It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Who is Ron Paul working for? Iran? Lebanon? Liberia?

page: 1
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 01:38 PM
link   
So yet again Ron Paul has broken records for "Internet" donations in 24 hours. Taking in 6 million in 24 hours. This is on the front page of CNN.Com. Posts on this site are laughable trying to say media isn't giving him much attention as his face is plastered on CNN right now.

So how does a low profile candidate that's in single digits in most polls get record breaking contributions?

Let's take a look at his Foreign Policy:

Paul supports ending participation in and funding of organizations he believes override U.S. sovereignty, such as the International Criminal Court, the United Nations, the Law of the Sea Treaty, the World Trade Organization (WTO), the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America.

Paul calls for a foreign policy of nonintervention.This policy avoids entangling alliances with other nations

So that's interesting. What would happen if the US pulled out of the UN?
UN funding

Table 1: Contributions to the UN Regular Budget from the Permanent Members of the Security Council as of June 2006

UN Regular Budget:
United States 22%
China 2.05%
Russia 1.1%
UK 6.13%
Peacekeeping budget
United States 27%
UN's voluntary funds
United States 68%


Combine that with the military contributions the US provides for the UN it's extremely likely that the UN simply won't be able to exist as it stands now if the US pulled out.

Who would benefit from the UN ceasing to exist?

Countries currently under UN sanctions

There are currently 13 countries under very costly UN sanctions. How many of them would find a few million dollar contribution to a presidential candidate that would end the United Nations and end the UN sanctions they are currently under. Would a few million dollars be worth the return on hundreds of millions saved be ending the costly UN sanctions?

Some might argue that Ron Paul claims his contributions are from individuals. Just the fact that he's making all his money from INTERNET contributions should raise a red flag. Take a look at his contribution form contribution form How hard would it be for 1 foreign government to spoof ip addresses? Get multiple credit card accounts? Send it checks? Work a way around the checks in place to make it seem like multiple people are contribution the money?

I think the only question at this point is Does Ron Paul know he's being bought by a foreign country? Does it matter since he wants to pull out of the UN anyway? And what country on the UN sanction lists would most benefit from the US pulling out of the UN. What country would most benefit from the US going to a policy of non interference? Any country trying to develop a nuclear program maybe?

[edit on 18-12-2007 by RonPaulIsBought]




posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 03:46 PM
link   
If you go to www.ronpaulforums.com you'll see that he has a very strong grass-root following. His campaign has raised 18.3 million this quarter alone. i think its ridiculous to think that he is getting fundraising from a country like Iran.



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 04:14 PM
link   
Real question is why WOULDN'T countries like Iran, Liberia, North Korea want Ron Paul in office?

Each of them would benefit greatly from a change in US foreign policy to one of non interferance and for us pulling out of the UN.

Would it be worth a few measly million dollars funneled into the US from one of these nations to help boost the chances of Ron Paul getting ellected? For them it would most defintily be worth it.



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 04:26 PM
link   
While that IS an interesting theory, I can't help but wonder why you sign up today, and after RP finally gets some decent news coverage. While I take into consideration the very real possibility that Ron Paul may have hidden agendas, your timing seems a little suspicious.

By the way, all politicians are bought.

Just look it up on Google, and you'll find pictures Ron Paul giving people the "horns", just like fellow Texas Longhorn fan GWB... hmmm.

I'm voting for Dennis Kucinich, to be safe.



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 04:31 PM
link   
I'm not quite sure who has Ron Paul in their pocket. Possibly Muslim Arab countries who want to lessen U.S. support for Israel. But if that's the case, they'd be better served by backing somebody with a bit more broad based support, as well as somebody who doesn't keep getting stomped in every debate they manage to get in.



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 04:36 PM
link   
Why would you put up a link entitled Ron Paul's Million Dollar Contributors and when you click the link it takes you to a page from the Hong Kong Trade and Industry Department?

Here is the about page for this site


LINK

Welcome to the web portal of the Hong Kong Trade and Industry Department.

The Trade and Industry Department is responsible for conducting Hong Kong's international trade relations, implementing trade policies and agreements, as well as providing general support services for industries and small and medium enterprises.

Through this web portal, you will be able to -

find out more about our vision, mission and value, plus the range of services we offer
obtain updated information of interest to trade and industry
access our e-services which are aimed at providing greater facilitation to our customers
We hope you will find this portal a useful conduit for information and communication. We welcome your comments and suggestions on how this portal, and indeed our services, may be further improved to serve you even better.

Happy surfing!


I can't find anything on Pauls Million Dollar Contributors there....

A little misleading don't you think?



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by RonPaulIsBought
 



Posts on this site are laughable trying to say media isn't giving him much attention as his face is plastered on CNN right now.


So his funding is finally forcing attention and now everyone is crazy for saying he doesn’t generally get a fair amount of face time?


So how does a low profile candidate that's in single digits in most polls get record breaking contributions?


There are many who have taken polls and say his name is not even mentioned. Also, I think most Ron Paul supporters don’t even watch mainstream media, let alone participate in it. Polls is a very general term, it helps if you site a specific one if you really want an answer.


So that's interesting. What would happen if the US pulled out of the UN?
UN funding

Table 1: Contributions to the UN Regular Budget from the Permanent Members of the Security Council as of June 2006

UN Regular Budget:
United States 22%
China 2.05%
Russia 1.1%
UK 6.13%
Peacekeeping budget
United States 27%
UN's voluntary funds
United States 68%


We’d have a hell of a lot more money. Those numbers are ok with you? Who are you working for?

As for his donations, I’m not entirely sure how it works but records of everyone who’s contributed exist somewhere, and I’m sure if they were dirty the media would jump all over it. The fact that they even reported it means they must have confirmed it.

Who is Ron Paul working for? Iran? Lebanon? Liberia?

The American people and their constitutional liberties. Is this a joke?


[edit on 18-12-2007 by captainplanet]



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 04:38 PM
link   
Err.. do you realize Liberia is a tiny west African country that can hardly scrape up enough for a spare bowl of rice?

Or maybe that's just what they want us to believe...



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by indierockalien
While that IS an interesting theory, I can't help but wonder why you sign up today, and after RP finally gets some decent news coverage. While I take into consideration the very real possibility that Ron Paul may have hidden agendas, your timing seems a little suspicious.

By the way, all politicians are bought.

Just look it up on Google, and you'll find pictures Ron Paul giving people the "horns", just like fellow Texas Longhorn fan GWB... hmmm.

I'm voting for Dennis Kucinich, to be safe.


Indeed all politicians are bought. And this theory doesn't even have to mean Ron Paul Has any ageneda or knowledge about who's contributeing the money.

Only that alot of countries on that UN sanctions list would benefit GREATLY from the US pulling out of the UN and Ron Paul being elected into office.



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by JacKatMtn
 


The link is simply a list of Countries subject to United Nations Sanctions.

The official .gov link that containts that info is currently down right now so i used that link instead.



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe
Err.. do you realize Liberia is a tiny west African country that can hardly scrape up enough for a spare bowl of rice?

Or maybe that's just what they want us to believe...




Err.. hey smarts

The point is every country on that list benefitis financially from the US pulling out of the UN and thus benefits from Ron Paul getting elected.

Not that every single country on that list has the means or plans to try and contribute to ron paul and help get him elected.



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by RonPaulIsBought
reply to post by JacKatMtn
 


The link is simply a list of Countries subject to United Nations Sanctions.

The official .gov link that containts that info is currently down right now so i used that link instead.


So it is intentionally misleading, since this subject has driven you to post a thread to discuss a possible conspiracy on the part of the Ron Paul campaign, wouldn't it help if you were forthcoming in your efforts to open this can of worms?

Maybe updating your OP to reflect what the link goes to for one, and when the .gov link becomes available reposting to bring us up to date on the source of the candidates' funds.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


UPDATE: Thank you for correcting the OP, now let's get on with the conspiracy!





[edit on 12/18/2007 by JacKatMtn]



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 05:53 PM
link   
While it's an interesting theory, I think that places like Iran have a lot to loose if Ron Paul does get elected. Think about it, who does the UN serve? The US, or the third world despots that make up the general assembly and the human rights council? And let's think about it, could people like Hugo Chavez really get elected without people like Bush in office? Considering that they were essentially elected upon their anti-America platforms they'd be out of a job if the US were to suddenly start using a non-interventionist policy.

It's an interesting theory, but I think that the current leaders in the places you just listed actually have more to loose from a guy with Ron Paul's platform.



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by cyberdude78
who does the UN serve? The US.


Really? Than why couldn't the US get them to aprove the iraq war?

Ron Paul shifting to a policy of non intervention is exactly what coutnries like iran and north korea and any other country currently under costly UN sanctions want. Or any country with nuclear ambitions.

Despite some leaders getting strength for being anti US. It's a simple fact that every nation on that list is loseing hundreds of millions of lost income and limitations on their own miltiary because of the UN sanctions placed on them.

At the end of the day it's a long shot but one of these countries might see a 6 million+ investment in ron paul to be worthwhile because the long shot odds could return 100:1 in their favor if they suddenly find themselves open to trade, export, import, and develop their military.



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by RonPaulIsBought

Originally posted by cyberdude78
who does the UN serve? The US.


Really? Than why couldn't the US get them to aprove the iraq war?

Ron Paul shifting to a policy of non intervention is exactly what coutnries like iran and north korea and any other country currently under costly UN sanctions want. Or any country with nuclear ambitions.

Despite some leaders getting strength for being anti US. It's a simple fact that every nation on that list is loseing hundreds of millions of lost income and limitations on their own miltiary because of the UN sanctions placed on them.

At the end of the day it's a long shot but one of these countries might see a 6 million+ investment in ron paul to be worthwhile because the long shot odds could return 100:1 in their favor if they suddenly find themselves open to trade, export, import, and develop their military.



Umm.... I didn't say that the UN serves the US. I posed the US as an option to the question "who does the UN serve?" Note the comma instead of the period that you inserted.

What I said was;

who does the UN serve? The US, or the third world despots that make up the general assembly and the human rights council?


Don't change what I said for the sake of your own agenda.

In the meantime do you really think that those nations actually care about sanctions? The leaders can still get what they want so why does it matter if the people suffer? If they don't blame the US for those very sanctions then they've got nothing to prop themselves up on. Notice how most communist regimes are short lived, while in the case of Cuba we simply slapped an embargo on them and look how long Fidel Castro has maintained power. That man has probably been dead for nearly a year now and he still has power, all because at the end of the day he can blame the whole thing on the United States.

Those sanctions empower those despots more than it hurts them because in reality those sanctions only do so much harm while giving them more fuel to add to their fire. A noninterventionist policy would cause those regimes to collapse upon themselves because those regimes wouldn't have anyone to blame but themselves.



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by RonPaulIsBought
Real question is why WOULDN'T countries like Iran, Liberia, North Korea want Ron Paul in office?

Each of them would benefit greatly from a change in US foreign policy to one of non interferance and for us pulling out of the UN.

Would it be worth a few measly million dollars funneled into the US from one of these nations to help boost the chances of Ron Paul getting ellected? For them it would most defintily be worth it.


The real question is why create a new login unless you just want to troll.



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by cyberdude78

Originally posted by RonPaulIsBought

Originally posted by cyberdude78
who does the UN serve? The US.


Really? Than why couldn't the US get them to aprove the iraq war?

Ron Paul shifting to a policy of non intervention is exactly what coutnries like iran and north korea and any other country currently under costly UN sanctions want. Or any country with nuclear ambitions.

Despite some leaders getting strength for being anti US. It's a simple fact that every nation on that list is loseing hundreds of millions of lost income and limitations on their own miltiary because of the UN sanctions placed on them.

At the end of the day it's a long shot but one of these countries might see a 6 million+ investment in ron paul to be worthwhile because the long shot odds could return 100:1 in their favor if they suddenly find themselves open to trade, export, import, and develop their military.



Umm.... I didn't say that the UN serves the US. I posed the US as an option to the question "who does the UN serve?" Note the comma instead of the period that you inserted.

What I said was;

who does the UN serve? The US, or the third world despots that make up the general assembly and the human rights council?


Don't change what I said for the sake of your own agenda.

In the meantime do you really think that those nations actually care about sanctions? The leaders can still get what they want so why does it matter if the people suffer? If they don't blame the US for those very sanctions then they've got nothing to prop themselves up on. Notice how most communist regimes are short lived, while in the case of Cuba we simply slapped an embargo on them and look how long Fidel Castro has maintained power. That man has probably been dead for nearly a year now and he still has power, all because at the end of the day he can blame the whole thing on the United States.

Those sanctions empower those despots more than it hurts them because in reality those sanctions only do so much harm while giving them more fuel to add to their fire. A noninterventionist policy would cause those regimes to collapse upon themselves because those regimes wouldn't have anyone to blame but themselves.


Of course the governments care about the sanctions. If countries did NOT care about these sanctions we wouldn't see North Korea even discuss their nuclear program. We would never see them let a single weapons inspector or UN insepctor into their country. They are very keen on avoiding UN sanctions and this fact aloen shows us countries deeply care about them. You must not fully understand the full cost of sanctions. Read up on it. This has nothing to do with the common people liveing in poverty. The sanctions mainly deal with imports / exports and what other countries will sell / buy from sanctioned contries.

And again UN sanctions is only one part of it. Even if we throw out the sanctions argument the issue Ron Pauls support of shifting to a policy of non-intervention is somethin that would be very much a benefit for countries seaking nuclear weapons like North Korea.


[edit on 18-12-2007 by RonPaulIsBought]



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


Oh i dunno maybe because this is the first time I've ever posted here?



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 07:42 PM
link   
Ron Paul is most likely not all he's hyped up to be. People want change, sure, but a career politician knows better than to make sweeping changes like Paul says he wants to make. I always have to wonder what does Ron Paul really stand for? He was all for another investigation on 9/11. What happened to his beliefs about that?



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 07:50 PM
link   
reply to post by RonPaulIsBought
 


You are SO wrong here. So wrong, you could not be any wronger, if your name was Wrong Wrongerson. (and obviously afraid of something)

The PEOPLE of those countries would benefit. Not the Country(or the leadership). they would benefit by us not poking our frigging nose into every disagreement that pops up (only if there is oil or money to be made).
Those people would benefit, in the fact that the "Big Evil US" is no longer against them. Who would the leadership pick to be the Evil one after that?

BTW..10 of thousands of people, at about 100 bucks each, are the "owners" of the campaign. Paul is probably the only politician that ISN'T in someones pocket.


[edit on 18-12-2007 by spacedoubt]



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join