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.

 

Things are looking bad; almost nobody supports Ron Paul and knows of Bilderberg Group.

page: 4
4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Double Eights
9/11 was an inside job.

Nope.


Of course there haven't been any planes crashing into buildings (terrorist attacks, actual planes have hit buildings since 9/11), because the government hasn't issued there to be any.

That's an odd way to structure a sentence.

The lack of terrorist attacks on continental U.S soil is because our government agencies have become much better at sharing information and stopping terrorists before they have the opportunity to put their evil plans into action.


When was the last time you heard of a suicide bomber blowing themselves up in a starbucks?

Thankfully, the government agencies charged with protecting us and our precious Starbucks are very good at their jobs. Not to mention, most Americans are far better educated than their terrorist counterparts; we have alot to live for.


When was the last terrorist attack on US soil before 9/11?

Oct. 12, 2000 - USS Cole
Aug. 7, 1998 - U.S. Embassy: Nairobi, Kenya
Aug. 7, 1998 - U.S. Embassy: Salaam, Tanzania
June 21, 1998 - U.S. Embassy: Beirut
July 27, 1996 - Olympic games in Atlanta
June 25, 1996 - U.S. Air Force Base, Saudi Arabia
Nov. 13, 1995 - National Guard Attacked, Saudi Arabia
April 19, 1995 - Oklahoma City bombing
February 1993 - World Trade Center bombing

All attacks on sovereign U.S. soil, all occurred during the Clinton administration.


The Patriot Act does not stop terrorists if they want to attack, nothing does.

The Patriot Act is a load of bull# used to limit the freedoms of the American people. It does not institute security.


Obviously, you have no clue as to what the Patriot Act is, or what it does. Therefore, your comment only displays your ignorance rather than any type of legitimate argument. Please understand what it is you're arguing about before you post about it. If you don't, then I'll just point and laugh at you ... Like I'm doing now.


Your pal,
Meat.




posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 04:42 PM
link   
i suspect it may be false to assume the public is totally blind to whats
going on. notice the election. there is an obvious yearning for change.
the people who resemble the bush doctrine are being weeded out.
ron paul may not win but he has definately helped awaken the public.
i think many suspect 911 was an inside job but for whatever reason
will never state it, but they will use the polls to show their dissatisfaction.

don't count the american public out!!!



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by last time here
i suspect it may be false to assume the public is totally blind to whats
going on. notice the election. there is an obvious yearning for change.

According to whom? Clinton? Obama? CNN?

There's not 'strong yearning for change' any more than there's a strong yearning for more brussel sprouts. Because there's no incumbent, the field is a bit more open. That's all.


the people who resemble the bush doctrine are being weeded out.

meh. Bush and his allies continue to direct the course of the country. The democrats continue to threaten, whine and generally do nothing but point fingers at everyone else.

If there's a change, it's going to be to remove the blockage that threatens American freedoms; the democrats are looking ata HUGE loss come election time.


ron paul may not win but he has definately helped awaken the public.

Yeah. 2,380 possible delegates, 156 already determined ... and good ol' wacky Ron has got a whopping 4 of 'em.

Yeah.

Your pal,
Meat.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmmeat

Obviously, you have no clue as to what the Patriot Act is, or what it does. Therefore, your comment only displays your ignorance rather than any type of legitimate argument. Please understand what it is you're arguing about before you post about it. If you don't, then I'll just point and laugh at you ... Like I'm doing now.


Your pal,
Meat.


?

How does anything you said constitute valid debate?

How does anything you have said in this post NOT come off as inflammatory?

I'm starting to get a real keen understanding on how Masons operate on this forum. Belittlement and rudeness.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmmeat

There's not 'strong yearning for change' any more than there's a strong yearning for more brussel sprouts. Because there's no incumbent, the field is a bit more open. That's all.


Actually

This entire election is being based on 'Change'. Hillary and Obama are using the word Change like it is a vowel. So are many republican candidates.


To say that people are not calling for change is a lie.
To insinuate that the election is not being based on the desire for Change, is also a lie.

Maybe you are simply un-informed and attempting to stall any discussion about Ron Paul as a candidate of change. That's understandable. But to say that there is not a desire for change in the American voting base and by the candidates themselves? False.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmmeat
If Americans were dissatisfied with their system, they'd turn out in greater numbers to change it.

They don't.

Why? Because they're content. The government runs smoothly and transparently enough that they feel comfortable in this great country of ours.

Your pal,
Meat.


This is also a lie


Are you Masons under the impression that you speak for the American people? It really seems that way...

just because you might be anti-Ron Paul doesn't mean you have the right to say that Americans don't want to fix their government. They do. Every candidate is promising them change and a new angle, to BAIT them on that very desire.

So are you going to keep painting your own picture of the political scene, or are you going to acknowledge reality?



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by NewWorldOver
Are you Masons under the impression that you speak for the American people? It really seems that way...



Are you asking the Masons on the board that question or are you asking meat that question? As he is neither a Mason nor does he speak for me I am having a hard time following your point. Get your facts straight before you start trolling.



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 08:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by mmmeat


There's not 'strong yearning for change' any more than there's a strong yearning for more brussel sprouts.


If that is the case, why are all the candidates, including the conservative ones, jumping on the Change Bandwagon.

Even McCain and Romney are doing it!



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by NewWorldOver

Originally posted by mmmeat

Obviously, you have no clue as to what the Patriot Act is, or what it does. Therefore, your comment only displays your ignorance rather than any type of legitimate argument. Please understand what it is you're arguing about before you post about it. If you don't, then I'll just point and laugh at you ... Like I'm doing now.


Your pal,
Meat.


How does anything you said constitute valid debate?

Simple: You didn't say it. That automatically makes it valid.

Your pal,
Meat.



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Masonic Light

Originally posted by mmmeat


There's not 'strong yearning for change' any more than there's a strong yearning for more brussel sprouts.


If that is the case, why are all the candidates, including the conservative ones, jumping on the Change Bandwagon.


Because they're all terrified of using the words "border" "enforcement" or "illegal immigrant" in a sentence for fear that it will become a soundbyte.

I truly fear that any of the democrats (McCain, Clinton, Obama, the slightly more male version of Clinton: Edwards) will bring change to America. We'll go from having a robust economy to having one that involves nothing but change (quarters, dimes, nickles and pennies).

When a democratic party candidate says they want to bring change to America, I firmly believe that they mean the word in the "coins of small denomination regarded collectively" way.

Your pal,
Meat.



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by mmmeat


I truly fear that any of the democrats (McCain, Clinton, Obama, the slightly more male version of Clinton: Edwards) will bring change to America. We'll go from having a robust economy to having one that involves nothing but change (quarters, dimes, nickles and pennies).


You and I obviously have different ideas of what constitutes a "robust economy". However, we are only 2 votes. The time will come soon when the American people will make their voices heard, and I certainly look forward to discussing the results.


[edit on 23-1-2008 by Masonic Light]



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Masonic Light
However, we are only 2 votes.

Ah. This is true.

Of course ... I come from a long line of active Republicans (mom was President of the Republican Women's Club, I cut my teeth in the Republican Youth Group). So that I'm a Republican Neighborhood Representative and help organize volunteers out in the surrounding communities for two counties shouldn't come as much of a surprise. We just finished a huge drive to register new voters last night, too.

I may be only one vote ... but I know where and how to get more.


Your pal,
Meat.



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 11:52 AM
link   
"robust economy"??? boy, are you jaded. you, o'reilly, hannity,
limbaugh, carlson and the rest of those talking heads remind me
of patti hearst when she was abducted. after being with the abductors
for a while, she began to think like them. you guys need de-programming
BAD!!!!



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by last time here
"robust economy"??? boy, are you jaded. you, o'reilly, hannity,
limbaugh, carlson and the rest of those talking heads remind me
of patti hearst when she was abducted. after being with the abductors
for a while, she began to think like them. you guys need de-programming
BAD!!!!

Sorry to burst your bubble there, Eeyore, but unemployment is at just under 5% and has been in decline for the last four years, average hourly earning are up another 4% AGAIN - for the fifth year in a row, the S&P 500 hit the highest close EVER in the third quarter of last year, America's economic growth rate continues to grow faster than just about every other developed country in the world ... so the sky isn't falling, no matter how much you want it to.

Maybe - since you're obviously a short-term, short-attention-span type of person - you listen to what the democrats and mainstream media tells you and you believe it, but the truth is that we're the best we've ever been and we continue to grow better and stronger every single day.

Your pal,
Meat.



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 01:39 PM
link   
When is Ron Paul going to drop out of the Presidential Race????

After the 4 or 5 primaries I think this guy is done.

I guess he'll be in it until after super tuesday and then drop out.

I've been to his site, he really doesn't say much.

Just my point of view.



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by harrymudd
When is Ron Paul going to drop out of the Presidential Race????

I don't believe he's been told by the mothership to drop out yet. And besides, the Hale Bopp comet is just too far away at this point to arrange a pickup...

Your pal,
Meat.



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 11:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmmeat
Because they're all terrified of using the words "border" "enforcement" or "illegal immigrant" in a sentence for fear that it will become a soundbyte.



...except for Ron Paul.


Masonic Light: You, my Brother, have garnered more of my respect than anyone else on this board, hands-down. That being said, I will have to call into question your "snake oil" comment.

I don't care about Timothy Leary; what is it about Paul's platform that you find dangerous?

I don't want to talk liberalism vs. conservativism, if it can be helped. What I would like though, is to discuss the social, economic, and political issues that are affecting this election.

I find myself not only in line with 99% of Paul's views on the issues, but also refreshed by his candor when he speaks. Unlike most politicians I have ever seen, he will not obfuscate or change the subject when asked a tough question. He'll tell you what he thinks. For his flaws, of which I have found few, he seems to me genuinely...well, genuine.

One of the more prominent ideas I picked up from your posts is that you are concerned about health care. You used France as an example. How does the system work there? Do corporate interests and lobbyists pander to the government in order to persuade them to subsidize medical care, and exert corporate contol of medicine, as we are seeing here?

Would not the best way to ensure that all have health care be to have a free-market system where charity, relief and brotherly love could fill that need? I know plenty of doctors that would never turn patients away except that their hands are tied by the federal restrictions/mandates, and the insurance compliance issues.

Untie the doctors' hands, and let the patients and the doctors be in control of treatments and prescriptions, untie the hands of the people by allowing at least marginal competiton from other countries in the way of prescription drugs.

If things keep going the way they are going, we'll need a prescription for friggin' vitamins before long. It's gone too far; it's out of control. We used to be the envy of the world as far as health care... seems to me when the corporations started taking over, things went to shyte. Is that an inaccurate observation?

Untie the people's hands to give to charity rather than to the Federal Reserve system, and conditions for the less fortunate in this country are bound to improve.

Meat: I have seen a few of your posts around and must admit, I had you figured differently than you are presenting yourself in this thread. I'll leave it at that.

To the OP: Forget the Bilderburgs... no one seems to care; either that or they call you a kook. Or they're like, "DUDE! I KNOW!"

In the case of the first two scenarios, I offer this: I've had good success with talking about the North American Union. I've had more than a few people say "oh, that couldn't happen," only to don a look of utter shock and horror when I explain that this has already been done without the consent or, for the most part, knowledge of the American people.

Ron Paul is the only candidate opposing this assault on American sovereignty, or for that matter, even willing to talk about it.

If you want to support Paul effectively, you have to talk to people about what THEY care about, not what YOU care about. The SPP (see above) is verifiable and can be shown to be true. The Bilderburgs? Not so much.

Immigration, the economy, abortion rights, gun control, government spending, the war in Iraq. These are the things people are concerned about now.

Make sure you're informed and keep fighting the good fight.

And for the guy who commented about Masons being against Ron Paul: feast your eyes upon me, my friend. I'm one of the staunchest Ron Paul supporters you're likely to meet. Rockpuck too, as well as many others.

Despite what conspiracy theorists may say, we are all just people and most of us are just as fed up with big government and our individual liberties being stolen as you are.

If we, as Masons, are supposed to "toe the NWO line," I'll be expecting my expulsion letter any time now.


Of course, that won't happen.


Looking forward to your reply, Masonic Light.

[edit on 1/23/08 by The Axeman]



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 12:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Axeman

Originally posted by mmmeat
Because they're all terrified of using the words "border" "enforcement" or "illegal immigrant" in a sentence for fear that it will become a soundbyte.



...except for Ron Paul.


Which is truly unfortunate.

I will say that I am in complete agreement with his stand on illegal immigration and immigration reform. The thing is, though, that as soon as he heads off his talking points he gets the Crazy Eye going and - quite frankly - he scares me. I would no more want him representing the U.S. than I would want Hillary and her silly wagging finger being the leaders of the free world.

I would much prefer a Romney or a Rudy over Ron Paul - with the caveat that I want THEM to do the Ron Paul immigration dealy-o. I still hold out hope for Newt Gingrich; he's the most Reagan of all.


Meat: I have seen a few of your posts around and must admit, I had you figured differently than you are presenting yourself in this thread. I'll leave it at that.


I do have that effect on people. So I'll either apologize for not living up to your standards, or I'll say "see, I told you so" while standing akimbo because I met and exceeded your expectations.

Your pal,
Meat.



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 02:05 AM
link   
I am seeing more and more signs for Ron Paul everyday...Even on many free way overpass's...I have a sign out front of my house and bumper sticker on my car...Ron Paul is popular among my friends...



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by mmmeat
I will say that I am in complete agreement with his stand on illegal immigration and immigration reform. The thing is, though, that as soon as he heads off his talking points he gets the Crazy Eye going and - quite frankly - he scares me. I would no more want him representing the U.S. than I would want Hillary and her silly wagging finger being the leaders of the free world.


How exactly is Ron Paul scary? What "Crazy Eye?" I've seen nothing of the sort; in fact, Paul sems like the most reasonable, the most informed, and the most articulate about what he believes (correctly IMHO) are the root causes and, more importantly, solutions to the problems this country is facing.

This is definitely a first though, in that I have never seen anyone compare Ron Paul to Hillary Clinton. Can't quite see where that comes from...

So again, I ask you: what do you find scary about Ron Paul?

P.S. I've no expectations of you, high or otherwise. Your posts in this thread however, have been somewhat rude and arrogant. To each his own, and my skin is thick, but I had you figured for more even-keel.

[edit on 1/24/08 by The Axeman]



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join