lord_casek Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 if hes such a threat to the elite then why would they do that just another reason why he could be in with them look at all the people who are involved with them almost every noticed politician which could include ron paul theres no way to know sure there is. have you ever heard him speak? one who encourages people to question authority and rallies for the constitution is certainly not part of some power grab. some quotes from dr. paul A system of capitalism presumes sound money, not fiat money manipulated by a central bank. Capitalism cherishes voluntary contracts and interest rates that are determined by savings, not credit creation by a central bank. Cliches about supporting the troops are designed to distract from failed policies, policies promoted by powerful special interests that benefit from war, anything to steer the discussion away from the real reasons the war in Iraq will not end anytime soon. I am just absolutely convinced that the best formula for giving us peace and preserving the American way of life is freedom, limited government, and minding our own business overseas. sound like an elitist? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreaken1993 Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 im not saying he doesnt sound like a freedom fighter but man the way the elite run everything without fail and have a grip in almost every situation in the world i dont see how a man like ron paul would be able to hold as much power as he does were it not for some underlying support from those same elite jmo i dont see why he hasnt been assassinated yet i mean any one that oposses them with any public power are usually silenced quickly thats the only problem i have with him i think the elite would have a man like ron paul so the people who are awake will blindly follow him because he says the truth about govt and not really bring about any change if he gets elected and does what he says he will ill support him but until then im going to watch every person in power for corruptness Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 im not saying he doesnt sound like a freedom fighter but man the way the elite run everything without fail and have a grip in almost every situation in the world i dont see how a man like ron paul would be able to hold as much power as he does were it not for some underlying support from those same elite jmo i dont see why he hasnt been assassinated yet i mean any one that oposses them with any public power are usually silenced quickly thats the only problem i have with him i think the elite would have a man like ron paul so the people who are awake will blindly follow him because he says the truth about govt and not really bring about any change if he gets elected and does what he says he will ill support him but until then im going to watch every person in power for corruptness no, the scumbags have rush limbaugh and sean hannity. they promote their scumbag agenda via the talking points those two and the rest of the talking heads like to parrot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Mamerro Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 OMG THE ELITE™ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 mamerro, you really should look into the power players. it may not surprise you, but i'm pretty sure it would. "confessions of an economic hitman" spells it out pretty well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreaken1993 Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 i would say nwo or illuminait scum but elite sounds better cause it dont scare away people or i could just use corporate international bankers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 i would say nwo or illuminait scum but elite sounds better cause it dont scare away people or i could just use corporate international bankers people respond better when you call them international bankers or just "elite". the illuminati, even though they were and maybe are real, are synonymous with "conspiracy theory" in most peoples minds. gotta use language that doesn't get laughed at. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Mamerro Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 I think elite sounds funny and simplistic. The whole premise of trying to label the hugely complex and varied web of those at the top under a single moniker is funny to me. Whenever I hear it it just smacks of "OMG I JUST OPENED MY EYES TO THE TRUTH" nooberism. Also, Elite was the name of a Honda scooter in the 80's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreaken1993 Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 i know but thats what you have to do you have to talk to people in simplistic ways so it dosent scare them away i know theres so many diverse and complex societies and groups that all work for their control over the world but nwo or elite is just a way to label them even though its wrong cause not all people who work for these global domination plans are elite some are scientist religious figureheads and many other fields besides rich and powerfull banksters but you gotta do what you gotta do Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 I think elite sounds funny and simplistic. The whole premise of trying to label the hugely complex and varied web of those at the top under a single moniker is funny to me. Whenever I hear it it just smacks of "OMG I JUST OPENED MY EYES TO THE TRUTH" nooberism. Also, Elite was the name of a Honda scooter in the 80's. i agree completely. but look at our society. people don't understand when you lay it out the way it is. if you say "illuminati", they laugh. even if you explain that "illuminati" means "the illuminated ones", they don't get it. it is a very complex system in place that took a very long time to put into place. people just don't want to hear about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scaryletters Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 no, i'm pretty sure you don't know what you're talking about. have you seen dr. paul's impeccable voting record? it's all based on the constitution of the united states. know anything about his clinic in texas? know anything about what he's done for texas? probably not. otherwise you wouldn't call him an old, rich, elitist. impeccable voting record? according to who? you? i could give a fuck about the constitution of the united states, this is the same country that was founded on genocide and imperialism so excuse me if my faith in the constitution is less than full. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scaryletters Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 no, i'm pretty sure you don't know what you're talking about. have you seen dr. paul's impeccable voting record? it's all based on the constitution of the united states. know anything about his clinic in texas? know anything about what he's done for texas? probably not. otherwise you wouldn't call him an old, rich, elitist. impeccable voting record? according to who? you? i could give a fuck about the constitution of the united states, this is the same country that was founded on genocide and rampant imperialism so excuse me if my faith in the constitution is less than full blown. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 impeccable voting record? according to who? you? i could give a fuck about the constitution of the united states, this is the same country that was founded on genocide and rampant imperialism so excuse me if my faith in the constitution is less than full blown. ' i hope you get kicked in the head repeatedly by some JBT's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scaryletters Posted June 4, 2009 Share Posted June 4, 2009 hey, great argument. that's the kind of logic we need leading us around. im sure dr ron paul would agree with you. ron paul is no more of a freedom fighter than George W Bush, his father, and every single president through US history. he isn't there to serve you or I, he's there to reinforce the upper classes total domination of society. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scaryletters Posted June 4, 2009 Share Posted June 4, 2009 I think elite sounds funny and simplistic. The whole premise of trying to label the hugely complex and varied web of those at the top under a single moniker is funny to me. Whenever I hear it it just smacks of "OMG I JUST OPENED MY EYES TO THE TRUTH" nooberism. Also, Elite was the name of a Honda scooter in the 80's. elite- "In sociology as in general usage, the elite is a relatively small dominant group within a large society, which enjoys a privileged status envied by individuals of lower social status." stop wasting your time arguing semantics when there are more important issues out there. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILOTSMYBRAIN Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 How about the "Super-Class". Like my boy David Rothkopf likes to put it. PS: He's definitely not my boy. Good book though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreaken1993 Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 impeccable voting record? according to who? you? i could give a fuck about the constitution of the united states, this is the same country that was founded on genocide and rampant imperialism so excuse me if my faith in the constitution is less than full blown. you gotta point but you have to go with it cause thats the law of the land and even though it is based on fucked up shit it better then being without it were the govt can do whatever the fuck they want. IMO america was only created so Britain could have a way to start a new bank in a new place, i mean if you look it up america is a colony of britain so this country was basically made to fail man fuck ron paul fuck alex jones fuck anyone who comes out trying to support the revolution whos involved with the govt fuck em all, cause in reality everyone that says their on our side that holds power are lying snakes implanted by the same people who are powerfull enough to fix election sell us into debt and start wars but you think they wouldnt have someone like alex jones and ron paul. deny ignorance man deny it no matter what package it comes in Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scaryletters Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 i dont see why i have to go with it simply because it's the law of the land. i'm not a communist but i thoroughly believe we don't need a state to tell us what's right and wrong. ron paul is just another, in a long list, of manipulators and exploiters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 Huffington Post interview with Dr. Paul Kathleen Wells: As a member of the U. S. House of Representatives' Foreign Affairs Committee, what is your take on this issue of torture? Congressman Ron Paul: Well, it's against the law - both our law and international law. So, we shouldn't do it. And I'm against it for personal, moral reasons. I think it's horrible. And for practical reasons, I think it's absolutely worthless. And if we are serious about getting information, if we use other techniques, we actually get more information. Kathleen Wells: So, you do believe that we were committing torture in our interrogations in Guantanamo? Congressman Ron Paul: I don't think the pictures I've seen were fictitious - the ones that were released a year or two ago. And, obviously, there are some more pictures of torture that they draw more attention to because they refuse to release them, which means that it must be a true indictment of what they were doing. Kathleen Wells: What are your thoughts on President Obama's decision to release the torture memos? Congressman Ron Paul: I think he is purely political. I think he has backed down on what he said. He was elected for change and it is the same old stuff and he is as much of a neo-con now as Bush was with this issue and other issues. The war has been expanded. He continues with not closing down Guantanamo. There is probably, for as most [sic] as we can tell, there is still secret rendition going on. We just moved some of this process overseas. We are not going to be aware of it in detail. Kathleen Wells: You feel President Obama is a neo-con like Bush? You don't see a distinction between the two administrations? Congressman Ron Paul: The tone is different, but the policies don't change. We are spreading the war. The war is expanding. We are not prosecuting those that committed torture. Guantanamo is not going to be closed down. So, no, I don't see [a distinction between Bush and Obama]. He [Obama] increased the DOD [Department of Defense] budget. We surely could spend some of that money at home where people are really hurting. But we increased the DOD budget, I think, by 10-percent. I can't see any significant change in foreign policy. The pretense in leaving Iraq was a mild pretense and I'm predicting that's not going to happen. There are going to be troops in Iraq throughout this administration, I'm convinced. Kathleen Wells: Why are you convinced? Congressman Ron Paul: Because I don't think anyone wants to face the difficulties that might ensue. The problems came from us being there and when we leave, the problems will probably accelerate a bit. And then they will blame leaving for [causing] the problems and, yet, the real problem was going in. So, I think the international pressure that we get from various allies will be so great that we won't leave. And just don't expect the policies to change. It just goes along with what I have said for years. Foreign policy does not change with Republicans or Democrats. Overall, there is very little policy that changes. There is a lot of debate and a lot of rhetoric, but things continue as they do. When Clinton was in, the Republicans condemned his Somalia problem. Bush said he wasn't going to be a nation builder and a policeman of the world and he gets in and he is worse. Obama says Bush is terrible and gets in and all of a sudden, guess who is cheering Obama on right now? People like [senator] Lindsay Graham. The real hawks of the Republican Party are sorta enjoying this right now. They figure they are winning these fights. Kathleen Wells: Can you give me your thoughts on former Vice President Dick Cheney's recent speech on interrogation techniques and national security? Congressman Ron Paul: I [didn't] expect anything brand new. He ... just [tried] to defend what he had been doing and his involvement over the years. He'll keep saying that he saved many lives by torturing - which I don't believe for a minute. I'm more likely to believe Matthew Alexander and his position on torture. Matthew Alexander was an official that was involved. He was in the Air Force, but he was over there and he carried out over 300 interrogations over there and was very, very successful. But [he] refused orders to ever participate in anything violent or anything that hinted of torture. That is the evidence - you can get more information, rather than less [without using torture]. I think the evidence is now coming out of people saying that the torture wasn't intended to get information. They got a lot of information from these individuals - these few, these three that are well known now. They got a lot of information from them before they were tortured. They were trying to get them to say that there was a connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein in order to justify this illegal war. Kathleen Wells: Elaborate on why you believe there is no difference between the Obama Administration and the Bush Administration? Congressmen Ron Paul: In style, they are different. The tone is different and I think there is a benefit to that. But his policies don't change. Ultimately, policies win out. The strong statements against Iran are still there. And, right now, going through our committee (the Congressional International Relations Committee/the Foreign Affairs Committee), stronger sanctions will be put on Iran - just looking for another fight. And we have taken the position we will not allow them to proceed on any nuclear testing, even if it is within the law and even if it is done peacefully. We are not going to permit that. So no, that position hasn't changed. Like I said before, the war is not winding down in Iraq. The violence is increasing. And war is expanding into Afghanistan, sending more troops there. And now we are taking on Pakistan. And, actually, the whole Pakistan thing is just a reflection of a very, very flawed foreign policy of ours. Because we chase the Taliban around and some go into Pakistan and we urge the public government there to do this and that, we are just working very hard to have another war in Pakistan. Kathleen Wells: What would you be doing differently if you were President? I know you were a Presidential primary candidate. Congressman Ron Paul: I would bring the troops home. I'd just bring them all home. I'd bring them home from Korea. I'd bring them home from Germany. Save hundreds of billions of dollars and that would be a real boost. In order to stimulate the economy, I would immediately suspend the income tax for everybody. The money we get into the hands of the people - that would cost less money than these hundreds of billions of dollars of bailouts that go into the pockets of the privileged who then get to take their retirement benefits and all their bonuses. I would do it a lot differently. Foreign policy, though, would be the big thing. Just move away from that. Take off the sanctions and start trading with Cuba. Not just talk about it, but go ahead and do it. Kathleen Wells: And Iran? Congressman Ron Paul: I would treat them like we treated the Soviets. We talked to them. The Soviets had 30,000 nuclear weapons. Iran is not going to bomb anybody. They deserve a little bit of protection for themselves. They have nuclear weapons to the north, to the south, to the east, and to the west and all they do is get beat up. There are a bunch of bad people over there, but there are a bunch of bad people all over the world. Khrushchev wasn't exactly the nicest guy in the world and he claimed he was going to bury us, too. Even guys like Ronald Reagan talked to him and we worked things out. Their economic system collapsed. What we ought to do is pay more attention to the goals of Osama Bin Laden. He said, "We will bring you to your knees through your bankruptcy because we are going to drag you over here and we will drain you and we will eventually bring on an economic crisis in your country." Right now he is winning. Right now the Iraqis are closely aligned with the Iranians. The Shiites are winning. The Sunnis are on the run. We've weaponized the whole area. More guns sent over there by the American taxpayer. The Sunnis are all armed. It's just a very, very ridiculous foreign policy. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kathleen-wells/congressman-ron-paul-talk_b_212520.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreaken1993 Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 you do OBL dead right since about 2001 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 you do OBL dead right since about 2001 does it matter? osama bin laden has never been the target. ever. tim osmond.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vulcan5 Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 fuck osama hat nigga pinched my sac yesterday Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Removed Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 This thread continues to get worse and worse. Ron Paul..........yeah!!1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 explain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scaryletters Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 does it matter? osama bin laden has never been the target. ever. tim osmond.... you're finally right on something...osama has never been the target. ever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreaken1993 Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 i know that if they wanted him if he wasnt dead he would have been caught and i know he was a cia asset when the cia funded and trained the Taliban i dont think their is a real target they just want this war to rage on and on Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 some of you guys are just silly. i always get a kick out of 'conspiracy theorists' who think other people who are generally considered 'conspiracy theorists' are part of the 'conspiracy. that said... to argue that you hate ron paul simply because you hate the state is an argument i can somewhat have some sympathy for, although im not a full blown anarchist. BUT... its rather silly to believe that the most pro liberty politician in history serves no use in a battle with the state. its sort of like if you are against all taxes, but you dont support tax cuts. or if you are for eliminating the federal government but you dont support abolishing a department or two. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nag One Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 It's too bad Paul could never get elected. Theirs so much corrupt power in the media that the government can get it to the point where most people don't even know who he is. Sad really. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreaken1993 Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 It's too bad Paul could never get elected. Theirs so much corrupt power in the media that the government can get it to the point where most people don't even know who he is. Sad really. thats mainly what i was talking about i mean if ron paul really isnt working for the elite then there is no chance for him to win and be president so all the people who think hes their savior are idiots cause one mans vote isnt going to change shit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreaken1993 Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 some of you guys are just silly. i always get a kick out of 'conspiracy theorists' who think other people who are generally considered 'conspiracy theorists' are part of the 'conspiracy. that said... to argue that you hate ron paul simply because you hate the state is an argument i can somewhat have some sympathy for, although im not a full blown anarchist. BUT... its rather silly to believe that the most pro liberty politician in history serves no use in a battle with the state. its sort of like if you are against all taxes, but you dont support tax cuts. or if you are for eliminating the federal government but you dont support abolishing a department or two. you know what i get a kick out of? All you people who blindly follow people and blatantly call anyone who oppose your views on reality a conspiracy theorist see thats a part of the govts conditioning of the populace cause when you here conspiracy theorist what comes to mind a crazy maniac who thinks the govt has implanted chips in their head never when they mention someone opposed to the govt or their lies do you here them being an objective opinionated researcher which would be the proper terminology you here loony nut case conspiracy theorist the only thing is even though ron paul is appose to govt power, supposedly, he dont change anything the govt is still a corrupt system ran by the elite and ron paul cant change it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.