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: 6
4
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Axeman


I'm unfamiliar with the term "school vouchers," and (not that I disbelieve you, I want to make that clear) I have never heard about an obligation to oppose vouchers or defend public schools - how interesting. Would defending charter schools qualify? Can you give me a brief overview of why Ill. Br. Clausen feels that National "universal" public education is important enough to bind Masons in that serious a way to a cause that many may disagree on?


It is expected that no Scottish Rite Mason will disagree because he is required to first affirm the position on his petition for degrees. The official S.J. Scottish Rite petition reads in part:

The Supreme Council 33° supports the complete separation of church and state...and public education for all the children of all the citizens...and opposes the use of public monies for private or sectarian purposes...Do you wholeheartedly agree with these principles?

If the Brother answers no, he cannot be made a Mason in the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite. There are further obligations regarding this in the actual degrees. This was a big deal for Albert Pike when he revised the degrees, and remains a big deal today in AASR Masonry.







[edit on 25-1-2008 by Masonic Light]




posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Masonic Light
 


Freemasonry has no role in politics, what so ever, and as such, that obligation in my opinion is a blatant smack in the face to our own laws.

If we allowed the majority of Masons to dictate our political and social beliefs I have a feeling it would look a lot more theocratic fascism then you could imagine.

As said, I do not support any Masonic body that dictates political ideologies, so I will never support the AASR.



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Axeman
In my opinion, the commission of the Federal Reserve system was the ultimate cause of the great depression.


I disagree with this completely. The reason for the 1929 stock market crash and the Great Depression was the lack of regulation of the stock market... back in those days, there was no SEC to keep people honest. Speculation and over valuation of stocks caused a crash.

As far as Ron Paul is concerned... he's like a smart version of Pat Buchanan. Some of his ideas - like returning to the gold standard - are just nonsense, but I do like a few things he says. However, despite what a lot of his supporters believe (and I think their "holier than thou" attitudes tend to turn a lot of people off) his far-right message just doesn't appeal to the vast majority of people. I think it's good that he's in the race, because he does keep the Republicans honest on a few things, such as the Iraq war.



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by JustMe74
 


The reason for the depression is complicated, but what essentially caused the stocks to free fall was the banks calling on margin loans, which they can do at anytime.. bank failures not a market crash lead to the trouble.

As far as paul, he is very, very far right wing.. it amazes me how many people scream neo-con this, neo-con that, and talk as if they are liberals, yet support the most conservative candidate. And I agree, most of America is middle of the road .. not liberal, not conservative.. just there.. and pauls ideas are alien to them.



posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 05:58 PM
link   
A way to stop the NWO?



posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 12:07 AM
link   
reply to post by thetruth777
 


?

Why is it all conspiracy .. anti Masonic sites.. anti-government sites...

Are always covered in antisemitism? Reading through some of that site has been illuminating as to where some people get their... "education".

Hate propaganda.



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by JustMe74
I disagree with this completely. The reason for the 1929 stock market crash and the Great Depression was the lack of regulation of the stock market... back in those days, there was no SEC to keep people honest. Speculation and over valuation of stocks caused a crash.


Can you elaborate on this a bit? I find it difficult to attribute the depression to anything other than sheer incompetency, if not deliberate sabotage, on behalf of the banking elite that were in control of the money supply at the time.

All the evidence I have found points directly to the bankers. Hell, Woodrow Wilson came right out and said it in the open that the bankers were bad news; FDR mentioned them in his Inaugural address, also. There have been many over the years that have spoken of them in this manner... many of them have been assassinated, or at least survived attempts on their lives. Coincidence? I dunno. Creepy though.

Due respect, brother, but I think to downplay the role if the banking cartels in the financial troubles in the late 20's through the late 30's and up until the beginning of WWII is to ignore the evidence available.

I am happy to hear information or investigate evidence that says otherwise, and I don't disagree with you that malinvestment was a contributing factor... but again, the evidence shows that the Fed and the central banks were manipulating the financial markets to cause this malinvestment, and then caused the collapse by not taking the measures needed to prevent it. According to my sources, in fact they did exactly the OPPOSITE of what they should have done to stave it off. They were, in fact, encouraging malinvestment by their behavior leading up to the depression.

And who benefitted? Why the bankers, of course. They didn't feel the pinch of the depression, in fact it allowed them to buy up all kinds of properties, banks, and businesses at dirt cheap prices! They made a killing off the suffering of others, just like they have been doing throughout history.

I used to make fun of people who point their fingers at the Rockefellers and the Rothschilds, the Morgans, Warburgs, et al as some sort of "Illuminati" or whatever... However, I find that upon doing my own research unconnected with ATS -- they have a strong case for that, and I tend to lean toward the idea that perhaps the tin-foilers might actually have something right.

If there were an "Illuminati," these men and their heirs, i.e. the "banking cartels" would be it. Plain and simple. I'll take my knocks from the Brethren who might disagree, but those who post here, I think, know that I usually am pretty adamant about documentation and evidence... I've found it and this is the conclusion I have come to based on my own personal research.

Again, JustMe, I am willing to hear you out on why you think it was lack of regulation and explore that; If we need to start a new thread I will do it. I think it's important enough that we hash it out without the usual spattering of comments about reptilians or any of that nonsense. The sheer outlandishness of some of the claims of the people who say this about the bankers is a big contributor to people dismissing it out of hand. No one cares about reptilians, it's all bollocks. This, on the other hand, is not and I for one would like to hear arguments from those who feel that the bankers were NOT responsible.

I don't know if I posted any links in my previous post but I have sources to back up what I have written, and I would be more than happy to explore this with someone I respect (that'd be you, JustMe
), rather than someone who will accuse me of being a "Masonic disinformation agent" or some nonsense.

I guess this puts a damper on those who feel that Masons are part and parcel of this "conspiracy."


So far I've met with minimal success trying to get people to talk about this here... which is odd, I think. Anyway, I look forward to your response.



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck


Freemasonry has no role in politics, what so ever, and as such, that obligation in my opinion is a blatant smack in the face to our own laws.


That is correct only in regards to York Rite Masonry (including the Blue Lodge as worked in the USA). The Scottish Rite, on the other hand, has always been a political activist. Pike describes this in great detail throughout "Morals and Dogma".



As said, I do not support any Masonic body that dictates political ideologies, so I will never support the AASR.


The AASR does not dictate political ideology. It presumes those beliefs are already held by the candidate seeking admission, and lets them know beforehand what the requirements are.

[edit on 28-1-2008 by Masonic Light]



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Axeman


OK, that's one viewpoint... however there are many who would disagree with your assessment... beneath the surface, that is.


Consider the source. The Cato Institute is a Libertarian think tank, not a group of neutral historians. Historians have generally reached a consensus that FDR's policies saved the US not only from the Depression, but also the internal Communist threat by weakening the Communist argument against the morality of free trade.

I realize you won't hear this on Glenn Beck, but hey, that's you've gots ATS for!



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by 3_Libras
I still think its very amusing to think that Ron Paul ever stood a chance. Dont worry though, some of those other candidates seem decent enough. Also Im not sure why you are surprised that people havent heard of the Bilderberg Group.


He didnt have 10% of mass conscious vote.
(It is split democrat and republican, so he was around 5% total)

At 10% consciousness changes, and even if he isnt elected, those that are will reflect more of the new trend that the small "mini" consciousness is creating.

Give it a few more years. Right now people want to still play their games and pretend that the democrats and republicans are at odds with each other.

What will be funny is what the evangelical Christians will do if Romney (Mormon) gets the republican vote.

after all, the mormons are a cult to an evangelical, and it would be the same as supporting Satan for them.

Will they wake up and quit saying that each candidate they support is Christian. (trying desperately to align bad policy with their Christian doctrine to feel better.)

Anyway, the game is ending...people are waking up - and we are getting freer'.
But its always darker before the light.


Peace

dAlen

- ats, please get rid of those flashing adds in Hungarian...it is so annoying!
Yes I have sent a complaint already...


[edit on 28-1-2008 by dAlen]



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by dAlen

What will be funny is what the evangelical Christians will do if Romney (Mormon) gets the republican vote.

after all, the mormons are a cult to an evangelical, and it would be the same as supporting Satan for them.


Strangely, Dr. Bob Jones III, President of the highly evangelical and highly conservative Independent Baptist Bob Jones University in South Carolina, endorsed Romney. And Jones has called Mormonism "a cult" quite a few times in his career.

Personally, I think it's an example of the Republicans losing their way and not really knowing where to go or what to do. We'll find out in November for sure.



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 01:36 PM
link   


And all the people I talked to think Ron Paul is a racist radical who has the potential to ruin our nation.


That is because most people are sheeple and have their head's way to far into LA LA land that they call life, I personally don't know much about Ron Paul but what I have heard is logical and well thought out and it goes against the NWO and their plan for world domination and what I did learn about him can be found in I think it was jan 08 Canabis culture magazine.



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by seridium


That is because most people are sheeple


Or it's because of the number of racist statements that he'd made in various writings throughout his career. One or the other.



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Masonic Light
Personally, I think it's an example of the Republicans losing their way and not really knowing where to go or what to do. We'll find out in November for sure.

I don't think the Republicans have lost their way. I just don't believe that there's a Reagan in the bunch of candidates who can espouse the values that conservatives all like.

That's not to say that they don't have direction; Romney continues to lead the pack and gain delegates and support from conservatives, while the media and the left continue to try to make conservatives believe that McCain is winning ... and McCain is certainly a candidate that Clinton or Obama could defeat.

Your pal,
Meat.

[edit on 28-1-2008 by mmmeat]



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Masonic Light

Originally posted by seridium


That is because most people are sheeple


Or it's because of the number of racist statements that he'd made in various writings throughout his career. One or the other.


And if you actually read the article regarding said "racist remarks" you would know that not only did the Media start that story, but they also had to VERY begrudgingly admit that Paul was right in his answer.

It was written by someone not associated with Paul, who used Pauls name as an endorsement without consent. The writer remained anonymous.

TV is bad for your mind.



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 06:10 PM
link   
Axeman,

What I wrote was a gross oversimplification because I didn't want to derail this thread, which is really about Ron Paul. I'd be happy to discuss with you on another thread if you want to make one. My argument was that the primary cause of the Great Depression was the stock market crash in 1929; however, most historians do point to 5 primary causes (market crash, reduced consumer buying, drought, protective tariffs, and bank failures). I think the major factor was the market crash.



posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 08:05 AM
link   
reply to post by JustMe74
 


Sweet! Give me some time and I will author a new thread on the topic; you're right, that would be a bit of a hijack.


Jeez, I wonder if we'll even be able to discuss it without nonsense and static from others... well, it's worth a shot anyway.

Thanks Brother.

P.S. ML, come now. Those letters were not written or approved by Paul. One can look at his life and actions and what he speaks on in public and see that as plain as day... it was a smear campaign to try to lower his votes in NH... you're way too smart for this not to have been obvious to you.

That guy from the New Republic is a tool -- agree or disagree with Paul on the issues, and that's fine. The man is not a racist however, and I'm surprised that you would even repeat that nonsense. All due respect, of course.

It's weird: Usually we are on the same side of a given argument; it's somewhat strange to be in opposing sides of an argument with someone who quite frankly is something of a hero to me.


You have taught me more about Masonry and inspired me to learn more on my own than any other person -- I am grateful for that. Just want to make that clear. Doesn't mean I always have to agree with you, but 9 times out of 10 I do. So this is different, lol.



posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 08:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by mmmeat

I don't think the Republicans have lost their way. I just don't believe that there's a Reagan in the bunch of candidates who can espouse the values that conservatives all like.


I don't know. The only "real" conservative in the Republican race, from a Reaganistic viewpoint, was probably Fred Thompson, and he's already been knocked out.


That's not to say that they don't have direction; Romney continues to lead the pack and gain delegates and support from conservatives, while the media and the left continue to try to make conservatives believe that McCain is winning ... and McCain is certainly a candidate that Clinton or Obama could defeat.


I certainly can't count Romney out, at least not until the Florida returns come in this evening. But McCain *is* in the lead at the moment. That could change, but it certainly isn't something the media has manufactured.

However, many conservatives consider Romney a "liberal", so I doubt they'll be very happy with him either. Huckabee is a social conservative, but pretty loose on other issues. And no orthodox Republican is going to support Ron Paul, although he'll pick up the Libertarian-oriented independents who tend to swing Republican in the general elections. As for Rudy, I think he's out of the picture after tonight.

On the Democratic side, it's still too close to call. Obama waxed the floor with Hillary here in SC last Saturday, but she' doing well in the polls in the big Super Tuesday states. If it's close enough next Tuesday, Edwards will play a vital role when he drops out, lending his delegates to whomever he endorses, which I suspect will be Obama.

[edit on 29-1-2008 by Masonic Light]



posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 08:26 AM
link   
Ill give you the same take of what I have said before. I have noticed many that support Ron Paul have general interests in common. They are generally people that know of Bilderberg, New World Order, Alex Jones, 911 truth movement, Bohemian Grove, believe in militias, constantly refer to Bill of Rights and Constitution and corrupt government.

I believe Ron Paul either knowingly or unknowingly is a pawn for the real powers behind the scene that parade leaders(selections) out in the public eye come time for elections. That said, these entities have a tendency to have cruel intentions in their personas and cores and like to toy with the masses in jest towards those people that have the commonalities mentioned above.

Generally the powers that be will orchestrate situations that achieve multiple goals. Ron Paul supporters possibly are being identified that believe in the conspiracies so they will know who is a threat to their utopia they build



posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Masonic Light
I don't know. The only "real" conservative in the Republican race, from a Reaganistic viewpoint, was probably Fred Thompson, and he's already been knocked out.

Meh. I don't think he was ever really in the race.


I certainly can't count Romney out, at least not until the Florida returns come in this evening. But McCain *is* in the lead at the moment. That could change, but it certainly isn't something the media has manufactured.

It looks like Romney's got 73 delegates and McCain has only got 38. I'm not sure how that makes McCain the leader.


However, many conservatives consider Romney a "liberal", so I doubt they'll be very happy with him either. Huckabee is a social conservative, but pretty loose on other issues. And no orthodox Republican is going to support Ron Paul, although he'll pick up the Libertarian-oriented independents who tend to swing Republican in the general elections. As for Rudy, I think he's out of the picture after tonight.

It seems to me that it's the clintons, democrats and media who like to portray Romney as a liberal.

I won't count Rudy out; every single poll in reference to this race has been totally wrong. I don't believe in polls, anyway; the poll comes out whichever way the pollster wants it to.


On the Democratic side, it's still too close to call. Obama waxed the floor with Hillary here in SC last Saturday, but she' doing well in the polls in the big Super Tuesday states. If it's close enough next Tuesday, Edwards will play a vital role when he drops out, lending his delegates to whomever he endorses, which I suspect will be Obama.

I would much rather Hillary will, because - if she's the democratic candidate - a nose hair cutter could beat her.

If Obama is the candidate it's going to be an uphill battle to beat him.

In either case, I can always move to Scotland for four years.

Your pal,
Meat.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join