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

page: 7
4
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 02:14 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.


Yeah thats another downfall everyone lives in the past! and can't let the past go live in the now and your world would change.
People create stress and grief and assumptions that lead to a negative aspect always dwelling in the past.




posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 12:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by mmmeat
I don't think the Republicans have lost their way.

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 ...


Actually, Republicans have been more dissatisfied with Bush than almost any previous Republican President before that. To say the Republicans have lost their way is an understatement. The whole political system is in shambles and fairweather fans are in denial.

If Mitt Romney is leading the Republican 'pack' I'll just place my bets right now. A democrat will be the next president, and we'll still be under the NWO.

At least Ron Paul would have made an effort to actually fix the system. It's so easy to smear him as a 'non-issue' when his campaign has broken plenty of records
He did alot better than you give him credit for.



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 08:06 AM
link   
reply to post by NewWorldOver
 


There's also still a chance that after Ron Paul drops out of the Republican race, he could run as a Libertarian or Independent, and play a similar role on the right that Nader played on the left the last couple of elections.



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 08:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Masonic Light
 


Absolutely he will... I dont know if the Libertarians will let him run on their ticket though... he has made a few enemies within the Libertarian party. But he will run somehow, and when he does he will probably take a good 10% of the entire vote... mostly from Republicans (Libertarian is ultra Conservative .. why Liberals like him I dont know..) and because of this Dems will win... actually, they would probably win anyways even if he doesnt win.. and it looks like it may be Obama.

Either way, I am scouting out international housing markets.. I will move far away.



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck


Either way, I am scouting out international housing markets.. I will move far away.


Chances are, the place you move will have a system to the far left of anything even the Democrats are proposing....

Perhaps I'll move too!



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Masonic Light
 


Oh.. I don't mind that at al brother.. I wouldn't mind living with a socialist government..

I just despise our own government.. not for its stances.....

For its ignorance. I just happen to hate the Democrats far more then I hate the Republicans.. they come off more criminal-like.. Hilary or Obama will be bad for the country, IMO anyways.. its the same reason I voted for Bush - I considered it the lesser of two evils.

America.



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by Masonic Light
 


Oh.. I don't mind that at al brother.. I wouldn't mind living with a socialist government..


Like I told you before in private... New Zealand is looking better and better all the time.


ML: If I were to emigrate, I would expect and be expected to conform to the government of whatever country I emigrated to; as to America, we should respect and follow the Constitution in all matters, foreign and domestic. Anything not laid out there is for the states to decide for themselves.

That's all I'm sayin'.



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by thetruth777
 


wouldnt a group of ppl say us... be able to create aid to boost ron paul? at least his fair chance of media attention? maybe using the internet and strong marketing on the streets by the citizens? is so sad how this guys wins over in some places yet there are lots and lots of ppl that still dont know he is even running.. the thing is the elite have already chosen the president or possible candidates.... and i am sure there are a few of the running ones.... pretty sure the ones on tv all the time winning the polls and gaining so much attention so whether you choose the one form one party or its opposite.... the elite still wins. Im sure they will make this bid, as it happend with Napoleon and his war against wellington and many others.

[edit on 31-1-2008 by plaetorian]

[edit on 31-1-2008 by plaetorian]



posted on Feb, 4 2008 @ 06:01 AM
link   
As an Australian i'll hope you'll forgive my lack of knowledge and interest in Ron Paul. I have seen Endgame though and i have to say that it was quite interesting but left me with these question......WHY WAIT......why let the population get to 6 billion plus( and counting)...... and then go about your plan to reclaim the earth and cull the planet to "around 500 million". If this group is so powerful, so influential, cashed up and pulling the strings surely the suppression of around 1 billion( early twentieth century pop.) would have been be alot easier then 6 billion, surely world wars I and II would have been enough of a crisis( why wait for a scheme like global warming)....why introduce a carbon tax when you are the banks?????......are we giving the Bilderberg elite to much credit(no bank pun intended). I mean those families tried inbreeding....great gene pooling there.....look at the experiments.....hitler, china's one child policy......wow....huge successes, and how does the Iraq mess fit in there. To many holes in this story for my liking but great food for thought. I hope you guys can fill in the blanks for me, am i over-simplifying things.
p.s cold calling people in the street..... not a good strategy dude..... did Ron Paul use your technique when looking for endorsements?.



posted on Feb, 4 2008 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by atlasastro
 





As an Australian i'll hope you'll forgive my lack of knowledge and interest in Ron Paul.


No problem, I don't see why any other country would care about American elections.. most Americans don't? Besides, the whole world knows who Bush is, I haven't a clue who the PM of Australia is.



I have seen Endgame though and i have to say that it was quite interesting but left me with these question......WHY WAIT......why let the population get to 6 billion plus( and counting)...... and then go about your plan to reclaim the earth and cull the planet to "around 500 million".


Endgame was a movie done on nearly no actual intellectual investigation.. just the rantings of Alex Jones, who has shown repeatedly that hes a fool.



If this group is so powerful, so influential, cashed up and pulling the strings surely the suppression of around 1 billion( early twentieth century pop.) would have been be alot easier then 6 billion, surely world wars I and II would have been enough of a crisis( why wait for a scheme like global warming)


The basis for Alex's argument is an AGE OLD prejudices.. that all people with money are working together to suppress those without money.

Its complete crap.

While many rich people are jerks, and could care less about anyone else, there are just as many who give a good portion of their wealth to help people out, who opperate institutions to assist the people and so forth.. And all rich people still have to compete in their business to be the richest.. its still about #1.. not everyone else.

The other basis for Alex's argument is that all rich people are mindless satanist zombies out to sacrifice the human population..

Ironic, that to become as successful as they are, they had to be independent, risk taking, free thinking and revolutionary in their field to get to the top..... but according to Alex, once at the top, Satan takes over and they turn into mindless zombies for the mythical NWO.

Alex won't tell you that by shouting down the works of rich people, he himself has got pretty damn wealthy......

And I have never heard of an Alex Jones Foundation for little kids or the disabled..... have you?


Hes a world class prick.



I mean those families tried inbreeding....great gene pooling there.....look at the experiments.....hitler, china's one child policy......wow....huge successes, and how does the Iraq mess fit in there.


Inbreeding families.. another myth about the ultra rich. The whole concept of inbreeding (cousins) is only about 100 years old anyways, and it was typical amongst many families, not just the rich.. Anyways.. I had a cousin marry into a super rich family.. not because she was wealthy, or that she liked the guy because he had money.. but because they actually had a relationship not based on material goods... and guess what?

You might be surprised.. but rich people are quite normal. They just have money!
Give me a 100k and I am not going to change.. I might buy a new car and eat at better restaurants, but I am still going to be based on my raising, you know?

Anyways..

Think of this mate..

6 billion people.. all the rich people get together and they kill 5.5 billion.

500 million are left to shop at Walmart, Mcdonalds, and invest in banks, take out mortgages......

Yeah..

All those rich people? Now dirt poor.

Also, the change in wealth is always changing hands.. there may be dominate families, but they have not been around forever, and will not be. If I have a great idea and implement it.. guess what? Now I am the elite.. for what ever that is worth. Of course, Alex will say I am the devil because I am rich.




To many holes in this story for my liking but great food for thought. I hope you guys can fill in the blanks for me, am i over-simplifying things.

Essentially.. Alex gets rich off of exploiting other peoples hate for the wealthy.. becoming wealthy himself.. hes a scam artist.

The rich will always have power. But who should have power and influence?

Poor people?

Please.. I can just imagine how the world would be in Joe Shmoe ran the world. The ignorant and uneducated in charge.. ironically, that is supposed to be the basis of Democracy isn't it.. for the people, by the people, all that BS.. people prefer power and responsibility in the hands of the few anyways.

EDIT: to fix my horrible spelling.

[edit on 2/4/2008 by Rockpuck]



posted on Feb, 4 2008 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck

Please.. I can just imagine how the world would be in Joe Shmoe ran the world. The ignorant and uneducated incharge.. ironically, that is supposed to be the basis of Democracy isnt it.. for the people, by the people, all that BS.. people prefer power and responcibility in the hands of the few anyways.


I prefer a revision of Plato's idea of Philosopher Kings, though I am against dictatorial rule, perhaps revising it into a Philosopher Senate/House of Representatives, with a Philosopher President would make America quite a bit better off.I feel our politicians are about as far from the intellectual free spirits that founded this country as you can get.The founding fathers are most likely rolling in their collective graves over the current state of disarray that is American politics.It is a true shame that no matter how great a candidates ideas are the sheer overhead of running a political campaign (in my opinion) assures that one has to either be independently wealthy, or supported by lobbies, who once a candidate is elected pressure them for preferential legislation,or a combination of the above.

Not having term limitations for the senate and the house also creates a vicious circle of a candidate making their decisions not based upon what is actually the best for humanity, but upon what will garner them reelection. Term limitations would ensure fresh ideas, and make it a far higher economic burden on lobbies.Think if the senate and the House were limited to one to two terms, if you knew that it was over after that, then I believe that most people would have no incentive to do other than what was in their eyes the best for mankind.



posted on Feb, 4 2008 @ 02:07 PM
link   
To kind of return to the topic of the thread, tomorrow is - according to the media - Super Tuesday - and nary a mention of Ron Paul in the news. When they talk about Republican voting tomorrow, they say the McCain is in the lead, Romney is second and Huckabee is a distant third.

I know that Paul and Huckabee won't drop out until (maybe?) after tomorrow ... but - at this point - I want to see who they throw their support behind if they do drop out. I can't imagine Huckabee supporting Romney, nor can I imagine Paul supporting McCain.

Personally, I don't think Paul will support anyone but Paul. And Huckabee will only support whoever is going to make him Vice President.

Your pal,
Meat.



posted on Feb, 4 2008 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by masonica_esoterica
 




I prefer a revision of Plato's idea of Philosopher Kings


Which is where I base my ideas from.

As far as dictatorial rule... it is my opinion that not all Dictators are Tyrants, and not all Dictators have the sole mission to protect themselves and only them selves.. that most while from the outside seems wrong, act in the best for the people most like them. For instance, Sunni and Shia in Iraq.. Saddam treated Kurds and Shia like crap.. but the Sunnis where treated very well.. and everyone had a good socialistic style government.. take away the protective force of the dictator, and not only does the secure system collapse, but the ones who once fared far better then everyone else, now fare the worst.

Is it wrong to subject the minority to the majorities rule? In my opinion... no, its not wrong at all.. its better then the minority subjecting the majority to their rule.. then again, if the majority are so weak to be dominated by the minority, they do not deserve their own rule. We see a bit of this in American society, majority ideologies over powered by minority "rights" ..

Democracy its self is an experiment, of which, not a single Democracy is as pure a Democracy as they where on the day they where initiated.. eventually Democracy will fail, and will revert back to a style of dictatorial rule. That Dictator being a tyrant, will simply depend on your personal political ideologies.

It is of course, in my opinion, that when we look back through history, we will look upon Democracy as a Fad, a popular idea that ran its course, and reverted back to the oligarchy type rule that has been in place since time began.




Not having term limitations for the senate and the house also creates a vicious circle of a candidate making their decisions not based upon what is actually the best for humanity, but upon what will garner them reelection.


Its not their fault, they are simply playing the game that is politics, unchanged through history..

Democracies are supposed to be set up with one simple idea.. "the people care" .. Which they most certainly do not.. they don't care, they don't take the time to make informed decisions, to understand history and the political system, and prefer other people decide the leaders.. of which most have strict set political ideologies that do not represent the collective whole of the population...

When people stopped caring.. Democracy died.

And the proof is in the system.. look back into history..

America is not the Constitutional Republic that was established, so much as the Federal Oligarchy Plutocracy that it is now.

I'll explain.

The government was high jacked by Federalist.. centralized power that gained full support after the Civil War (when State Rights died..) .. The strong Federal government out weighs States opinions in matters that once belonged solely to the State (even little things, like drinking age, standardized education).

We are an Oligarchy, in that there are select few familial groups of extreme wealth and influence that dominate the US political spectrum.. like say the Bush dynasty, not just limited to Bush one and two, but other members of the family who have held greater power then most (like Jeb who is a governor) .. Clinton's, Kennedy's and so forth.. then you can look at how inter-related some of these people are.. how well the Bush Family knew the Kerry family, how Obama is related to Cheney..

Power to the select few.

Then we are a Plutocracy .. the fusion of wealth and power.. where once we had men like Lincoln (who I still despise) who was born poor as dirt in a log cabin .. and became one of the most influential men in American history.. now however, with this fusion of wealth and power, only the elite can become real leaders.. where smaller candidates go up against guys who can spend $30 million + on TV ads in one state.. Those with money have the power, and while unlike an Oligarchy, where it is the very select few and powerful families, essentially anyone can join into the ruling elite of the Plutocracy, so long as you have the vast financial wealth to support your self.

Either way.. we are no longer a Constitutional Republic. Not in my opinion anyways...



posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 08:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 


I have to disagree that Federalism only took control after the Civil War. The argument between Federalism versus States Rights was there in the very beginning. For example, Washington was a Federalist and Jefferson was a States Righter. This is what caused our forefathers to break up into parties, with Jefferson forming the pro-States Rights Democratic-Republican Party to counter George Washington's Federalists.

Personally, I'm an unrepentent Federalist that believes in a strong union, and am skeptical of many of the States Rights advocates. I believe we should have uniform standards throughout our nation instead of a loose network of independent sovereigns. Throughout history, individual states have shown time and time again that they are willing to ignore civil liberties and other rights if it suits them to do so. Were we not living in a Federalist system, we would still have racial segregation in half the nation.



posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Masonic Light
 


Federalism took its strongest stance at the end of the Civil War. The entire war was essentially over a collection of states with more population and power using the Federal system against the weaker half of the states. To say it was over racism and all that bs, is absolutely wrong.. it was an exploited issue, but few actually cared.

After the war had ended, the entire notion of States Rights was essentially destroyed, and all the Presidents thereafter never gave a damn about the issue..

And I prefer the old system of a loose confederation of states, not a single Federal system.. simply for the matter that it does not matter what Nebraska, Oregon, Oklahoma, Main, Navada, Colorado and many more say in the election process on the national level, because states like California, Florida, New York, PA, Ohio and so forth have more points then the entire nation.

Why should I be dictated by people in another state? .. The federal government was intended to ensure unity, but not to dictate to the states what is right and wrong.

My views anyways. We might as well declare America an Empire and erase State Constitutions because people don't even know they exist.



posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 12:52 PM
link   
I'd like to know what Ron Paul is doing with the enormous amount of money he's been raising. As of Dec 31st, he had raised 28 million dollars (www.opensecrets.org...) and I have heard that his fundraising has been strong since. I have heard a couple of Ron Paul commercials on XM Radio, but I don't really see where he's using the money...



posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by JustMe74
 


If you ask me... he is not going to use money wasted on a primary election.. one he knows he will loose anyways...

Perhaps that money is to be used during the Presidential Elections, when he runs on a Third Party ticket?



posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
Perhaps that money is to be used during the Presidential Elections, when he runs on a Third Party ticket?


I thought he already declared that he wasn't going to run on a third party ticket?





new topics
 
4
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join