Ron Paul Revolution

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
221

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]squating_bear wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

What do you think the UN is?
[/quote]

The successor to the League of Nations - an international body designed to prevent wars of aggression, human rights abuses etc.
[/quote]

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

The UN is a world government institution and to deny that is to deny truth.[/quote]

Okay LIFTI, if you say so. What would I know about the U.N. and its history?[/quote]

Sounds to me like you do know about the history of this international governmental organization. Probably better than I do.

You just wouldn’t feel comfortable calling it that though huh?

Understandable. It bothers me to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Nations[/quote]

Thanks for the reminder LibertySquats. You go on ‘ignore’ because of the 9/11 blood libel batshit.[/quote]

Your welcome. Surprised I’d get put on ignore so easily - it’s not like I’ve been unreasonable.

Anything but

Truly an honor to cause a forfeit so soon, compared to all the intelligent posts he’s given with orion, lifti, etc. Impossible one move checkmates overwhelmed him or what? I’ve got different views but never been disrespectful.

222

[quote]Someone wrote:

He forfeits! I win!

[/quote]

You won’t find a bigger critic of the U.N. than me. And I agree with much of the criticism regarding loss of sovereignty in relation to international law etc. But the suggestion that a conspiracy exists to bring about a ‘world government’ - the suggestion being that the intent is to deprive all nations of all of their sovereignty in furtherance of a New World Order conspiracy is nonsense.

U.N. needs reform:

U.S. has a duty to play their part in deterring human rights abuses, preventing wars of aggression and maintaining global stability.

The President of the United States of America and the Prime Minister, Mr. Churchill, representing His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom, being met together, deem it right to make known certain common principles in the national policies of their respective countries on which they base their hopes for a better future for the world.

First, their countries seek no aggrandizement, territorial or other;

Second, they desire to see no territorial changes that do not accord with the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned;

Third, they respect the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live; and they wish to see sovereign rights and self government restored to those who have been forcibly deprived of them;

Fourth, they will endeavor, with due respect for their existing obligations, to further the enjoyment by all States, great or small, victor or vanquished, of access, on equal terms, to the trade and to the raw materials of the world which are needed for their economic prosperity;

Fifth, they desire to bring about the fullest collaboration between all nations in the economic field with the object of securing, for all, improved labor standards, economic advancement and social security;

Sixth, after the final destruction of the Nazi tyranny, they hope to see established a peace which will afford to all nations the means of dwelling in safety within their own boundaries, and which will afford assurance that all the men in all lands may live out their lives in freedom from fear and want;

Seventh, such a peace should enable all men to traverse the high seas and oceans without hindrance;

Eighth, they believe that all of the nations of the world, for realistic as well as spiritual reasons must come to the abandonment of the use of force. Since no future peace can be maintained if land, sea or air armaments continue to be employed by nations which threaten, or may threaten, aggression outside of their frontiers, they believe, pending the establishment of a wider and permanent system of general security, that the disarmament of such nations is essential. They will likewise aid and encourage all other practicable measure which will lighten for peace-loving peoples the crushing burden of armaments.

223

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

You won’t find a bigger critic of the U.N. than me. And I agree with much of the criticism regarding loss of sovereignty in relation to international law etc. But the suggestion that a conspiracy exists to bring about a ‘world government’ - the suggestion being that the intent is to deprive all nations of all of their sovereignty in furtherance of a New World Order conspiracy is nonsense.
[/quote]

You can claim its nonsense, but you came in here asking for batshit - as if to prove it doesn’t exist when no one can show it. I presented it to you and you slammed the door in my face.

Agreeing with me that something stinks is good,

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
You won’t find a bigger critic of the U.N. than me. And I agree with much of the criticism regarding loss of sovereignty in relation to international law etc. [/quote]

but understand that we do have bats producing this shit. I know why someone would want to cover their nose, its because it stinks!!

But covering your nose won’t cut it, the bats are multiplying and they are producing more and more shit. If we ignore it, we will someday be buried in it.

At least now you see why I post how I post.

When the topic is batshit, I bring the really smelly batshit. I don’t waste your time or mine with bullshit or horseshit that just comes from our farmers livestock. I’m not the boy who cried wolf. Ignore at your own peril if you must, but then I’m obligated to explain to others how you slammed the door in my face for giving exactly what you asked for. Because if they all just point and laugh, then we are all dead meat.

224
225

[quote]Gaius Octavius wrote:

Lol. What a ridiculous misrepresentation. Are we supposed to take you seriously?[/quote]

As someone trying to convince me of the “crime” of “treason” by “breaching a contract”, you may want to reconsider your question - but more to the point, did you read the actual newsletters?

226

[quote]orion wrote:

Somebody needs to fall on the sword.

Publicly, bloodily [u]and soon.[/u][/quote]

Are you sure it’s me who is getting desperate? Ironic.

227

More evidence coming to light - eight page letter written by ‘Ron Paul’ hi-lighted and underlined in pen throughout - signed in pen by Ron Paul - all written in the first person even referring to his training as a physician, time in Congress etc

Entire tone is mad and conspiratorial:

'I’ve been told not to talk, but these stooges don’t scare me. Threats or no threats, I’ve laid bare the coming race war in our big cities…the Bohemian Grove - perverted, pagan playground of the powerful. Skull & Bones: the demonic fraternity that includes George Bush…

‘I uncovered the New Money plans during my last term in the U.S. Congress;’ - ‘These totalitarian bills;’ ‘It wasn’t money for a free people. It was a portable inquisition to allow the feds to keep track of American cash and American citizens;’ ‘Spy device embedders;’ ‘One federal scientist confirmed to me…’ ‘chemical alarms will set off federal cash detection machines at airports and any place else they choose.’ ‘Thank goodness, a patriotic American within the Federal Reserve told me about this financial Manhatten Project.’

228

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
More evidence coming to light - eight page letter written by ‘Ron Paul’ hi-lighted and underlined in pen throughout - signed in pen by Ron Paul - all written in the first person even referring to his training as a physician, time in Congress etc

Entire tone is mad and conspiratorial:

'I’ve been told not to talk, but these stooges don’t scare me. Threats or no threats, I’ve laid bare the coming race war in our big cities…the Bohemian Grove - perverted, pagan playground of the powerful. Skull & Bones: the demonic fraternity that includes George Bush…

‘I uncovered the New Money plans during my last term in the U.S. Congress;’ - ‘These totalitarian bills;’ ‘It wasn’t money for a free people. It was a portable inquisition to allow the feds to keep track of American cash and American citizens;’ ‘Spy device embedders;’ ‘One federal scientist confirmed to me…’ ‘chemical alarms will set off federal cash detection machines at airports and any place else they choose.’ ‘Thank goodness, a patriotic American within the Federal Reserve told me about this financial Manhatten Project.’

http://graphics.thomsonreuters.com/11/12/Solicitation2.pdf[/quote]

This is very interesting - and I’d be very curious as to when it was published. In any event, more damning evidence.

What remains implausible to me is Paul’s continued apathy over the so-called ghost-writer of these articles. Paul claims someone else wrote them, but Paul is a self-professed champion of private property rights, but here is someone misappropriating his name and image (allegedly) without his permission, and he can’t be bothered to figure out who is doing it.

And, a step further, these newsletters are threatening to derail his chance at winning a primary, and the stakes couldn’t be higher at this particular moment, but Paul can’t be bothered to find out who really did it.

Doesn’t make sense.

Even if it was the troglodyte Lew Rockwell, I don’t think that helps Paul much, and that might be why he isn’t outing Rockwell as the ghost-writer. Rockwell was well-connected to Paul for years, and Paul continues to publish content on Rockwell’s site. Even if Rockwell was the perpetrator, he isn’t distant enough to absolve Paul of the content.

Good post, SM. These newsletters just get more and more ridiculous. I don’t think the generic descriptions of them did them justice.

229

@Thunderbolt - Do you think that Paul is more or less qualified to hold the office of the president than Bachmann?

230

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

@Thunderbolt - Do you think that Paul is more or less qualified to hold the office of the president than Bachmann?[/quote]

Off the cuff, I’d say pretty equally unqualified - she doesn’t impress me - but she isn’t a libertarian, and that puts her a notch above Paul, and she isn’t a batshit left-wing radical on foreign policy, so on that basis, she’s more qualified than Paul.

Why?

231

Nice roundup from a libertarian who has seen this coming since the 1980s:

232

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

Somebody needs to fall on the sword.

Publicly, bloodily [u]and soon.[/u][/quote]

Are you sure it’s me who is getting desperate? Ironic.[/quote]

Not desperate at all.

A libertarian candidate is going to win a primary.

And several other ones.

We march on, slowly but surely.

233

[quote]orion wrote:
[
Not desperate at all.

A libertarian candidate is going to win a primary.

And several other ones.

We march on, slowly but surely. [/quote]

You are not an Americn citizen - you aren’t marching on anything here.

234

Well stated:

[i]The New York Times has an interesting front page piece on Ron Paulâ??s relationship with the racists, anti-Semites and neo-Nazis in his coalition (sorry, but whatever you think of Lew Rockwell, Stormfront and David Duke certainly deserve such labels).

His three defenses are: 1) He didnâ??t have direct knowledge of the really bad things and cannot remember anything when people provide evidence that he did.

  1. He wonâ??t disavow support from neo-Nazis and white supremacists because their endorsement of him doesnâ??t imply or suggest his endorsement of them. â??If they want to endorse me, theyâ??re endorsing what I do or say â?? it has nothing to do with endorsing what they say.â??

  2. Last he believes that his continued reliance on their support can be justified because heâ??s championing the cause of liberty. â??Iâ??ll go to anybody who I think I can convert to change their viewpoints â?? so that would be to me incidental,â?? he said. â??Iâ??m always looking at converting people to look at liberty the way I do.â??

All of these are deficient. Letâ??s start with his first argument. I simply donâ??t believe him. His claim would require not only that he never wrote the newsletters in question but that he never read them, either. It would also strongly suggest that he never discussed their basic editorial thrust with a close aide and editor who was writing under Paulâ??s own name. He even claims that he never paid attention to his lucrative newsletter business because nobody ever complained about their content.

I admit to a writerâ??s bias here, but your byline is one of the most valuable things you own because it reflects not just your work and thought but your character and reputation as well. I think Paul is lying about at least some of this. But even if you take him at his word that he was merely grossly irresponsible and incompetent in his handling of a few newsletters, how are we supposed to believe he could do the job of president if he has such poor management skills and such rotten choice in staff? (Admittedly, his choice in staff was only rotten if heâ??s telling the truth and his newsletters donâ??t reflect his views).

Then thereâ??s his second argument. Yes, itâ??s true that support from racists doesnâ??t make you a racist. But working with them is a different matter. Tolerating them, never mind campaigning for their support, even obliquely, is damning.

Which brings us to his third claim: that heâ??s on a quest to convert people. Iâ??m actually very sympathetic to this argument, as it is one Iâ??ve invoked myself and itâ??s one Bill Buckley used to make. Politics is about persuasion. If Ron Paul were out there converting neo-Nazis to classical liberalism Iâ??d be cheering him on. But where is the evidence heâ??s doing anything of the sort? Talking about hard money and the conspiracy at the Fed is not a sincere way to convince racists to drop their odious views. Is there any serious evidence that heâ??s tried to convince such supporters theyâ??re wrong? Iâ??ll take the word of people like Cato president Ed Crane and others that Paul doesnâ??t in fact believe much of this stuff. But whereâ??s the proof Paul ever spent any real effort trying to enlighten Lew Rockwell, never mind the folks at Stormfront? If there is such proof, his communications people are doing a fantastic job keeping it secret.

If Paulâ??s explanations are to be believed at face value, heâ??s a shockingly naïve man. If your goal is to persuade people that the libertarian cause is free of bigotry, courting support from bigots is a really stupid way to do it.[/i]

Yep. Paul is either not telling the truth and was completely aware of the letters’ content, or he is one of the most imcompetent and absent-minded men to ever run for president. Neither is a good answer for Paul.

235

Link is of an uncut Ron Paul interview with CNN’s Gloria Borger. Interesting how the media spins a story they want.

236

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
[
Not desperate at all.

A libertarian candidate is going to win a primary.

And several other ones.

We march on, slowly but surely. [/quote]

You are not an Americn citizen - you aren’t marching on anything here.[/quote]

Jesus Christ.

Irrelevant much?

237

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Well stated:

[i]The New York Times has an interesting front page piece on Ron Paulâ??s relationship with the racists, anti-Semites and neo-Nazis in his coalition (sorry, but whatever you think of Lew Rockwell, Stormfront and David Duke certainly deserve such labels).

His three defenses are: 1) He didnâ??t have direct knowledge of the really bad things and cannot remember anything when people provide evidence that he did.

  1. He wonâ??t disavow support from neo-Nazis and white supremacists because their endorsement of him doesnâ??t imply or suggest his endorsement of them. â??If they want to endorse me, theyâ??re endorsing what I do or say â?? it has nothing to do with endorsing what they say.â??

  2. Last he believes that his continued reliance on their support can be justified because heâ??s championing the cause of liberty. â??Iâ??ll go to anybody who I think I can convert to change their viewpoints â?? so that would be to me incidental,â?? he said. â??Iâ??m always looking at converting people to look at liberty the way I do.â??

All of these are deficient. Letâ??s start with his first argument. I simply donâ??t believe him. His claim would require not only that he never wrote the newsletters in question but that he never read them, either. It would also strongly suggest that he never discussed their basic editorial thrust with a close aide and editor who was writing under Paulâ??s own name. He even claims that he never paid attention to his lucrative newsletter business because nobody ever complained about their content.

I admit to a writerâ??s bias here, but your byline is one of the most valuable things you own because it reflects not just your work and thought but your character and reputation as well. I think Paul is lying about at least some of this. But even if you take him at his word that he was merely grossly irresponsible and incompetent in his handling of a few newsletters, how are we supposed to believe he could do the job of president if he has such poor management skills and such rotten choice in staff? (Admittedly, his choice in staff was only rotten if heâ??s telling the truth and his newsletters donâ??t reflect his views).

Then thereâ??s his second argument. Yes, itâ??s true that support from racists doesnâ??t make you a racist. But working with them is a different matter. Tolerating them, never mind campaigning for their support, even obliquely, is damning.

Which brings us to his third claim: that heâ??s on a quest to convert people. Iâ??m actually very sympathetic to this argument, as it is one Iâ??ve invoked myself and itâ??s one Bill Buckley used to make. Politics is about persuasion. If Ron Paul were out there converting neo-Nazis to classical liberalism Iâ??d be cheering him on. But where is the evidence heâ??s doing anything of the sort? Talking about hard money and the conspiracy at the Fed is not a sincere way to convince racists to drop their odious views. Is there any serious evidence that heâ??s tried to convince such supporters theyâ??re wrong? Iâ??ll take the word of people like Cato president Ed Crane and others that Paul doesnâ??t in fact believe much of this stuff. But whereâ??s the proof Paul ever spent any real effort trying to enlighten Lew Rockwell, never mind the folks at Stormfront? If there is such proof, his communications people are doing a fantastic job keeping it secret.

If Paulâ??s explanations are to be believed at face value, heâ??s a shockingly na�¯ve man. If your goal is to persuade people that the libertarian cause is free of bigotry, courting support from bigots is a really stupid way to do it.[/i]

Yep. Paul is either not telling the truth and was completely aware of the letters’ content, or he is one of the most imcompetent and absent-minded men to ever run for president. Neither is a good answer for Paul.[/quote]

Yeah, we understand.

Someone, who might have somehow, endorsed somewhat, something that might have been racist, is unelectable, people who are endorsing everlasting warfare right now are downright presidential.

Anything else?

238

[quote]orion wrote:

Jesus Christ.

Irrelevant much?[/quote]

Nope, just pointing out what should be obvious (and perhaps it isn’t) - you’re a bystander, not a participant.

239

[quote]orion wrote:

Yeah, we understand.

Someone, who might have somehow, endorsed somewhat, something that might have been racist, is unelectable, people who are endorsing everlasting warfare right now are downright presidential.

Anything else?[/quote]

Yep, libertarians are apparently too dumb to recognize that libertarianism generally is getting dragged down because of this mess, and the most recognized voice for libertarianism is becoming a disgraced one, yet they are more than happy to go down with the ship sinking under the weight of Paul’s sleaze.

This should be a fantastic moment for libertarianism to take a big step forward toward attracting the mainstream by using Paul’s vile past as a turning point, clearly and full-throatedly saying “Paul’s libertarianism is the kind of libertarianism not welcome in real libertarianism”. Instead, we get idiotic True Believers - like you and the other airheads - who are more interested in the (false) prophet rather than the actual prospects for the political philosophy’s advancement.

But hey, libertarians rarely get anything right - no surprise they are screwing this opportunity up, too.

240

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Link is of an uncut Ron Paul interview with CNN’s Gloria Borger. Interesting how the media spins a story they want.

His answer to the newsletter question whas painfull to watch, posting this vid
did not do ron paul any service. I am actually starting to believe that SM and Bolt
are on to something regarding it.

Still he`s answer to some of the questions in the start where good, to bad he fell under pressure on the last one.