Ron Paulstradamus

[Mission Accomplished]

I think the thing that most people fail to see is the little soap opera they put on for the news.
Obama is a puppet, and always has been a puppet.
He does what the big banks, the big corporations, and the Federal Reserve tell him to do.
For them that means more war, more spending, more laws, more regulation, and of course less citizen rights (obviously stating the The Patriot Act and The NDAA).

He came into a mess it took him too much time to get his feet under him. Like I said he hasn't done everything that we need but he has tried to no avail to get some things going. The NDAA is horrible legislation and Obama should have blocked it but he is trying to play the game. He can't get what he wants passed without giving a little in the direction of the GOP and this is right down their alley in the Patriot Act type of legislation.

 

[TheSilencer1313]

He came into a mess it took him too much time to get his feet under him. Like I said he hasn't done everything that we need but he has tried to no avail to get some things going. The NDAA is horrible legislation and Obama should have blocked it but he is trying to play the game. He can't get what he wants passed without giving a little in the direction of the GOP and this is right down their alley in the Patriot Act type of legislation.

Makes me wonder if you're aware that the wording in the NDAA that includes American citizens was actually at the request of the Obama administration?

 

[BluesRocker]

Nice video Dalamon. I am a huge Ron Paul supporter. I have been for quite some time. We all have our differences, but I am glad to see that so many of you are Ron Paul supporters.

Ugggggh. This country is in a lot of hurt right now. And he is one of the only poloticians standing up for the good of this country. It breaks my heart that we are going through this. I can't stand the stupid media and the how they try to hide him. I believe that if the country seen more videos from his past they too would become believers.

 

[Deleted member 848]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIx8quNGwhQ&feature=related

 

[babe]

I believe Newt Gingrich can float our boat, more or less. . . . but Ron Paul is just the real deal. Anybody who dodges the clear requirements of the Constitution, like Newt did above, just shouldn't be our choice. We as a people do not understand the clear meaning of the Constitution because of the whole public education "professional" propaganda folks, our media shills for the progressive agenda who consider themselves something like the "high priests" of the new order of things, and politicians like Newt who just won't acknowledge the clear fact that it is un-American and inconsistent with our founding principles and Constitution to go outside our borders to play bully to the world.

We could adequately manage our borders and root out anyone plotting to do a shock-and-awe darkside "intelligence" psy-op operation by culling our own intelligence agencies of folks who just don't get it that government is limited for a reason by the people. Better yet, just shut down those kind of agencies.

"alliance with none, commerce with all" would give us access to whatever things we need to import.

New'ts libelous and inaccurate characterizations of Paul just made my guts wretch in the link above. So, no, I'll never vote for him. I suppose OB might come around and try to say how inaccurate my statements are. Well, I could write a book with careful footnotes and citations to nail the point down, but it's common knowledge now that the mainstream media won't actually report the news unless they can spin it to conform to the progressive ideals, and our public educators are similarly liberally biased, "progressives" who support a particular view of the government being the 'manager' of choice to solve whatever problems we think we have. The politicians we've had have voted for a lot of legislation, and the politcal parties have pushed and shoved each other trying to lead the charge forward to a particular vision of the future that entails a managed world with thousands of bureaucracies of "professionals" sitting in their chambers writing law for mankind, to be handed down from their UN or other governance subgroups, without any electoral process at all.

"C'mon OB. Admit what NGOs are, and how they're set up and funded principally by corporate or elitist wealth. Tell when I will ever get to vote for one of the "elites" who gather to make the rules for our planet."

Then try to tell me how the NEA stands in regard to upholding and defending the United States Constitution.

No, you have no fact, any more than Newt has, in his rip on Ron Paul. Ron Paul has never been a razzmatazz spinmonster, he just talks straight, and is just the only man on the stage in those debates who even wants the American values and way of life and US Constitution to be the rule of law in this nation.

Truth is, these old-time American ideals, which we've never really done very well at, are the ones that will preserve human rights in a hostile world of big money interests. They are also the only good foundation for international relations. If we chose to live by these ideals, the world would beat a path to our doorstep to study our ways, and the people the world over would stand up and insist on their human liberties too.

Without multi-Trillion dollar wars financed on the generational theft model of taxation, and without sending our young folks off to become the oppressors of other lands, or mere purposeless canon-fodder.

 

[Stoked]

Babe, you think we can have good intelligence by shutting down our intelligence agancies? How so?

 

[One Brow]

I finally watched the first video. Nostradamus is a good exemplar; it's a mix of expectations on current tendencies and vague pronouncements, many of which can be shoe-horned around a variety of things that happened, and the more specific it became, the less accurate it was.

 

[One Brow]

Since I was asked to comment...

New'ts libelous and inaccurate characterizations of Paul just made my guts wretch in the link above. So, no, I'll never vote for him. I suppose OB might come around and try to say how inaccurate my statements are. Well, I could write a book with careful footnotes and citations to nail the point down, but it's common knowledge now that the mainstream media won't actually report the news unless they can spin it to conform to the progressive ideals, and our public educators are similarly liberally biased, "progressives" who support a particular view of the government being the 'manager' of choice to solve whatever problems we think we have. The politicians we've had have voted for a lot of legislation, and the politcal parties have pushed and shoved each other trying to lead the charge forward to a particular vision of the future that entails a managed world with thousands of bureaucracies of "professionals" sitting in their chambers writing law for mankind, to be handed down from their UN or other governance subgroups, without any electoral process at all.

"C'mon OB. Admit what NGOs are, and how they're set up and funded principally by corporate or elitist wealth. Tell when I will ever get to vote for one of the "elites" who gather to make the rules for our planet."

Then try to tell me how the NEA stands in regard to upholding and defending the United States Constitution.

I don't know why you would think I would disagree with your statements on whom you would vote for, or what made your guts wrench. More and more, to me you're just an old uncle in the room, rambling on about fifty different things, and I'm bedoming more inclined to just let you ramble about most things.

I would not be surprised if teachers tended to be more progressive/liberal than other profressions. They are in a n occupation where personal accolades are few, pay is small, and the primary goal is to provide a service which does not benefit the rteachers directly. It is profoundly uncapitalistic.

I have no idea why you would think that I regarded many non-governmental organizations as tools of the wealthy.

I believe the NEA sees itself as upholding the Constitution in the interpretation that they read from it.

 

[babe]

Ok, so there's a website called LIGNET that has articles written by former intelligence professionals, but now operating privately. . . .

A lot of Americans go abroad and talk to a lot of people, and some come home and tell their stories.

Do you think we can have good news reporting without an official propaganda agency?

Fundamentally, I look at our agencies as biased in favor of some supposed "American" interests.

I know the Queen of England gets a daily report handed to her from some trusted overseers of British intelligence networks, and I think the Israelis have an agency that is pretty top-notch, as do the Russians. But all of these, likewise, serve "interests".

An American foreign policy of "Alliance with none, Commerce with all" is the sort of new world order I think I would be happy with. Yes, we need to assess military threats to our nation, and address issues like control of our borders, and I suppose as long as the "American" interests are somehow attached to or dependent on preserving the status quo it might relate somehow to our well-being in certain respects. But more and more, the financial "interests" have roots or tentacles going overseas, and consider themselves "citizens of the world" more than Americans, and that's why I think it's actually more harm to us than good to be having these official agencies serving un-American causes.

 

[TheSilencer1313]

Ok, so there's a website called LIGNET that has articles written by former intelligence professionals, but now operating privately. . . .

A lot of Americans go abroad and talk to a lot of people, and some come home and tell their stories.

Do you think we can have good news reporting without an official propaganda agency?

Fundamentally, I look at our agencies as biased in favor of some supposed "American" interests.

I know the Queen of England gets a daily report handed to her from some trusted overseers of British intelligence networks, and I think the Israelis have an agency that is pretty top-notch, as do the Russians. But all of these, likewise, serve "interests".

An American foreign policy of "Alliance with none, Commerce with all" is the sort of new world order I think I would be happy with. Yes, we need to assess military threats to our nation, and address issues like control of our borders, and I suppose as long as the "American" interests are somehow attached to or dependent on preserving the status quo it might relate somehow to our well-being in certain respects. But more and more, the financial "interests" have roots or tentacles going overseas, and consider themselves "citizens of the world" more than Americans, and that's why I think it's actually more harm to us than good to be having these official agencies serving un-American causes.

Agreed with babe.
This isn't the early 1900's anymore, and we really don't need these agencies to gather intelligence.
Every single one of these agencies is purely bureaucratic, and run by false politicians and lobbyists.
Every single section of these parts of the government should abosolutely be disolved.