RON PAUL: Police manhunt for Boston Marathon bombing suspect scarier than attack

reply to post by lynxpilot


I also provided a global research and beforitsnews link to him, but I guess EVEN THAT is not good enough.

It has to be lamestream media. Yeah they never lie.

It would seem I'm late to get in on this, but why is the story no longer available?

Dose anyone else smell "CONSPIRACY" cooking?

Originally posted by terriblyvexed
It would seem I'm late to get in on this, but why is the story no longer available?

Dose anyone else smell "CONSPIRACY" cooking?

edit on 30-4-2013 by terriblyvexed because: (no reason given)

Nope. However, they seem to be questioning how well he understood what happened.

That particular article was picked up by several other news sources, including the Christian Science Monitor.

That's not bad for an "op ed" article by Ron Paul on a site that gets less than half the traffic of ATS and less than 1/10th the traffic of the news organizations that covered the story.

I also just learned that Lew Rockwell has worked for Ron Paul, so he may have promoted both the article and the reaction to it to bring Ron into the news again.

reply to post by Byrd



That's why I love ATS, someone somewhere has an answer to your query.

kinda took the fun out of it though..

Guess that's the price you pay, to deny ignorance.

reply to post by Byrd


What poignant issues were brought out in either of the articles? I read the first one, and it seems like it's just another smear on Ron Paul for issues that were brought up in the past and never appeared to amount to anything, despite the partisan efforts to make it seem important. I don't see how he's off-base at all at questioning the militaristic presence exhibited in the Boston event.

Originally posted by Byrd
However, they seem to be questioning how well he understood what happened.

An entire article with nothing even close to fact refutation about the police state issue itself but a whole laundry list of straw man arguments to attack the character of Ron Paul based on criticism of Lew Rockwell from the Southern Poverty law Center (of all places ) is considered "questioning his understanding" now? Sorry Byrd, but I'm not buying that one. SPLC is an extremely biased group in this matter, having already decided in their lack of anything even remotely approaching wisdom, to declare the patriot movement in America part of their list of "hate groups." Why did they do this? Because everybody knows that to support the most sacred founding document in the nation, our Constitution, one must surely be filled with a lot of hate.

I would, however, love to see any links you may have which actually explain why a lockdown, manhunt, and defacto enactment of martial law was justifiable in the hunt for a single injured individual. The dude was scarcely able to cultivate a decent high school thatch of facial hair... If that kid required that level of state, local, and federal response, I'm not sure the USA has enough men in uniform to handle it should several dozen heavily bearded mujahideen ever invade the country.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
reply to post by LogicGrind

 

It is NOT about me brother. It is about all the millions of americans that got deceived the past week! Don't you think THEY care about what happened to them? Really I am not important? Is anyone important? How brainwashed can you possibly be to think the government does not have to prove anything?

How were they deceived?

All I have heard is speculation...all different kinds of speculation. They can't all be correct. Either the Government did it, or they were all actors, or the brothers were CIA agents that went rogue...they can't all be true.

All of you have crazy theories with no proof...but you sit there and claim that people were deceived even though you really have no proof for anything you are talking about.

Originally posted by burdman30ott6

Originally posted by LogicGrind
Admit it, you have made up your mind without any evidence and nothing is going to change it.

...and exactly the same could be said about you. The difference is nobody (to my knowledge) has ever appointed you to be America's belief compass while most of what I'm bitching about does have the justification of the United States' Constitution standing behind it. 2nd Amendment, for example... feel free to bow down to the current establishment all you want over how we "need" new regulations, the fact is those regulations are illegal according to the Constitution. Lick the Boston gestapos' boots all you wish, regardless of your sycophant ways their actions violated the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 10th amendment. The bin Laden issue, in some ways, falls under a violation of the 1st in so much as anyone who dared question the official story was quickly attacked from all sides... to that I have to wonder what was so threatening about questioning the story? To quote the government butt kissers, "If you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear." Apparently, since questioning the official story created common reactions to the feeling of fear within the government (i.e. bristling, ad-hom attacks, and tangential straw grasping) they had something to hide. In that regard, as a tax payer and a native citizen I (and everyone else) have a right to know what they are hiding.

Not exactly the same can be said about me. I have the default position, a story came out, I have no reason to disbelieve it because no credible evidence has been shown otherwise. You on the other hand have made up your mind to disbelieve it and to actual believe a 100% speculative theory with zero evidence to back it up. So no, the exact same can not be said.

And I'm sorry, but no one took away your 1st amendment right about questioning OBL, that is just completely laughable. Look, you are still talking about it...no one is stopping you. And I bet you own guns and shoot them regularly...no one is stopping you...but that doesn't seem to be stopping you from complaining about some invisible person taking away your rights.

And no, you have no right to know everything the government knows. If you want to know that, get yourself elected and get a security clearance to find out that information. Until then, you are not important enough to know any of that information.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by LogicGrind

 

I have a beef with the fact that in our society we cannot do anything without a camera recording every freaking action. Yes, I have a beef with surveillance cams which are designed to keep us all in line. Yes, I have especially a beef with in-home cameras put in by the Nanny State to make sure citizens comply with Big Brother.

Didn't you ever read "Nineteen Eighty Four"?

If you are in public...you are fair game...you have no privacy. Citizens can record you, businesses can record you, and government can record you....I have zero problem with that. I would like to see more CCTV cameras all over our cities akin to England.

The cameras in home you are talking about, I know what you are talking about and I don't think you have your facts straight. The cameras aren't in peoples homes, but in some cases for "troubled families" in England, they can be moved to a government "home" that has cameras in them to make sure they aren't beating the crap out of their kids. Sounds like a better plan than the system we have, which is snatching the kids away from the parents. I would support a system like that as well.

Originally posted by burdman30ott6

Originally posted by LogicGrind
It's different because I am not making any claim...the Boston PD and the government is. He can ask them for proof all he wants...but he is simply not important enough for them to care about. This is just a fact.

Semantical bullcrap! I'm wearing the ass ears because I expected more from this exercise and am simply not seeing it.

He's regurgitating a claim just as you are. The fact that his claim generates from a non-authoritarian source whereas your claim generates from the government is meaningless. Maybe in the 1950s having government backing on a claim carried a bit of weight, but recent history has shown that the government is comprised of liars, cheats, whores, thieves, and buffoons to a degree atypical of all but the cheapest charnel houses and mob hangouts.

It isn't semantical bullcrap at all. It is apples and oranges.

And no, I am not repeating the claim. I have no idea if the brothers actually committed the bombing...but it is the most credible story I have heard so far. I don't have the facts to back up that claim, so I wouldn't be stupid enough to back it up. What I do know is that the police response worked, because obviously they caputed the suspect. Kind of hard to argue with results.

On the other hand, he was making a very very specific claim...and he needs proof for that claim.

You are throwing out speculation right and left with absolutely no proof, and you have yet to even attempt to give any evidence.

If you want to show me a claim I made that I need to back up, go ahead, I will be happy to support any claim I have made. Just make sure it is actually a claim I made and not just something that I believe as the most credible story...there is a big difference.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07

Maybe you could of said all that earlier without being rude. I never said I was 100% this way or that way. All I am saying is the whole thing sounds suspicious to me. Less arrogance means listening to the message rather than attacking the messenger.

You can literally make anything sound suspicious if you try hard enough...this is the core of Alex Jones and other conspiracy theorist...they try to trick people with speculation and fuzzy evidence. Look, this looks photoshop...hey, why won't they show us ever single shred of evidence they have for a court case....where is the video of the person shooting Bin Laden.

All it does is create doubt in people that already don't WANT to believe the official story...because most of the time the official story is boring...and people like to create excitement.

reply to post by LogicGrind

Regardless, if I swear an oath to uphold the Constitution...that does not mean that the Constitution automatically applies to me. You must read the Constitution to understand it, words mean things, and the Constitution is written to define how the Federal Government operates.

You know, you can buy a kid some books and send him to school to get some learning, but it still does no good...

Much the same with you after numerous posts informing you that your meme regarding the US Constitution is 100 percent INCORRECT!!!

For the last time, I am going to write this out s l o w l y and carefully in the hopes you will stop posting blatant SHINOLA....

The US Constitution is the SUPREME LAW. It is LAW. It applies TO EVERYONE who lives in these UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

All other laws written by the US Legislative Branch must CONFORM and NOT VIOLATE the US Constitution. This is the purpose of the US Judicial Branch. They determine if subsequent WRITTEN LAWS (i.e. CODE) are CONSTITUTIONAL or NOT (i.e., do not violate or contradict the US Constitution). US Laws GENERALLY apply to all citizens of the USA; however, states can enact laws that CONTRADICT US LAWS/CODE, without violating the US Constitution.

Individual States and Commonwealths also have Constitutions. These Constitutions cannot VIOLATE the US Constitution. Legislative Branches in individual states/commonwealths write laws which cannot violate their STATE/COMMONWEALTH CONSTITUTIONS OR THE US CONSTITUTION. These laws can contradict/annul/void US CODE and still be interpreted as Constitutional in form (Hence, Colorado and Washington). Each Judicial Branch reviews the law for compliance with the US/State/Commonwealth Constitution.

If it makes you feel any better, it's not just the American public...it is the entire world population. The stupid out-number the non-stupid.

There you have it...now, will you please STOP writing the US Constitution only applies to the Federal Government!!!

Else we cast you into the former group that OUTNUMBERS the latter...

reply to post by lynxpilot

Alex Jones is no less credible than any source you can link here. And you'd be hard pressed to prove my statement either true or false. Providing links from the internet doesn't lend credibility, nor does making broad-brush statements about somebody else's source take away from that source's credibility. The merit of your argument stands on your argument. It's not doing too well right now so far as I can see.

You have got to be kidding me.

I shouldn't even waste time trying to enter a discussion with someone who thinks Alex Jones is just as credible as anyone else. I just don't know how to respond to that. Can we use psychics as credible sources as well? I think I trust them more than Alex jones.

I don't know what statements you are talking about...but you are right...it is hard to prove pure speculation true or false...that is the beauty of hiding behind it all the time. It is a much easier position to take rather than dealing with facts...because you can always fall back on the logical fallacy of asking someone to prove you wrong (proving a negative).

If nothing else, you seem to be satisfied with the status quo and that whatever the federal government does is OK. I apologize in advance if that's too general a statement. There are many others who would disagree. Those who do, stand mostly on the ground of the founding fathers, the Constitution, and the writings of those who both authored the Constitution and fought the battle to back it. I don't think there's any question that the overwhelming force shown in Boston (Watertown), Waco, Ruby Ridge, Kent State, and others is evidence enough that the power is in the wrong hands. If you disagree, fine. You can stay in your house in 'lockdown'. Others may not choose to do so. What's wrong with that?

I am absolutely fine with the current Status Quo...you should be too...you get to rant on the internet anonymously about how you think the Government is secretly bombing people. Yes, we are so obviously oppressed

The founding fathers were jerks, I have no respect for them. The best thing they put in the constitution is that we can change it, so we can fix all their mistakes.

reply to post by samkent


The "war ondrugs" has not, nor can it ever keep drugs off the streets, in fact there is a lot of evidence it actually increases the problem.

Think about prohabition, it only allowed the mob to come to power, the war on drugs only creates a market for them, and makes those who only care about power, have an easy avenue to it.

The war on drugs has destroye destroyed more lives and broken more families than any amount of drugs use ever could.

How does someone going to jail for a posession of a harmless plant, for longer than a rapist or armed robber help anything? I would name the afore mentioned harmless plant, that is impossible to die from overdose from, is proven to be less intoxicating than legal alcohol, and has been used as a medicine by all coultures throughout recorded histories, until the hippies, but it is a T and C violation.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
reply to post by lynxpilot

 

I also provided a global research and beforitsnews link to him, but I guess EVEN THAT is not good enough.

It has to be lamestream media. Yeah they never lie.

A reputable source that actually has named sources and a reputation that you can check into...yes...I expect that.

Beforeitsnews is a complete joke, so is Alex Jones.

Originally posted by Byrd
I also just learned that Lew Rockwell has worked for Ron Paul, so he may have promoted both the article and the reaction to it to bring Ron into the news again.

edit on 30-4-2013 by Byrd because: (no reason given)

Lew Rockwell is commonly the name floated around for the guy who was behind the racist Ron Paul newsletters.

I don't know if he just became the fall guy or if was the actual guy writting that stuff.

reply to post by totallackey

The US Constitution is the SUPREME LAW. It is LAW. It applies TO EVERYONE who lives in these UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

Can I be arrested for taking away your freedom of speech? Your right to bear arms? Your right to assembly?

According to you...it seems I can.

reply to post by LogicGrind

The founding fathers were jerks, I have no respect for them. The best thing they put in the constitution is that we can change it, so we can fix all their mistakes.

Mighty HIGH talk from a person who could probably not open a lemonade stand without militarized interference or protection from a 19 year old kid. As opposed those who openly spilled tea into a harbor, suffered through natural hardships and starvation under the OPEN threat of a hostile government, fought a revolution, and wrote a document that you STILL DO NOT UNDERSTAND!!!

Your comment demonstrates absolute asshattery at its finest...