Ron Paul Completely... I mean COMPLETELY Destroys Underwear Bomber Hysteria

Originally posted by ModernAcademia

Originally posted by djusdjus
Ron Paul is an isolationist

Setting up embargos against Cuba and Iran is isolationism
George Bush at the G20 Summit where world leaders didn't want to shake his hands is the result of isolationism
The entire world hating america's foreign policy is isolationism

If Ron Paul was president the United States would be playing a much different and a much more friendly role around the world. It would once again be the beloved nation everyone loved and strived to be, and perhaps one day it would again be a creditor instead of a debtor nation.

Guess what time is it?
It's time to wake up!!!

There's a difference between isolationism and non-interventionism

That is just a bit naieve. We would still be hated as much as before, there are those who feel they have been wrong by America to such an extent that they will not be happy until they get their pound of flesh and then some. I harbor no fantasies about Ron Paul, he can say what he will but I bet his tune would change pretty fast after he was in the oval office.

Originally posted by jrod
If you think Ron Paul is a crackpot then you are part of the problem. I have never seen anyone in politics who is so straight foward and logical about worldly issues than Ron Paul. Most politicians beat around the bush when asked a difficult question or give some pre-memorized line of bs, this guy calls as he sees it.

A lot has to be said about the fall of the United States over the last decade. I think the american people need a revolution, not a bloody war, but an intellectual revolution to wake up to the problems we have caused by blindly electing and re-electing corrupt officials to positions of power among other things. The American Dream has almost been sold out and with out a re-birth of freedom and information it may perish.

Awesome. And thanks for making my point for me.

I would state that you don't know jack about Ron Paul.
As a libertarian, Mr.Paul assumes that people will do the right thing, government should be just about business and he has no qualms with that line of thinking.

Do you have any idea as to why modern libertarianism doesn't work?

I'll tell you. It's a vehicle of change and not a modality of governance. It is at it's heart anarchic in the end and brings nothing to a country when used to govern.

I don't blame you though. You like most others use your hearts instead of your heads when you listen to the rhetoric of these folks. They spark emotional content within you and then you think that is reason and logic.

Well, it's not. There is a world full of us humans. America is dependent on that world of humans. Paul fails to acknowledge this.

If he were to rule, you would lose your diversity, you would lose your civil liberties and you would be pushed quickly into a fascist corporately run nation that had no checkpoints in it's governance and simply used a free market unregulated approach whereby the weak would die without care and the greedy would consume each other.

It would behoove many of you to stop being tossed about in a storm of youtube clips and sound bytes from artificial "news" organizations and to really get some perspective.

Although, I do have strong doubts about that. It's worth a shot to ask it from people.

Originally posted by subject x
I must have missed something...
Where's the part where he "COMPLETELY destroys underwear bomber hysterics"?

At least in my opinion he did, here's how!

They want us to be hysterical right now do they not?
Just watch the news and read the papers and listen to obama and his adminsitration.
They want us to be hysterical when all we need to do is be smart.

Also, we need to take serious steps to prevent terrorists from gaining easy access to targets on our soil. Quite alarmingly, even with the knowledge that the 19 terrorist hijackers entered our country legally, and that 15 of them were from Saudi Arabia , student visas from terrorist sponsoring countries are still far too easily obtained. In a baffling move President Bush struck a deal with Saudi King Abdullah in 2005 to allow 21,000 more Saudi young men into the US on student Visas. Of course, not all students from terror sponsoring countries are terrorists, but I place a higher premium on the security of the American people than the convenience of citizens of hostile countries. We should not be making the goals of would-be terrorists easier to accomplish, but rather should be vigilant about defending against enemies at every turn. They should not be slipping through our doors so easily, using our immigration laws against us, and that is why I proposed the Terror Immigration Elimination Act (HR 3217) to toughen standards for VISAS from countries on the State Department's list of terrorist sponsoring countries in addition to Saudi Arabia . Just as you decide who to invite to a dinner party in your home, we should be in charge of who we allow in this country, without apology
www.americanchronicle.com...

After 9/11 Ron Paul made a bill to disallow easy Visas from citizens of countries on the terror list, this bill was introduced around 2003, it passed the house but then they got rid of it in a conference.

Then he made this bill (HR 3217) to re-ignite it and the message.

Both times it didn't become law.

Also he said that we spend so much money on security but once we have a hot lead we don't do #%^# about it.

From my perspective yes, this does destroy the hysteria.
There's no need to be hysteric if our elected officials were smarter than a vegetable.

As another poster in this thread said, we are very reactive.
Everything we do is nothing but knee-jerk reactions
Hence the hysteria.

Do you see my point now?

Originally posted by djusdjus
Do you have any idea as to why modern libertarianism doesn't work?

It doesn't?
How do you know
Please state when it was put into effect
thx in advance

Originally posted by djusdjus
I'll tell you. It's a vehicle of change and not a modality of governance. It is at it's heart anarchic in the end and brings nothing to a country when used to govern.

I think you are a lazy person
You are so dependant on big govt. that you don't believe in personal responsibility.
It's not your fault...... well maybe it is but not completely.

Just as you failed to see the difference between isolationism and non-interventionism you also fail to see the difference between anarchy and limited government.

Is switzerland an anarchic society?
No, it's limited govt.
Do your homework

Originally posted by djusdjus
I don't blame you though. You like most others use your hearts instead of your heads when you listen to the rhetoric of these folks. They spark emotional content within you and then you think that is reason and logic.

Where is the emotional content?
Not wanting to bomb countries with innocent civilians?
Preaching freedom is just demogaguery and hyperbole?
Really?
I think not!

Originally posted by djusdjus
If he were to rule, you would lose your diversity, you would lose your civil liberties and you would be pushed quickly into a fascist corporately run nation that had no checkpoints in it's governance and simply used a free market unregulated approach whereby the weak would die without care and the greedy would consume each other.

HAHAHHHAHAA
It's so funny you say that's what we would have if Ron Paul was in office when that's pretty much what we have now minus the free market.

So what are you factually describing are the effects of big govt.

My friend, you just contradicted yourself but you will continue to fail to realize it.



[edit on 6-1-2010 by ModernAcademia]

Originally posted by ModernAcademia

Originally posted by djusdjus
Do you have any idea as to why modern libertarianism doesn't work?

It doesn't?
How do you know
Please state when it was put into effect
thx in advance

Originally posted by djusdjus
I'll tell you. It's a vehicle of change and not a modality of governance. It is at it's heart anarchic in the end and brings nothing to a country when used to govern.

I think you are a lazy person
You are so dependant on big govt. that you don't believe in personal responsibility.
It's not your fault...... well maybe it is but not completely.

Just as you failed to see the difference between isolationism and non-interventionism you also fail to see the difference between anarchy and limited government.

Is switzerland an anarchic society?
No, it's limited govt.
Do your homework

Originally posted by djusdjus
I don't blame you though. You like most others use your hearts instead of your heads when you listen to the rhetoric of these folks. They spark emotional content within you and then you think that is reason and logic.

Where is the emotional content?
Not wanting to bomb countries with innocent civilians?
Preaching freedom is just demogaguery and hyperbole?
Really?
I think not!

Originally posted by djusdjus
If he were to rule, you would lose your diversity, you would lose your civil liberties and you would be pushed quickly into a fascist corporately run nation that had no checkpoints in it's governance and simply used a free market unregulated approach whereby the weak would die without care and the greedy would consume each other.

HAHAHHHAHAA
It's so funny you say that's what we would have if Ron Paul was in office when that's pretty much what we have now!

So what are you factually describing are the effects of big govt.

My friend, you just contradicted yourself but you will continue to fail to realize it.

You see? First you try to demonize me because you feel like something is amiss! So, you call me names. In the meantime, you have not addressed anything I said with anything other than your own emotional...well, rant.

And then, the wonderful part is that you try to play like a psychic and tell me what I will and will not think or do. Fairly pathetic attempt at trying to support your own tenuous understanding of the issue at hand.

If you cannot argue your point and wish to continue your raving about Paul, by all means, I won't stop you.

But don't be angry with me, just answer the questions about how exactly does Ron Paul destroy the underwear bomber story? I don't see a change in tack at all with this latest sound byte.

I see your tactics as typical of someone who is otherwise incapable of debating the facts of the matter.

In the meantime, don't bother trying to put words in my mouth. Either argue the facts or don't. Your emotional diatribes are useless really and contribute nothing.

Maybe you were hoping for an "atta boy" and a back slap or two? Well you aren't gonna get that from me because I see Paul and his ilk for what they really are and frankly, it doesn't sit well with me.

So don't even try to convince me that he is even close to being the answer or the right man for anything right now.

Good day.

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
From my perspective yes, this does destroy the hysteria.
There's no need to be hysteric if our elected officials were smarter than a vegetable.

I think you kinda contradict yourself here. It seems that most of our elected officials are not smarter than a vegetable, so it follows that there is a reason for hysterics.

But that's beside the point. I went back and watched the video again, and I didn't even hear them mention the underwear bomber. They barely mentioned the other stuff you brought up. I don't see how he could have destroyed the hysteria whithout talking about , well, the hysteria.

RP's all right in my book. A lot of what he says (not all of it) makes a lot of sense. It still seems to me that you jumped to a conclusion about something they barely, if at all, mentioned. Maybe we just have different associative processes in how we percieve things.

Do you see my point now?

No, I guess not. But that's cool. Thanks for taking the time to elaborate your point.

reply to post by endisnighe


I noticed right away,, that's some SICK propaganda if I've ever seen any... The sick part is 999 out of 1000 people wouldn't even notice! But that's how they keep Ron Paul out of the Press; so it doesn't surprise me very much. However if we keep pointing this kind of thing out, eventually they won't be able to get a way with it any more........ Sorry for the short post... Just got up

Originally posted by subject x
I must have missed something...
Where's the part where he "COMPLETELY destroys underwear bomber hysterics"?

Although I like the fact that people are waking up, I will have to say...I was wondering the same thing about the underwear bombing hysterics.

Originally posted by subject x
But that's beside the point. I went back and watched the video again, and I didn't even hear them mention the underwear bomber. They barely mentioned the other stuff you brought up. I don't see how he could have destroyed the hysteria whithout talking about , well, the hysteria.

They mentioned airport security
main reason for the extra security is the underwear bomber... no?

Also I still think that he did destroy it
perhaps as you said, our perception is different

During the entire interview it's the last bits that sticked out the most to me
the part where He tried to disallow easy visas from citizens of countries on the terror list and all the wasted money into extra security but when they get a hot lead they don't do anything.

It is that bit that made me make this thread title

reply to post by ModernAcademia


I think its all rather odd, first we have the "shoe bomber", now we have the "Underwear bomber". Whats next the "ball cap bomber"? The "Hoodie Bomber"? Once again the media is eating this up and will blast the citizens with it till they can't add on any more fear mongering to the story. Then they'll find some other thing to keep the people in line.
Out of all the different ways to make a bomb , they came up with the "Underwaer bomber". Also all those so called 3rd world terrorists were all trained by the various alphebet groups years ago. I mean look people.
Back when the russians took over afganistan, you had the Moshajden rebels fighting the russians 1980's. Represenitive Charlie Wilson took up the project to fund the afgan rebels in congress from a few hundred thosand to a few billion in military hardware. Even shoulder launched stinger missiles. To shoot down the russian Hind-D attack helecopters. The CIA trained these so called rebels , and int he end the russians gave up and retreated back home. So when the media says there are terrorists etc. You have to remember "WE" trained all these people in the first place.
That was my example, as for the "Underwear bomber" its a joke. With todays technology and you know these so-called terrorists have backing from the wealthy saudi's. They can afford to purchase state of the art weapon tech. You really think some individual with a failed Underwear bomb is all they can use? Come on. The people in these Intel "think-Tank" places must all be stoned to come up with a bunch of BS like this. They keep it simple so they can feed it to the American population just to keep the terror up, so in the end more of our rights are removed.
It wouldn't take much to make clothing into a bomb then someone could just ware it. I mean come on "Underware Bomber" Please...

We are on ATS; and people are speaking out, "against" Ron Paul, and these people are getting responses other than, "please go to a non-conspiracy website"?

Seriously; they have one shred of evidence against Mr. Paul other than, "just because"? While the ones in control run rampant, draining the treasury and getting whatever resources from our nation that is in its' death throws that they can.

The only politician moving on his level that I know of who actually earned his position. One poster recognizing he is alone in the arena of bad guys.

Another poster calling for Ron Paul for president, and Jessie Ventura for vice president. I am with you..

The wacos nay-saying him can relax. You bad guys have U.S.. The Obimination that makes desolate has been, "set into place".

Christ said, "My heart is very sorrowful; unto death.".

And every eye shall see Him..



[edit on 6-1-2010 by noconsequence]

whats going on with his eyebrow?

Originally posted by djusdjus


But don't be angry with me, just answer the questions about how exactly does Ron Paul destroy the underwear bomber story? I don't see a change in tack at all with this latest sound byte.

I think what the OP is trying to get at is that if some very simple procedures and security precautions (as outlined by RP) were followed - procedures probably very easy to implement, if not already in place - the current hysteria would be avoided. They would also negate up the current rush to install those scanners everywhere... scanners which would apparently not have stopped the 'underwear bomb' event from happening anyway.

The fact that these precautions are not there, the fact that if they were this wouldn't have happened, and the fact that everyone is running around like headless chickens wondering what happened... when all they had to do was implement said precautions, shows the hysteria up for what it is:

Bad, laughable, avoidable propaganda.

By saying what he did RP has shown a very bright and sane light on some very dark, foolish and hysterical behaviour

ergo ... he has shown the current bout of hysteria for the foolishness it actually is.

There are many ways to destroy a case or an argument... He just demonstrated one of them.

This is what I understand the OP to mean (OP correct me if I'm wrong)

reply to post by djusdjus


Actually I don't buy your contention that a free market would leave people starving. As a matter of fact free markets have made people's lives better and created more jobs. Even the soviet union used markets, it is universal. You are one of these big government advocates. Helping the poor hardly seems like what big government does anymore. There is not enough money for government to help people, it is a conceit of those do gooders in power that they think they help. Let's face it most taxes go to pork, or military and bureaucrats and a pittance lands in the pockets of the poor.

The world would be a better place if everyone found something productive to do, and I don't mean meditating.

Ron Paul is a libertarian, objectivist. Objectivism doesn't rule out reactive self defense when attacked, so I am not sure what Paul thinks. My interpretation is that he is okay with going after the perpetrators but not invading countries. 911 was mostly Saudis, so what can be done? Invade Iraq? This is the kind of logic failure he must mean. So logic says the US needs oil and not much can be done to the Saudis, so we eat it and shut up.

I think America is going into hibernation for awhile, which may be a good if not a necessary thing. Out of money, you know. The reality and logic of our situation is that we recall the troops, downsize and help each other out until things get better. The rest of the world needs to fend for itself. The very least we can do to countries spawning terrorism is making coming to the US a nightmare for their citizens.

reply to post by Dagar


You got it bro!

I was kind of confused as to why some people didn't get it
but as one person said, perhaps it's perception

but yes, you got it spot on

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
During the entire interview it's the last bits that sticked out the most to me
the part where He tried to disallow easy visas from citizens of countries on the terror list and all the wasted money into extra security but when they get a hot lead they don't do anything.

It is that bit that made me make this thread title

First of all let me say that I am a huge RP fan, and I get what he was saying. However I don't think that he 'destroys' any hysteria here. I think it is just the opposite if anything. Just in your words that I quoted I would say that he gives a very good example of why we should be worried.

1) Our gov. refuses to disallow easy visas from citizens of countries on the terror list.

2) We waste money on extra security, but do nothing when we get a hot lead.

Destroy hysteria? I don't think so. I took a completely opposite message from this. Gov. as a whole is saying that there is no need to be hysterical, but until they take some common sense measures, and do something effective, we DO have a reason to worry.

reply to post by Majiq


fair enough
but that hysteria would be a completely different form

and also why be hysteric when nothing will change?
i'm not saying just be stoic
but unless a massive movement happens what will change?

enough people protested the bailouts and nothing happened

I see what you are saying but I woudln't call that hysteria
See if you had that hysteria on national TV they would call you a nut
If they are hysteric then it's because they are trying to solve the issue

my only point is that hysteria wouldn't do anything
and what you are describing is "let's worry" as opposed to let's freak out
maybe more than just worrying but not hysteria

reply to post by ModernAcademia


TRANSPARENCY

I think Ron Paul is our greatest statesman in this point in our history. I am a little disappointed that he doesn't seem to think 911 was an inside job. But for honesty and principles he's the tops by far. Lack of honesty and principles should not be the accepted norm. Obama lies through his teeth and that seems to be ok with everyone. The first lie should have ended his credibility. But lies rule and our country is in serious danger from the demons running politics. How did we get into this position when the Congress passes laws to bring down our country. Ron Paul is fighting the good fight.
How did we get into a position where monied interests can take over our government and so many parts of our society that we can fight wars of aggression and it's no biggie. and everyone bows to the media. If the media oks it, it must be ok. Hitler's Germany wasn't as docile as us. But maybe they didn't have fluoride in their water. Fluoride is also making people unhealthy, but the demons running the medical industry have the doctors making excuses for the symptoms of fluoride poisoning, you've got a thyroid problem, probably inherited, your parents had it, right? The same demons running the politics are running the doctors and the media and our schools, and even the arts. Picasso was a great painter because Rockefeller's mother said so. There is nothing they're not in and now they've decided to destroy America by using false flag attacks to destroy our liberty.. When we've lost our "freedoms," our protection of the individual, our lives won't be worth beans. Rockefeller's grandfather on his mother's side started the FED. These people backed Hitler and caused the depression and the cold war and took over the CIA and the CIA took over our military. 911 was an inside job. Ron Paul seems to be standing up for us, but anyone who really speaks out, dies.
We need to reinvestigate not just 911 but the OKC bombing. They killed our children and got away with it. I'm not advocating hate, just justice. We can't live without justice, for long anyway. We certainly can't just stand back and let these demons destroy our country.

I love watching Rob Paul videos; he is one within many that actually speak from the heart in our government. He hits it right on, if some aggressor dropped a bomb in my neighborhood and killed my family i would be very POed. If only more people wouldn't discard him as being a nutcase we might actually get somewhere.