It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Cant Admit Your a Ron Paul Supporter?

page: 1

log in


posted on Oct, 7 2008 @ 03:30 PM
Im posting this in the conspiracy section for this reason. Here is a video of an interview of Frank Luntz. He starts to plug Ron Paul but before he does he says "Now Ive had my debates with Ron Paul supporters but..." as if to say I dont like Ron Paul BUT. Now I have noticed this with Glenn Beck too who also says before he brings Ron Paul on his show "Now I may disagree with Ron Paul on a lot but his economics I agree on" or others who basically have to apologize before plugging this guy.

So is there a conspiracy here or is this just a coincidence. Neal Cavuto does the same thing. Why not say instead here is Ron Paul the guy who has had EVERYTHING right from the Iraq war to the economy since at least 2002 and here he is on our program. How come you never here this? Why do people have to slap him down before they bring him on?

posted on Oct, 7 2008 @ 03:49 PM
Because they are pro-war. And they are generally supportive of the fed itself, which is what enables them to feed the war machine. They are also trying to bait and switch. Bait with something good, then take that and direct it in the opposite way.

Their argument is generally not to get rid of the fed, but to have the fed "act right".

The best system we can have for honest money is where the government issues the money in direct proportion to the amount of assets and such. So they will try to play the fed off in that light, that if they were doing a good job, we wouldn't be having problems.

What they will probably never mention, and can't get around is - if the value of the money the fed "loans" to use is taken from the existing wealth, how is it in itself a valid loan? So why do we have to pay the money back, and pay the interest back?

The reason the constitution tied the money to gold and silver was because of this. Because governments are also inclined to create money to give themselves. It is still taking the value from the existing money(inflation tax). So we could still face the problems of today. But the money would be more honest, atleast it wouldn't be debt based with interest. And the newly created money for increase in production(natural inflation) can be used to pay for the basic parts of government, and you won't need to pay income tax.

Which means, we need a society that understands these things and can keep the people we elect in check. And a limited government, rather than limited rights.

Because the amount of money is based on actual assets, it's no longer a debt based system, but a system based on value.

new topics

log in