011, 17:50
Ron Paul, in my opinion, is right in what he says in many way and the What If video is inspiring, but:

What if he is a visionary, ahead of his time?
What if he is ignoring human nature and the almost certain probability that human nature will not change?
What if the US becomes more isolationist, who will step into that void? China or Russia most likely.
What if the world then comes under the domination of China or Russia when the US becomes a lesser power?
What if their human rights violations are even worse than the human rights violations of the US?

I consider Ron Paul's foreign policy ideas to be dangerous. In an ideal world we could all just get along, but that is not going to happen any time soon. Reality often sucks and in the case of world politics, wars, etc. it sucks big time. Radical Islam has been engaged in wars of conquest for a couple of thousand years. Communism has been engaged in conquest and oppression for not quite 200 years. Fascism is equally dangerous. We ignore these realities at our peril. Anyone who thinks these dangers don't exist or can be ignored and avoided needs to study history.

Our aspirations towards peace and love will only work on an individual level. We can attempt to influence others, BUT we will not change human nature. Humans (mostly men) are a warlike species who have engaged in wars of conquest and subjugation of others as far back as we have records of history.

I think the US foreign policy over the last 50+ years is far more dangerous.


I agree, but that's not my real problem. My problem is that Paul's vision applies only to those who are at the same spiritual, emotional, physical, and philosophical level as he. He is a very, very ugly human being.

There is absolutely no truth in this statement, but you still believe the left/right bull****.

Jeffrey
16th December 2011, 17:55
Thanks Unified Serenity! War is not the answer! Fighting fire with fire, really? Okay, my country verses your country. We are the good guys and they are the bad guys (and vice versa for the opposition ;)). Now, if we kill more of them, we win. If they kill more of us, they win. Yeah, let's go! That's like smokey the bear telling everyone "Only you can prevent forest fires ... and here is your tool, it's a lighter". Uhhh... duh? Wait, wait, I have another one.. Hey, these bees will sting us if we don't go in and kick their hive! Yeah, death to the bees!

alienHunter
16th December 2011, 17:55
"There is absolutely no truth in this statement, but you still believe the left/right bull****."

Truthfully, I'm a quick study in some regards. I've considered everything that I've read and heard and arrived back at my original conclusion. But I will say this, my life would not change under a Paul regime...yours might and I highly suspect you would not like the result. I don't wish harm or unhappiness on anyone so all I would add is "Be Careful what you ask for!"

alienHunter
16th December 2011, 17:59
Thanks Unified Serenity! War is not the answer! Fighting fire with fire, really? Okay, my country verses your country. We are the good guys and they are the bad guys (and vice versa for the opposition ;)). Now, if we kill more of them, we win. If they kill more of us, they win. Yeah, let's go! That's like smokey the bear telling everyone "Only you can prevent forest fires ... and here is your tool, it's a lighter". Uhhh... duh? Wait, wait, I have another one.. Hey, these bees will sting us if we don't go in a kick their hive! Death to the bees!

Paul is no less the warmonger...his armament is very different, though. He calls it the free market. I have to get out of here.

risveglio
16th December 2011, 18:05
Truthfully, I'm a quick study in some regards. I've considered everything that I've read and heard and arrived back at my original conclusion. But I will say this, my life would not change under a Paul regime...yours might and I highly suspect you would not like the result. I don't wish harm or unhappiness on anyone so all I would add is "Be Careful what you ask for!"

Ah Alien, you are an American citizen so your world would change drastically. The QE infinity would end if James Grant was running the Fed and if nothing else was done about our monetary policy, at least you would be able to buy for $1 in 2013, the same amount of product as in 2017. That has not been true for any other 4 year period in a long time. This alone would help the poor drastically.

I ask for freedom. Let me succeed and fail on my own merit with help of my family and community. But not because some entity with the threat of force can take from others or choose who wins or not. Maybe sometime in the future we can do this without government at all, but now, I would rather try with less than more.

risveglio
16th December 2011, 18:10
Paul is no less the warmonger...his armament is very different, though. He calls it the free market. I have to get out of here.

Ah there it is, Kruschchev was right, “Your children will live under communism.”

The free market is not evil, it is not war, it is not something we have tried in over a century. Free Markets are true freedom and it is the lack of the "free market" that has destroyed our economy and most in the world.

Unified Serenity
16th December 2011, 19:14
Ron Paul, in my opinion, is right in what he says in many way and the What If video is inspiring, but:

What if he is a visionary, ahead of his time?
What if he is ignoring human nature and the almost certain probability that human nature will not change?
What if the US becomes more isolationist, who will step into that void? China or Russia most likely.
What if the world then comes under the domination of China or Russia when the US becomes a lesser power?
What if their human rights violations are even worse than the human rights violations of the US?

I consider Ron Paul's foreign policy ideas to be dangerous. In an ideal world we could all just get along, but that is not going to happen any time soon. Reality often sucks and in the case of world politics, wars, etc. it sucks big time. Radical Islam has been engaged in wars of conquest for a couple of thousand years. Communism has been engaged in conquest and oppression for not quite 200 years. Fascism is equally dangerous. We ignore these realities at our peril. Anyone who thinks these dangers don't exist or can be ignored and avoided needs to study history.

Our aspirations towards peace and love will only work on an individual level. We can attempt to influence others, BUT we will not change human nature. Humans (mostly men) are a warlike species who have engaged in wars of conquest and subjugation of others as far back as we have records of history.

I agree, but that's not my real problem. My problem is that Paul's vision applies only to those who are at the same spiritual, emotional, physical, and philosophical level as he. He is a very, very ugly human being.

I absolutely have no idea where you get your ideas from to say this about RP. Please site some video where RP says anything that shows this mentality.

baddbob
16th December 2011, 19:31
On December 16, 2007 - the anniversary of the 1773 Boston Tea Party - my grassroots supporters shocked the political world by raising over $6 million in one single day.

Just over two weeks from now, the American people will start heading to the polls, and I need your help to keep reaching as many of them with our message of freedom as possible.

My campaign has set a goal of raising $4 million today, and I'm confident we can reach it with your generous support.

https://secure.ronpaul2012.com/?sr=28-1216b

ghostrider
16th December 2011, 19:35
RP saw the housing bubble coming no one listened, and saw the monetary problem coming, no one listened. he has been consistently right on...his electiom could undo a lot of damage that has been done by the war machine and the corporation machine...

alienHunter
16th December 2011, 19:55
Actually Risveglio, Here it is, not there.

Pope John Paul II stated that humanity was at a level in their development where they should be able to transcend their animal natures and do what is right for the world. First and foremost, he believed that we have the ability to conquer hunger in the world but it simply wasn't being done for lack of caring.

Tell me how Ron Paul will help my vision of a better world come to pass?

and if you would like to argue the point, let's assume, even concede that you've convinced me that it is the statement that matters not the man issuing it.

risveglio
16th December 2011, 20:08
Actually Risveglio, Here it is, not there.

Pope John Paul II stated that humanity was at a level in their development where they should be able to transcend their animal natures and do what is right for the world. First and foremost, he believed that we have the ability to conquer hunger in the world but it simply wasn't being done for lack of caring.

Tell me how Ron Paul will help my vision of a better world come to pass?

Cause Ron Paul wouldn't give you the illusion that someone else is taking care of it. So you and every other person that wanted to help feed the world would feel more inclined to help. Let me ask you, why don't we have this better world vision now? We have had big government now for decades, yet there are more poor, more countries starving, more people being robbed of there freedoms. Seems we know governments don't work. Might as well give free markets a try.

People that attack free markets are either scared to be free, which I understand, we here in the US have been taught you can't do it on your own. Or they don't understand what it means to have a free market.

We do not have free markets now. It was not free markets that created huge companies with no possibility to compete.

If you are really open, give Milton Friedman's Free to Choose a watch. It is readily available in pieces on the internet and though I don't agree with Friedman on everything, he does explain free markets very well and shows example after example of how true capitalism has been responsible for taking more people out of poverty than anything else we have ever tried. Tossing away capitalism because of what the US and Europe has done to it is wrong. It is just as wrong as throwing out all the teachings of Jesus because of what the Church has done in his name. That is truly evil.

alienHunter
16th December 2011, 21:10
Actually Risveglio, Here it is, not there.

Pope John Paul II stated that humanity was at a level in their development where they should be able to transcend their animal natures and do what is right for the world. First and foremost, he believed that we have the ability to conquer hunger in the world but it simply wasn't being done for lack of caring.

Tell me how Ron Paul will help my vision of a better world come to pass?

Cause Ron Paul wouldn't give you the illusion that someone else is taking care of it. So you and every other person that wanted to help feed the world would feel more inclined to help. Let me ask you, why don't we have this better world vision now? We have had big government now for decades, yet there are more poor, more countries starving, more people being robbed of there freedoms. Seems we know governments don't work. Might as well give free markets a try.

People that attack free markets are either scared to be free, which I understand, we here in the US have been taught you can't do it on your own. Or they don't understand what it means to have a free market.

We do not have free markets now. It was not free markets that created huge companies with no possibility to compete.

If you are really open, give Milton Friedman's Free to Choose a watch. It is readily available in pieces on the internet and though I don't agree with Friedman on everything, he does explain free markets very well and shows example after example of how true capitalism has been responsible for taking more people out of poverty than anything else we have ever tried. Tossing away capitalism because of what the US and Europe has done to it is wrong. It is just as wrong as throwing out all the teachings of Jesus because of what the Church has done in his name. That is truly evil.

The primary reason is because we still operate at the animal level...some more than others.

I would never attack free markets...it's all in the implementation. Free markets are obviously part and parcel to the concept of freedom and though I hate to stoop so low to say... to Americanism. Again I am cool with that. But we have seen what capitalists will do without hesitation under the auspices of a 'free market'. A free market is not always free but it is always a market and when that is coupled with 'animals' the product is not always pretty.

I actually lean to Krugman, of course...but I will check Friedman at a more in depth level...but again, current conditions in tandem with good old common sense should always take precedence over philosophy. Even Socrates has had interpreters with very different perspectives based on the prevailing condition of their era. Nothing is static, nor so beyond philosophical approach/reproach that it shouldn't be tempered with contemporary reason.

I wanted to add that I think Plato was an asshole.

Unified Serenity
16th December 2011, 21:14
alien hunter, why don't you back up what you say? You make outlandish statements about RP and when pressed for some proof you ignore it and then pose some other argument or question. You know, I read somewhere that that is a tactic for a disinfo agent. Are you a disinfo agent Alien Hunter?

alienHunter
16th December 2011, 21:19
alien hunter, why don't you back up what you say? You make outlandish statements about RP and when pressed for some proof you ignore it and then pose some other argument or question. You know, I read somewhere that that is a tactic for a disinfo agent. Are you a disinfo agent Alien Hunter?

Yes, Unified, I am a disinfo agent. My goal is to deny all the good things attributed to him as mere propaganda. Nothing more than wishful thinking propelled by those that refuse to look into the man's heart. How am I doing?

In truth, that is my next step, if i have to sink so low. I really would prefer that people do their own research regarding the man's history. I would also suggest that the history not be parsed or filtered merely digested whole.

risveglio
16th December 2011, 21:21
I actually lean to Krugman.

Krugman? LOL. I am sorry, I didn't realize you were joking the entire time.

http://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials_08/images/berwick092011b.jpg

alienHunter
16th December 2011, 21:23
I actually lean to Krugman.

Krugman? LOL. I am sorry, I didn't realize you were joking the entire time.

http://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials_08/images/berwick092011b.jpg

Risveglio,

Do you really believe he said that?

Unified Serenity
16th December 2011, 21:27
AH, You have offered no history, no proof, but keep making false statements, and when shown the proof you can't even comment, you just come back later with another outlandish statement. So, yes, I see that you are here to lie about a man who has the best voting record, has stood by his beliefs his entire career, and there is nothing they can lay on him that shows him to be a liar. From now on, I will ignore anything you have to say about RP except rebut with proof that you are lying about him.

Respectfully,

Serenity



alien hunter, why don't you back up what you say? You make outlandish statements about RP and when pressed for some proof you ignore it and then pose some other argument or question. You know, I read somewhere that that is a tactic for a disinfo agent. Are you a disinfo agent Alien Hunter?

Yes, Unified, I am a disinfo agent. My goal is to deny all the good things attributed to him as mere propaganda. Nothing more than wishful thinking propelled by those that refuse to look into the man's heart. How am I doing?

In truth, that is my next step, if i have to sink so low. I really would prefer that people do their own research regarding the man's history. I would also suggest that the history not be parsed or filtered merely digested whole.

risveglio
16th December 2011, 21:28
I wouldn't put it past him. There is an amazingly long list of stupid things Krugman has said, including suggesting we have a fake alien invasion.

alienHunter
16th December 2011, 21:29
I wouldn't put it past him. There is an amazingly long list of stupid things Krugman has said, including suggesting we have a fake alien invasion.

actually, i just checked he did say that and in retrospect that is pretty stupid with a capital S. But the statement was made out of context...for whatever that's worth. I suspect that most Nobel winners are not usually that dumb. A little thought would suggest to me...that his definition of a bubble is expansive growth. A real one, not one predicated on speculative economic machinations like derivatives.

risveglio
16th December 2011, 21:32
I actually lean to Krugman.

Krugman? LOL. I am sorry, I didn't realize you were joking the entire time.

http://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials_08/images/berwick092011b.jpg


Risveglio,

Do you really believe he said that?

Yeah, I do. Here is the proof.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/02/opinion/dubya-s-double-dip.html?pagewanted=1

alienHunter
16th December 2011, 21:39
Unified,

I feel somewhat gratified that you are no longer paying attention to me, so you won't read this response to my lack of responses to your 'proof'. I see it as ridiculous propaganda. I have seen a number of at least somewhat partial pundits comment on his adherence to principle and go on to comment that it is a good thing. But Adolph Hitler was a stickler for principle as well. I've also seen and read those that go straight to the HEART of what I've been trying to impart in the least strident and offensive manner possible. But I haven't seen any of those comments appear in your 'proof'.

daledo
16th December 2011, 22:11
"There is absolutely no truth in this statement, but you still believe the left/right bull****."

Truthfully, I'm a quick study in some regards. I've considered everything that I've read and heard and arrived back at my original conclusion. But I will say this, my life would not change under a Paul regime...yours might and I highly suspect you would not like the result. I don't wish harm or unhappiness on anyone so all I would add is "Be Careful what you ask for!"

The system is flawed and the policy of we got to get them before they get us is creating terrorists against america... why cant you see this? Once you finally come to the conclusion that everything the gov't cronies tell us is a lie or spun to get support for their agenda of world domination and the NWO... you just MIGHT come around, and I hope you do. Why do you think that the controlled mass media ignore Dr. Paul like he is invisible? It is because they are paid to do this because their NWO controllers say to take this approach.

Please, instead of spreading lies and propoganda against Ron Paul, ... just drink the tainted water, the GM foods they allow you to eat, and get on the front lines of the fake terrorist propaganda instead of supporting sending others to their deaths, and refrain from swaying people to vote for the only honest candidate running.

You may be correct in saying you life might not change under Paul as president... but with any other world domination NWO president I can assure you that we will be in WW3 and your life WILL change then.

We have been headed down a very dark path for many years now and it gets worse almost every day, their control over the population is growing and our freedoms have been eroding for decades. I am tired of how things are run, and we need a change in regime. You may be happy with what you read and see with main stream media... I just don't see how you can.

dreamer
16th December 2011, 22:13
don't worry Avalon, not all houstonians see RP in this twisted view, he has lots of love from Houston, and if you disagree, start a thread, don't argue your point on a pro-Ron Paul thread...

Jeffrey
16th December 2011, 22:17
don't worry Avalon, not all houstonians see RP in this twisted view, he has lots of love from Houston, and if you disagree, start a thread, don't argue your point on a pro-Ron Paul thread...

I'm with you man, but you can't tell me that Ron Paul's enthusiastic base of support would shy away from posting on an anti-RP thread!

baddbob
16th December 2011, 22:18
alienHunter no disrespect here by me saying this but please go and find a better candidate and post your results. i will gladly debate you on it. To me I can just look at the candidate's and see the lies that are behind them its in there eyes,its in the way they stand,the way they smile at you when you know deep down in your heart that they are lying.Maybe its just me but you know they are worthless when they support the same things over and over again and thats why we are in the mess we are in I as an American want it stopped! Im not falling for the same ole same ole cause that does not work and we as Americans have years and years of proof just for example in vietnam most of our soldiers didnt even know why they were fighting.We need to get our house in order before we can start to care for someone else we are hurting over here and we need change! Its time for us to change the chanel because the same ole story isnt working the world has changed we need to get rid of the old way of thinking because that thought has passed.Its not the rich bastards that it effects its our young generation This country was based on the costitution thats what they have to go buy and thats why they are voting for Ron Paul they see him as a father figure who is looking out for them and doesnt care about other countries when his people are in such trouble.

Unified Serenity
16th December 2011, 22:27
don't worry Avalon, not all houstonians see RP in this twisted view, he has lots of love from Houston, and if you disagree, start a thread, don't argue your point on a pro-Ron Paul thread...

I'm with you man, but you can't tell me that Ron Paul's enthusiastic base of support would shy away from posting on an anti-RP thread!

Sheepishly grins and knows you are right, but from all my encounters of RP fans, we at least back up what we say with facts, and not just spout off thougts as if they are facts because we said so. We have the videos and years of facts to back up that RP says what he means, does what he says, and follows the constituion FIRST LAST and ALWAYS!

NancyV
16th December 2011, 22:35
Ron Paul, in my opinion, is right in what he says in many way and the What If video is inspiring, but:

What if he is a visionary, ahead of his time?
What if he is ignoring human nature and the almost certain probability that human nature will not change?
What if the US becomes more isolationist, who will step into that void? China or Russia most likely.
What if the world then comes under the domination of China or Russia when the US becomes a lesser power?
What if their human rights violations are even worse than the human rights violations of the US?

I consider Ron Paul's foreign policy ideas to be dangerous. In an ideal world we could all just get along, but that is not going to happen any time soon. Reality often sucks and in the case of world politics, wars, etc. it sucks big time. Radical Islam has been engaged in wars of conquest for a couple of thousand years. Communism has been engaged in conquest and oppression for not quite 200 years. Fascism is equally dangerous. We ignore these realities at our peril. Anyone who thinks these dangers don't exist or can be ignored and avoided needs to study history.

Our aspirations towards peace and love will only work on an individual level. We can attempt to influence others, BUT we will not change human nature. Humans (mostly men) are a warlike species who have engaged in wars of conquest and subjugation of others as far back as we have records of history.

I agree, but that's not my real problem. My problem is that Paul's vision applies only to those who are at the same spiritual, emotional, physical, and philosophical level as he. He is a very, very ugly human being.
I agree that Paul's vision only applies to those who have similar philosophies to his...and that is a minority of the population of the world. As far as being an "ugly human being"... he doesn't come across that way to me. If I were to think every naive or misguided human was ugly then it would be a huge majority of the human race. It might even include me! But I am a terrible judge of character and know I have that weakness. I find Ron Paul rather endearing in his enthusiasm, misguided as I think his foreign policy stances are. I don't think he will be successful in winning the republican nomination as he is not supported by the PTB. (which makes him a better person) Personally I don't trust any politicians, even the ones who make a lot of sense at times.

alienHunter
16th December 2011, 22:40
jeesuz, ok, Can I at least say that I think he isn't very nice...without someone suggesting I'm out to get Ron Paul...Ron Paul does not confront me at all, really. I don't argue for anyone that I don't know personally and I wouldn't argue for most of them. I only counter argue to possibly dispel the negativity that most Paul supporters (at least here) are immersed in. The words I see repeated are 'principle' (a code word for authoritarianism), traitor conspiracy (a code word for somebody has got something I don't), freedom (a code word for "I" want to decide the definition of freedom), fear...(a code word for this **** ain't going the way I want it too), big government (a code word for those goddamn freeloaders are f*cking us up), I could go on but I won't.

This is not at all what i suspected would come from a site initiated by Bill ;)Ryan...has he ever stated his opinion on subjects such as these?

alienHunter
16th December 2011, 22:49
Ron Paul, in my opinion, is right in what he says in many way and the What If video is inspiring, but:

What if he is a visionary, ahead of his time?
What if he is ignoring human nature and the almost certain probability that human nature will not change?
What if the US becomes more isolationist, who will step into that void? China or Russia most likely.
What if the world then comes under the domination of China or Russia when the US becomes a lesser power?
What if their human rights violations are even worse than the human rights violations of the US?

I consider Ron Paul's foreign policy ideas to be dangerous. In an ideal world we could all just get along, but that is not going to happen any time soon. Reality often sucks and in the case of world politics, wars, etc. it sucks big time. Radical Islam has been engaged in wars of conquest for a couple of thousand years. Communism has been engaged in conquest and oppression for not quite 200 years. Fascism is equally dangerous. We ignore these realities at our peril. Anyone who thinks these dangers don't exist or can be ignored and avoided needs to study history.

Our aspirations towards peace and love will only work on an individual level. We can attempt to influence others, BUT we will not change human nature. Humans (mostly men) are a warlike species who have engaged in wars of conquest and subjugation of others as far back as we have records of history.

I agree, but that's not my real problem. My problem is that Paul's vision applies only to those who are at the same spiritual, emotional, physical, and philosophical level as he. He is a very, very ugly human being.
I agree that Paul's vision only applies to those who have similar philosophies to his...and that is a minority of the population of the world. As far as being an "ugly human being"... he doesn't come across that way to me. If I were to think every naive or misguided human was ugly then it would be a huge majority of the human race. It might even include me! But I am a terrible judge of character and know I have that weakness. I find Ron Paul rather endearing in his enthusiasm, misguided as I think his foreign policy stances are. I don't think he will be successful in winning the republican nomination as he is not supported by the PTB. (which makes him a better person) Personally I don't trust any politicians, even the ones who make a lot of sense at times.

You are indeed a sweet person...I felt that way for the most part until I came here. His obvious propensity for extreme views concerning 'others' has always been what troubled me at the core issue. I did think he was rather quaint but judging the content of this stuff and his followers, I'm leaning to a description of 'a little troll like' creature. My Gawd, I've fallen prey to the PERCEIVED ugliness around me to a greater depth than ever before. I guess maybe I'm not only spiritually descended from ORION, hell I might have been taken over by one of those damnable reptiles.

risveglio
16th December 2011, 22:58
So somehow you think you are a better person and we are ugly because we feel that an individual needs to be self-sufficient before he can help his fellow man and woman. And, somehow, you do not see that the perceived safety net of government is what truly oppresses the individuals that you so desperately "claim" to want to help. I think you are very misguided.

The guy wants to help 'others' more than any other leader we have ever even considered before and you twist it like he only cares for his own kind. Maybe you right and you are reptile.

dreamer
16th December 2011, 23:04
not to be a smart a**, but its Bill Ryan, not Paul, if it was a typo, understood, if not, now ya know

alienHunter
16th December 2011, 23:08
:o thanks, never said I was perfect, just determined.


Risveglio...I know that was totally unfair, so here's an inner glimpse at my ugliness...

I have often felt that a nuclear cleansing might do civilization some good.

I would never ascribe the term 'better' or 'worse' in respect to human beings. I am much more inclined to view it as different and troubling for me.

alienHunter
16th December 2011, 23:13
Hey Dreamer,

You follow any blogs in the Houston area?

Jeffrey
16th December 2011, 23:13
:o thanks, never said I was perfect, just determined.


Risveglio...I know that was totally unfair, so here's an inner glimpse at my ugliness...

I have often felt that a nuclear cleansing might do civilization some good.

:suspicious:

Wow. Now that we know your implacable stance, I think maybe this "argument" (if one could even call it that...) is over.

“All bow to virtue, and then walk away." -De Finod

***EDIT FOR CLARIFICATION***

virtue |ˈvərCHo͞o| (not to be confused with ah-choo)
noun
-behavior showing high moral standards: paragons of virtue.
• a quality considered morally good or desirable in a person: patience is a virtue.
• a good or useful quality of a thing: Mike was extolling the virtues of the car | there's no virtue in suffering in silence.

Like "non-violence is a virtue".

Nuclear cleansing—bad.
Non-violence—good.

alienHunter
16th December 2011, 23:14
thank you, thank you...

Jeffrey
16th December 2011, 23:25
thank you, thank you...

Dig alienHunter, dig my friend. The human spirit unifies us as a people; beyond race, culture, and creed. Fight the good fight, not with bloodshed (i.e. nuclear cleansing), but by taking the higher path! A sword in it's sheath is a treasure beyond compare...

alienHunter
16th December 2011, 23:27
vivek,

I lost my response...very beautiful thing...yes, it is.

jackovesk
17th December 2011, 01:43
pure b.s.
I know, let's make friends with Iran.
wishful thinking can be dangerous.
isolationism has always backfired.



pure b.s.
I know, let's make friends with Iran.
wishful thinking can be dangerous.
isolationism has always backfired.

Innocent people are routinely sent to the death chamber based on bad information, yet, the feeling is 'oh well, no system is perfect, a little collateral damage is to be expected.' You're right...total bullsh*t.

I am quickly becoming disgusted with what I have found here...

Talk about being Disgusted - You 2 need to have a Good Hard Long LOOK into the Mirror, like this Bloke..!

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-T2bvohkJSaA/TiNxiHxiJAI/AAAAAAAAAJo/-f0arPa03i0/s400/episodeArt322.jpg

modwiz
17th December 2011, 01:59
Ron Paul, in my opinion, is right in what he says in many way and the What If video is inspiring, but:

What if he is a visionary, ahead of his time?
What if he is ignoring human nature and the almost certain probability that human nature will not change?
What if the US becomes more isolationist, who will step into that void? China or Russia most likely.
What if the world then comes under the domination of China or Russia when the US becomes a lesser power?
What if their human rights violations are even worse than the human rights violations of the US?

I consider Ron Paul's foreign policy ideas to be dangerous. In an ideal world we could all just get along, but that is not going to happen any time soon. Reality often sucks and in the case of world politics, wars, etc. it sucks big time. Radical Islam has been engaged in wars of conquest for a couple of thousand years. Communism has been engaged in conquest and oppression for not quite 200 years. Fascism is equally dangerous. We ignore these realities at our peril. Anyone who thinks these dangers don't exist or can be ignored and avoided needs to study history.

Our aspirations towards peace and love will only work on an individual level. We can attempt to influence others, BUT we will not change human nature. Humans (mostly men) are a warlike species who have engaged in wars of conquest and subjugation of others as far back as we have records of history.

Pedant alert! Mohammed began to receive the Quran in 610 AD, with the actual religion taking form some time later. 1400 years ago. At 1500 years you could technically round off the number to two thousand to derive your couple of thousand years. I decided to pick on you here where opinion is not the consideration. We have very different opinions on the problem of radical Islam as a planet wide problem. I do not wish to pursue what I believe to be a conversation with no resolve between us.

You are a sharp intellect. You do yourself a disservice by working with numbers (couple of thousand years) that are far off of the mark.
Must have been your passion.:p

Arc
17th December 2011, 02:01
pure b.s.
I know, let's make friends with Iran.
wishful thinking can be dangerous.
isolationism has always backfired.

Innocent people are routinely sent to the death chamber based on bad information, yet, the feeling is 'oh well, no system is perfect, a little collateral damage is to be expected.' You're right...total bullsh*t.

I am quickly becoming disgusted with what I have found here...

Ok, well, then don't come here looking... if you are so disgusted.

Not really sure what you are here, in this thread, for then (since the last "3 weeks" of your membership...) except for following all the Ron Paul threads that are posted on PA in order to add negative commentary.

Arc
17th December 2011, 02:05
This video made me cry. Truth is a beautiful thing:

XKfuS6gfxPY

Unified Serenity, I love all of your Ron Paul posts! ...same goes for jackovesk! Great posts always!

Also, I think it's a fun coincidental synchronicity that your avatar name's initials are - US.

modwiz
17th December 2011, 02:09
Unified,

I feel somewhat gratified that you are no longer paying attention to me, so you won't read this response to my lack of responses to your 'proof'. I see it as ridiculous propaganda. I have seen a number of at least somewhat partial pundits comment on his adherence to principle and go on to comment that it is a good thing. But Adolph Hitler was a stickler for principle as well. I've also seen and read those that go straight to the HEART of what I've been trying to impart in the least strident and offensive manner possible. But I haven't seen any of those comments appear in your 'proof'.

Adolf Hitler in an argument? That is desperate emotional button pressing. Invoking him is always an abdication of an honest pursuit of substance. It means your quiver is empty.

modwiz
17th December 2011, 02:12
don't worry Avalon, not all houstonians see RP in this twisted view, he has lots of love from Houston, and if you disagree, start a thread, don't argue your point on a pro-Ron Paul thread...

Making a case against a subject with invective, and Adolf Hitler allusions, is far easier than actually saying something.

Did ET fart in here?

modwiz
17th December 2011, 02:16
don't worry Avalon, not all houstonians see RP in this twisted view, he has lots of love from Houston, and if you disagree, start a thread, don't argue your point on a pro-Ron Paul thread...

I'm with you man, but you can't tell me that Ron Paul's enthusiastic base of support would shy away from posting on an anti-RP thread!

If they stayed away there would be almost nobody in it. I'm am against politicians in general. RP is almost looking like a non politician. Sure is a likeable guy with a very human track record. If I vote, and he is there, it will be for him.

An anti-Ron Paul thread would be like Redezra's bible thread. Just him posting......almost.

jackovesk
17th December 2011, 02:19
pure b.s.
I know, let's make friends with Iran.
wishful thinking can be dangerous.
isolationism has always backfired.



Unified,

I feel somewhat gratified that you are no longer paying attention to me, so you won't read this response to my lack of responses to your 'proof'. I see it as ridiculous propaganda. I have seen a number of at least somewhat partial pundits comment on his adherence to principle and go on to comment that it is a good thing. But Adolph Hitler was a stickler for principle as well. I've also seen and read those that go straight to the HEART of what I've been trying to impart in the least strident and offensive manner possible. But I haven't seen any of those comments appear in your 'proof'.

Adolf Hitler in an argument? That is desperate emotional button pressing. Invoking him is always an abdication of an honest pursuit of substance. It means your quiver is empty.

It means your quiver is empty.

:bump:

Jeffrey
17th December 2011, 02:29
don't worry Avalon, not all houstonians see RP in this twisted view, he has lots of love from Houston, and if you disagree, start a thread, don't argue your point on a pro-Ron Paul thread...

I'm with you man, but you can't tell me that Ron Paul's enthusiastic base of support would shy away from posting on an anti-RP thread!

If they stayed away there would be almost nobody in it. I'm am against politicians in general. RP is almost looking like a non politician. Sure is a likeable guy with a very human track record. If I vote, and he is there, it will be for him.

An anti-Ron Paul thread would be like Redezra's bible thread. Just him posting......almost.


I'd agree with you there, that he's a non-politician.

politician |ˌpäləˈtiSHən|
noun
• a person who acts in a manipulative and devious way, typically to gain advancement within an organization.

As for Redezra.. I had no idea what you were talking about, so I googled it and it took me to Red Ezra's wikipedia page ... He seems like a man of integrity... :lie:

(Then I searched the forum and found the thread you were talking about. So no worries.)

jackovesk
17th December 2011, 02:37
Did ET fart in here?

Yes, and he took a another 'Cowardly Dump' and flew away..! :scared: :ufo:

Arc
17th December 2011, 02:40
pure b.s.
I know, let's make friends with Iran.
wishful thinking can be dangerous.
isolationism has always backfired.



Unified,

I feel somewhat gratified that you are no longer paying attention to me, so you won't read this response to my lack of responses to your 'proof'. I see it as ridiculous propaganda. I have seen a number of at least somewhat partial pundits comment on his adherence to principle and go on to comment that it is a good thing. But Adolph Hitler was a stickler for principle as well. I've also seen and read those that go straight to the HEART of what I've been trying to impart in the least strident and offensive manner possible. But I haven't seen any of those comments appear in your 'proof'.

Adolf Hitler in an argument? That is desperate emotional button pressing. Invoking him is always an abdication of an honest pursuit of substance. It means your quiver is empty.

It means your quiver is empty.

:bump:

The quiver seems to have been empty all along, from that direction.

This is perhaps my favorite post, from such emptiness...

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?36566-Ron-Paul-surging-in-Iowa...-impossible-to-ignore-him-now&p=377703&viewfull=1#post377703

Wow, credible question, (lol) - if Ron Paul is really a reptilian shape-shifter??

Haha. This is some top quality thought provoking material!

If I were someone with a goal of infiltrating a forum, with an agenda, maybe even political, maybe even deceptive, and was trying to blend in with folks I didn't even understand... well, I might post this kind of idea to slide some topic to where I was hoping it would go.

Let's say, for example, I wanted to use dis-info agents to discredit RP in places on the internet, where he is very credible, like on alternative forums full of folks interested in philosophical debates. Then, I might create a persona, a few months before a primary election, and start posting all contrary garbage to dissuade my enemies, who I wished to manipulate, into siding with my mainstream agenda.

Just sayin' ...

Sorry, to be so direct.

Wait - No, I'm not.

Nickolai
17th December 2011, 02:50
Guys, Hello!

I like Mr Paul. He is nice! But keeping in mind he is still alive/free - nah!
Just several nights ago Mr Wilcock was crying. Same is my opinion here. Mr Paul would be obsolete if he was a serious trouble.
They do not follow the tactic games. Ron Paul would just disappear from the arena.
Please kindly keep in mind that I like what he says just I do not believe that he is the same as he wants to appear or they would like him him to appear.

That is sad,but serves the purpose of pollarization.

Wish all of you peace and love,


Nickolai

baddbob
17th December 2011, 02:54
$2,695,316.11 almost there ;)

Arc
17th December 2011, 03:02
Guys, Hello!

I like Mr Paul. He is nice! But keeping in mind he is still alive/free - nah!
Just several nights ago Mr Wilcock was crying. Same is my opinion here. Mr Paul would be obsolete if he was a serious trouble.
They do not follow the tactic games. Ron Paul would just disappear from the arena.
Please kindly keep in mind that like what he says just I do not believe that he is the same as he wants to appear.

Nickolai

Well, I see your point. But, you have to recognize that RP is being ignored by the mainstream media mafia. What does that mean??

This is interesting, because if you are someone that the PTB want removed, from a public political scene, then you would be smeared!!!

They would dig up some dirt on any politician, as they do anyway against even there own competition. But, realize this - Why is Ron Paul ignored??? The answer is awesome!

He has NO DIRT - (to dig up on him politically).

It's like they had all of their dirt-diggers try to find anything negative on RP, but ... there is NOTHING! He is pure, and wholesome and truthful!!!

If you can't dig up any political or personal dirt - then what??

Well, then you IGNORE him (if you are his political opponent).

My analysis of the mainstream media's total blackout of RP is sooooo much to his credit!!! Because, they don't have sh!t on him, politically!! He is the real truthful article.

If he IS Truth, then the mainstream media MUST IGNORE....

Do you see it now, folks???

modwiz
17th December 2011, 03:15
Guys, Hello!

I like Mr Paul. He is nice! But keeping in mind he is still alive/free - nah!
Just several nights ago Mr Wilcock was crying. Same is my opinion here. Mr Paul would be obsolete if he was a serious trouble.
They do not follow the tactic games. Ron Paul would just disappear from the arena.
Please kindly keep in mind that I like what he says just I do not believe that he is the same as he wants to appear or they would like him him to appear.

That is sad,but serves the purpose of pollarization.

Wish all of you peace and love,


Nickolai

So, you are linking David and Ron Paul in the wet your pants category. Trying for a two-fer I see. That is, you are saying each of these two people will run when the going gets tough. You are saying they are pusillanimous . I would disagree with your statement.

Wishing us peace and love with a gloved fist.

Well folks, RP opponents are many and varied. He must be scaring the bejeezus out of the criminal class because they are sending them in here big time.

Nickolai
17th December 2011, 03:29
Well,

Mr Modwiz, I have not said someone would run. Have I? I just said that he seem to be very inproper for the country that killed presidents (!!!) with lots of safeguards around. That's it!
And what about "a two-fer"? No googling helps...(((
I feel compassion towards David, but then again, something felt not right about it.

N.

ps
Sorry, guys! Just fantasized...:)
David talked about gold... Does it matter to those in power?
I guess that if I am one of the Rotschild, I just would present my debit card to the shop and no question asked. Why gold? Am I stupid or what? I do not think the question of money relates to the family. It is all about power, am I wrong?

Help!SOS!

modwiz
17th December 2011, 03:56
Well,

Mr Modwiz, I have not said someone would run. Have I? I just said that he seem to be very inproper for the country that killed presidents (!!!) with lots of safeguards around. That's it!
And what about "a two-fer"? No googling helps...(((
I feel compassion towards David, but then again, something felt not right about it.

N.

You said disappear. I said run. I was working with implications because that is a way to deny having said something. Now, English might not be your primary language, in which case it would be unkind of me to assert language nuances. I still have my intuition about things.

A two-fer is a situation where you get two for (fer) one. A two-fer. In this case the two-fer was putting David and Ron Paul in a similar case scenario. One where disappearance is a part of a reaction to 'serious trouble'.

David had a brush with the real world recently. He has led an insular existence, which is no crime. He has his back covered by the right kind of people. There is a real battle going on now that the cockroaches have some light on them. There have already been plenty of bodies dropped in the effort to bring light and openess to this planet. There will probably be a few more too. Some of us here at Avalon put in some serious pucker time for posting here. ( Pucker time is where your butt cheeks squeeze real tightly together). David has joined the club now.

Ron Paul, has gone up against the odds and held his own with the venom spewing, light bending and insinuating snakes who interview him. Questioning his courage, which you did with your 'disappear' remark, is an opinion you are entitled to. The behavior of the man does not seem to support a valid reason to question his resolve or bravery though.

No, my questions are about you.

modwiz
17th December 2011, 04:00
Well,

Mr Modwiz, I have not said someone would run. Have I? I just said that he seem to be very inproper for the country that killed presidents (!!!) with lots of safeguards around. That's it!
And what about "a two-fer"? No googling helps...(((
I feel compassion towards David, but then again, something felt not right about it.

N.

You said disappear. I said run. I was working with implications because that is a way to deny having said something. Now, English might not be your primary language, in which case it would be unkind of me to assert language nuances. I still have my intuition about things.

A two-fer is a situation where you get two for (fer) one. A two-fer. In this case the two-fer was putting David and Ron Paul in a similar case scenario. One where disappearance is a part of a reaction to 'serious trouble'.

David had a brush with the real world recently. He has led an insular existence, which is no crime. He has his back covered by the right kind of people. There is a real battle going on now that the cockroaches have some light on them. There have already been plenty of bodies dropped in the effort to bring light and openess to this planet. There will probably be a few more too. Some of us here at Avalon put in some serious pucker time for posting here. ( Pucker time is where your butt cheeks squeeze real tightly together). David has joined the club now.

Ron Paul, has gone up against the odds and held his own with the venom spewing, light bending and insinuating snakes who interview him. Questioning his courage, which you did with your 'disappear' remark, is an opinion you are entitled to. The behavior of the man does not seem to support a valid reason to question his resolve or bravery though.

No, my questions are about you.

PS. Credit cards for the criminals will stop working very soon. They will be losing control of their magic keyboards. Gold might matter for them.

jackovesk
17th December 2011, 04:28
Primary results are negated if the establishment candidate is beaten

Friday, December 16, 2011

The Iowa primary is widely acknowledged as a hugely influential indication of who the eventual victor will be in the Republican race. Two of the last three winners have gone on to become the successful nominee. But according to Fox News pundit Chris Wallace, if Ron Paul wins on January 3rd – it doesn’t count.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a78bZL4dLcg&feature=player_embedded

“The Ron Paul people are not going to like my saying this,” said Wallace. “But to a certain degree, it will discredit the Iowa caucuses because, rightly or wrongly, I think most of the Republican establishment thinks he’s not going to end up as the nominee. So therefore, Iowa won’t count.”

From ignoring him, to making fun of him, to attacking him, the establishment media has bumbled from one failed approach to another when it comes to denigrating Ron Paul’s campaign. We’re still being force fed with endless editorials about how “Ron Paul can’t win” even as his numbers climb week after week. Now he has a genuine chance of winning in Iowa, they’ve resorted to ignoring the outcome of actual primaries if they don’t like the result.

Paul campaign spokesman Gary Howard quickly shot back; “Saying that Iowa would be discredited if Ron Paul wins is an insult to Iowans who truly care about where our country is headed and want an end to the status quo of elitist Washington, and those who would say such a thing only prove that they’re on the side of keeping the status quo.”

Of course, it goes without saying that a Ron Paul win in Iowa will be hugely influential and would provide the Congressman with the kind of momentum he needs to claim overall victory.

As the Daily Iowan points out, “The Iowa caucuses do hold weight. Former Gov. Mike Huckabee was the first person (Republican or Democrat) to win the Iowa caucuses and not secure his party’s ticket since 1992.”

Indeed, this year’s primary is seen as even more influential than usual because Florida has move their state’s presidential primary more than a month forward.

Perhaps if Ron Paul does eventually secure the Republican nomination that won’t count either?

Perhaps we should just hand Obama another four years right now and save a lot of time and bother with the whole “democratic process” thing, eh Chris?

In reality, polls have consistently shown that Ron Paul has the best chance out of all the candidates of beating Barack Obama.

Just last week an NBC News/Marist Poll found that among all competitors for the Republican nomination, Ron Paul has the best chance of defeating President Obama in a head-to-head race. Indeed, Obama defeats all the GOP competitors except for Ron Paul in a hypothetical matchup

“There’s actually a legitimate statistical argument that Paul would be the strongest GOP candidate against Obama, period,” writes Public Policy Polling in a tweet today, adding that if the GOP united around Paul he would have a better chance of beating Obama than Romney because of his strong support amongst Independents.

But none of that matters in the eyes of Chris Wallace, who seems to think that election results don’t count if the establishment pick doesn’t come out on top.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/fox-pundit-if-ron-paul-wins-iowa-it-doesnt-count.html

PS - "Fox Pundit: If Ron Paul Wins Iowa, It Doesn’t Count..?" :nono:

The MSM are really getting desperate now..!

STATIC
17th December 2011, 04:31
I'm just guessing here, but all of us I think want the same thing.
The question is can the system that has failed us utterly and completely (Lies, lies, lies) provide us with something that it has never managed to provide us with before.
THE TRUTH
If RP is elected, what happens then?
Does a President in the United States of America have the power that we are told he does?
Even if RP is totally on track and has intentions of doing everything that he says, does that make it so?
Of course I will vote for him.... Just like I voted for Obama.
I had no other choice.
And That's it.
We never have a choice. My vote doesn't make a damn difference, cause someone else is rigging the whole dam thing.
I say lets stop kidding ourselves about having a political savior.

jackovesk
17th December 2011, 04:41
I'm just guessing here, but all of us I think want the same thing.
The question is can the system that has failed us utterly and completely (Lies, lies, lies) provide us with something that it has never managed to provide us with before.
THE TRUTH
If RP is elected, what happens then?
Does a President in the United States of America have the power that we are told he does?
Even if RP is totally on track and has intentions of doing everything that he says, does that make it so?
Of course I will vote for him.... Just like I voted for Obama.
I had no other choice.
And That's it.
We never have a choice. My vote doesn't make a damn difference, cause someone else is rigging the whole dam thing.
I say lets stop kidding ourselves about having a political savior.

Its no so much about being a 'Political Savior', its about defending the (US Constitution & Bill of Rights) which Ron Paul has been trying to do for the last 30+ years...

Win or Lose in 2012, RP is getting the message out there to 'The People' now more than ever...

Rgs,

Jack

NancyV
17th December 2011, 04:45
Ron Paul, in my opinion, is right in what he says in many way and the What If video is inspiring, but:

What if he is a visionary, ahead of his time?
What if he is ignoring human nature and the almost certain probability that human nature will not change?
What if the US becomes more isolationist, who will step into that void? China or Russia most likely.
What if the world then comes under the domination of China or Russia when the US becomes a lesser power?
What if their human rights violations are even worse than the human rights violations of the US?

I consider Ron Paul's foreign policy ideas to be dangerous. In an ideal world we could all just get along, but that is not going to happen any time soon. Reality often sucks and in the case of world politics, wars, etc. it sucks big time. Radical Islam has been engaged in wars of conquest for a couple of thousand years. Communism has been engaged in conquest and oppression for not quite 200 years. Fascism is equally dangerous. We ignore these realities at our peril. Anyone who thinks these dangers don't exist or can be ignored and avoided needs to study history.

Our aspirations towards peace and love will only work on an individual level. We can attempt to influence others, BUT we will not change human nature. Humans (mostly men) are a warlike species who have engaged in wars of conquest and subjugation of others as far back as we have records of history.

Pedant alert! Mohammed began to receive the Quran in 610 AD, with the actual religion taking form some time later. 1400 years ago. At 1500 years you could technically round off the number to two thousand to derive your couple of thousand years. I decided to pick on you here where opinion is not the consideration. We have very different opinions on the problem of radical Islam as a planet wide problem. I do not wish to pursue what I believe to be a conversation with no resolve between us.

You are a sharp intellect. You do yourself a disservice by working with numbers (couple of thousand years) that are far off of the mark.
Must have been your passion.:p
Thanks for picking on me! Since it's you it makes my plan even more fun. Of course when I looked up the date when Mohammed was active and Islam took form (before I made my post) I found the dates YOU found. Here is a peek into my thought processes. I said to myself "ok, it was around 1400-1500 years ago. I'll just round it off to 2000 and see if anyone notices". Lo and Behold, it was you! Very cool. Good catch. :p (and if you believe that I have a bridge in Brooklyn.....etc)
ps: I am extremely good at math and numbers and I usually look up dates so I don't make mistakes. We pedants thrive on minutiae. Now I hope you are confused and unsure which truth is the real truth... :kiss:

Unified Serenity
17th December 2011, 04:46
Here is the funny scenario. Ron Paul wins the nomination and rather than let him be the next president, Newt Gingrich or Romney runs as a third party candidate thereby splitting the conservative vote, and ensuring Obama wins. All the establishment bashing of talk regarding RP running third party, they would definately run their pick as third party to get their control still through Obama.

Ugh, I hate it when I see the truth, but that's exactly what would happen. They would run someone to split the conservative vote if RP wins the nomination. It would take an epic move, even miraculous one to get RP into the whitehouse, but he's truly our only hope.

edit: They won't run Gingrich or Romney because the third party guy is supposed to lose and they are too tied to the establishment Republicans. Trump was talking two days ago about running third party. They'd have to put in someone who says the opposite of RP regarding foreign policy, is not too close to the establishment, won't pull the black vote away from Obama, so who would they pick to run against RP if RP wins the nomination of the Republican party? Trump is certainly a strong option, but he might not be strong enough. Who else would be an option. This is their ace in the hole end game.

STATIC
17th December 2011, 05:06
I'm just guessing here, but all of us I think want the same thing.
The question is can the system that has failed us utterly and completely (Lies, lies, lies) provide us with something that it has never managed to provide us with before.
THE TRUTH
If RP is elected, what happens then?
Does a President in the United States of America have the power that we are told he does?
Even if RP is totally on track and has intentions of doing everything that he says, does that make it so?
Of course I will vote for him.... Just like I voted for Obama.
I had no other choice.
And That's it.
We never have a choice. My vote doesn't make a damn difference, cause someone else is rigging the whole dam thing.
I say lets stop kidding ourselves about having a political savior.

Its no so much about being a 'Political Savior', its about defending the (US Constitution & Bill of Rights) which Ron Paul has been trying to do for the last 30+ years...

Win or Lose in 2012, RP is getting the message out there to 'The People' now more than ever...

Rgs,

Jack

I agree with you completely...
Savior may have not been the right word to use, but the questions still stand.

jackovesk
17th December 2011, 05:09
Here is the funny scenario. Ron Paul wins the nomination and rather than let him be the next president, Newt Gingrich or Romney runs as a third party candidate thereby splitting the conservative vote, and ensuring Obama wins. All the establishment bashing of talk regarding RP running third party, they would definately run their pick as third party to get their control still through Obama.

Ugh, I hate it when I see the truth, but that's exactly what would happen. They would run someone to split the conservative vote if RP wins the nomination. It would take an epic move, even miraculous one to get RP into the whitehouse, but he's truly our only hope.

edit: They won't run Gingrich or Romney because the third party guy is supposed to lose and they are too tied to the establishment Republicans. Trump was talking two days ago about running third party. They'd have to put in someone who says the opposite of RP regarding foreign policy, is not too close to the establishment, won't pull the black vote away from Obama, so who would they pick to run against RP if RP wins the nomination of the Republican party? Trump is certainly a strong option, but he might not be strong enough. Who else would be an option. This is their ace in the hole end game.

Yes, a fair summation of possibilities there Unified Serenity,

However there was 1 thing you left out, a real 'Dark Horse'...

...and that is the remote possibility that the sleeping Giant the 'American People' might actually 'Wake Up' to the MSM/PTW deception and decide they want to actually defend the 'US Constitution & The Bill of Rights' and get their Country back..?

A Long-Shot I know...But still a possibility

Rgs,

Jack

Unified Serenity
17th December 2011, 05:16
New game plan is in play, and I think this is what will happen if RP wins the nomination. I posted this on another RP thread, but since a lot are following this one, I think it's worth mentioning here if not having a thread of it's own.


Here is the funny scenario. Ron Paul wins the nomination and rather than let him be the next president, Newt Gingrich or Romney runs as a third party candidate thereby splitting the conservative vote, and ensuring Obama wins. All the establishment bashing of talk regarding RP running third party, they would definately run their pick as third party to get their control still through Obama.

Ugh, I hate it when I see the truth, but that's exactly what would happen. They would run someone to split the conservative vote if RP wins the nomination. It would take an epic move, even miraculous one to get RP into the whitehouse, but he's truly our only hope.

edit: They won't run Gingrich or Romney because the third party guy is supposed to lose and they are too tied to the establishment Republicans. Trump was talking two days ago about running third party. They'd have to put in someone who says the opposite of RP regarding foreign policy, is not too close to the establishment, won't pull the black vote away from Obama, so who would they pick to run against RP if RP wins the nomination of the Republican party? Trump is certainly a strong option, but he might not be strong enough. Who else would be an option. This is their ace in the hole end game.

risveglio
17th December 2011, 05:22
New game plan is in play, and I think this is what will happen if RP wins the nomination. I posted this on another RP thread, but since a lot are following this one, I think it's worth mentioning here if not having a thread of it's own.


Here is the funny scenario. Ron Paul wins the nomination and rather than let him be the next president, Newt Gingrich or Romney runs as a third party candidate thereby splitting the conservative vote, and ensuring Obama wins. All the establishment bashing of talk regarding RP running third party, they would definately run their pick as third party to get their control still through Obama.

Ugh, I hate it when I see the truth, but that's exactly what would happen. They would run someone to split the conservative vote if RP wins the nomination. It would take an epic move, even miraculous one to get RP into the whitehouse, but he's truly our only hope.

edit: They won't run Gingrich or Romney because the third party guy is supposed to lose and they are too tied to the establishment Republicans. Trump was talking two days ago about running third party. They'd have to put in someone who says the opposite of RP regarding foreign policy, is not too close to the establishment, won't pull the black vote away from Obama, so who would they pick to run against RP if RP wins the nomination of the Republican party? Trump is certainly a strong option, but he might not be strong enough. Who else would be an option. This is their ace in the hole end game.

I welcome this idea. I think a large amount of independents would still vote for Paul and he would win the 3 way race. There is pretty good evidence that the surge in the Republican party numbers across closed primary states are a direct result of Ron Paul supporters and groups like the Blue Republicans. If Ron Paul has the republican nomination, he is guaranteed to be in the debates. If he ran third party, it is pretty much guaranteed he would not be in the debates. People are sick of more of the same and Romney and Obama would look and sound like twins in a debate with Ron Paul.

Unified Serenity
17th December 2011, 05:25
If there were a third party, it would be much easier to monkey with the vote totals and thus they'd rig it for Obama to win, and explain the loss of RP being due to the split conservative vote. My point is, that the very people who for decades have said how bad third party candidates are because they split the vote will be behind a third party candidate if RP wins. I would hope the American people would see through it, but they can easily be played, and again, it's easier to rig the diebold machines then where having RP vs Obama would be much harder to rig.

modwiz
17th December 2011, 05:28
Obama is supposed to win. Republicans want no part of a country that is falling apart.
As the polls indicate, Ron Paul could beat Obama. That is not the plan. The clowns running are a dead giveaway.

Here is Ali on being president:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVfAi7PNaeE&feature=player_detailpage

jackovesk
17th December 2011, 05:33
Obama is supposed to win. Republicans want no part of a country that is falling apart.

Here is Ali on being president:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVfAi7PNaeE&feature=player_detailpage

To true Modwiz To true...

:yes4:

modwiz
17th December 2011, 05:33
If there were a third party, it would be much easier to monkey with the vote totals and thus they'd rig it for Obama to win, and explain the loss of RP being due to the split conservative vote. My point is, that the very people who for decades have said how bad third party candidates are because they split the vote will be behind a third party candidate if RP wins. I would hope the American people would see through it, but they can easily be played, and again, it's easier to rig the diebold machines then where having RP vs Obama would be much harder to rig.

Monkey with? With the exception of RP all I see are monkeys. :pound:

Unified Serenity
17th December 2011, 05:42
Obama is supposed to win. Republicans want no part of a country that is falling apart.

Here is Ali on being president:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVfAi7PNaeE&feature=player_detailpage

To true Modwiz To true...

:yes4:

Yes, and prophetic even. I once had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Ali when he visited my 8th grade class in Jeddah Saudi Arabia with some PLO people. He was not as quick as he was there, but he was kind. Ali hit the nail on the head there.

risveglio
17th December 2011, 05:43
If there were a third party, it would be much easier to monkey with the vote totals and thus they'd rig it for Obama to win, and explain the loss of RP being due to the split conservative vote. My point is, that the very people who for decades have said how bad third party candidates are because they split the vote will be behind a third party candidate if RP wins. I would hope the American people would see through it, but they can easily be played, and again, it's easier to rig the diebold machines then where having RP vs Obama would be much harder to rig.

This is making the assumption that elections are rigged, which they very well might be, but if that is the case I have a better chance of becoming president than Ron Paul.

Unified Serenity
17th December 2011, 05:49
If there were a third party, it would be much easier to monkey with the vote totals and thus they'd rig it for Obama to win, and explain the loss of RP being due to the split conservative vote. My point is, that the very people who for decades have said how bad third party candidates are because they split the vote will be behind a third party candidate if RP wins. I would hope the American people would see through it, but they can easily be played, and again, it's easier to rig the diebold machines then where having RP vs Obama would be much harder to rig.

This is making the assumption that elections are rigged, which they very well might be, but if that is the case I have a better chance of becoming president than Ron Paul.

Vote fraud is proven here in America, it's long past being a theory. Just google vote fraud, diebold etc.. The issue is that RP is grossly outdoing the other candidates. He is out raising them, he has vast military support (they seem to like his foreign policy), the online polls are NOT rigged in favor of RP supporters and he thrashes the opposition. It's a clear signal that the American people are very much aware, and it's going to be very hard to just rick roll him like they have in the past. He has a legitimate chance to win. Thus the third party option and play the numbers game in that because they could explain that away. It really would be great if we could verify votes like we used to, but we cannot.

jackovesk
17th December 2011, 06:06
If there were a third party, it would be much easier to monkey with the vote totals and thus they'd rig it for Obama to win, and explain the loss of RP being due to the split conservative vote. My point is, that the very people who for decades have said how bad third party candidates are because they split the vote will be behind a third party candidate if RP wins. I would hope the American people would see through it, but they can easily be played, and again, it's easier to rig the diebold machines then where having RP vs Obama would be much harder to rig.

This is making the assumption that elections are rigged, which they very well might be, but if that is the case I have a better chance of becoming president than Ron Paul.

I've heard they can only get away with Rigging the Diebold Voting Machines when the Vote is tight i.e. 1 to 2% like (GW Bush got away with in 2004).

Its impossible to Rig them with a large Voting Swing over 4%+, be rest assured RP Campaign Team are on top of all that, and will be watching for any Fraudulent activity in 2012...

Unified Serenity
17th December 2011, 06:18
If there were a third party, it would be much easier to monkey with the vote totals and thus they'd rig it for Obama to win, and explain the loss of RP being due to the split conservative vote. My point is, that the very people who for decades have said how bad third party candidates are because they split the vote will be behind a third party candidate if RP wins. I would hope the American people would see through it, but they can easily be played, and again, it's easier to rig the diebold machines then where having RP vs Obama would be much harder to rig.

This is making the assumption that elections are rigged, which they very well might be, but if that is the case I have a better chance of becoming president than Ron Paul.

I've heard they can only get away with Rigging the Diebold Voting Machines when the Vote is tight i.e. 1 to 2% like (GW Bush got away with in 2004).

Its impossible to Rig them with a large Voting Swing over 4%+, be rest assured RP Campaign Team are on top of all that, and will be watching for any Fraudulent activity in 2012...

Once it's between three people, it would be a very close race between RP and the third party stooge, and thus why I say they would rig the election and have an excuse as to why Obama won.

jackovesk
17th December 2011, 06:28
If there were a third party, it would be much easier to monkey with the vote totals and thus they'd rig it for Obama to win, and explain the loss of RP being due to the split conservative vote. My point is, that the very people who for decades have said how bad third party candidates are because they split the vote will be behind a third party candidate if RP wins. I would hope the American people would see through it, but they can easily be played, and again, it's easier to rig the diebold machines then where having RP vs Obama would be much harder to rig.

This is making the assumption that elections are rigged, which they very well might be, but if that is the case I have a better chance of becoming president than Ron Paul.

I've heard they can only get away with Rigging the Diebold Voting Machines when the Vote is tight i.e. 1 to 2% like (GW Bush got away with in 2004).

Its impossible to Rig them with a large Voting Swing over 4%+, be rest assured RP Campaign Team are on top of all that, and will be watching for any Fraudulent activity in 2012...

Once it's between three people, it would be a very close race between RP and the third party stooge, and thus why I say they would rig the election and have an excuse as to why Obama won.

We both know, it would be an absolute DISASTER for both the American people & the World if Obama got re-elected...

Shudder to think, if that were to happen...

AlternativeInfoJunkie
17th December 2011, 06:49
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?337378-Ron-Paul-on-Jay-Leno-%2812-16-11%29

T Smith
17th December 2011, 07:06
Ron Paul, in my opinion, is right in what he says in many way and the What If video is inspiring, but:

What if he is a visionary, ahead of his time?
What if he is ignoring human nature and the almost certain probability that human nature will not change?
What if the US becomes more isolationist, who will step into that void? China or Russia most likely.
What if the world then comes under the domination of China or Russia when the US becomes a lesser power?
What if their human rights violations are even worse than the human rights violations of the US?

I consider Ron Paul's foreign policy ideas to be dangerous. In an ideal world we could all just get along, but that is not going to happen any time soon. Reality often sucks and in the case of world politics, wars, etc. it sucks big time. Radical Islam has been engaged in wars of conquest for a couple of thousand years. Communism has been engaged in conquest and oppression for not quite 200 years. Fascism is equally dangerous. We ignore these realities at our peril. Anyone who thinks these dangers don't exist or can be ignored and avoided needs to study history.

Our aspirations towards peace and love will only work on an individual level. We can attempt to influence others, BUT we will not change human nature. Humans (mostly men) are a warlike species who have engaged in wars of conquest and subjugation of others as far back as we have records of history.

Self determination as a species vs. captivity and subjugation to social engineering and bondage. Recorded history is a story drawn from the latter. And yes, you have described how our species responds to its condition where even the most insightful and brilliant among us have difficulty grasping what be our captors. I question, however, whether you may be confusing the storyline here with what it means to be human. What is human nature? Are we destined to lay down to the controlling power? When are we going to transcend our fear of Iran, of China, and specifically of the dark side of who and what we are and transcend this captivity?

I for one am not afraid of Iran, of China, of the Khalifat, or of the serial killer lurking somewhere in my very own city. I don't need Statist overlords to protect me from a geopolitical vacuum. I am more afraid of how simple it is to render humans en masse to mere Pavlov subjects in utter fear, inducing the desired behavior of the human animal. I submit to you, for consideration: we are more than this.

I want to be free. I just want to be free.

T Smith
17th December 2011, 07:17
The most valuable skill we have is to be able to read between the lines.

Any good magician will tell you it is also one of the most easiest ways to manipulate.

T Smith
17th December 2011, 07:26
I agree, but that's not my real problem. My problem is that Paul's vision applies only to those who are at the same spiritual, emotional, physical, and philosophical level as he. He is a very, very ugly human being.

This is an interesting perspective. Can you elaborate?

¤=[Post Update]=¤


"There is absolutely no truth in this statement, but you still believe the left/right bull****."

Truthfully, I'm a quick study in some regards. I've considered everything that I've read and heard and arrived back at my original conclusion. But I will say this, my life would not change under a Paul regime...yours might and I highly suspect you would not like the result. I don't wish harm or unhappiness on anyone so all I would add is "Be Careful what you ask for!"

Another intriguing position. What are you afraid of?

daledo
17th December 2011, 07:41
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMUZIVYuluc

here it is... your link didn't work.

latte
17th December 2011, 07:51
The top link works, just scroll down a bit...

jackovesk
17th December 2011, 08:15
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?337378-Ron-Paul-on-Jay-Leno-%2812-16-11%29

Thanks AlternativeInfoJunkie,

Every 'Single Word' he said resonated...

He also recieved a Standing Ovation and Huge support from the audience...

Don't tell the MSM/PTW, but Jay Leno was in RP's corner aswell...:secret:

Rantaak
17th December 2011, 10:41
Guys, Hello!

I like Mr Paul. He is nice! But keeping in mind he is still alive/free - nah!
Just several nights ago Mr Wilcock was crying. Same is my opinion here. Mr Paul would be obsolete if he was a serious trouble.
They do not follow the tactic games. Ron Paul would just disappear from the arena.
Please kindly keep in mind that I like what he says just I do not believe that he is the same as he wants to appear or they would like him him to appear.

That is sad,but serves the purpose of pollarization.

Wish all of you peace and love,


Nickolai

I'm right on point with you, friend. As much as I love the character and outward philosophy that Ron Paul has consistantly exhuded, I have also noticed that not a single president in history has actually had any real power due to puppeteers. The ones who tried to go against their masters got shot.

Also interesting to note is that Ron Paul calls himself a christian. If he's telling the truth about that, that would mean he's part of a delusional and murderous cult that has been trying to enslave the world since the dawn of its creation. Christianity is allegorical. God is an alien genetic scientist. They may have even been the ones to put religion here in the first place (upon destroying the goddess-worshipping shamanic orgy societies) to this end. I somehow feel Ron Paul is far too clever not to realize this.

Also interesting to note is that he delivered HELLA (meaning 5 or more in Californian) babies. This means he's witnessed thousands of souls entering and animating the human body as it takes its first breath. Verrrry interesting. At least it's not quite as creepy as being a mortician.

We'll see how it goes. If anything, he's at least spreading his wisdom to the blubbering masses. Still not sure if I will finally register to vote this time, but if I do it will be for Ron Paul.

daledo
17th December 2011, 10:46
The top link works, just scroll down a bit...

For some reason that website won't load for me... not even the main page.
Maybe some other people are having the same problem with that site.

spiritguide
17th December 2011, 12:53
Ron Paul speaks truth to the Constitution. "We the people" vs Obama's "Me the liar". IMHO

vortex surfer
17th December 2011, 13:26
I think Paul has some good points. But on an aside note it's curious that he mentions Grover Cleveland as his favorite president of all time:

*When Grover Cleveland, a Democrat, ran for President in 1884, the general impression in the country was that he opposed the power of monopolies and corporations, and that the Republican party, whose candidate was James Blaine, stood for the wealthy. But when Cleveland defeated Blaine, Jay Gould (leading American railroad developer and speculator) wired him: "I feel ... that the vast business interests of the country will be entirely safe in your hands." And he was right.

*One of Cleveland's chief advisers was William Whitney, a millionaire and corporation lawyer, who married into the Standard Oil fortune and was appointed Secretary of the Navy by Cleveland. He immediately set about to create a "steel navy," buying the steel at artificially high prices from Carnegie's plants. Cleveland himself assured industrialists that his election should not frighten them: "No harm shall come to any business interest as the result of administrative policy so long as I am President ... a transfer of executive control from one party to another does not mean any serious disturbance of existing conditions."

*In 1887, with a huge surplus in the treasury, Cleveland vetoed a bill appropriating $100,000 to give relief to Texas farmers to help them buy seed grain during a drought. He said: "Federal aid in such cases .. . encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character." But that same year, Cleveland used his gold surplus to pay off wealthy bondholders at $28 above the $100 value of each bond -a gift of $45 million."

(*Excerpts taken from A people's history of the United States of America, by Howard Zinn)

percival tyro
17th December 2011, 16:06
Hi jackovesk. Ali.. One of my all time favourite human beings. Wonder what he would like to say about Obama.

alienHunter
17th December 2011, 16:10
I think Paul has some good points. But on an aside note it's curious that he mentions Grover Cleveland as his favorite president of all time:

*When Grover Cleveland, a Democrat, ran for President in 1884, the general impression in the country was that he opposed the power of monopolies and corporations, and that the Republican party, whose candidate was James Blaine, stood for the wealthy. But when Cleveland defeated Blaine, Jay Gould (leading American railroad developer and speculator) wired him: "I feel ... that the vast business interests of the country will be entirely safe in your hands." And he was right.

*One of Cleveland's chief advisers was William Whitney, a millionaire and corporation lawyer, who married into the Standard Oil fortune and was appointed Secretary of the Navy by Cleveland. He immediately set about to create a "steel navy," buying the steel at artificially high prices from Carnegie's plants. Cleveland himself assured industrialists that his election should not frighten them: "No harm shall come to any business interest as the result of administrative policy so long as I am President ... a transfer of executive control from one party to another does not mean any serious disturbance of existing conditions."

*In 1887, with a huge surplus in the treasury, Cleveland vetoed a bill appropriating $100,000 to give relief to Texas farmers to help them buy seed grain during a drought. He said: "Federal aid in such cases .. . encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character." But that same year, Cleveland used his gold surplus to pay off wealthy bondholders at $28 above the $100 value of each bond -a gift of $45 million."

(*Excerpts taken from A people's history of the United States of America, by Howard Zinn)

Hi vortex,

That's part of our problem really...making historical comparisons. I think in fairness to Ron Paul, he should be allowed to stand on his own merits. In my opinion his merit is a very basic, very simple, very straightforward political message. Unfortunately, our real world life is not just basic or very straightforward and simple. Paul is compelling, though, I would love to be able to solve all my personal problems with a sweep of a principled hand.

alienHunter
17th December 2011, 16:24
Obama is supposed to win. Republicans want no part of a country that is falling apart.

Here is Ali on being president:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVfAi7PNaeE&feature=player_detailpage

To true Modwiz To true...

:yes4:

Yes, and prophetic even. I once had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Ali when he visited my 8th grade class in Jeddah Saudi Arabia with some PLO people. He was not as quick as he was there, but he was kind. Ali hit the nail on the head there.

That's pretty funny...I take it you come from a family with a military background?

alienHunter
17th December 2011, 16:31
The most valuable skill we have is to be able to read between the lines.

Any good magician will tell you it is also one of the most easiest ways to manipulate.

I'll remember that...I should add that I have always watched magicians VERY CLOSELY because I know what they're up to. As a child i started with thorough research into one of the greatest...Houdini. In fact, this is kind of a funny story...once in New Orleans on a New Years Eve, I got castigated by a performing magician. I was sitting in the front row and I was telling (out loud) a friend next to me...what the magician's misdirection tricks were during each act. The magick dude was very unhappy with me.

bearcow
17th December 2011, 16:44
ron paul needs to do well in the states that are not winner take all in terms of delegates. Focus on getting second place finishes in iowa and new Hampshire. don't invest any resources in south Carolina as that state is winner take all. play a rope a dope strategy at the beginning, stay alive, and hope that rommney and gingrich jockey back and forth between winning states, and don't pull away. The longer he can can stay in the race and be competitive, the better chance he has to be the last man standing at the end.

Arrowwind
17th December 2011, 16:45
I have not seen Ron Paul waver in his philisophy or political stance in 10 years. He does not flip flop. He does not lie. He makes his stance on constitutional principles.

Obama and bush has thwarted the constitution entering us into war that we should not have been in.
the lates being Lybia. subverting the US congress buy entering through the UN and nato. You wish the UN and nato to send our youth to war with only the say so of a president? This cuts out all of your representation in congress and senate.. in essence your voice though a democratically elected republic has been usurped from you.

Guess thats ok with you though? It was only the cause for the deaths of seveal hundred thousand innocents in Iraq as we entered into a war that was not approved for by congress... but I quess thats oK... and also its ok that several hundred thousand innocents died for the 3000 in 9/11 which the Iraq people had absolutley nothing to do with... and the again 5.000 of our military lost also to compensate for 3,000 to punish... this is insanity. this war based on fear of weapons of mass distruction that we The USA actually supplied to Sadamm Hussien! how hypocritical.. and now the same is about to happen with Iran. Mark my words. they will find a way to attack Iran..when Iran has done nothing of any scale. They have endeavored to protect their own nation, which obviously is not considered a worthy endeavor... protecting thier interest in the water ways they use... etc. I do not see Iran coming near our shores as we go near theirs with huge war ships... we have been perpetually the antagonizers in the middle east.

You guys are giving away your freedom and your rights thought the patriot act and constitutionally illegal acts... and constantly crap is loaded into legislation to further limit our freedom. Ron Paul would not let that happen.

Ron Paul also beleives in not purchasing things that you cannot pay for.. makes me think you guys must all be in debt and that debt is ok.
Ron Paul also beleives in fair capitolism and trade. He beleives in letting markets work, not controlling them. He would not allow the greed that is occuring in the medical system that we currently have.. One answer... force insurance agencies to pay for medical tourism. allowing the patient to have the physician of his choice.. that would bring prices down right fast in the USA. That would move doctors from Mercedes Benz to Taurus pretty dam quick and hospitals would become much more modest in archetecture in time. No doctor deserves to take away your home and retirement and live like a freaking king and then also kill you in the process... 50% of foreclosures in the USA are not from bad loans but from foreclosures based on medical needs.

You can get the same quality of care in many areas of Mexico in a one million dollar hospital as you get in a 100 million dollar hospital in the USA.

Yes, Paul is a visionary. He has the mental intelligence to "see" exactly what will happen when we do not follow our constitution. He has the vision to see the implications and ramifactions of the Federal Reserve, he predicted Fanny mae and Freddy Mac forclosures back in 1991. He told us the problems of deregulating the banks long before their greed cleaned out the accounts of pension funds and 401K across America.

You can keep voting or flipfloppers and liers if you want. You will get what you get and it wont be good.
Ron Paul also sees that the military industrial complex is the basis for our economy and in order for our economy to keep pumping away war must ensue. This must stop. We will never have peace if war promotes financial profit. Will will always have industry like Haliburton and a$$holes like Dick Cheney to feed the fires and fill the corporate tills.

Ron Paul is against Corporate powers. He would restore the power to the people. He would eliminate corporate lobby. He would not permit the corporate ability to fund campaigns. That would bring it once again right down to the people... not corporations who have their lawyers working day and night to keep power in their hands and not yours...'

You who fear terrorist of the middle east really need to do some historical research to understand why there is terrorism in the middle east. Most of the problem comes from Israel moving people off of their lands back in the 50 's and the undending support of the annilation of palestianin people by the USA though the hands of Israli people... Zionists.


In my mind its quite simple. A degree of Isonlationism will help to heal our nation as we rebuild from the inside out. If terrorists strike then we take them out. Not before hand and we take out those who really did the deed... not those we just happen to not like and would like to control the oil of their lands as well as their economic and agricultural systems.... yes, agricultural systems.. you heard me right. It is not just a war to control oil, but to control food.

Don't you think Ron Paul realizes he risks his life everytime he speaks. He is willing to risk all to save this nation and its constitutional freedom. He is the quintessential physician for he knows that no human and no nation can have true health without freedom and truth.

Unified Serenity
17th December 2011, 17:00
It was great to see RP get national air time to actually give some real answers and not be cut off or treated like crazy uncle Ron. I think there is more to the Grover Cleaveland issue than simple snippets taken possibly out of context. I say that based on observing that many times things can be put in such a way that if you don't do the research those bit of information are not giving a complete picture, but a very skewed one. I am not defending Grover Cleaveland, but I cannot honestly say I am a GC expert. I do know that Grover Cleaveland was battle way back then to avoid a Fed system and Income tax. So, his keeping us on the Gold Standard was very important, and Presidents have to pick their battles.

I do like that RP stated that one man cannot go to Washington and just make all these changes, that it's the people who must want these changes. The changes RP stands for scares people who quite frankly have learned to depend on others for their basic daily needs, and some of them are very afraid that support will just be ripped away from them. I know RP is not going to do that to the people. He talks about incremental changes to bring things back to the constitutional way of governing. He also points out that eventually we will be completely broke if we don't change our ways, and then the rug will be ripped out from under everyone, and that my friends is what revolution looks like. As Celente says, "When the people have lost everything and have nothing left to lose, they lose it!" Ron Paul is trying to stop that from happening and he needs our support!

baddbob
17th December 2011, 17:05
I have not seen Ron Paul waver in his philisophy or political stance in 10 years. He does not flip flop. He does not lie. He makes his stance on constitutional principles.

Obama and bush has thwarted the constitution entering us into war that we should not have been in.
the lates being Lybia. subverting the US congress buy entering through the UN and nato. You wish the UN and nato to send our youth to war with only the say so of a president? This cuts out all of your representation in congress and senate.. in essence your voice though a democratically elected republic has been usurped from you.

Guess thats ok with you though? It was only the cause for the deaths of seveal hundred thousand innocents in Iraq as we entered into a war that was not approved for by congress... but I quess thats oK... and also its ok that several hundred thousand innocents died for the 3000 in 9/11 which the Iraq people had absolutley nothing to do with... and the again 5.000 of our military lost also to compensate for 3,000 to punish... this is insanity. this war based on fear of weapons of mass distruction that we The USA actually supplied to Sadamm Hussien! how hypocritical.. and now the same is about to happen with Iran. Mark my words. they will find a way to attack Iran..when Iran has done nothing of any scale. They have endeavored to protect their own nation, which obviously is not considered a worthy endeavor... protecting thier interest in the water ways they use... etc. I do not see Iran coming near our shores as we go near theirs with huge war ships... we have been perpetually the antagonizers in the middle east.

You guys are giving away your freedom and your rights thought the patriot act and constitutionally illegal acts... and constantly crap is loaded into legislation to further limit our freedom. Ron Paul would not let that happen.

Ron Paul also beleives in not purchasing things that you cannot pay for.. makes me think you guys must all be in debt and that debt is ok.
Ron Paul also beleives in fair capitolism and trade. He beleives in letting markets work, not controlling them. He would not allow the greed that is occuring in the medical system that we currently have.. One answer... force insurance agencies to pay for medical tourism. allowing the patient to have the physician of his choice.. that would bring prices down right fast in the USA. That would move doctors from Mercedes Benz to Taurus pretty dam quick and hospitals would become much more modest in archetecture in time. No doctor deserves to take away your home and retirement and live like a freaking king and then also kill you in the process... 50% of foreclosures in the USA are not from bad loans but from foreclosures based on medical needs.

You can get the same quality of care in many areas of Mexico in a one million dollar hospital as you get in a 100 million dollar hospital in the USA.

Yes, Paul is a visionary. He has the mental intelligence to "see" exactly what will happen when we do not follow our constitution. He has the vision to see the implications and ramifactions of the Federal Reserve, he predicted Fanny mae and Freddy Mac forclosures back in 1991. He told us the problems of deregulating the banks long before their greed cleaned out the accounts of pension funds and 401K across America.

You can keep voting or flipfloppers and liers if you want. You will get what you get and it wont be good.
Ron Paul also sees that the military industrial complex is the basis for our economy and in order for our economy to keep pumping away war must ensue. This must stop. We will never have peace if war promotes financial profit. Will will always have industry like Haliburton and a$$holes like Dick Cheney to feed the fires and fill the corporate tills.

Ron Paul is against Corporate powers. He would restore the power to the people. He would eliminate corporate lobby. He would not permit the corporate ability to fund campaigns. That would bring it once again right down to the people... not corporations who have their lawyers working day and night to keep power in their hands and not yours...'

You who fear terrorist of the middle east really need to do some historical research to understand why there is terrorism in the middle east. Most of the problem comes from Israel moving people off of their lands back in the 50 's and the undending support of the annilation of palestianin people by the USA though the hands of Israli people... Zionists.


In my mind its quite simple. A degree of Isonlationism will help to heal our nation as we rebuild from the inside out. If terrorists strike then we take them out. Not before hand and we take out those who really did the deed... not those we just happen to not like and would like to control the oil of their lands as well as their economic and agricultural systems.... yes, agricultural systems.. you heard me right. It is not just a war to control oil, but to control food.

Don't you think Ron Paul realizes he risks his life everytime he speaks. He is willing to risk all to save this nation and its constitutional freedom. He is the quintessential physician for he knows that no human and no nation can have true health without freedom and truth.

Awesome post very well stated

¤=[Post Update]=¤


I have not seen Ron Paul waver in his philisophy or political stance in 10 years. He does not flip flop. He does not lie. He makes his stance on constitutional principles.

Obama and bush has thwarted the constitution entering us into war that we should not have been in.
the lates being Lybia. subverting the US congress buy entering through the UN and nato. You wish the UN and nato to send our youth to war with only the say so of a president? This cuts out all of your representation in congress and senate.. in essence your voice though a democratically elected republic has been usurped from you.

Guess thats ok with you though? It was only the cause for the deaths of seveal hundred thousand innocents in Iraq as we entered into a war that was not approved for by congress... but I quess thats oK... and also its ok that several hundred thousand innocents died for the 3000 in 9/11 which the Iraq people had absolutley nothing to do with... and the again 5.000 of our military lost also to compensate for 3,000 to punish... this is insanity. this war based on fear of weapons of mass distruction that we The USA actually supplied to Sadamm Hussien! how hypocritical.. and now the same is about to happen with Iran. Mark my words. they will find a way to attack Iran..when Iran has done nothing of any scale. They have endeavored to protect their own nation, which obviously is not considered a worthy endeavor... protecting thier interest in the water ways they use... etc. I do not see Iran coming near our shores as we go near theirs with huge war ships... we have been perpetually the antagonizers in the middle east.

You guys are giving away your freedom and your rights thought the patriot act and constitutionally illegal acts... and constantly crap is loaded into legislation to further limit our freedom. Ron Paul would not let that happen.

Ron Paul also beleives in not purchasing things that you cannot pay for.. makes me think you guys must all be in debt and that debt is ok.
Ron Paul also beleives in fair capitolism and trade. He beleives in letting markets work, not controlling them. He would not allow the greed that is occuring in the medical system that we currently have.. One answer... force insurance agencies to pay for medical tourism. allowing the patient to have the physician of his choice.. that would bring prices down right fast in the USA. That would move doctors from Mercedes Benz to Taurus pretty dam quick and hospitals would become much more modest in archetecture in time. No doctor deserves to take away your home and retirement and live like a freaking king and then also kill you in the process... 50% of foreclosures in the USA are not from bad loans but from foreclosures based on medical needs.

You can get the same quality of care in many areas of Mexico in a one million dollar hospital as you get in a 100 million dollar hospital in the USA.

Yes, Paul is a visionary. He has the mental intelligence to "see" exactly what will happen when we do not follow our constitution. He has the vision to see the implications and ramifactions of the Federal Reserve, he predicted Fanny mae and Freddy Mac forclosures back in 1991. He told us the problems of deregulating the banks long before their greed cleaned out the accounts of pension funds and 401K across America.

You can keep voting or flipfloppers and liers if you want. You will get what you get and it wont be good.
Ron Paul also sees that the military industrial complex is the basis for our economy and in order for our economy to keep pumping away war must ensue. This must stop. We will never have peace if war promotes financial profit. Will will always have industry like Haliburton and a$$holes like Dick Cheney to feed the fires and fill the corporate tills.

Ron Paul is against Corporate powers. He would restore the power to the people. He would eliminate corporate lobby. He would not permit the corporate ability to fund campaigns. That would bring it once again right down to the people... not corporations who have their lawyers working day and night to keep power in their hands and not yours...'

You who fear terrorist of the middle east really need to do some historical research to understand why there is terrorism in the middle east. Most of the problem comes from Israel moving people off of their lands back in the 50 's and the undending support of the annilation of palestianin people by the USA though the hands of Israli people... Zionists.


In my mind its quite simple. A degree of Isonlationism will help to heal our nation as we rebuild from the inside out. If terrorists strike then we take them out. Not before hand and we take out those who really did the deed... not those we just happen to not like and would like to control the oil of their lands as well as their economic and agricultural systems.... yes, agricultural systems.. you heard me right. It is not just a war to control oil, but to control food.

Don't you think Ron Paul realizes he risks his life everytime he speaks. He is willing to risk all to save this nation and its constitutional freedom. He is the quintessential physician for he knows that no human and no nation can have true health without freedom and truth.

Awesome post thank you. Very well stated

Ba-ba-Ra
17th December 2011, 18:58
I've become such a cynic and for many years have no longer had any trust in those who run our government that I don't believe that you become president of the U.S. unless the PTB want you there.

Perhaps the video above of Ali's interpretation could also apply to Ron Paul. If their intent is to make this ship go down, they might like it to go down with someone like RP at the helm. Then they can say: "See what happens when you put his ideas into practice."

AlternativeInfoJunkie
17th December 2011, 20:47
I think Paul has some good points. But on an aside note it's curious that he mentions Grover Cleveland as his favorite president of all time:

*When Grover Cleveland, a Democrat, ran for President in 1884, the general impression in the country was that he opposed the power of monopolies and corporations, and that the Republican party, whose candidate was James Blaine, stood for the wealthy. But when Cleveland defeated Blaine, Jay Gould (leading American railroad developer and speculator) wired him: "I feel ... that the vast business interests of the country will be entirely safe in your hands." And he was right.

*One of Cleveland's chief advisers was William Whitney, a millionaire and corporation lawyer, who married into the Standard Oil fortune and was appointed Secretary of the Navy by Cleveland. He immediately set about to create a "steel navy," buying the steel at artificially high prices from Carnegie's plants. Cleveland himself assured industrialists that his election should not frighten them: "No harm shall come to any business interest as the result of administrative policy so long as I am President ... a transfer of executive control from one party to another does not mean any serious disturbance of existing conditions."

*In 1887, with a huge surplus in the treasury, Cleveland vetoed a bill appropriating $100,000 to give relief to Texas farmers to help them buy seed grain during a drought. He said: "Federal aid in such cases .. . encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character." But that same year, Cleveland used his gold surplus to pay off wealthy bondholders at $28 above the $100 value of each bond -a gift of $45 million."

(*Excerpts taken from A people's history of the United States of America, by Howard Zinn)

Hi vortex,

That's part of our problem really...making historical comparisons. I think in fairness to Ron Paul, he should be allowed to stand on his own merits. In my opinion his merit is a very basic, very simple, very straightforward political message. Unfortunately, our real world life is not just basic or very straightforward and simple. Paul is compelling, though, I would love to be able to solve all my personal problems with a sweep of a principled hand.

Wait don't you support obama though?

alienHunter
17th December 2011, 20:54
yes, I support Obama...

Let the truth bare itself...

AlternativeInfoJunkie
17th December 2011, 21:01
Obama's politics are completely simple minded and short sighted man... or you could argue that he is actually making these horrible decisions because he wants a horrible outcome because he doesn't care about the citizens of this country (i believe the latter). Have you read the ndaa bill? Obama's administration requested that the language that made the bill apply to citizens as well be put in there according to carl levin:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0PdDGqK0S4

I really wanna know how you could support Obama. For real, like, I don't get it...

AlternativeInfoJunkie
17th December 2011, 21:14
yes, I support Obama...

Let the truth bare itself...

I mean if you're going to accuse somebody of not understanding the complexity of the challenges we face I have to point out that obama at the very BEST does not have the mental capacity to even grasp these complexities and at the very WORST is pretending he doesn't grasp them to promote the MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX'S agenda.

alienHunter
17th December 2011, 21:16
Obama's politics are completely simple minded and short sighted man... or you could argue that he is actually making these horrible decisions because he wants a horrible outcome because he doesn't care about the citizens of this country (i believe the latter). Have you read the ndaa bill? Obama's administration requested that the language that made the bill apply to citizens as well be put in there according to carl levin:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0PdDGqK0S4

I really wanna know how you could support Obama. For real, like, I don't get it...

He made them take out the language that applied to citizens but wanted to reserve the right at the administrative level to forego. I agree, the entire concept is questionable at best. It leaves essentially unchanged what was initiated under the Patriot act. Most of what Obama has been doing is in response to the forces allayed against him. I admit that it does appear that he is selling his soul to the devils but I don't believe he has lost his soul as yet. Obama is a pragmatist and we live in a ferociously pragmatic world. If Ron Paul is elected president and tries to do what he preaches, he will come to a very bad end...From all quarters and I mean ALL quarters he will be assailed and made to look the fool.

How the future plays out is not my decision to make. I, personally, believe that Obama is essentially good and working for both you and I. As so many of the Paul supporters have stated here, it is a process, it takes time, and more importantly someone has to get the ball rolling. Obama started the process 3 years ago...and who is to say, maybe it's Ron Paul's destiny to take up the mission. (I been watching karma videos... ;))

AlternativeInfoJunkie
17th December 2011, 21:19
Obama's politics are completely simple minded and short sighted man... or you could argue that he is actually making these horrible decisions because he wants a horrible outcome because he doesn't care about the citizens of this country (i believe the latter). Have you read the ndaa bill? Obama's administration requested that the language that made the bill apply to citizens as well be put in there according to carl levin:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0PdDGqK0S4

I really wanna know how you could support Obama. For real, like, I don't get it...

He made them take out the language that applied to citizens but wanted to reserve the right at the administrative level to forego. I agree, the entire concept is questionable at best. It leaves essentially unchanged what was initiated under the Patriot act. Most of what Obama has been doing is in response to the forces allayed against him. I admit that it does appear that he is selling his soul to the devils but I don't believe he has lost his soul as yet. Obama is a pragmatist and we live in a ferociously pragmatic world. If Ron Paul is elected president and tries to do what he preaches, he will come to a very bad end...From all quarters and I mean ALL quarters he will be assailed and made to look the fool.

How the future plays out is not my decision to make. I, personally, believe that Obama is essentially good and working for both you and I. As so many of the Paul supporters have stated here, it is a process, it takes time, and more importantly someone has to get the ball rolling. Obama started the process 3 years ago...and who is to say, maybe it's Ron Paul's destiny to take up the mission. (I been watching karma videos... ;))''

Sorry to break it to you man but Obama is a narcissist in a ferociously narcissistic world...

Or maybe more a... sociopath in a ferociously sociopathic world. Yea! I like that one better!

alienHunter
17th December 2011, 21:25
If you wish...

spiritguide
17th December 2011, 21:46
The political parties of this republic think it is their birthright to run the country with their loyalist. It is not! The Constitution reads "We the PEOPLE" not we the parties.

AlternativeInfoJunkie
17th December 2011, 21:46
Obama's politics are completely simple minded and short sighted man... or you could argue that he is actually making these horrible decisions because he wants a horrible outcome because he doesn't care about the citizens of this country (i believe the latter). Have you read the ndaa bill? Obama's administration requested that the language that made the bill apply to citizens as well be put in there according to carl levin:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0PdDGqK0S4

I really wanna know how you could support Obama. For real, like, I don't get it...

He made them take out the language that applied to citizens but wanted to reserve the right at the administrative level to forego. I agree, the entire concept is questionable at best. It leaves essentially unchanged what was initiated under the Patriot act. Most of what Obama has been doing is in response to the forces allayed against him. I admit that it does appear that he is selling his soul to the devils but I don't believe he has lost his soul as yet. Obama is a pragmatist and we live in a ferociously pragmatic world. If Ron Paul is elected president and tries to do what he preaches, he will come to a very bad end...From all quarters and I mean ALL quarters he will be assailed and made to look the fool.

How the future plays out is not my decision to make. I, personally, believe that Obama is essentially good and working for both you and I. As so many of the Paul supporters have stated here, it is a process, it takes time, and more importantly someone has to get the ball rolling. Obama started the process 3 years ago...and who is to say, maybe it's Ron Paul's destiny to take up the mission. (I been watching karma videos... ;))

And it does not just leave what was initiated under the patriot act unchanged. It is now the law of the land that the armed forces can be used against the citizens of the US and citizens can be indefinitely detained without habeas corpus. The patriot act was sunday school stuff compared to this.

truthman
17th December 2011, 21:59
Obama's politics are completely simple minded and short sighted man... or you could argue that he is actually making these horrible decisions because he wants a horrible outcome because he doesn't care about the citizens of this country (i believe the latter). Have you read the ndaa bill? Obama's administration requested that the language that made the bill apply to citizens as well be put in there according to carl levin:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0PdDGqK0S4

I really wanna know how you could support Obama. For real, like, I don't get it...

He made them take out the language that applied to citizens but wanted to reserve the right at the administrative level to forego. I agree, the entire concept is questionable at best. It leaves essentially unchanged what was initiated under the Patriot act. Most of what Obama has been doing is in response to the forces allayed against him. I admit that it does appear that he is selling his soul to the devils but I don't believe he has lost his soul as yet. Obama is a pragmatist and we live in a ferociously pragmatic world. If Ron Paul is elected president and tries to do what he preaches, he will come to a very bad end...From all quarters and I mean ALL quarters he will be assailed and made to look the fool.

How the future plays out is not my decision to make. I, personally, believe that Obama is essentially good and working for both you and I. As so many of the Paul supporters have stated here, it is a process, it takes time, and more importantly someone has to get the ball rolling. Obama started the process 3 years ago...and who is to say, maybe it's Ron Paul's destiny to take up the mission. (I been watching karma videos... ;))

In my humble opinion, Ron Paul can't be stopped. They can't go and do a Kennedy on him. This is NOT 1963 when people were stupid and ignorant. Yes, there are still millions of stupid and ignorant Americans, but MILLIONS of Americans know, or AT LEAST have an idea of what is really going on. If he dies, people will go after the people behind the Federal Reserve. Thousands of them, and I believe the Pentagon will be behind those people.

These "elite" people are shaking with fear. The NDAA bill proves this theory. The only thing that can stop Paul is the the electronic voting machines, but I believe a lot of people behind the scenes (white hats) are watching carefully and will not let that happen (I could be wrong).


Interesting times we live guys:)

AlternativeInfoJunkie
17th December 2011, 22:04
Obama's politics are completely simple minded and short sighted man... or you could argue that he is actually making these horrible decisions because he wants a horrible outcome because he doesn't care about the citizens of this country (i believe the latter). Have you read the ndaa bill? Obama's administration requested that the language that made the bill apply to citizens as well be put in there according to carl levin:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0PdDGqK0S4

I really wanna know how you could support Obama. For real, like, I don't get it...

He made them take out the language that applied to citizens but wanted to reserve the right at the administrative level to forego. I agree, the entire concept is questionable at best. It leaves essentially unchanged what was initiated under the Patriot act. Most of what Obama has been doing is in response to the forces allayed against him. I admit that it does appear that he is selling his soul to the devils but I don't believe he has lost his soul as yet. Obama is a pragmatist and we live in a ferociously pragmatic world. If Ron Paul is elected president and tries to do what he preaches, he will come to a very bad end...From all quarters and I mean ALL quarters he will be assailed and made to look the fool.

How the future plays out is not my decision to make. I, personally, believe that Obama is essentially good and working for both you and I. As so many of the Paul supporters have stated here, it is a process, it takes time, and more importantly someone has to get the ball rolling. Obama started the process 3 years ago...and who is to say, maybe it's Ron Paul's destiny to take up the mission. (I been watching karma videos... ;))

In my humble opinion, Ron Paul can't be stopped. They can't go and do a Kennedy on him. This is NOT 1963 when people were stupid and ignorant. Yes, there are still millions of stupid and ignorant Americans, but millions of Americans know, or AT LEAST have an idea of what is really going on. If he dies, people will go after the people behind the Federal Reserve. Thousands of them, and I believe the Pentagon will be behind those people.

These "elite" people are shaking with fear. The only thing that can stop Paul is the the electronic voting machines, but I believe a lot of people behind the scenes (white hats) are watching carefully and will not let that happen (I could be wrong).


Interesting times we lives guys:)

EXACTLY! Couldn't have said it better myself my man. kudos.

toad
17th December 2011, 22:23
Gingrich as president is a scary proposition. He wants to abolish the 9th circuit court of appeals, he wants to have the power to subpoena Supreme Court judges, he calls the Palestine people 'invented'. I don't think it really matters who is president at this point, the chess pieces are in play, I have a feeling we may not make it to the next election given the direction some affairs and policies are headed. :(


Conservative radio host Michael Savage is so convinced that Newt Gingrich cannot beat President Obama that he has offered the former Speaker of the House $1 million dollars to drop out of the race. “The Republican presidential field has come down to two candidates who have a real chance of getting the nomination: Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney. While it’s true that Romney is not as strong a conservative as many would like him to be, the most pressing issue before America today is defeating Barack Obama, and that is something Newt Gingrich cannot do,” Savage posted on his website today. “For weeks on my show, I have enumerated the reasons why Gingrich cannot succeed in an election against Obama.”

alienHunter
17th December 2011, 22:48
Obama's politics are completely simple minded and short sighted man... or you could argue that he is actually making these horrible decisions because he wants a horrible outcome because he doesn't care about the citizens of this country (i believe the latter). Have you read the ndaa bill? Obama's administration requested that the language that made the bill apply to citizens as well be put in there according to carl levin:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0PdDGqK0S4

I really wanna know how you could support Obama. For real, like, I don't get it...

He made them take out the language that applied to citizens but wanted to reserve the right at the administrative level to forego. I agree, the entire concept is questionable at best. It leaves essentially unchanged what was initiated under the Patriot act. Most of what Obama has been doing is in response to the forces allayed against him. I admit that it does appear that he is selling his soul to the devils but I don't believe he has lost his soul as yet. Obama is a pragmatist and we live in a ferociously pragmatic world. If Ron Paul is elected president and tries to do what he preaches, he will come to a very bad end...From all quarters and I mean ALL quarters he will be assailed and made to look the fool.

How the future plays out is not my decision to make. I, personally, believe that Obama is essentially good and working for both you and I. As so many of the Paul supporters have stated here, it is a process, it takes time, and more importantly someone has to get the ball rolling. Obama started the process 3 years ago...and who is to say, maybe it's Ron Paul's destiny to take up the mission. (I been watching karma videos... ;))

And it does not just leave what was initiated under the patriot act unchanged. It is now the law of the land that the armed forces can be used against the citizens of the US and citizens can be indefinitely detained without habeas corpus. The patriot act was sunday school stuff compared to this.

What I find strange about this video is that I actually went to segments of the live C-SPAN2 broadcast and never saw this particular exchange, in fact, it is the exact opposite of everything I have seen and read...very strange indeed. I'm looking. It might have been the segment that applied to U.S. citizens charged while in foreign territory not physically in the United States. If so, that could actually protect them from action taken by foreign authorities.

modwiz
17th December 2011, 22:51
Obama is supposed to win. Republicans want no part of a country that is falling apart.

Here is Ali on being president:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVfAi7PNaeE&feature=player_detailpage

To true Modwiz To true...

:yes4:

Yes, and prophetic even. I once had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Ali when he visited my 8th grade class in Jeddah Saudi Arabia with some PLO people. He was not as quick as he was there, but he was kind. Ali hit the nail on the head there.

That's pretty funny...I take it you come from a family with a military background?

I am interested in your question about military background. Ali's conscientious objector stance was highly principled and cost him dearly. He was at the height of his career when forced to give up his crown and license. That war, if not every war, have know been shown to be nothing more than banker manipulations for one or another goal of theirs. The fact he did not assist is to his credit. The ones who did assist were victims of a game as yet unseen.

The only finger pointing should be to those usual suspects. Looking into a mirror will reveal the accomplices.

I never realized how grey type aliens are very troll looking.

AlternativeInfoJunkie
17th December 2011, 22:56
Obama's politics are completely simple minded and short sighted man... or you could argue that he is actually making these horrible decisions because he wants a horrible outcome because he doesn't care about the citizens of this country (i believe the latter). Have you read the ndaa bill? Obama's administration requested that the language that made the bill apply to citizens as well be put in there according to carl levin:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0PdDGqK0S4

I really wanna know how you could support Obama. For real, like, I don't get it...

He made them take out the language that applied to citizens but wanted to reserve the right at the administrative level to forego. I agree, the entire concept is questionable at best. It leaves essentially unchanged what was initiated under the Patriot act. Most of what Obama has been doing is in response to the forces allayed against him. I admit that it does appear that he is selling his soul to the devils but I don't believe he has lost his soul as yet. Obama is a pragmatist and we live in a ferociously pragmatic world. If Ron Paul is elected president and tries to do what he preaches, he will come to a very bad end...From all quarters and I mean ALL quarters he will be assailed and made to look the fool.

How the future plays out is not my decision to make. I, personally, believe that Obama is essentially good and working for both you and I. As so many of the Paul supporters have stated here, it is a process, it takes time, and more importantly someone has to get the ball rolling. Obama started the process 3 years ago...and who is to say, maybe it's Ron Paul's destiny to take up the mission. (I been watching karma videos... ;))

And it does not just leave what was initiated under the patriot act unchanged. It is now the law of the land that the armed forces can be used against the citizens of the US and citizens can be indefinitely detained without habeas corpus. The patriot act was sunday school stuff compared to this.

What I find strange about this video is that I actually went to segments of the live C-SPAN2 broadcast and never saw this particular exchange, in fact, it is the exact opposite of everything I have seen and read...very strange indeed. I'm looking. It might have been the segment that applied to U.S. citizens charged while in foreign territory not physically in the United States. If so, that could actually protect them from action taken by foreign authorities.

Obama wanted to protect his executive authority. not civil liberties.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ya9NpDfwMkw&list=UUczrL-2b-gYK3l4yDld4XlQ&index=1&feature=plcp

alienHunter
17th December 2011, 23:02
From Salon:

There are two separate indefinite military detention provisions in this bill. The first, Section 1021, authorizes indefinite detention for the broad definition of “covered persons” discussed above in the prior point. And that section does provide that “Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.” So that section contains a disclaimer regarding an intention to expand detention powers for U.S. citizens, but does so only for the powers vested by that specific section. More important, the exclusion appears to extend only to U.S. citizens “captured or arrested in the United States” — meaning that the powers of indefinite detention vested by that section apply to U.S. citizens captured anywhere abroad (there is some grammatical vagueness on this point, but at the very least, there is a viable argument that the detention power in this section applies to U.S. citizens captured abroad).

But the next section, Section 1022, is a different story. That section specifically deals with a smaller category of people than the broad group covered by 1021: namely, anyone whom the President determines is “a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force” and “participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.” For those persons, section (a) not only authorizes, but requires (absent a Presidential waiver), that they be held “in military custody pending disposition under the law of war.” The section title is “Military Custody for Foreign Al Qaeda Terrorists,” but the definition of who it covers does not exclude U.S. citizens or include any requirement of foreignness.

That section — 1022 — does not contain the broad disclaimer regarding U.S. citizens that 1021 contains. Instead, it simply says that the requirement of military detention does not apply to U.S. citizens, but it does not exclude U.S. citizens from the authority, the option, to hold them in military custody. Here is what it says:


The only provision from which U.S. citizens are exempted here is the “requirement” of military detention. For foreign nationals accused of being members of Al Qaeda, military detention is mandatory; for U.S. citizens, it is optional. This section does not exempt U.S citizens from the presidential power of military detention: only from the requirement of military detention.

The most important point on this issue is the same as underscored in the prior two points: the “compromise” reached by Congress includes language preserving the status quo. That’s because the Obama administration already argues that the original 2001 AUMF authorizes them to act against U.S. citizens (obviously, if they believe they have the power to target U.S. citizens for assassination, then they believe they have the power to detain U.S. citizens as enemy combatants). The proof that this bill does not expressly exempt U.S. citizens or those captured on U.S. soil is that amendments offered by Sen. Feinstein providing expressly for those exemptions were rejected. The “compromise” was to preserve the status quo by including the provision that the bill is not intended to alter it with regard to American citizens, but that’s because proponents of broad detention powers are confident that the status quo already permits such detention.

I'm still checking the status of the Feinstein proposal...last thing I read she was claiming that some amendments were still in the works.

alienHunter
17th December 2011, 23:12
you know we could do this for days...Are you sure Obama wasn't trying to insure American soldiers got their pay AND that middle class folks and business people were insured of their tax cuts. It would seem easy to just say no to this kind of legislation but many people live in fear of the terrorist. Terrorism is real...The terrorists are winning, we do seem to be losing ground. Do you remember when Obama tried to move a terrorist trial to U.S. soil and place it within the purview of American law. Do you remember how that was received. Unfortunately, this is not just about what you and I like.

AlternativeInfoJunkie
17th December 2011, 23:19
From Salon:

There are two separate indefinite military detention provisions in this bill. The first, Section 1021, authorizes indefinite detention for the broad definition of “covered persons” discussed above in the prior point. And that section does provide that “Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.” So that section contains a disclaimer regarding an intention to expand detention powers for U.S. citizens, but does so only for the powers vested by that specific section. More important, the exclusion appears to extend only to U.S. citizens “captured or arrested in the United States” — meaning that the powers of indefinite detention vested by that section apply to U.S. citizens captured anywhere abroad (there is some grammatical vagueness on this point, but at the very least, there is a viable argument that the detention power in this section applies to U.S. citizens captured abroad).

But the next section, Section 1022, is a different story. That section specifically deals with a smaller category of people than the broad group covered by 1021: namely, anyone whom the President determines is “a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force” and “participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.” For those persons, section (a) not only authorizes, but requires (absent a Presidential waiver), that they be held “in military custody pending disposition under the law of war.” The section title is “Military Custody for Foreign Al Qaeda Terrorists,” but the definition of who it covers does not exclude U.S. citizens or include any requirement of foreignness.

That section — 1022 — does not contain the broad disclaimer regarding U.S. citizens that 1021 contains. Instead, it simply says that the requirement of military detention does not apply to U.S. citizens, but it does not exclude U.S. citizens from the authority, the option, to hold them in military custody. Here is what it says:


The only provision from which U.S. citizens are exempted here is the “requirement” of military detention. For foreign nationals accused of being members of Al Qaeda, military detention is mandatory; for U.S. citizens, it is optional. This section does not exempt U.S citizens from the presidential power of military detention: only from the requirement of military detention.

The most important point on this issue is the same as underscored in the prior two points: the “compromise” reached by Congress includes language preserving the status quo. That’s because the Obama administration already argues that the original 2001 AUMF authorizes them to act against U.S. citizens (obviously, if they believe they have the power to target U.S. citizens for assassination, then they believe they have the power to detain U.S. citizens as enemy combatants). The proof that this bill does not expressly exempt U.S. citizens or those captured on U.S. soil is that amendments offered by Sen. Feinstein providing expressly for those exemptions were rejected. The “compromise” was to preserve the status quo by including the provision that the bill is not intended to alter it with regard to American citizens, but that’s because proponents of broad detention powers are confident that the status quo already permits such detention.

I'm still checking the status of the Feinstein proposal...last thing I read she was claiming that some amendments were still in the works.

Yea if you read the white house's response to the bill it basically says "yea we're totally cool with all of this, but we're already doing this anyway and we don't want to stop doing it so we're not sure if we want it in writing because it will draw attention to our ongoing abuse of civil liberties and various other crimes"

http://http://citizensnewsdaily.com/2011/11/28/white-house-response-to-senate-bill-1867/

spiritguide
17th December 2011, 23:29
Will the FEMA guards be swearing an oath to the constitution? Report has it they are being hired by a contractor. If so they only follow the contractor's rules. Anyone got inside scoop on this issue and what law establishes these camps that have existed for a long while?

Maybe subject for new thread...

AlternativeInfoJunkie
17th December 2011, 23:30
Will the FEMA guards be swearing an oath to the constitution? Report has it they are being hired by a contractor. If so they only follow the contractor's rules. Anyone got inside scoop on this issue and what law establishes these camps that have existed for a long while?

I don't know but I would't think that they would have to. good question.

AlternativeInfoJunkie
18th December 2011, 00:53
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=-tO2irR2Wj8

alienHunter
18th December 2011, 01:15
"Today, Sen. Mark Udall, a member of the Senate Armed Services and Intelligence committees, announced that he has joined Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein in introducing the Due Process Guarantee Act of 2011, to clarify that American citizens apprehended inside the United States cannot be indefinitely detained by the military.

The 2012 National Defense Authorization Act, passed earlier this week with the support of President Obama, would authorize the indefinite incarceration of terrorism suspects without trial or formal charges, including those suspects who are American citizens. Protests over the bill, and this provision, in section 1031, have already begun around the country.

Udall, who voted for the bill, which passed in final form Thursday, has fought this provision from the beginning, but said he voted for the bill anyway because the spending authorization was vital to the nation’s interest.

Udall said in a press release that the Due Process Guarantee Act of 2011 is a response to the detention provision passed Thursday as part of the National Defense Authorization Act, which could be interpreted to allow American citizens to be detained indefinitely without trial. Udall opposed that provision and fought to remove it from the authorization bill.

The Due Process Guarantee Act amends the Non-Detention Act of 1971 by providing that a congressional authorization for the use of military force does not authorize the indefinite detention – without charge or trial – of U.S. citizens. The bill also codifies a “clear-statement rule” that requires Congress to expressly authorize detention authority over U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents. The protections are limited to those “apprehended in the United States” and exclude citizens who take up arms against the United States on a foreign battlefield, such as Afghanistan."

If Obama actively attempts to stop this process, then I will be completely convinced he has lost his 'soul'...but I still won't vote for Ron Paul...likely I simply will not vote which is what I have traditionally done.

alienHunter
18th December 2011, 01:19
The Due Process Guarantee Act of 2011 is also co-sponsored by senators Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Chris Coons (D-Del.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Al Franken (D-Minn.), Tom Udall (D-N.M.), and Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.).

Udall’s concerns with the bill have been steadfast. He made the following statement right after the original vote early this month.

“Tonight, I cast my vote with extremely serious reservations, given my grave concerns about the provisions in this bill regarding military detention. Troubling questions have been raised by the Pentagon and the directors of national intelligence, the FBI and the CIA about how this new policy will impact our ability to track down, capture and bring terrorists to justice. I continue to oppose these provisions.

“After weighing all of the possible options, I decided to vote yes on the overall bill. As a member of the conference committee, I will continue to fight for a consensus that will protect our national security and the constitutional principles on which our nation was founded. The rest of this bill is vitally important to our military. I couldn’t in good conscience vote against legislation that means so much to Colorado and our men and women in uniform fighting in two wars.”

When his initial efforts to fix the bill failed, he sent this letter to Sen. Carl Levin, D-MI, on Dec. 9:

The Honorable Carl Levin
Chairman,
Senate Armed Services Committee
Russell Senate Office Building, SR-228
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Chairman Levin:

As the House and Senate Armed Services Committees meet to negotiate the final Fiscal Year 2012 National Defense Authorization Act in conference, I urge you to give careful consideration to a number of issues related to the detention provisions contained in the Senate bill that I believe could have significant and damaging impacts on our national security and simultaneously Americans’ constitutional freedoms. Although I have no doubt that the provisions were drafted with the best of intentions, I remain deeply concerned about the potential for unintended consequences that could impede our ability to track, investigate, capture, and exploit terrorism suspects. Therefore, I respectfully ask that you seek to address the following points during the conference negotiations and modify the language of the provisions as needed to protect national security and the constitutional liberties of American citizens.

Authorization for indefinite military detention (Section 1031):
Section 1031 contains a number of provisions that have generated significant criticism from the Department of Defense, the Intelligence Community, federal, state, and local law enforcement officials, and civil rights organizations. By authorizing the military to conduct operations that have been within the exclusive purview of civilian law enforcement for over 140 years, this section has the potential to create unnecessary challenges and liabilities for the Department of Defense and other agencies.

Although it has been argued that Section 1031 does not change existing law or practices, such assertions are widely disputed by a range of policy experts, as well as senior national security and law enforcement officials. By expanding the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40), this provision effectively declares the United States a part of the battlefield. That expansion, in turn, raises a number of unanswered questions that create a significant likelihood for uncertainty and confusion in the national security community. Given that the Executive Branch already has the flexibility and resources necessary to prosecute the war against extremists, this provision could be counterproductive and ultimately harm our national security.

Section 1031 also could be interpreted as permitting the indefinite detention – without trial – of American citizens arrested in the United States. Such actions would conflict with statutory and Constitutional protections and invite legal challenges that could threaten the prosecution of suspected terrorists. Throughout American history, the government has taken actions that have infringed on civil liberties in an effort to protect the United States from attacks; the hindsight of history has proven many of those actions-such as the internment of Japanese-Americans-to be ineffective and ultimately out of step with American values. Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations may endeavor to attack our citizens and infrastructure, but despite their best efforts, they do not have the capability to weaken our principles or limit our freedoms. Congress should endeavor to stand firm in defending that which our enemies seek to destroy rather than enacting legislation that weakens Constitutional protections and limits the ability of our government to use all of the tools at their disposal to fight and defeat our enemies.

Requirement for military detention (Section 1032):
The requirement in Section 1032 of the Senate NDAA to detain certain members of “al Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces” in military custody could present numerous unforeseen technical, logistical, and legal challenges for various national security agencies as they work to prevent terrorist attacks. The lessons learned following the events of September 11th, 2001 made it clear that law enforcement agencies, the intelligence community, and the Department of Defense (DOD) were insulated from one another and lacked the ability to effectively share intelligence and collaborate. Over the course of the last decade, interagency cooperation and collaboration has improved markedly, and as a result, has made it possible to prevent further terrorist attacks. By requiring an inflexible course of action that runs contrary to the advice of our counterterrorism professionals, this provision could significantly impede the efforts of our law enforcement, intelligence agencies, and the Department of Defense as they seek to make split-second decisions and keep us safe.

I understand that the national security waiver in Section 1032 is intended to provide the executive branch with the authority to override the requirement for military detention in certain circumstances; however, I believe this only adds an unnecessary and time-consuming bureaucratic process that could lead to costly delays in decision making and execution of necessary actions. The efforts required to combat persistent and unpredictable terrorist threats are simply incompatible with requiring multiple senior Administration officials to certify a national security imperative in order to preserve the current flexibility they effectively enjoy today.

Finally, there are a number of questions raised in Section 1032 that remain unanswered. For example, given the unconventional nature of our enemies, it is unclear what constitutes membership in al Qaeda, what forces are considered to be associated with al Qaeda, what defines a “coalition partner,” or how it can be determined that an individual is a member of such group or has committed a belligerent act-especially within the United States- without trial. At the very least, the lack of clear due process requirements raises serious questions. It is also unclear how the requirements in Section 1032 would affect the transfer of enemy belligerents currently held at detention facilities other than Guantanamo.

More broadly, it is unclear how enacting the provisions in Section 1032 will benefit U.S. national security. Subsection (a) of Section 1031 affirms that “the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force…includes authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain” certain covered persons. In light of the stated intent of the provisions to provide the President with the authority necessary to effectively prosecute actions against al Qaeda and other unspecified terrorist organizations, it seems counterintuitive that the Congress should subsequently mandate actions like those in Section 1032 that effectively tie the hands of the Administration and the national security community.

I have enclosed suggested legislative language that I believe may help to resolve some of the concerns and ambiguity associated with Section 1032. I respectfully ask that you consider this language during your deliberations with conferees.

Sincerely,

Mark Udall

As a post thought I add that 'some entities' believe that the defining characteristic of our internal security agencies is incompetence. That's just a post thought, of course, but it is another perspective.

If you don't stop this you're gonna drive me to drinkin'

AlternativeInfoJunkie
18th December 2011, 01:32
"Today, Sen. Mark Udall, a member of the Senate Armed Services and Intelligence committees, announced that he has joined Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein in introducing the Due Process Guarantee Act of 2011, to clarify that American citizens apprehended inside the United States cannot be indefinitely detained by the military.

The 2012 National Defense Authorization Act, passed earlier this week with the support of President Obama, would authorize the indefinite incarceration of terrorism suspects without trial or formal charges, including those suspects who are American citizens. Protests over the bill, and this provision, in section 1031, have already begun around the country.

Udall, who voted for the bill, which passed in final form Thursday, has fought this provision from the beginning, but said he voted for the bill anyway because the spending authorization was vital to the nation’s interest.

Udall said in a press release that the Due Process Guarantee Act of 2011 is a response to the detention provision passed Thursday as part of the National Defense Authorization Act, which could be interpreted to allow American citizens to be detained indefinitely without trial. Udall opposed that provision and fought to remove it from the authorization bill.

The Due Process Guarantee Act amends the Non-Detention Act of 1971 by providing that a congressional authorization for the use of military force does not authorize the indefinite detention – without charge or trial – of U.S. citizens. The bill also codifies a “clear-statement rule” that requires Congress to expressly authorize detention authority over U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents. The protections are limited to those “apprehended in the United States” and exclude citizens who take up arms against the United States on a foreign battlefield, such as Afghanistan."

If Obama actively attempts to stop this process, then I will be completely convinced he has lost his 'soul'...but I still won't vote for Ron Paul...likely I simply will not vote which is what I have traditionally done.

Not voting at all is better than voting for obama. But I mean it is verifiable that Obama wants the most authoritarian , fascist aspects of this bill to remain in place. The provisions he wants to do away with are the ones that would threaten his executive "authority" to disregard our constitutional freedoms. I mean I gave you the evidence. You can choose not to see it if you want. History has shown us what happens when we allow narcissistic sociopaths to remain in power. This is not a left/right thing. Bush was one of them too and we failed to remove him from office in a timely fashion. But like i said it's all there. You need to allow yourself to see obama for what he is IMHO. And I feel for you. I do because i voted for him and i defended him for awhile. You have to allow yourself to snap out of it.

alienHunter
18th December 2011, 01:33
well, you gave me what is purported to be 'evidence'. I'm not ready to accept it. Don't you think it is a little obvious for a subversive...I do, I think even I could do a better job of usurping fundamental american rights...for example, I would rather not see this in law, I would do it under the table in the fashion of Dubya. A Presidential administration already has the ability to do anything they like without an attendant legal precedent. Obama is a constitutional attorney, after all.

AlternativeInfoJunkie
18th December 2011, 01:40
well, you gave me what is purported to be 'evidence'. I'm not ready to accept it. Don't you think it is a little obvious for a subversive...I do, I think even I could do a better job of usurping fundamental american rights...for example, I would rather not see this in law, I would do it under the table in the fashion of Dubya. A Presidential administration already has the ability to do anything they like without an attendant legal precedent. Obama is a constitutional attorney, after all.

Read the whitehouse's own response to the bill! For real! It's all there in their own words. You just have to allow yourself to see it. I'll post it again.


http://citizensnewsdaily.com/2011/11/28/white-house-response-to-senate-bill-1867/
¤=[Post Update]=¤

[/COLOR]
well, you gave me what is purported to be 'evidence'. I'm not ready to accept it. Don't you think it is a little obvious for a subversive...i do, i think even i could do a better job of usurping fundamental american rights...for example, i would rather not see this in law, i would do it under the table in the fashion of dubya. A presidential administration already has the ability to do anything they like without an attendant legal precedent. Obama is a constitutional attorney, after all.

that was obama's problem with the bill! He wanted to keep doing this in secret! REMEMBER HE ISN'T THE ONE ONE WHO PROPOSED IT! BUT HE IS THE ONE WHO PROPOSED THE MOST FASCIST ASPECTS OF THE BILL!

alienHunter
18th December 2011, 01:43
Alternative,

that is an enlightening statement you made. I admit that makes me a little more open to what you're saying...I hope you're telling the truth. You've been turned, man...I'm cool with that, too. Many former Obama supporters have been working on me for quite some time. I just think he is a compromiser, not one that is inflexible by principle. At least, that is what I maintain. Trust me, though...I'm still watching...very carefully.

¤=[Post Update]=¤

you're killing me, man. :boxing:

¤=[Post Update]=¤

link is not working.

AlternativeInfoJunkie
18th December 2011, 01:49
http://citizensnewsdaily.com/2011/11/28/white-house-response-to-senate-bill-1867/
Alternative,

that is an enlightening statement you made. I admit that makes me a little more open to what you're saying...I hope you're telling the truth. You've been turned, man...I'm cool with that, too. Many former Obama supporters have been working on me for quite some time. I just think he is a compromiser, not one that is inflexible by principle. At least, that is what I maintain. Trust me, though...I'm still watching...very carefully.

¤=[Post Update]=¤

you're killing me, man. :boxing:

¤=[Post Update]=¤

link is not working.

http://citizensnewsdaily.com/2011/11/28/white-house-response-to-senate-bill-1867/

¤=[Post Update]=¤


http://citizensnewsdaily.com/2011/11/28/white-house-response-to-senate-bill-1867/
Alternative,

that is an enlightening statement you made. I admit that makes me a little more open to what you're saying...I hope you're telling the truth. You've been turned, man...I'm cool with that, too. Many former Obama supporters have been working on me for quite some time. I just think he is a compromiser, not one that is inflexible by principle. At least, that is what I maintain. Trust me, though...I'm still watching...very carefully.

¤=[Post Update]=¤

you're killing me, man. :boxing:

¤=[Post Update]=¤

link is not working.

http://citizensnewsdaily.com/2011/11/28/white-house-response-to-senate-bill-1867/


They work now hunter.

alienHunter
18th December 2011, 01:53
ok, my interpretation is different but i'm giving up for now...

AlternativeInfoJunkie
18th December 2011, 01:57
Alternative,

that is an enlightening statement you made. I admit that makes me a little more open to what you're saying...I hope you're telling the truth. You've been turned, man...I'm cool with that, too. Many former Obama supporters have been working on me for quite some time. I just think he is a compromiser, not one that is inflexible by principle. At least, that is what I maintain. Trust me, though...I'm still watching...very carefully.

¤=[Post Update]=¤

you're killing me, man. :boxing:

¤=[Post Update]=¤

link is not working.

I have a suggestion hunter. If you and other liberals can't get behind Ron Paul because of social issues then why don't you guys get a "ron paul" of your own? Start a petition to convince dennis kucinich to run! Talk to Nader or some other anti establishment candidate of your choosing. But don't support Obama. He is what you claim to HATE! He is a run of the mill neo-conservative war monger just like W bush was. He HATES civil liberties. actions speak louder than rhetoric and obama's actions prove him to be just another good for nothing, torture loving, liberty hating, war/fear mongering NEO-CONSERVATIVE! i mean are his actions the actions of a man who strives for peace? I think not.

AlternativeInfoJunkie
18th December 2011, 02:03
ok, my interpretation is different but i'm giving up for now...

"While there are many areas of agreement with the Committee, the Administration would have
serious concerns with provisions that would: (1) constrain the ability of the Armed Forces to
carry out their missions; (2) impede the Secretary of Defense’s ability to make and implement
decisions that eliminate unnecessary overhead or programs to ensure scarce resources are
directed to the highest priorities for the warfighter; or (3) depart from the decisions reflected in
the President’s FY 2012 Budget Request. The Administration looks forward to working with the
Congress to address these and other concerns, a number of which are outlined in more detail
below.

Detainee Matters: The Administration objects to and has serious legal and policy concerns about
many of the detainee provisions in the bill. In their current form, some of these provisions
disrupt the Executive branch’s ability to enforce the law and impose unwise and unwarranted
restrictions on the U.S. Government’s ability to aggressively combat international terrorism;
other provisions inject legal uncertainty and ambiguity that may only complicate the military’s
operations and detention practices."

-DA MUTHAFLIPPIN WHITEHOUSE


Like i said you can choose not to see it. But if you need a little help seeing it the really telling part of the response is when they say the bill could place unnecessary "restrictions" on their executive authority. Do you want even more help? The reason it would restrict them is because the language in the bill might lead the international community to think that the detainees are PRISONERS OF WAR! who have rights under the geneva convention! the obama administration does not want detainees to have those rights. Keep your eyes closed if you want, but it is all there if you choose to see it.

Take the red pill Hunter:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGQF8LAmiaE

andrewgreen
18th December 2011, 02:49
I think people are just starting to wake up to Paul's message but not quite soon enough. I believe he is doing the ground work for rand paul for the election in five years time. Unfortunately the states and the world are going to have to wait until we move towards peace and I suspect warmonger Obama will have another term.

T Smith
18th December 2011, 02:52
Alternative,

that is an enlightening statement you made. I admit that makes me a little more open to what you're saying...I hope you're telling the truth. You've been turned, man...I'm cool with that, too. Many former Obama supporters have been working on me for quite some time. I just think he is a compromiser, not one that is inflexible by principle. At least, that is what I maintain. Trust me, though...I'm still watching...very carefully.

¤=[Post Update]=¤

you're killing me, man. :boxing:

¤=[Post Update]=¤

link is not working.

I have a suggestion hunter. If you and other liberals can't get behind Ron Paul because of social issues then why don't you guys get a "ron paul" of your own? Start a petition to convince dennis kucinich to run! Talk to Nader or some other anti establishment candidate of your choosing. But don't support Obama. He is what you claim to HATE! He is a run of the mill neo-conservative war monger just like W bush was. He HATES civil liberties. actions speak louder than rhetoric and obama's actions prove him to be just another good for nothing, torture loving, liberty hating, war/fear mongering NEO-CONSERVATIVE! i mean are his actions the actions of a man who strives for peace? I think not.

Yes. Well said. And absolutely correct.

Camilo
18th December 2011, 02:55
Ron Paul is the man USA needs!

AlternativeInfoJunkie
18th December 2011, 03:14
The majority of avalonians on here give me hope that the future will be better than anything we've experienced so far. Take heart avalonians! We have the power to make the world a better place and i believe we will!

sygh
18th December 2011, 03:46
I think Paul has some good points. But on an aside note it's curious that he mentions Grover Cleveland as his favorite president of all time:

*When Grover Cleveland, a Democrat, ran for President in 1884, the general impression in the country was that he opposed the power of monopolies and corporations, and that the Republican party, whose candidate was James Blaine, stood for the wealthy. But when Cleveland defeated Blaine, Jay Gould (leading American railroad developer and speculator) wired him: "I feel ... that the vast business interests of the country will be entirely safe in your hands." And he was right.

*One of Cleveland's chief advisers was William Whitney, a millionaire and corporation lawyer, who married into the Standard Oil fortune and was appointed Secretary of the Navy by Cleveland. He immediately set about to create a "steel navy," buying the steel at artificially high prices from Carnegie's plants. Cleveland himself assured industrialists that his election should not frighten them: "No harm shall come to any business interest as the result of administrative policy so long as I am President ... a transfer of executive control from one party to another does not mean any serious disturbance of existing conditions."

*In 1887, with a huge surplus in the treasury, Cleveland vetoed a bill appropriating $100,000 to give relief to Texas farmers to help them buy seed grain during a drought. He said: "Federal aid in such cases .. . encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character." But that same year, Cleveland used his gold surplus to pay off wealthy bondholders at $28 above the $100 value of each bond -a gift of $45 million."

(*Excerpts taken from A people's history of the United States of America, by Howard Zinn)

Hi vortex,

That's part of our problem really...making historical comparisons. I think in fairness to Ron Paul, he should be allowed to stand on his own merits. In my opinion his merit is a very basic, very simple, very straightforward political message. Unfortunately, our real world life is not just basic or very straightforward and simple. Paul is compelling, though, I would love to be able to solve all my personal problems with a sweep of a principled hand.

Paul's got 12 years of political experience. He's stuck to what he's said all that time. Ron has never once said, vote for me and I'll fix everything. What he has said is no one person will change this -and change takes time.

AlternativeInfoJunkie
18th December 2011, 03:56
I think Paul has some good points. But on an aside note it's curious that he mentions Grover Cleveland as his favorite president of all time:

*When Grover Cleveland, a Democrat, ran for President in 1884, the general impression in the country was that he opposed the power of monopolies and corporations, and that the Republican party, whose candidate was James Blaine, stood for the wealthy. But when Cleveland defeated Blaine, Jay Gould (leading American railroad developer and speculator) wired him: "I feel ... that the vast business interests of the country will be entirely safe in your hands." And he was right.

*One of Cleveland's chief advisers was William Whitney, a millionaire and corporation lawyer, who married into the Standard Oil fortune and was appointed Secretary of the Navy by Cleveland. He immediately set about to create a "steel navy," buying the steel at artificially high prices from Carnegie's plants. Cleveland himself assured industrialists that his election should not frighten them: "No harm shall come to any business interest as the result of administrative policy so long as I am President ... a transfer of executive control from one party to another does not mean any serious disturbance of existing conditions."

*In 1887, with a huge surplus in the treasury, Cleveland vetoed a bill appropriating $100,000 to give relief to Texas farmers to help them buy seed grain during a drought. He said: "Federal aid in such cases .. . encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character." But that same year, Cleveland used his gold surplus to pay off wealthy bondholders at $28 above the $100 value of each bond -a gift of $45 million."

(*Excerpts taken from A people's history of the United States of America, by Howard Zinn)

Hi vortex,

That's part of our problem really...making historical comparisons. I think in fairness to Ron Paul, he should be allowed to stand on his own merits. In my opinion his merit is a very basic, very simple, very straightforward political message. Unfortunately, our real world life is not just basic or very straightforward and simple. Paul is compelling, though, I would love to be able to solve all my personal problems with a sweep of a principled hand.

Paul's got 12 years of political experience. He's stuck to what he's said all that time. Ron has never once said, vote for me and I'll fix everything. What he has said is no one person will change this -and change takes time.

well said.

vortex surfer
18th December 2011, 12:17
I think there is more to the Grover Cleaveland issue than simple snippets taken possibly out of context. I say that based on observing that many times things can be put in such a way that if you don't do the research those bit of information are not giving a complete picture, but a very skewed one.

Yes, of course this isn't the definitive story of Grover Cleveland, and I'm certainly no expert on him either. My intention was to point to an aspect of Cleveland that I found kind of opposite of what Paul is trying to do. I'm not implying that Paul is of the same ilk, but I just found it curious that a man who is such an outsider in many ways, and against the whole federeal reserve system, is a fan of a long gone president with such ties to big business. Then again Cleveland probably had little choice but to play ball with the industrial and financial sector, and he's certainly not unique in this case. As Zinn points outs repeatedly in his book there has always been a financial ruling class in the US in some form or fashion, with their own agendas and interests no matter the ruling party or president.

But I agree with you, electing Paul would be a first climb out of the hole as far as US domestic and foreign policy is concerned.

alienHunter
18th December 2011, 13:41
The majority of avalonians on here give me hope that the future will be better than anything we've experienced so far. Take heart avalonians! We have the power to make the world a better place and i believe we will!

well, he's got at least 20 votes...I'm pretty sure I could round up that many for myself (so i've been told by friends that run the political gamut...but alas, no Ron Paul advocates)

many people on the left have their 'special' choices...My opinion remains unchanged, 'special' choices don't mean sh*t. The change in our society has to come from within and as a culture we have a long long way to go. After 58 years of social abuse, I have learned to be very very patient.

Alternative...let's be friends...just don't try to make buy something I'm not gonna buy. It's my human nature.

Before you come back and say I'm not responding to your claim above...let me explain it for you:

"While there are many areas of agreement with the Committee, the Administration would have
serious concerns with provisions that would: (1) constrain the ability of the Armed Forces to
carry out their missions; (2) impede the Secretary of Defense’s ability to make and implement
decisions that eliminate unnecessary overhead or programs to ensure scarce resources are
directed to the highest priorities for the warfighter; or (3) depart from the decisions reflected in
the President’s FY 2012 Budget Request. The Administration looks forward to working with the
Congress to address these and other concerns, a number of which are outlined in more detail
below.

Detainee Matters: The Administration objects to and has serious legal and policy concerns about
many of the detainee provisions in the bill. In their current form, some of these provisions
disrupt the Executive branch’s ability to enforce the law and impose unwise and unwarranted
restrictions on the U.S. Government’s ability to aggressively combat international terrorism;
other provisions inject legal uncertainty and ambiguity that may only complicate the military’s
operations and detention practices."

This is called executive authority to declare war. It has always been under the purview of the executive branch if not by constitution by historical interpretation of it. Abraham Lincoln declared war on the Confederacy, after all.

Under the current bill what would have been codified is that the MILITARY had precedence over that decision and it was not something that the current Democratigator-in-chief chose to let happen. The main conceptual difference which is the primary impetus for the disagreement is the notion of 'indefinite detention'. Due to the nature of the war...when can we declare it over and thereby release any 'enemy' combatants. In any case, he will be gone in a timely fashion dictated by imperative of the U.S. Constitution. What then for his codified power grab.

I had a bad night's sleep.

Unified Serenity
18th December 2011, 15:30
THE Constitution of the United States of America

Article 1 section 8


Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.



This appears very hard for you to understand alienhunter, but the constitution of the United States of America clearly spells out which branch of government does what. The President does not declare war, the Congress does. It is a check and balance system because while we Americans are fast to fight when necessary, we are not wanting to go fight for GM, Ford, Exxon, Mobile, or Haliburton! It's a lot easier to buy 1 guy (the President) off than hundreds (The Congress) and our founding fathers were not stupid to that fact!

alienHunter
18th December 2011, 15:54
you're right, I was very wrong about that from a strict constitutional perspective. But would you argue that the MILITARY does currently have any auspices of war other than implementing the dictates of the Congress and the Executive branch.

I just checked my history...4 of 5 declarations of war have been 'requested' by the commander-in-chief after hostilities had already begun


It also occurred to me that was the reason for the bill's concern about 'timeliness'

jackovesk
18th December 2011, 16:03
you're right, I was very wrong about that from a strict constitutional perspective. But would you argue that the MILITARY does currently have any auspices of war other than implementing the dictates of the Congress and the Executive branch.

I just checked my history...4 of 5 declarations of war have been 'requested' by the commander-in-chief after hostilities had already begun

Your right alienhunter - you were wrong again...

Semantics is one thing, the Constitution is another..!

alienHunter
18th December 2011, 16:09
you're right, I was very wrong about that from a strict constitutional perspective. But would you argue that the MILITARY does currently have any auspices of war other than implementing the dictates of the Congress and the Executive branch.

I just checked my history...4 of 5 declarations of war have been 'requested' by the commander-in-chief after hostilities had already begun

Your right alienhunter - you were wrong again...

Semantics is one thing, the Constitution is another..!

the Constitution...another analogue to the Bible. I don't believe in a strict interpretation of either. They are both living documents and subject to contemporaneous perspective. As I have pointed out in various threads...the only wisdom not amenable to change is wisdom from the God/gods. Can you tell me which documents attain that level of sacrosanctity.

Unified Serenity
18th December 2011, 16:10
you're right, I was very wrong about that from a strict constitutional perspective. But would you argue that the MILITARY does currently have any auspices of war other than implementing the dictates of the Congress and the Executive branch.

I just checked my history...4 of 5 declarations of war have been 'requested' by the commander-in-chief after hostilities had already begun

I have no problem with taking action quickly to defend our country, but that is NOT what has gone on the last 60 years. Vietnam was a police action, not a war. The Gulf of Tonkin incident which was the catalyst to get us into that "War" is now known to have never happened! We lost 50,000 Americans fighting that bull**** of a "war". There is a difference of the President needing to call out the Military if we are in imminent danger. When has American been in imminent danger of attack in the last 100 years? Please do tell me when we needed the President to call out our military, commit our sons and daughters, husbands, wives, and fathers lives and not go through a proper vote of Congress in the last 100 years.

The President has entered these wars on his own, the media plays up the "Patriot" game and anyone who questions our actions is labelled a traitor, unsupportive of the Military, and treated as an outcast attacked for having a view differing from the sheeple (Gee, I saw that same energy here yesterday attacking me for daring to question DW and Kerry's interview and what what really going on, but I digress). Congress is then put between a rock and a hard place. If they don't fund the bastard's war then can be painted as not supporting the military and defending our interests. So, they fund the war budget and 10 effing years later we are still fighting a war in Iraq and Afghanistan over another lie that there were weapons of mass destruction and we needed to take them out. That the nebulus terrorists need to be weeded out of the middle east! Give me a break! That's like saying we are going to weed out all the drug dealers in the country and they go kicking every door down from New York to Florida to Minnesota to California, Hawaii and Alaska and oh, lets say we lose 3 million innocent American's lives but by golly we are winning the war on drugs! Yes, tell me Alien hunter how all this sounds to you? And don't effing tell me that Obama is getting us out of Iraq, because he said that was the FIRST thing he was going to do as President. This is nothing more than a political stunt and photo op at the expense of our sons and daughters lives and those of the people over their who have died needlessly. For Shame on Obama. For Shame on America. For shame on me.

alienHunter
18th December 2011, 16:14
ok, I won't tell you...but that is what he is trying to do...his next step, if allowed, will be a pull out from Afghanistan...No one in their right mind wants incessant war...Obama is in his right mind.

Unified Serenity
18th December 2011, 16:16
ok, i won't tell you...but that is what he is trying to do...his next step, if allowed, will be a pull out from afghanistan...no one in their right mind wants incessant war...obama is in his right mind.

d.n.f.t.t.

alienHunter
18th December 2011, 16:21
Is that meant for me...if it is that's a first for me...interesting. I'll give you another first...I'm not going away feeling like a winner like I would normally. you guys have acquitted yourselves well on behalf of your beliefs. I just don't share them.

I think Obama is essentially good...you think Obama is essentially bad.
I think Paul is naive, living in and for a world that doesn't exist outside his womb of influence.
you think Paul is the answer to mankind's fundamental illness...well, I certainly disagree with that.

Lifebringer
18th December 2011, 17:07
I'd vote for him if he could stop those of racial or gender hatred from harming others. We have laws against it, but the hiring and ethnic coding on applications has kept us African Americans and minorities. That backward exclusion of the human species has kept this planet in the dark for ages and needs to stop. If the judiciary shows this bias, is there really any chance to rise above it where i too, can have a safe America for my children. I don't agree with any crime of violence on any ethnic human being, yet still today at 53, i yearn to have a homeland where I am accepted by my charecter, and not color. I have an ancestry of Native American, African American and Irish American. Three continents that either call me a "cafa" or enslaved American African, or rejected through my 50 percent Native American Ancestry (Mom and grandparents full blooded Cherokee)and kicked out of tribe because of drop of African blood as if being part of the 1st man, is something to be ashamed of, or totally ignored, when I wear my green on St. Patrick's Day.

I and my people have this dream or vision as Martin did, to be at peace in life and death is not the only answer for us. Acceptance, just as the Jews have been accepted, is the only future in this country, i will accept. If I could take my social Security and live in Canada, or Mexico, or even Haiti for that matter, I would leave just to have peace in my later years. I would teach the natural green energy efficiency and conservation to the island people to continue to have pristine waters for the fish and mammals that also share this planet.
I pray the only Heaven on Earth I recieve, isn't denied me in my lifetime. It just wouldn't be just. It would be totally hopeless and unfair.
Ron Paul is a doctor that told the republicans during medicare part D that if the middlemen deniars of care would get out of the way, and the payment to doctors cut down in repaying the doctor, the system would work fine. The man is consistent because he also said that cutting the doctor in payments on his care, doesn't guarantee his options of treatment for the patient if there isn't money for him to buy better equipment for diagnosage.
He makes a lot of sense and cares for the patients, the insurers screwed up the system, under Nixon, Kissinger for privatization of healthcare and how the stocks for it would take the payment from the doctor and government to a share holder investing in the middle man, who has absolutely "nothing to do with treatment of the patient, therefore can't be sued."

Crooked party ideology of scamming people as they get older, frailer, and more feeble minded. I remember bed sores and bad treatment from privatized health facilities during Nixon, Reagan, Bush and Bush II like the pregraduating student with a liver transplant and insurance company that wouldn't pay for the organ transplant. This heartless nature of the beast of greed, is a bad dark aura for our country on this planet and everyone sees US for what we now, have become under these heartless leaders.

Morally depraved since I was able to vote.
Pray for common sense, compassion, caring, tolerance equality and freedom to come back to America before it's too late.

alienHunter
18th December 2011, 17:18
Hi Lifebringer,

One thing I'm not quite sure about Paul...does he say that he would treat free of charge any patient that is genuinely without resources. Say, for example, in a national emergency?

I am actually German/Irish, Italian and was raised in an Hispanic family. My stepmother is Hungarian, I have people of all ethnicities including Asian, African, Southeast Asian, South Asian and Native American in my family of origin. I have a VERY good perspective on what ethnicity means in the United States.

May you find the peace you seek. We all deserve that...even Unified Serenity.

AlternativeInfoJunkie
18th December 2011, 17:44
you're right, I was very wrong about that from a strict constitutional perspective. But would you argue that the MILITARY does currently have any auspices of war other than implementing the dictates of the Congress and the Executive branch.

I just checked my history...4 of 5 declarations of war have been 'requested' by the commander-in-chief after hostilities had already begun

Your right alienhunter - you were wrong again...

Semantics is one thing, the Constitution is another..!

the Constitution...another analogue to the Bible. I don't believe in a strict interpretation of either. They are both living documents and subject to contemporaneous perspective. As I have pointed out in various threads...the only wisdom not amenable to change is wisdom from the God/gods. Can you tell me which documents attain that level of sacrosanctity.

Ok wow hunter... I do want to be friends. I mean this in the most friendly way possible. I thought you had more common sense than to think our republic could survive with a loose interpretation of the constitution. That line of thinking is the same one that allows the patriot act to exist and allows wars of agression carried out by the US to continue. I want to continue friendship and i'm sorry if my arguments sound a little harsh sometimes. I like our debates. I find them helpful for me because they force me to formulate my arguments in a precise and coherent way. This is good because next time i have to do that i'll already have had some practice! Our debates cerainly solidify my beliefs because i think "well if this is the antithesis to what i believe, my beiefs certainly make more sense." No offense. But i do not take any of them personally and i hope they continue. Someday you'll take the red pill and see obama for what he is and if not, that's fine too. In the meantime i just like talking about what i believe.

jackovesk
19th December 2011, 05:36
Have Trouble With Ron Paul’s Foreign Policy?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8NhRPo0WAo&feature=player_embedded

by Jack Hunter
This is a beautifully done grassroots video outlining the different aspects of Ron Paul’s foreign policy that some Republicans have trouble comprehending.

If there is another terrorist attack it will be because America did not follow the foreign policy proposed by the Founding Fathers and Ron Paul. The reason there would even be another terrorist attack in the future would because America did not follow the foreign policy of the Founding Fathers and Ron Paul.

Confused? You’re not alone. Our media and political elites seem to love keeping Americans in the dark on so many important issues regarding foreign policy. This video is well worth the 13 minutes and clears up much of the confusion regarding Ron Paul’s positions on this subject:

You Like Ron Paul, Except on Foreign Policy?

http://www.degaray.com/pic/146-Ron-Paul-Military-Donations-Scnshot-2.jpg

So, you'd vote for Ron Paul if it weren't for his wacky foreign policy?

U.S. military veterans and active duty soldiers overwhelmingly support Ron Paul for President in 2012. Find out why.

This video 'above' explains why they support Ron Paul so overwhelmingly, including a discussion of "blowback" resulting from U.S. interventionist foreign policy.

http://www.degaray.com/misc/144-Ron-Paul.html

PS - What better endorsement on Ron Paul's 'Foreign Policy' can you get from those who are actually on the ground in the 'Dust & Dirt' putting their lives on the line each and every day..!

T Smith
19th December 2011, 06:37
Detainee Matters: The Administration objects to and has serious legal and policy concerns about
many of the detainee provisions in the bill. In their current form, some of these provisions
disrupt the Executive branch’s ability to enforce the law and impose unwise and unwarranted
restrictions on the U.S. Government’s ability to aggressively combat international terrorism;
other provisions inject legal uncertainty and ambiguity that may only complicate the military’s
operations and detention practices."

This is called executive authority to declare war.

Oh, wait. I'm confused. Who are we at war with again? Oceania? Or Eastasia?

GlassSteagallfan
19th December 2011, 08:21
shows how smart they are

alienHunter
19th December 2011, 16:16
Detainee Matters: The Administration objects to and has serious legal and policy concerns about
many of the detainee provisions in the bill. In their current form, some of these provisions
disrupt the Executive branch’s ability to enforce the law and impose unwise and unwarranted
restrictions on the U.S. Government’s ability to aggressively combat international terrorism;
other provisions inject legal uncertainty and ambiguity that may only complicate the military’s
operations and detention practices."

This is called executive authority to declare war.

Oh, wait. I'm confused. Who are we at war with again? Oceania? Or Eastasia?

I'm bacckkkk...really, that's a good question. Many would say we are at war with the ephemeral (a.k.a. Terrorists)

By the way...I was seriously dinged by my usage of 'declare'...it should have read 'wage'. Thank you for the opportunity to redeem myself.

AlternativeInfoJunkie
19th December 2011, 19:52
Detainee Matters: The Administration objects to and has serious legal and policy concerns about
many of the detainee provisions in the bill. In their current form, some of these provisions
disrupt the Executive branch’s ability to enforce the law and impose unwise and unwarranted
restrictions on the U.S. Government’s ability to aggressively combat international terrorism;
other provisions inject legal uncertainty and ambiguity that may only complicate the military’s
operations and detention practices."

This is called executive authority to declare war.

Oh, wait. I'm confused. Who are we at war with again? Oceania? Or Eastasia?

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THAT! The parallels between 1984 and the present day are uncanny. "War is peace." I hope you don't support our agression in libya hunter. That would be too much.

Arrowwind
19th December 2011, 20:14
you're right, I was very wrong about that from a strict constitutional perspective. But would you argue that the MILITARY does currently have any auspices of war other than implementing the dictates of the Congress and the Executive branch.

I just checked my history...4 of 5 declarations of war have been 'requested' by the commander-in-chief after hostilities had already begun

Your right alienhunter - you were wrong again...

Semantics is one thing, the Constitution is another..!

the Constitution...another analogue to the Bible. I don't believe in a strict interpretation of either. They are both living documents and subject to contemporaneous perspective. As I have pointed out in various threads...the only wisdom not amenable to change is wisdom from the God/gods. Can you tell me which documents attain that level of sacrosanctity.

The constitution is not an analogue to the bible and it offends greatly that one would say so.

and it is because we have failed as a congress, as a senate, as presidents and judicary and as a people at large to maintian the rules of the constitution that we are in the dam mess that we are in today. Presidents are not suppost to declare war, judges are not suppose to legeslate. Senate and congress are not suppose to be bought and sold.

We know the constitutions origin clearly and it pushes no belief system on anyone except that for life liberty and the persuit of happiness and an orderly progression of acts to allow that to happen.
It forces society to accept all peoples of all cultural differences and of all means.. and has been put to the test of time.

Clearly the bible in its 1500 years of existence has been used for the repression of all women and most successfully, until the US constitution came to stand up agaist it. As the principles of the constitution came alive within humanity the church was forced down and women became free.. and will become freer yet as the corrupt nature of churches are more fully revealed including the lies and ommisions in the bible desinged to disempower woman.. which really means to keep men in power.

The hostilitites promoted by presidents went outside of legal bounds and often based on lies.. consider the bay of Tonkin incident as well as Iraq and the Iran event that we are currently heading for, not to mention Libya where Obama circumented congressional approval by going in under NATO to put in harms way US citizens in the military without the approval of the US citizens.. This should be illegal and an ammendement to the constittuion is warrented for this transgression. . WE need a leader who will not do this and will stand up against it.

AlternativeInfoJunkie
19th December 2011, 20:20
you're right, i was very wrong about that from a strict constitutional perspective. But would you argue that the military does currently have any auspices of war other than implementing the dictates of the congress and the executive branch.

I just checked my history...4 of 5 declarations of war have been 'requested' by the commander-in-chief after hostilities had already begun

your right alienhunter - you were wrong again...

Semantics is one thing, the constitution is another..!

the constitution...another analogue to the bible. I don't believe in a strict interpretation of either. They are both living documents and subject to contemporaneous perspective. As i have pointed out in various threads...the only wisdom not amenable to change is wisdom from the god/gods. Can you tell me which documents attain that level of sacrosanctity.

the constitution is not an analogue to the bible and it offends greatly that one would say so.

and it is because we have failed as a congress, as a senate, as presidents and judicary and as a people at large to maintian the rules of the constitution that we are in the dam mess that we are in today. Presidents are not suppost to declare war, judges are not suppose to legeslate. Senate and congress are not suppose to be bought and sold.

we know the constitutions origin clearly and it pushes no belief system on anyone except that for life liberty and the persuit of happiness and an orderly progression of acts to allow that to happen.
it forces society to accept all peoples of all cultural differences and of all means.. And has been put to the test of time.

clearly the bible in its 1500 years of existence has been used for the repression of all women and most successfully, until the us constitution came to stand up agaist it. As the principles of the constitution came alive within humanity the church was forced down and women became free.. And will become freer yet as the corrupt nature of churches are more fully revealed including the lies and ommisions in the bible desinged to disempower woman.. Which really means to keep men in power.

the hostilitites promoted by presidents went outside of legal bounds and often based on lies.. Consider the bay of tonkin incident as well as iraq and the iran event that we are currently heading for, not to mention libya where obama circumented congressional approval by going in under nato to put in harms way us citizens in the military without the approval of the us citizens.. This should be illegal and an ammendement to the constittuion is warrented for this transgression. . We need a leader who will not do this and will stand up against it.


hear hear!

Arrowwind
19th December 2011, 20:21
This article clearly points out the problem with the new bill.

Could Target Americans for Military Detention

By Dr. Harold Pease

Civil libertarians and constitutional buffs are angrier with the Federal Governemnt now than at any time since the Bush Patriot Act was pushed onto the American People ten years ago. Buried deep within the over 600 pages, $662 billion National Defense Authorization Act is language that "would require the military to hold suspected terrorists linked to Al Qaeda or its affiliates, even those captured on U.S. soil indifinitely" and without trial on the say so of the miliarty though the President alone. Moreover, even Americans could be removed to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, against their will and deprived fo their constitutional rights.

The fury has to do with U.S. citizenship. Origianlly Senators Carl Levin and John McCain, who sponsored the bill, did not exempt U.S. citizens - a serious omission which dumps sizable portions of Amendemnts 4, 5, and 6 of the Bill of Rights. Senators Paul, Dianne Feinstein and others demanding a citizen exclusion proposed amendments to do so, all of which were rejected. Senator Fienstein noted that her goal "was to assure the military won't be roaming our streets looking for suspected terrorists." The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, following the Civil War forbade the U.S. miliary from performing law enforcement functions of American soil. The American Cilil Liberties Union was also blunt. "Since the bill puts miliarty detention authority on steroids and makes it permanent, Amercian citizens and others are at greater risk of being locked away by the militarty without charge or trial if this bill becomes law." When asked if it were possible for an American to be shipped to Guantanamo Bay, John McCain, a co-author of the bill, said yes. Senator Lindsey Long was more blunt. "When they say 'I want my lawyer,' you tell them. 'Shut up. You don't get a lawyer."

Finally, Dianne Feinstein successfully got Senate colleagues to accept a weakened version of the same thing, "nothing in the bill changes current law relating to the detention of U.S. citizens and legal aliens." Even while getting this clarification Senator Levin was still arguing, "that the June 2004 Supreme Court decsision n Hamdi v. Runsfeld said U.S. citizens can be detained indifinitely." So, since it was so difficult to get an exclusion, for American, and the co-autohors of the bill, Senators Levin and McCain, say that it does include U.S. citizens as well. Why would a weak exclusion give civil libertarians any comfort? It doesn't.

Some things are very clear. The terms "terrorists" and "affiliates" are not adequately defined, the President is given way to much power, and it violates the U.S. Constitution upon which everyone voting has sworn to uphold. It is hard to trust the government's precise definititon of terrorists when Vice President Joe Biden, a few weeks ago referred to Tea Partiers as terrorists and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a few months prior to this referred to them as mobsters, (a term also implying a threat to society). What guarantee to we have that the "new" enemy does not simply rotate to anyone defined as "anti-government," citizen or not?

The measure places to much power and trust in the office of the President which has not proved particularly trustworthy in the past with respect to the Constitutional and civil libery. Franklin D Roosevelt, with the storke of a pen, detained thousands of Japanese Americans in "relocation camps" in World War II on the basis of race and potential terrorism alone. Jose Padilla, allegedly an affiliate of al Qaeda, a U.S. citizen arrested in Chicago for having plans to "detonate a dirty bomb," was tortured and confinded, without benefit of a lawyer for three years, by then President George W. Bush; all this within the borders of the United States. No acutal evidence of a d "dirty bomb" wa ever produced, nor was Padilla ever charged with a crime. Two other Americans, Donald Vance and Nathan Ertel, had similar torture experiences as did Padilla but with less time in solitary confinement, again without chares. (see details in the December 5 issue of the New American). Ulitmatley, with no evidence to support their confinement, they were set free.

And if Americans are sent to Guananamo Bay under this law, how much confidence can we have that if found innocent they would be set free, especially given President Barrack Obama's recent assertion, cited in the above referenc, that were miliatary commission to find them innocent they still "wound never be set free from prison." This is so wrong. Why should we have confidnece in any president to not use this power as seemeth him good?
The threat of potential incarceration without recourse to a lawer, judege and trial is very serious. The miliatary performing police duties here to for rednederd by civil authorities is unconscionable in a free society. Only seven understood the Constitution well enough to vote no. Should President Obama sign this bill into law, I will follow with a column on how it emasculates Amendments 4, 5, and 6 of the Bill of Right. Until then pass this column alon gto others. It is your liberty at stake.

................................
Dr Harold Pease is an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writtings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 25 years, at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit
www.LibertyUnderFire.org (http://www.libertyunderfire.org/)

.......................

AlternativeInfoJunkie
19th December 2011, 20:31
Is that meant for me...if it is that's a first for me...interesting. I'll give you another first...I'm not going away feeling like a winner like I would normally. you guys have acquitted yourselves well on behalf of your beliefs. I just don't share them.

I think Obama is essentially good...you think Obama is essentially bad.
I think Paul is naive, living in and for a world that doesn't exist outside his womb of influence.
you think Paul is the answer to mankind's fundamental illness...well, I certainly disagree with that.

...And another thing! I don't think obama is essentially bad. Obama is a tool. His masters are bad, or rather just serve themselves. If a gun owner shoots somebody do you blame the gun? Is the gun bad? Did the gun have intent to harm someone? No. The gun is a tool. The person who had their finger on the trigger is responsible. The tool certainly isn't good either. It just carries out it's master's wishes. Obama is a tool and right now he is in the most dangerous of hands.

Arrowwind
20th December 2011, 01:34
Is that meant for me...if it is that's a first for me...interesting. I'll give you another first...I'm not going away feeling like a winner like I would normally. you guys have acquitted yourselves well on behalf of your beliefs. I just don't share them.

I think Obama is essentially good...you think Obama is essentially bad.
I think Paul is naive, living in and for a world that doesn't exist outside his womb of influence.
you think Paul is the answer to mankind's fundamental illness...well, I certainly disagree with that.

...And another thing! I don't think obama is essentially bad. Obama is a tool. His masters are bad, or rather just serve themselves. If a gun owner shoots somebody do you blame the gun? Is the gun bad? Did the gun have intent to harm someone? No. The gun is a tool. The person who had their finger on the trigger is responsible. The tool certainly isn't good either. It just carries out it's master's wishes. Obama is a tool and right now he is in the most dangerous of hands.

I blame him for selling out, and under what duress I care not. He has stopped being a truth speaker and has become a puppet. I did not vote for a pupet and I thought maybe he had the balls to stand up and be a free man, not only for himself but for us all, but I guess not.
Probably the day he met with the Bilderburgs was the day our hope in him died.

jackovesk
20th December 2011, 06:14
Dec 17, 2011

You'll have to Watch the Video below and (See it to Believe it)..!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gN5UrPB-xA&feature=youtu.be

PS - MSM CAUGHT OUT YET AGAIN..!

humanalien
20th December 2011, 07:36
The MSM is just trying to demonize ron paul for not wanting
to send troops over there and giving them money.

modwiz
20th December 2011, 08:20
Dec 17, 2011

You'll have to Watch the Video below and (See it to Believe it)..!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gN5UrPB-xA&feature=youtu.be

PS - MSM CAUGHT OUT YET AGAIN..!

With all due respect....Does this interviewer have a mind of her own? Not a cell! I guess Ron Paul is "pushing the envelope" like Conan O'Brien did.

The MSM news is the like the regurgitant mother birds feed their chicks.

modwiz
20th December 2011, 11:05
Well, he is now the front runner there. This graph shows how three of the candidate have been nothing more than a flavor of the month. To be sure, these people are jokes, but the real joke is the fickle American public. These graphs weave more than a drunk on a road. Severe bi-polarity is demonstrated here. It is hard to have a good democracy with so many unsteady minds.
12051

It is a national disgrace.
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/12/ron-paul-is-now-the-republican-frontrunner.html

BTW. Who was running? Moe, Larry and Curly? Shemp will be next.

sygh
20th December 2011, 12:37
Hi jackovesk. Ali.. One of my all time favourite human beings. Wonder what he would like to say about Obama.

He'd probably say, "I told you so."

This observation wasn't lost on me, prior to 2008. Since then, Obama has been used and abused by the globalists in a thousand different ways prior to, and during his presidency. If I were Obama, I'd want to b-----slap someone.

We all knew there was no way he wouldn't win. First of all, so many of us wanted to see a black man, or woman in the Oval office. But I also know Obama had no serious opponent, other than Ron Paul who was negated as a formidable.

AlternativeInfoJunkie
20th December 2011, 13:22
Is that meant for me...if it is that's a first for me...interesting. I'll give you another first...I'm not going away feeling like a winner like I would normally. you guys have acquitted yourselves well on behalf of your beliefs. I just don't share them.

I think Obama is essentially good...you think Obama is essentially bad.
I think Paul is naive, living in and for a world that doesn't exist outside his womb of influence.
you think Paul is the answer to mankind's fundamental illness...well, I certainly disagree with that.

...And another thing! I don't think obama is essentially bad. Obama is a tool. His masters are bad, or rather just serve themselves. If a gun owner shoots somebody do you blame the gun? Is the gun bad? Did the gun have intent to harm someone? No. The gun is a tool. The person who had their finger on the trigger is responsible. The tool certainly isn't good either. It just carries out it's master's wishes. Obama is a tool and right now he is in the most dangerous of hands.

I blame him for selling out, and under what duress I care not. He has gstopped being a truth speaker and has become a puppet. I did not vote for a pupet and I thought maybe he had the balls to stand up and be a free man, not only for himself but for us all, but I guess not.
Probably the day he met with the Bilderburgs was the day our hope in him died.




Well i mean you can be mad at him for not having a mind of his own i guess. But who knows how much mk ultra mind control hes been through? I just see him as an inanimate object with a big corporate puppeteer's hand up the back of his suit. And i certainly dont want one of those for a president!

BMJ
20th December 2011, 13:22
The MSM is just trying to demonize ron paul for not wanting
to send troops over there and giving them money.

But is seems to back fire. It seems possible that Netanyahu is indirectly saying he supports Ron Paul election, (which would be a message to American jews to take note of).

Limor Wolf
20th December 2011, 13:44
Pleeeease...I wouldn't even joke about it..

:eek:

Unified Serenity
20th December 2011, 14:05
.... he calls the Palestine people 'invented'.

Hi Toad,

You may not be aware of this, but prior to the Balfour agreement, there were not nearly as many "Palestinian" in the region now called Israel. As soon as it was made known that the "Jews" were going to come back to the land, Arab and Muslim people were encouraged to leave their countries and take up residence in the land. Thus, when the counting started after the Balfour agreement, and Arab / Muslim in the land was counted as indigenous as if from time immemorial and only the Jews entering were counted as immigrants.

Then these Arabs and Muslims were used as pawns by their homeland countries like Egypt, Syria, etc.. and not allowed to return when things got bad for them. It was either during the Yom Kippur war or the 6 day war that the "palestinian" people were told by Arab leaders to leave their homes because a full on attack was coming to destroy Israel, and so they left their new homes. Well, the Jews won, and they did not give back the homes which their enemies left, and that is when the "refuge camps" started. Talk about problem crisis solution being set up!

Now, they get to take pictures of all these unfortunate people who the nasty Jews kicked out of their homes! No one cares that this tiny nation of Israel was being attacked by it's neighbors who to this day deny their right to exist and want them all dead. No one cares that these interloper arabs and muslims (NOT Palestinians) pretended to be displaced when in fact they hadn't lived in the land for more than a decade or two. It's all been a set up, and for whose gain? I will go on to say that even Hitler's targeting the Jews was a set up in another problem crisis solution to set up the nation of Israel as prophesied. Are prophesies just being fulfilled via these people or do they have a millenia plus plan which we are all just pawns? I am really seriously thinking about this these days. How much is prophecy and how much is a well orchestrated plan of a very patient group?

So, many who claim to be Palestinian displaced from their homeland by the Jews are liars and are not Palestinians at all. There is a lot of documented proof on this. The news does not go into this history. It's like 1984 and who are we at war with again? It keeps changing depending on whose writing history.

Referee
20th December 2011, 22:02
Nice and uplifting IMO

VE30TH6Y7cI

jackovesk
21st December 2011, 16:06
END THIS WAR


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lvhu9lUz-hE&feature=player_embedded


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNvOCcYIooI&feature=player_embedded

etm567
21st December 2011, 16:16
I'm so sorry Ron Paul is a bone fide racist.

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-12-20/politics/30537102_1_newsletters-conspiracy-theories-lew-rockwell


Here's The Real Story Behind Ron Paul's Racist Newsletters
Michael Brendan Dougherty|December 20, 2011|

(AP)

So as Ron Paul is on track to win the Iowa caucuses, he is getting a new dose of press scrutiny.

And the press is focusing on the newsletters that went out under his name in the late 1980s and early 1990s. They were called the Ron Paul's Political Report, Ron Paul's Freedom Report, the Ron Paul Survival Report and the Ron Paul Investment Letter.

There is no doubt that the newsletters contained utterly racist statements.

Some choice quotes:

"Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

"We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational."

After the Los Angeles riots, one article in a newsletter claimed, "Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks."

One referred to Martin Luther King Jr. as "the world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours" and who "seduced underage girls and boys."

Another referred to Barbara Jordan, a civil rights activist and congresswoman as "Barbara Morondon," the "archetypical half-educated victimologist."

Other newsletters had strange conspiracy theories about homosexuals, the CIA, and AIDS.

Read more: http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-12-20/politics/30537102_1_newsletters-conspiracy-theories-lew-rockwell#ixzz1hBcRz6wF

jackovesk
21st December 2011, 16:18
I'm so sorry Ron Paul is a bone fide racist.

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-12-20/politics/30537102_1_newsletters-conspiracy-theories-lew-rockwell


Here's The Real Story Behind Ron Paul's Racist Newsletters
Michael Brendan Dougherty|December 20, 2011|

(AP)

So as Ron Paul is on track to win the Iowa caucuses, he is getting a new dose of press scrutiny.

And the press is focusing on the newsletters that went out under his name in the late 1980s and early 1990s. They were called the Ron Paul's Political Report, Ron Paul's Freedom Report, the Ron Paul Survival Report and the Ron Paul Investment Letter.

There is no doubt that the newsletters contained utterly racist statements.

Some choice quotes:

"Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

"We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational."

After the Los Angeles riots, one article in a newsletter claimed, "Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks."

One referred to Martin Luther King Jr. as "the world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours" and who "seduced underage girls and boys."

Another referred to Barbara Jordan, a civil rights activist and congresswoman as "Barbara Morondon," the "archetypical half-educated victimologist."

Other newsletters had strange conspiracy theories about homosexuals, the CIA, and AIDS.

Read more: http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-12-20/politics/30537102_1_newsletters-conspiracy-theories-lew-rockwell#ixzz1hBcRz6wF



I'm so sorry Ron Paul is a bone fide racist.

I'm Sorry YOU LIE..!

etm567
21st December 2011, 16:26
I'm Sorry YOU LIE..!

No, I'm very sorry, but it isn't a lie. Please check it out. And I don't like being called a liar. Holy Moly, Business Insider is a very legit, mainstream publication. These newsletters are in the public record. Go read them yourself. But please, don't call me a liar.

conk
21st December 2011, 16:38
Isn't the newsletter story old and full of holes? It seems that the words attributed to Paul were not his, but a writer from the newsletters that were just using his name. Sorry if I'm wrong.

Anyway, its not racist if it's true.

gooty64
21st December 2011, 16:41
Are we getting all "psyched" up to vote already?

jackovesk
21st December 2011, 16:46
I'm Sorry YOU LIE..!

No, I'm very sorry, but it isn't a lie. Please check it out. And I don't like being called a liar. Holy Moly, Business Insider is a very legit, mainstream publication. These newsletters are in the public record. Go read them yourself. But please, don't call me a liar.

And WHO OWNS the Business Insider..??? (The PTW Elite Do)..!!!

...And their getting more & more desperate too, and will publish ANYTHING that paints Ron Paul in a bad light...



Business Insider is a U.S. business/entertainment news website launched in February 2009. Founded by DoubleClick Founder and former C.E.O. Kevin P. Ryan it is the overarching brand beneath which fall the Silicon Alley Insider (launched May 16, 2007) and Clusterstock (launched March 20, 2008) verticals.[clarification needed] The site provides and analyzes business news and acts as an aggregator of top news stories from around the web, each with an "edgy" commentary. Its original works are sometimes cited by other, larger, publications such as The New York Times[1] and domestic news outlets like National Public Radio.[2] The online newsroom currently employs a staff of 45, and the site reported a profit for the first time ever in the 4th quarter of 2010.[3]

Business Insider has been criticized by bloggers Felix Salmon and Marco Arment for alleged over-aggregation in the way that it publishes third party content directly on its website.[4][5] Business Insider's CEO and Editor-in-Chief Henry Blodget defended the website's aggregation method.

Contributors

The site editors vary greatly in background. Henry Blodget is the CEO and Editor-In-Chief, a Yale graduate who previously worked on Wall Street before being barred from the securities industry after a conviction for securities fraud.[7] Senior writer Dan Frommer is a Northwestern graduate who joined from Forbes. Deputy editor Joe Weisenthal has worked as an analyst and writer for a series of dotcoms. Deputy editor Nicholas Carlson previously worked at Internet.com and Gawker Media's Silicon Valley gossip blog, Valleywag.com.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Business_Insider


I rest my Case, you were saying..???

Start doing some HOMEWORK before posting such CRAP..!

ponda
21st December 2011, 16:49
CNN interviews Ron Paul about racism claims


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8276287991943703656

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8276287991943703656

Unified Serenity
21st December 2011, 16:52
These lies are being brought up 20 plus years after the incident. Ron Paul did NOT write those words. Ron Paul had a staff writer and he was not as involved in that newsletter as he should have been. He trusted his people to maintain things, and they dropped the ball. I would not be surprised if since they could not get RP to whore around, take bribes etc, that they finally got some guy to get on his staff and write that crap knowing RP was not monitoring it well.

Ron Paul has disavowed everything that guy said. He apologized for it, and said it was horrible and did NOT represent his views. If that's the best the opposition has against RP compaired to the ethics violations of Newt, the horrible personal history of Newt, the flip flopping record of Romney, and the too numerous to write reported sins of Obama, then RP is a beacon shining in the darkness. No one is perfect, but I think we can cut RP some slack for not keeping an eagle eye on a newsletter 20 years ago.

Let's remember where Obama sat and prayed for 20 years, a racist Black Liberation Theology church that hates whites and hates America and capitalism:

UnlRrxXv-v8

And lest we forget real accusations of murder, crack cocaine use by Obama, and homosexual filandering by obama with Mr. Sinclair:

Li19mPc-R3k

baddbob
21st December 2011, 16:59
LOL after 30+ years the only thing bad that has surfaced about Ron is his name on letter heads that he never wrote.I think if you want to find any bad in him then you will have to do better than that. Maybe he stole some bubble gum in a store when he was young

http://www.bet.com/news/politics/2011/12/20/commentary-is-ron-paul-a-racist.html

http://www.bet.com/content/betcom/news/politics/2011/12/20/commentary-is-ron-paul-a-racist/_jcr_content/featuredMedia/newsitemimage.newsimage.dimg/101111-politics-week-in-polls-ron-paul.jpg

Davy
21st December 2011, 17:08
I'm so sorry Ron Paul is a bone fide racist.

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-12-20/politics/30537102_1_newsletters-conspiracy-theories-lew-rockwell


Here's The Real Story Behind Ron Paul's Racist Newsletters
Michael Brendan Dougherty|December 20, 2011|

(AP)

So as Ron Paul is on track to win the Iowa caucuses, he is getting a new dose of press scrutiny.

And the press is focusing on the newsletters that went out under his name in the late 1980s and early 1990s. They were called the Ron Paul's Political Report, Ron Paul's Freedom Report, the Ron Paul Survival Report and the Ron Paul Investment Letter.

There is no doubt that the newsletters contained utterly racist statements.

Some choice quotes:

"Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

"We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational."

After the Los Angeles riots, one article in a newsletter claimed, "Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks."

One referred to Martin Luther King Jr. as "the world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours" and who "seduced underage girls and boys."

Another referred to Barbara Jordan, a civil rights activist and congresswoman as "Barbara Morondon," the "archetypical half-educated victimologist."

Other newsletters had strange conspiracy theories about homosexuals, the CIA, and AIDS.

Read more: http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-12-20/politics/30537102_1_newsletters-conspiracy-theories-lew-rockwell#ixzz1hBcRz6wF


First off Ron Paul is not a racist, I have seen an interview where he was confronted on this issue, He said that he did not write any of that, stuff and I believe him. TPTB want to ruin him and will do everything in their power to do so. And besides look at the choices for president Really we have no other choice but Ron... Beware of those working to discredit Him because that is exactly what they want to try to do!

Arrowwind
21st December 2011, 17:11
Now is the time to change your party allegence so that you can vote for Ron Paul in your state primary. Do not delay. Do not put it off. Just go pick up your phone and do it, NOW!

Carmody
21st December 2011, 17:13
LOL after 30+ years the only thing bad that has surfaced about Ron is his name on letter heads that he never wrote.I think if you want to find any bad in him then you will have to do better than that

http://www.bet.com/news/politics/2011/12/20/commentary-is-ron-paul-a-racist.html

http://www.bet.com/content/betcom/news/politics/2011/12/20/commentary-is-ron-paul-a-racist/_jcr_content/featuredMedia/newsitemimage.newsimage.dimg/101111-politics-week-in-polls-ron-paul.jpg

the owned press and corporations do not care if its fake or otherwise misleading. They only need to push the people long enough to get the 'contract with 3d reality' that they want..to be put into place. that is all that matters, for and to them.

Push back.

Jeffrey
21st December 2011, 17:17
I'm so sorry Ron Paul is a bone fide racist.

:suspicious:

Did you even look into these stories you posted with any kind of logical depth? :no:

Use some discernment.

I'm callin' you out! :stop:

From a link that was in the article you hastily posted:


Likening himself to a major news publisher, he said he did not vet every article that was featured in his newsletters. “I absolutely, honestly do not know who wrote those things,” Mr. Paul said in an interview on CNN at the time, adding that he did not monitor the publications closely because he was busy with a medical practice and “speeches around the country.”

Mr. Paul, who is a physician, had said his political persuasion as a libertarian precluded him from harboring such biased views because “I don’t see people in collective groups.”


But in an interview in 2001 with Texas Monthly, Mr. Paul said he regretted that he had not admitted that he had not written the newsletters. “They were never my words, but I had some moral responsibility for them,” Mr. Paul said. He said that he had “actually really wanted to try to explain that it doesn’t come from me directly,” but that his campaign aides had told him, “Your name was on that letter and therefore you have to live with it.”

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/20/us/politics/bias-in-ron-pauls-newsletters-draws-new-attention.html?scp=1&sq=ron%20paul%20racist&st=cse

Now, I will quote directly from the article you posted:


Scan of a Ron Paul newsletterEven though many of the newsletters are written in a first person, conversational style, many observers don't believe that Ron Paul actually wrote them.

There aren't any videos on YouTube with Paul speaking in incendiary terms about minorities. The newsletters don't "sound" like Ron Paul - he doesn't do wordplay like "Morondon" or use prefixes like "semi-criminal" or "half-educated" in his speech or his recent writings. Further, most newsletter and direct-mail operations in politics employ ghostwriters.

It is unfortunate that these writings artificially donned the patronage of Ron Paul. He is sorry for that and takes moral responsibility. Dr. Paul is so consistent in his views, and has such strong integrity, that this is the only "dirt" they have on him. It's a very weak case. People will be able to see it for what it is—a desperate attempt to dismantle a genuine man's impeccable character. Period.

Thanks,

Vivek

baddbob
21st December 2011, 17:24
I'm so sorry Ron Paul is a bone fide racist.

:suspicious:

Did you even look into these stories you posted with any kind of logical depth? :no:

Use some discernment.

I'm callin' you out! :stop:

From a link that was in the article you hastily posted:


Likening himself to a major news publisher, he said he did not vet every article that was featured in his newsletters. “I absolutely, honestly do not know who wrote those things,” Mr. Paul said in an interview on CNN at the time, adding that he did not monitor the publications closely because he was busy with a medical practice and “speeches around the country.”

Mr. Paul, who is a physician, had said his political persuasion as a libertarian precluded him from harboring such biased views because “I don’t see people in collective groups.”


But in an interview in 2001 with Texas Monthly, Mr. Paul said he regretted that he had not admitted that he had not written the newsletters. “They were never my words, but I had some moral responsibility for them,” Mr. Paul said. He said that he had “actually really wanted to try to explain that it doesn’t come from me directly,” but that his campaign aides had told him, “Your name was on that letter and therefore you have to live with it.”

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/20/us/politics/bias-in-ron-pauls-newsletters-draws-new-attention.html?scp=1&sq=ron%20paul%20racist&st=cse

Now, I will quote directly from the article you posted:


Scan of a Ron Paul newsletterEven though many of the newsletters are written in a first person, conversational style, many observers don't believe that Ron Paul actually wrote them.

There aren't any videos on YouTube with Paul speaking in incendiary terms about minorities. The newsletters don't "sound" like Ron Paul - he doesn't do wordplay like "Morondon" or use prefixes like "semi-criminal" or "half-educated" in his speech or his recent writings. Further, most newsletter and direct-mail operations in politics employ ghostwriters.

It is unfortunate that these writings artificially donned the patronage of Ron Paul. He is sorry for that and takes moral responsibility. Dr. Paul is so consistent in his views, and has such strong integrity, that this is the only "dirt" they have on him. It's a very weak case. People will be able to see it for what it is—a desperate attempt to dismantle a genuine man's impeccable character. Period.

Thanks,

Vivek


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6rxts0-f9w&feature=player_detailpage


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sgveu4UNySI&feature=player_detailpage

ponda
21st December 2011, 17:36
Actually it's going to be very interesting what dirty tricks the establishment might try to pull on Ron Paul if he increases his momentum going into 2012.He's the one guy that they wouldn't to be up against come November.

jackovesk
21st December 2011, 17:40
Actually it's going to be very interesting what dirty tricks the establishment might try to pull on Ron Paul if he increases his momentum going into 2012.He's the one guy that they wouldn't to be up against come November.

Not to mention some who post here at Avalon as well..!

Unified Serenity
21st December 2011, 19:18
I find the hypocrisy astounding:

YSDAXGXGiEw

j4XT-l-_3y0

Bktd_Pi4YJw

SKftRlzh2RM

Sm73wOuPL60

kVA2Tr_GTlk

There's just too many, maybe we need a thread showing all the major politicians lying and how we just go along and along cause we like them better than the other liar!

RON PAUL IS THE LAST HONEST STATESMAN..... ELECT HIM WHILE WE STILL HAVE A CHANCE!

Unified Serenity
21st December 2011, 20:03
Bump for any who missed it!

toad
21st December 2011, 21:08
.... he calls the Palestine people 'invented'.

Hi Toad,

You may not be aware of this, but prior to the Balfour agreement, there were not nearly as many "Palestinian" in the region now called Israel. As soon as it was made known that the "Jews" were going to come back to the land, Arab and Muslim people were encouraged to leave their countries and take up residence in the land. Thus, when the counting started after the Balfour agreement, and Arab / Muslim in the land was counted as indigenous as if from time immemorial and only the Jews entering were counted as immigrants.

Then these Arabs and Muslims were used as pawns by their homeland countries like Egypt, Syria, etc.. and not allowed to return when things got bad for them. It was either during the Yom Kippur war or the 6 day war that the "palestinian" people were told by Arab leaders to leave their homes because a full on attack was coming to destroy Israel, and so they left their new homes. Well, the Jews won, and they did not give back the homes which their enemies left, and that is when the "refuge camps" started. Talk about problem crisis solution being set up!

Now, they get to take pictures of all these unfortunate people who the nasty Jews kicked out of their homes! No one cares that this tiny nation of Israel was being attacked by it's neighbors who to this day deny their right to exist and want them all dead. No one cares that these interloper arabs and muslims (NOT Palestinians) pretended to be displaced when in fact they hadn't lived in the land for more than a decade or two. It's all been a set up, and for whose gain? I will go on to say that even Hitler's targeting the Jews was a set up in another problem crisis solution to set up the nation of Israel as prophesied. Are prophesies just being fulfilled via these people or do they have a millenia plus plan which we are all just pawns? I am really seriously thinking about this these days. How much is prophecy and how much is a well orchestrated plan of a very patient group?

So, many who claim to be Palestinian displaced from their homeland by the Jews are liars and are not Palestinians at all. There is a lot of documented proof on this. The news does not go into this history. It's like 1984 and who are we at war with again? It keeps changing depending on whose writing history.

I completely agree.

etm567
21st December 2011, 22:43
Earlier today, I was called a liar on another thread, which I cannot now find, for pointing out that, sadly, Ron Paul seems to be a racist, and for posting the following material. I'm really sorry to say this. I really wish he wasn't. He has a lot of positions that are very appealing to many people. But there's a lot of evidence surfacing, now that he is seriously being considered in the presidential race, about his past. There are these newsletters he published in the 1990s that were rabidly racist, and they are getting some scrutiny and attention these days. I think he has been saying he didn't have direct oversight, but that seems kind of lame. It was his publication.

I am not saying this out of any desire to offend his supporters. I was leaning that way myself, for a while. I do think anyone who might want to vote for him should know about his other, less-discussed positions on social issues.

Anyway, here's one of many articles on the subject, this one from The Business Insider:


Here's The Real Story Behind Ron Paul's Racist Newsletters
Michael Brendan Dougherty|December 20, 2011|

(AP)

So as Ron Paul is on track to win the Iowa caucuses, he is getting a new dose of press scrutiny.

And the press is focusing on the newsletters that went out under his name in the late 1980s and early 1990s. They were called the Ron Paul's Political Report, Ron Paul's Freedom Report, the Ron Paul Survival Report and the Ron Paul Investment Letter.

There is no doubt that the newsletters contained utterly racist statements.

Some choice quotes:

"Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

"We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational."

After the Los Angeles riots, one article in a newsletter claimed, "Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks."

One referred to Martin Luther King Jr. as "the world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours" and who "seduced underage girls and boys."

Another referred to Barbara Jordan, a civil rights activist and congresswoman as "Barbara Morondon," the "archetypical half-educated victimologist."

Other newsletters had strange conspiracy theories about homosexuals, the CIA, and AIDS.

In 1996 when the Texas Monthly investigated the newsletters, Paul took responsibility for them and said that certain things were taken out of context. (It's hard to imagine a context that would make the above quotes defensible.)

Read more: http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-12-20/politics/30537102_1_newsletters-conspiracy-theories-lew-rockwell#ixzz1hDAaQwVT

Unified Serenity
21st December 2011, 23:31
Yes, you appear a liar ETM, and as usual, once the proof is given, you have nothing much left to say about it. You go on every Ron Paul thread and throw trash around. So, here is my response again to you lying about the truth. Yes, RP is being accused wrongly, and it's plain to see, but for some reason, you hate a man who stands for the constitution, has never waffled, never voted to raise taxes, never voted for anything unconstitutional, and is our best hope for recovering.


These lies are being brought up 20 plus years after the incident. Ron Paul did NOT write those words. Ron Paul had a staff writer and he was not as involved in that newsletter as he should have been. He trusted his people to maintain things, and they dropped the ball. I would not be surprised if since they could not get RP to whore around, take bribes etc, that they finally got some guy to get on his staff and write that crap knowing RP was not monitoring it well.

Ron Paul has disavowed everything that guy said. He apologized for it, and said it was horrible and did NOT represent his views. If that's the best the opposition has against RP compaired to the ethics violations of Newt, the horrible personal history of Newt, the flip flopping record of Romney, and the too numerous to write reported sins of Obama, then RP is a beacon shining in the darkness. No one is perfect, but I think we can cut RP some slack for not keeping an eagle eye on a newsletter 20 years ago.

Let's remember where Obama sat and prayed for 20 years, a racist Black Liberation Theology church that hates whites and hates America and capitalism:

UnlRrxXv-v8

And lest we forget real accusations of murder, crack cocaine use by Obama, and homosexual filandering by obama with Mr. Sinclair:

Li19mPc-R3k

You can read the entire thread here: http://projectavalon.net/forum4/editpost.php?p=385711&do=editpost

baddbob
21st December 2011, 23:51
http://i39.tinypic.com/kcyvtg.jpg

Referee
22nd December 2011, 01:42
earlier today, i was called a liar on another thread, which i cannot now find, for pointing out that, sadly, ron paul seems to be a racist, and for posting the following material. I'm really sorry to say this. I really wish he wasn't. He has a lot of positions that are very appealing to many people. But there's a lot of evidence surfacing, now that he is seriously being considered in the presidential race, about his past. There are these newsletters he published in the 1990s that were rabidly racist, and they are getting some scrutiny and attention these days. I think he has been saying he didn't have direct oversight, but that seems kind of lame. It was his publication.

I am not saying this out of any desire to offend his supporters. I was leaning that way myself, for a while. I do think anyone who might want to vote for him should know about his other, less-discussed positions on social issues.

Anyway, here's one of many articles on the subject, this one from the business insider:


here's the real story behind ron paul's racist newsletters
michael brendan dougherty|december 20, 2011|

(ap)

so as ron paul is on track to win the iowa caucuses, he is getting a new dose of press scrutiny.

And the press is focusing on the newsletters that went out under his name in the late 1980s and early 1990s. They were called the ron paul's political report, ron paul's freedom report, the ron paul survival report and the ron paul investment letter.

There is no doubt that the newsletters contained utterly racist statements.

Some choice quotes:

"given the inefficiencies of what dc laughingly calls the criminal justice system, i think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

"we are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational."

after the los angeles riots, one article in a newsletter claimed, "order was only restored in l.a. When it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks."

one referred to martin luther king jr. As "the world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours" and who "seduced underage girls and boys."

another referred to barbara jordan, a civil rights activist and congresswoman as "barbara morondon," the "archetypical half-educated victimologist."

other newsletters had strange conspiracy theories about homosexuals, the cia, and aids.

In 1996 when the texas monthly investigated the newsletters, paul took responsibility for them and said that certain things were taken out of context. (it's hard to imagine a context that would make the above quotes defensible.)

read more: http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-12-20/politics/30537102_1_newsletters-conspiracy-theories-lew-rockwell#ixzz1hdaaqwvt

who do you work for which lettered agencey !

etm567
22nd December 2011, 01:46
Yes, you appear a liar ETM, and as usual, once the proof is given, you have nothing much left to say about it. You go on every Ron Paul thread and throw trash around. So, here is my response again to you lying about the truth. Yes, RP is being accused wrongly, and it's plain to see, but for some reason, you hate a man who stands for the constitution, has never waffled, never voted to raise taxes, never voted for anything unconstitutional, and is our best hope for recovering.


Dear Serenity,`

A few points where I disagree with you:


Yes, you appear a liar ETM, and as usual, once the proof is given, you have nothing much left to say about it.
I haven't responded because I don't want to get in a mud-slinging match with you. And, as usual, you seem to be responding with personal attacks rather than content, and you are twisting my words and misrepresenting what I said.


You go on every Ron Paul thread and throw trash around.
This is not every thread, this is the second thread. As far as I can tell, the other one was deleted. Thus, I thought it reasonable to do this again. We are all allowed to post our opinions here, are we not?


So, here is my response again to you lying about the truth. Yes, RP is being accused wrongly, and it's plain to see, but for some reason, you hate a man who stands for the constitution, has never waffled, never voted to raise taxes, never voted for anything unconstitutional, and is our best hope for recovering.
On the contrary, I have always liked Ron Paul, and particularly and specifically for those traits you mention here. I certainly do not hate Ron Paul. Where did you get that? And, as I said, I was very sorry to discover this about Ron Paul. He was responsible for those newsletters; they went out for years with his name on the top of them. If he disapproved strongly of the content, he would have -- or certainly should have -- done something about it. So, I conclude -- and this is just my personal choice -- that he was, and very likely still is, a racist.

As I was blissfully unaware of this fact, I thought other supporters of Ron Paul might find it interesting.

And I could be wrong. But the evidence is there, and it should be considered. To stop your ears up and say, no, it cannot be -- what is it you keep saying about people who support David Wilcock? That we willfully don't want to hear the truth? That we are cult followers? That we cannot honestly consider criticisms by those who disagree with us? Do you see a mirror somewhere?

Lastly, I have absolutely no desire to get into a big brouhahah with serious supporters of Ron Paul. If you are that strongly devoted to him, please just disregard my remarks, which were intended for people who like Ron Paul, but like me, were unaware of these other issues, and for folks who can deal with a little honest, sincere disagreement without going off.

Sincerely,

ETM

humanalien
22nd December 2011, 02:52
There was a commercial on tv, showing how israel's people are starving
and they need our help to feed them.

Prime Minister Netanyahu just said in the video that they don't need any
help at all, so don't send money to that commercial ad. Obviously, someone
else is going to keep all your money and israel gets nothing.

In fact, don't send money to anyone asking for money. There is another
commercial on tv with the SPCA begging for money to help keep their
pets alive. I think they are asking for 18 dollars a month and out of that
18 dollars, the SPCA only gets one dollar. If you want to help animal shelters
then give money to your local animal shelter.

T Smith
22nd December 2011, 03:52
Is that meant for me...if it is that's a first for me...interesting. I'll give you another first...I'm not going away feeling like a winner like I would normally. you guys have acquitted yourselves well on behalf of your beliefs. I just don't share them.

I think Obama is essentially good...you think Obama is essentially bad.
I think Paul is naive, living in and for a world that doesn't exist outside his womb of influence.
you think Paul is the answer to mankind's fundamental illness...well, I certainly disagree with that.

...And another thing! I don't think obama is essentially bad. Obama is a tool. His masters are bad, or rather just serve themselves. If a gun owner shoots somebody do you blame the gun? Is the gun bad? Did the gun have intent to harm someone? No. The gun is a tool. The person who had their finger on the trigger is responsible. The tool certainly isn't good either. It just carries out it's master's wishes. Obama is a tool and right now he is in the most dangerous of hands.

This is exactly why hard-core Obama supporters have a hard time letting go. Obama may well have the best of intentions (I won't go so far to say so, just sayin' it's possible)... in any case people who like Obama and can't let go tend to resonate with Obama, the person, but at the end of the day, he's only human. He jumped in and played the game. To play the game, you have to play the role of tool, and then do your best to influence where you, as the object of a higher power, hit the nail. Hopefully on the head, and somewhat per your own internal visions. That's the game you describe wherein the President is the tool.

The biggest and most important difference between Barack Obama and Ron Paul (and nearly every other politician in Washington) is Ron Paul has never played the game. He answers only to higher principals, which is not characteristic of the typical politician, and certainly not of the successful politician. Frankly, it's amazing Ron Paul has risen to the level he has.

jackovesk
22nd December 2011, 06:07
Highly accurate collated figures show Congressman trouncing Romney & Gingrich

Wednesday, December 21, 2011

A New York Times Iowa primary projection, using figures collated from all the latest poll results and surveys, shows that Ron Paul is the clear favorite to win the crucial first Republican primary set to take place in just 13 days time.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVIbRA5PZu0&feature=player_embedded

“These forecasts are formulated from an average of recent surveys, with adjustments made to account for a polling firm’s accuracy, freshness of a poll and each candidate’s momentum,” reports the NY Times, noting that the method “improves accuracy” of the result.

The current figures show Ron Paul’s chance of winning the Iowa primary at 49 per cent, with Romney in second at 27 per cent and Gingrich in third at 15.5 per cent.

The numbers are collated from ten different polls that were conducted over the course of the last three weeks, including surveys undertaken by Rasmussen, PPP and InsiderAdvantage/Majority Opinion Research. The results underscore how Paul has surged into first position over the last ten days, having been placed third at the start of the month.

The two most recent polls in Iowa have both found that Ron Paul is the current frontrunner in the crucial first primary state.

The results of a Iowa State University poll released today reported Paul in the lead with 27.5 percent of 333 likely caucus-goers, with Gingrich in second at 25.3 percent and Romney in third with 17.5 percent.

A survey released Sunday night conducted by Public Policy Polling showed Ron Paul in first place ahead of Romney in second and Gingrich in third, whose campaign was described as “imploding”.

A recent CNN report also entertained the strong possibility that Paul could take Iowa, noting that his campaign was far more aggressive than Mitt Romney’s in that Paul’s campaign office was a “hive of activity,” whereas Romney’s was still closed at mid-morning.

In addition, another new poll conducted by CNN / ORC released today finds that Ron Paul is the strongest GOP candidate when it comes to a hypothetical head to head with Barack Obama, firmly debunking the establishment Republican talking point than a Ron Paul win would ensure Barack Obama’s re-election.

In a direct head to head with Obama, Paul does better than all of his GOP rivals in a wide and diverse range of population categories, including males; persons ages 18 to 34; persons under 50 years of age; persons earning less than $50k per year; persons who have attended college; crossover Democrats; self-identified liberals; self-described moderates; residents of the Northeast and Midwest geographic regions; and those residing in urban areas.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/ny-times-projects-ron-paul-as-clear-favorite-to-win-iowa.html

jackovesk
22nd December 2011, 06:21
http://rense.com/1.imagesH/xmaspaul_dees.jpg

latte
22nd December 2011, 06:23
In a direct head to head with Obama, Paul does better than all of his GOP rivals in a wide and diverse range of population categories, including males; persons ages 18 to 34; persons under 50 years of age; persons earning less than $50k per year; persons who have attended college; crossover Democrats; self-identified liberals; self-described moderates; residents of the Northeast and Midwest geographic regions; and those residing in urban areas.

Interesting demographics and very hopeful news Jack, a great find. I know more Dems, Liberals and moderates that are favoring RP than Repubs and conservative folk. But, thatʻs just my circle.

Newt continues to shove his foot in his mouth in his usual unwholesome way. Perry is as slick as snot and Romneyʻs game plan is becoming more and more apparent. There is hope.

modwiz
22nd December 2011, 06:49
In a direct head to head with Obama, Paul does better than all of his GOP rivals in a wide and diverse range of population categories, including males; persons ages 18 to 34; persons under 50 years of age; persons earning less than $50k per year; persons who have attended college; crossover Democrats; self-identified liberals; self-described moderates; residents of the Northeast and Midwest geographic regions; and those residing in urban areas.

Interesting demographics and very hopeful news Jack, a great find. I know more Dems, Liberals and moderates that are favoring RP than Repubs and conservative folk. But, thatʻs just my circle.

Newt continues to shove his foot in his mouth in his usual unwholesome way. Perry is as slick as snot and Romneyʻs game plan is becoming more and more apparent. There is hope.

The opinions of people are usually dictated by where they source their 'information'. Repubs and conservative folk use typical party regurgitant for their primary info. Therefore the 'opinion' they have is the one shaped and given to them. It would be hard for them to like a candidate who is portrayed in such an unflattering and untrue light.

meeradas
22nd December 2011, 07:43
Good that favouring-slickness-and-conceit-over-integrity's time has come.
To the end.

jackovesk
22nd December 2011, 08:30
http://img692.imageshack.us/img692/1623/nightlynewsbannerq.jpg

December 20, 2011

http://img825.imageshack.us/img825/6783/igpaul.jpg

On the Tuesday edition of Infowars Nightly News, Alex Jones breaks down the conspiracy to ignore Ron Paul and undo the influence of the nation's leading primary in Iowa.

Aaron Dykes talks with Hoppy Heidelberg, who sat on an Oklahoma Grand Jury in 1995 empaneled to look into the OKC bombing as well as filmmaker of A Nobel Lie, James Lane. Hoppy would ultimately challenge the evidence cooked up by the government in its case. He believes the claim made by Terry Nichols in 2006 that McVeigh was being handled by a high level FBI agent.

Other news items covered this evening:

Scientists have released a study showing that 14,000 children in the United States died prematurely from radiation released at the Fukushima nuclear plant in Japan.

Iowa governor Branstad's act of sabotage against candidate Ron Paul claiming that his caucus win should be ignored is an outrageous attempt to tamper with the election process and is treason.

Tyranny relies on obedience from the masses. So what makes people obey the system? An analysis of the 1961 Milgram electrocution experiments and the 1971 Stanford Prison Experiments help shed some light on the psychology of following orders and transferring power to the State.

Cynical market speculators and bankers drive up food prices as they engage in a pathological attempt to gamble and profit on hunger and starvation. Also word that the Federal Reserve quietly bailed out another bank last week.

Finally, Aaron covers news that the so-called Free Syria Army is led by a NATO-Libya commander who is an al-Qaeda member.

Erasing Ron Paul, Obeying Authority, Hoppy Heidelberg on Oklahoma City Bombing & More: Infowars Nightly News InfowarsTonight


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1t4dy-ps4A

http://www.infowars.com/erasing-ron-paul-obeying-authority-and-hoppy-heidelberg-on-ok/

ktlight
22nd December 2011, 10:01
"This is GREAT! Reminds me of the Rys2Sense video graphics where RY was Bruce Lee LOL"

V249zDK54vc

jackovesk
22nd December 2011, 15:06
GOP presidential contender Newt Gingrich, a corporate-financier sponsored Council on Foreign Relations member also was a "distinguished advisor" at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD), a warmongering, Neo-Con think-tank and the architects of both the costly unending wars America has been fighting for the last 2 decades and the resulting war profiteering. The FDD is also the same think-tank from which attacks against Ron Paul are being launched via FDD "fellow" James Kirchick.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-0yVJW0faGkM/TvH-1Dnpy7I/AAAAAAAABB4/Yrem0H_22w0/s400/Kirchick2.jpg

Image: A screenshot from FDD's website featuring James Kirchick's profile. Kirchick is leading an attack on GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul, falsely accusing him of being racist and "antisemitic." The fact that Newt Gingrich, a contender in the GOP presidential race, is also involved with the FDD calls into question the integrity and legitimacy of the US State Department-funded FDD, Kirchick, and Gingrich himself. (click image to enlarge)

The FDD, perhaps in an attempt to maintain some sort of "plausible deniability" has removed Gingrich's name from their organizational charts, however letters he signed as an FDD "distinguished advisor" can be found dated 2007-2008. The Land Destroyer Report had also cited throughout this year that Newt Gingrich was still an adviser at FDD, however the links are now dead.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-i4Lej6tsyBM/TvIAitu-rJI/AAAAAAAABCE/Jp_blAWiTTw/s400/GingrichAEI4.jpg

Image: A screen shot from AEI's website (accessed December 21, 2011) featuring Newt Gingrich's profile which states he is an advisory board member of the FDD. (click image to enlarge)

Compounding this immense conflict of interest and possible fraud, is the fact that Newt Gingrich is also a "former senior fellow," and currently a "scholar" at the American Enterprise Institute which hosted a recent GOP presidential foreign policy debate. Gingrich's biography on the AEI website also states that he is, "an advisory board member of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies," suggesting that indeed, he is a current adviser at the FDD from which recent attacks on Ron Paul have originated.

http://www.activistpost.com/2011/12/gingrich-skulking-behind-ron-paul.html

AlternativeInfoJunkie
22nd December 2011, 15:50
Is that meant for me...if it is that's a first for me...interesting. I'll give you another first...I'm not going away feeling like a winner like I would normally. you guys have acquitted yourselves well on behalf of your beliefs. I just don't share them.

I think Obama is essentially good...you think Obama is essentially bad.
I think Paul is naive, living in and for a world that doesn't exist outside his womb of influence.
you think Paul is the answer to mankind's fundamental illness...well, I certainly disagree with that.

...And another thing! I don't think obama is essentially bad. Obama is a tool. His masters are bad, or rather just serve themselves. If a gun owner shoots somebody do you blame the gun? Is the gun bad? Did the gun have intent to harm someone? No. The gun is a tool. The person who had their finger on the trigger is responsible. The tool certainly isn't good either. It just carries out it's master's wishes. Obama is a tool and right now he is in the most dangerous of hands.

This is exactly why hard-core Obama supporters have a hard time letting go. Obama may well have the best of intentions (I won't go so far to say so, just sayin' it's possible)... in any case people who like Obama and can't let go tend to resonate with Obama, the person, but at the end of the day, he's only human. He jumped in and played the game. To play the game, you have to play the role of tool, and then do your best to influence where you, as the object of a higher power, hit the nail. Hopefully on the head, and somewhat per your own internal visions. That's the game you describe wherein the President is the tool.

The biggest and most important difference between Barack Obama and Ron Paul (and nearly every other politician in Washington) is Ron Paul has never played the game. He answers only to higher principals, which is not characteristic of the typical politician, and certainly not of the successful politician. Frankly, it's amazing Ron Paul has risen to the level he has.

TRUE! yea my analogy isn't perfect but applying the same analogy to Ron Paul would go something like this: Obama is a tool that only the corporations have access too. The people are forbidden from using this tool for their benefit. Ron Paul could never be a tool because he is a free thinking individual who acts on principle and what he thinks is best for the people of this country and the world, but whatever he is (maybe a close friend of the people) he would be one that only the people would have the ability to influence. The corporations would have no say in influencing his decisions.

JoshERTW
22nd December 2011, 15:52
I think anyone who reads this forum is beyond being strictly adherent to party lines - go out and register to vote for RP in the primaries folks.

I've said this before and I'll say again that I wish he was running for office in Canada so I could vote for him!

AlternativeInfoJunkie
22nd December 2011, 16:03
I'm Sorry YOU LIE..!

No, I'm very sorry, but it isn't a lie. Please check it out. And I don't like being called a liar. Holy Moly, Business Insider is a very legit, mainstream publication. These newsletters are in the public record. Go read them yourself. But please, don't call me a liar.

Why are you not responding anymore now that all the evidence in Paul's defense has been posted?


Well good! The defense rests then I guess!


HAHA and I like how that person got no "thanks" for spreading NWO corporate media propaganda! GOOD JOB AVALONIANS!

risveglio
22nd December 2011, 16:36
I'm so sorry Ron Paul is a bone fide racist.

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-12-20/politics/30537102_1_newsletters-conspiracy-theories-lew-rockwell


Here's The Real Story Behind Ron Paul's Racist Newsletters
Michael Brendan Dougherty|December 20, 2011|

(AP)

So as Ron Paul is on track to win the Iowa caucuses, he is getting a new dose of press scrutiny.

And the press is focusing on the newsletters that went out under his name in the late 1980s and early 1990s. They were called the Ron Paul's Political Report, Ron Paul's Freedom Report, the Ron Paul Survival Report and the Ron Paul Investment Letter.

There is no doubt that the newsletters contained utterly racist statements.

Some choice quotes:

"Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

"We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational."

After the Los Angeles riots, one article in a newsletter claimed, "Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks."

One referred to Martin Luther King Jr. as "the world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours" and who "seduced underage girls and boys."

Another referred to Barbara Jordan, a civil rights activist and congresswoman as "Barbara Morondon," the "archetypical half-educated victimologist."

Other newsletters had strange conspiracy theories about homosexuals, the CIA, and AIDS.

Read more: http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-12-20/politics/30537102_1_newsletters-conspiracy-theories-lew-rockwell#ixzz1hBcRz6wF


I'm sorry but Ron Paul is the anti-racists. He would do more for minorities than Obama would even dream about.

i3EADdr-5AY

risveglio
22nd December 2011, 16:46
Earlier today, I was called a liar on another thread, which I cannot now find, for pointing out that, sadly, Ron Paul seems to be a racist, and for posting the following material. I'm really sorry to say this. I really wish he wasn't. He has a lot of positions that are very appealing to many people. But there's a lot of evidence surfacing, now that he is seriously being considered in the presidential race, about his past. There are these newsletters he published in the 1990s that were rabidly racist, and they are getting some scrutiny and attention these days. I think he has been saying he didn't have direct oversight, but that seems kind of lame. It was his publication.

I am not saying this out of any desire to offend his supporters. I was leaning that way myself, for a while. I do think anyone who might want to vote for him should know about his other, less-discussed positions on social issues.

Anyway, here's one of many articles on the subject, this one from The Business Insider:


Here's The Real Story Behind Ron Paul's Racist Newsletters
Michael Brendan Dougherty|December 20, 2011|

(AP)

So as Ron Paul is on track to win the Iowa caucuses, he is getting a new dose of press scrutiny.

And the press is focusing on the newsletters that went out under his name in the late 1980s and early 1990s. They were called the Ron Paul's Political Report, Ron Paul's Freedom Report, the Ron Paul Survival Report and the Ron Paul Investment Letter.

There is no doubt that the newsletters contained utterly racist statements.

Some choice quotes:

"Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

"We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational."

After the Los Angeles riots, one article in a newsletter claimed, "Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks."

One referred to Martin Luther King Jr. as "the world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours" and who "seduced underage girls and boys."

Another referred to Barbara Jordan, a civil rights activist and congresswoman as "Barbara Morondon," the "archetypical half-educated victimologist."

Other newsletters had strange conspiracy theories about homosexuals, the CIA, and AIDS.

In 1996 when the Texas Monthly investigated the newsletters, Paul took responsibility for them and said that certain things were taken out of context. (It's hard to imagine a context that would make the above quotes defensible.)

Read more: http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-12-20/politics/30537102_1_newsletters-conspiracy-theories-lew-rockwell#ixzz1hDAaQwVT

You are talking about a set of newsletters written 20+ years ago that the Congressman has stated he was not aware of until 2001 and it is the only blemish on his record. Why not look where he stands on race. Also the fact that he has stated he would consider Walter Williams (a great choice IMO) for VP?

Watch this video
i3EADdr-5AY

And read this article
http://www.dailypaul.com/193306/ron-paul-newsletters-fact-from-fiction

And please tell me you are can tell that these attacks are just a desperate attempt to discredit the only man that is not part of the system.

Amysenthia
22nd December 2011, 16:46
To those planning to vote for Ron Paul that were affiliated with another party I called my local elections board to ask if I had to do anything when switching my party affiliation when voting at the primaries. I was told that at the time I vote I just need to tell them that I want to vote Republican this time and they will load the correct ballot in the computer and that my voting records will show that I voted Republican in this election. I was told there is nothing you have to do with the elections board prior to voting.

risveglio
22nd December 2011, 16:49
To those planning to vote for Ron Paul that were affiliated with another party I called my local elections board to ask if I had to do anything when switching my party affiliation when voting at the primaries. I was told that at the time I vote I just need to tell them that I want to vote Republican this time and they will load the correct ballot in the computer and that my voting records will show that I voted Republican in this election. I was told there is nothing you have to do with the elections board prior to voting.

You need to check this because in some states if you are a Democrat, you can not switch when going to the primaries. Here is a link to a site that has information on your specific state.
http://www.bluerepublican.org/

baddbob
22nd December 2011, 16:53
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=FywqLPxzQRw

mountain_jim
22nd December 2011, 17:18
I registered independant when I moved. I voted for Obama with HOPE. That sure worked out well.

The existence of Ron Paul in the primaries is the only reason I would even bother to vote again - at least that's how I feel after Obama and the Dems helped wake me up that much further to the joke of our 'democracy' as it exists now.

crested-duck
22nd December 2011, 17:33
jackovest- I am curious about your thoughts on 2 things. 1-the electoral college vote scam?--2 Lyndon LaRouche the statesman? Lyndon is too old to run but he's really a national treasure, just imagine the incredible power to change things the combination of Ron Paul and Lyndon LaRouche could have produced. You can always pm me if you do want to keep it private. I'll have to reregister from independant to Rep. for our May primary here where I live. I will vote and do my part, but I also feel it is a futile exercise as long as the electoral college still exists and has the power to go against the popular vote.

STATIC
22nd December 2011, 17:40
Has anyone here ever changed there voter registration before?
I'm a registered Democrat so how do you make the switch?

¤=[Post Update]=¤


To those planning to vote for Ron Paul that were affiliated with another party I called my local elections board to ask if I had to do anything when switching my party affiliation when voting at the primaries. I was told that at the time I vote I just need to tell them that I want to vote Republican this time and they will load the correct ballot in the computer and that my voting records will show that I voted Republican in this election. I was told there is nothing you have to do with the elections board prior to voting.

Tks
So even if you are registered as a democrat you can still vote for RP when the time comes?

¤=[Post Update]=¤


but I also feel it is a futile exercise as long as the electoral college still exists and has the power to go against the popular vote.

Absolutely.
There will not be a democracy in the US until the electoral collage is done away with.

Alan
22nd December 2011, 17:43
I'm Sorry YOU LIE..!

No, I'm very sorry, but it isn't a lie. Please check it out. And I don't like being called a liar. Holy Moly, Business Insider is a very legit, mainstream publication. These newsletters are in the public record. Go read them yourself. But please, don't call me a liar.

etm567 is not a liar, he's naively believing the lies told by the MSM and PTB. etm567, you're being manipulated, don't let them do it to you!

AlternativeInfoJunkie
22nd December 2011, 17:56
I'm Sorry YOU LIE..!

No, I'm very sorry, but it isn't a lie. Please check it out. And I don't like being called a liar. Holy Moly, Business Insider is a very legit, mainstream publication. These newsletters are in the public record. Go read them yourself. But please, don't call me a liar.

etm567 is not a liar, he's naively believing the lies told by the MSM and PTB. etm567, you're being manipulated, don't let them do it to you!

Yea but it's cool that etm is not posting anymore because the msm ptb lies can't survive in the radiant light of the truth.

crested-duck
22nd December 2011, 18:34
STATIC-I think you can vote in the primary Rep. election only if you are registered as a Rep. Call your local town hall and they will surely tell you what you have to do.

Unified Serenity
22nd December 2011, 18:46
You are correct that we need to get registered now as Republicans. The Republican party is upping the dates required to get registered because they want lesson the effect of independents and blue democrats who like RP from voting in the primary. The primary is the most important aspect of the election because typically, the establishment gets their two through the primary and then it really doesn't matter who is on the ticket. Sure you can write in your own choice, but has that ever mattered? What matters is who is on the ticket for Democrat or Republican. Third party is just a means to stop a prime candidate from winning. Third party splits the vote typically of one party, not both Democrat and Republican.

So, if you want to vote for Ron Paul and you have to be registered as a Republican in your area (some areas do not make this requirement, but most do) then get registered NOW. I do believe we can even register online now. I have to check that out, but you can go to any local DMV and register.

I believe we have a chance here to make a difference, but I will not get messianic in my support for RP. What will be will be, and I will do what is necessary to at least give RP the best chance I can.

Alan
22nd December 2011, 20:10
STATIC-I think you can vote in the primary Rep. election only if you are registered as a Rep. Call your local town hall and they will surely tell you what you have to do.

The rules are different from state to state. Here in Texas you don't have to be a registered Redumbicrat to vote in the primary.

STATIC
23rd December 2011, 03:02
when I checked that website bluerepublican it said that in michigan you do not vote by party, so you don not need to change your voter registration;
But I'l give the township a call just to make sure.

jackovesk
23rd December 2011, 03:13
jackovest- I am curious about your thoughts on 2 things. 1-the electoral college vote scam?--2 Lyndon LaRouche the statesman? Lyndon is too old to run but he's really a national treasure, just imagine the incredible power to change things the combination of Ron Paul and Lyndon LaRouche could have produced.

Good questions crested-duck,

1-the electoral college vote scam?

Here is a previous post that covers this abstrusely alarming and ongoing issue:




If there were a third party, it would be much easier to monkey with the vote totals and thus they'd rig it for Obama to win, and explain the loss of RP being due to the split conservative vote. My point is, that the very people who for decades have said how bad third party candidates are because they split the vote will be behind a third party candidate if RP wins. I would hope the American people would see through it, but they can easily be played, and again, it's easier to rig the diebold machines then where having RP vs Obama would be much harder to rig.

This is making the assumption that elections are rigged, which they very well might be, but if that is the case I have a better chance of becoming president than Ron Paul.

I've heard they can only get away with Rigging the Diebold Voting Machines when the Vote is tight i.e. 1 to 2% like (GW Bush got away with in 2004).

Its impossible to Rig them with a large Voting Swing over 4%+, be rest assured RP Campaign Team are on top of all that, and will be watching for any Fraudulent activity in 2012...

2 Lyndon LaRouche the statesman?

Lyndon LaRouche as you know, has been around for a long time and knows exactly Who the PTW are, How they operate & What's at stake...

I recommend watching this interview...


Lyndon LaRouche: Obama is "Clinically Insane"..!

Nov 30, 2011


Alex also talks with political candidate and economist Lyndon LaRouche about his emergency statement released on Thanksgiving evening. It calls for stopping the (British Empire) before its successfully launches 'World War Three' and the 'Destruction' of civilization.

If there is 'One Interview' you should listen to in its entirety, its 'This One'..!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztsoob1k3JA


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uT2vMIDMHTg


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DN3h0765Po


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQeLt6_he3U

PS - I urge you to 'Listen' to 'Every Word' of this interview before commenting..!

LaRouche 'Lays it All Out' on the table, like you've never heard before and he is 'Deadly Serious'..!

...and Lastly, Ron Paul/Lyndon LaRouche ticket..?

I think Ron Paul and his Campaign Team are doing just fine on their own. They are starting to 'Cut Through' to (The People) who know somethings wrong, but just can't quite put their finger on it...

...And the only thing in the RP/Campaign Team's armory is the 'TRUTH' the whole 'TRUTH' and nothing but the 'TRUTH'..!

The 'TRUTH' is the only weapon Ron Paul needs to Defeat the OWO Gobalist CRIMINALS..!

Unified Serenity
23rd December 2011, 03:24
Condi Rice is being talked about as the sure win solution for VP to get the Republican elected. I think she is extremely bright and talented, but so was lucifer if you get my drift. I don't trust her. she knows her foreign affairs stuff, but she is definitly an insider.

jackovesk
23rd December 2011, 03:40
Condi Rice is being talked about as the sure win solution for VP to get the Republican elected. I think she is extremely bright and talented, but so was lucifer if you get my drift. I don't trust her. she knows her foreign affairs stuff, but she is definitly an insider.

I would like to add to that (US)


I don't trust her.

That's a 'Bloody Understatement' she is pure Evil and has been involved in just about every single GW Bush CoverUp imaginable..!

Condi Rice Hoping For The GOP VP Spot (mamma mia)

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/dec/18/curl-one-president-please-with-a-side-of-rice/

:fear:

Unified Serenity
23rd December 2011, 04:38
Condi Rice is being talked about as the sure win solution for VP to get the Republican elected. I think she is extremely bright and talented, but so was lucifer if you get my drift. I don't trust her. she knows her foreign affairs stuff, but she is definitly an insider.

I would like to add to that (US)


I don't trust her.

That's a 'Bloody Understatement' she is pure Evil and has been involved in just about every single GW Bush CoverUp imaginable..!

Condi Rice Hoping For The GOP VP Spot (mamma mia)

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/dec/18/curl-one-president-please-with-a-side-of-rice/

:fear:

Well, I am going for the understated response for a moment. soft smile

Mansid99
23rd December 2011, 05:11
Hi
Ron paul is hated by the establishment for his constitutional views. He is leading and media is ignoring him. It is not even funny anymore. I mean this punk comes in this forum and has no idea about ron paul and makes a judgement on him being racist. Media is against him. I will like you to prove yourself to millions once media writes bad about you. It is easy to point finger when everyone is pointing. But it takes courage and honor to stand for what you believe is right.

ponda
23rd December 2011, 05:25
HAHA brilliant

thanks for posting this


:bump:

risveglio
23rd December 2011, 05:36
Hopefully the Paul camp is ready for this newsletter BS. As part of a Ron Paul MeetUp since mid-2009, it was our black members who wanted to make sure we were ready to defend against the newsletters because they were convinced he was not a racist. They would bring up, we need to be ready for the newsletters when everyone else in the group thought it would not come up again. Here is the leader of the NAACP talking about Ron Paul. Hopefully this along with my other video and the article in the dailypaul will put an end to the charge of racism, at least on this forum. You don't have to agree with him, but you can't believe this guy is a racist.

OGhv3paNz6U

jackovesk
23rd December 2011, 05:37
I'm Sorry YOU LIE..!

No, I'm very sorry, but it isn't a lie. Please check it out. And I don't like being called a liar. Holy Moly, Business Insider is a very legit, mainstream publication. These newsletters are in the public record. Go read them yourself. But please, don't call me a liar.

etm567 is not a liar, he's naively believing the lies told by the MSM and PTB. etm567, you're being manipulated, don't let them do it to you!

Unbeknowns to you alamojo, etm567's accusation...

Post #2 - 21st December 2011 16:16


I'm so sorry Ron Paul is a bone fide racist.

His statement not only showed Naïvety, it also had to do with his thread (below) and those who dared to question his 'Guru' on a previous thread that caused some Friction @ Avalon...

Posted - 21st December 2011 20:03

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?37169-A-Challenge-to-David-Wilcock-Naysayers

Just saying...:noidea:....:secret:....:yes4:

ponda
23rd December 2011, 05:41
jackovesk said:

That's a 'Bloody Understatement' she is pure Evil and has been involved in just about every single GW Bush CoverUp imaginable..!



i remember watching an interview of c rice on youtube a few years ago.The interview was going along very smoothly.The journo's were asking general questions and miss rice was answering easily with a smile.Then out of the blue one journalist asked the question that some people suggest that the government knew something about 911 before it actually happened.She of course denied it and quickly deflected the question but something unusual had happened.....her voice had cracked when she answered the question.Maybe nothing to it but i found it telling

jackovesk
23rd December 2011, 05:45
jackovesk said:

That's a 'Bloody Understatement' she is pure Evil and has been involved in just about every single GW Bush CoverUp imaginable..!



i remember watching an interview of c rice on youtube a few years ago.The interview was going along very smoothly.The journo's were asking general questions and miss rice was answering easily with a smile.Then out of the blue one journalist asked the question that some people suggest that the government knew something about 911 before it actually happened.She of course denied it and quickly deflected the question but something unusual had happened.....her voice had cracked when she answered the question.Maybe nothing to it but i found it telling

http://www.algonquineast.ca/images4boxes/bingo2.gif....:yes4:

911 Questions make Condi Squirm


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NS_M6RvjTAQ

Condoleezza Rice: Liar, Secretary of State, War Criminal Part 1


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1UI4KVJCC8

truthseekerdan
23rd December 2011, 06:24
5m-54xzVmVM

jackovesk
23rd December 2011, 07:40
"This is GREAT! Reminds me of the Rys2Sense video graphics where RY was Bruce Lee LOL"

V249zDK54vc

Excellent Video ktlight, Keep up the Good Work...

My Name is jackovesk and I Approve this Message..!....:neo:



http://i39.tinypic.com/2uge3pk.png



May the Force of 'Truth' be with you (ALL)..!