More Ron Bashing

[reverendjeremiah]

So who will you vote for? Who is the best candidate for president in 2012?

Frankly I find voting on this magnitude to simply NOT WORK. 49% of a state votes Obama, and 51% of a state votes Paul. Therefore Paul gets ALL of that states votes? The problem is this form of democracy. I am personally considering to NOT vote, as I feel that it is nothing more than mental masturbation. even if it is someone I wanted who wins, he will still be an authority over me, and I obviously do not agree with everything anyone else agrees with.

What I am trying to point out is that you seem to have some very legitamite criticisms of the gov and corporations in the U.S

they are legit because I keep them simple and shy away from major conspiracy theories.

but what good is that discontent and concern if it is not focused somewhere that has some unity and possibilty of achieving some of the things you like, such as RBE and social anarchist ideals.

voting for the country to swing even more to the right wing is the OPPOSITE direction of RBE and anarchist ideals. thats why. Ron Paul is right wing no matter how much he opposes some of the neo-con tactics.

I really don't mean to be pushy. Sorry if I did! my bad, I just think these conspiracy theories are so complex and hard to express correctly.

Thats a sign that they are not grounded in reality. If they were grounded in reality, it would be much easier for you to describe them.

What I mean is that I am sure there is some truth in almost every theory but there may also be some misunderstanding or flat out lies as well.

At which point you must suspend your judgement and try to be as fact based as possible. You are not doing that. I am not saying these conspiracy theories might not exist, I am saying they have very little facts behind them. Which means you should NOT encourage people to ramble on about things of which they have no knowledge of. Might as well claim that a tea pot is orbiting Mars.

It is difficult to discern the fact from fiction when dealing with such 'larger than life' institutions such as the church and government and historical events. Without trying to overgeneralize,

..but this NWO has never been proven to exist in the first place. everything about this organization seems to be merely memes that are popular on the net. Like the meme is that the NWO has its hand in alien research at area 51. In reality, one can do a bit of research and find out the area 51 is one huge atomic research facility. Google earth will pull up pics of area 51, and a quick zooming out will find test crators all over the facility dating back more than 40 years. Some of them underground tests. In the 80's area 51 was in a controversy for burning used plutonium. You cant do that as it will render the atmosphere toxic. Area 51 also has many underground tunnels for spent nuclear fuel storage.

What makes more sense? The area is undercontrol of a NWO system who are being in cohoots with Alien Greys who wish to enslave humanity? Or is it an extremely dangerous base full of all types of radiation hazards and wastes where they test new planes like the B-52 bombers?

The fuckers were burning plutonium and other wastes such as that, yet they got off scott free because the politicians said "it doesnt exist", yet they spoke of it in congress anyways. It doesnt "exist" because they dont want to deal with other rules and evironmental laws, as well as the obvious top secret planes they make...and all of the money that gets flushed over there.

How can we really know for sure about anything in the Zeitgeist films to be either fact or fiction when there are two strong opposing sides disputing each other?

Yet the movie presents it all as fact. They dont say it "might be fact". They present a conspiracy as FACT.

I mean the whole idea that Christ for example is taken from various pagan gods and has strong astrological elements and influence seems totally plausible and likely to me.

Of course it does, amongst other common elements. It also has some eastern concepts in it that was made popular by hinduism and buddhism.

What is so unbelievable in that general premise?

My beef with the movie isnt so much about its approach on Jesus. Sure, they make some good points, but there are many more that were left out. The link I gave you will explain.

Christ is fake and it's religion is corrupt. Likewise with 9/11, why is the idea of it being an inside job seem so impossible?

It doesnt seem impossible. What the movie was lacking was actual incontravertable proof. Just because something MAY sound possible doesnt mean we should accept it as POSSIBLE. If you feel that way about the 9-11 part, then why not also say that Jesus also seems POSSIBLe, so therefore why not act as if it IS possible...and therefore believe in Jesus.

I think the whole idea of Al Queida pulling off this attack WITHOUT any inside help seems like the implausible story.

Frankly I think they had quite a bit of money coming in from Saudi Arabia, which is one of the reasons why the patriot act now allows the govt to look into peoples bank accounts. As far as the plane that was going to ram into the white house after the inital attacks on the twin towers...I have a very sneaking suspicion that American fighters shot the bitch down, or put a few bullets in a couple of its engines. Of course I have ZERO evidence for this, but if I were president, and knew a plane was coming tohit the white house, I would order it shot down and kept quiet.

I have ZERO evidence for this.

Therefore I will clearly point out that this is merely my opinion.

the zeit movie, on the other hand, does the same thing, but does not mention it is their opinion.

What benefit do truthers have in sticking their necks out in saying 9/11 was an inside job?

Political leverage. I notice that when the zeit movement started they were ALL hard core Ron Paul supporters. eventually some of them went beyond right wing libertarianism and decided to go left wing libertarian with the venus project, RBE, and so on. When I left them many were still arguing over wether to go right wing or left wing with the group. there are voters that can be had from such conspiracy theories, and obviously Ron Paul has gained popularity with it.

They face so much criticism and abuse from the public, the great majority don't make tons of money or gain fame by contriving some conspiracy theory.

Nope, but the makers of the movie have done pretty good:
http://conspiracies.skepticproject.com/a...eist/cost/

I think an 'agnostic' stance may be more appropriate when considering such matters.

A stance you clearly are not taking.

You say that Zeitgeist lies about nearly everything in the films, so then what is the truth when it comes to 9/11? Exactly what the government's official story is????

We probably will never know. No sense in making shit up either. Sit on the fence.

That sounds like the most naive and sheepish conclusion to make after considering all the blatant holes in it's story. The government can PAY OFF any scientist, any "expert", any schmuck to say anything they want!!!

Yet you jump up and down for Ron Paul..someone who works for the government as well.

Or threaten to arrest or kill them if they don't! WHO is going to stop them? They are just like a national mafia, but fuck you harder and do it for 'national defense' and counter-terrorism.

We the people can. But they have currently divided and conquered us.

Ever hear of the Red Scare in the 1950's where Communism was the greatest threat in the world? Historians now realize that was all bullshit. It was an excuse to build up nuclear arms, invade Korea and Vietnam which were wars NOT meant to be won and ended, but SUSTAINED for political and corporate interests. Same shit is going on in Afghanistan right now, and will be in Iran within a few years, maybe sooner.

Not all of it was bullshit. Communism had some nasty things just as much as America had its nasty things.

I respect your opinions against Ron Paul. I can see how he can be easily misunderstood or seem too radical.

not just him, but his supporters as well "civil rights act is outdated", yet you dont want to look like a radical? there is no misunderstanding on my behalf. Ron Paul is the WRONG direction in my opinion. anyone who is so naive to think that suddenly racism just "disappeared" does not deserve to be the leader of our country.

I think he supports capitalism, but he says he is against crony capitalism which is the foundation for corruption within corporations and what makes the whole system dysfunctional.

Capitalism itself is also a foundation for corruption. The very concept of profit is a corrupting influence. The system is not dysfunctional. This is EXACTLY how capitalism works out. Its the golden rule, he who owns the gold makes the rules.

As a nation, we have to work with what we got right now, we are a capitalistic system that could at least be tweeked to serve the American public and save the environment.

So you think the best way to move America towards a technocratic syndicate based on RBE (which are ALL left libertarian concepts) is to introduce a harder swing towards the right wing? If I lived in Tennessee, and I said moving to Texas would be the greatest thing ever...what would you say to me if I started driving towards Virginia? You would say "ummm...if you want to go to Texas, then why are you going the opposite way to Virginia?"

Hey...if you want to go to Texas, then why are you driving your car to Virginia bgood?

[paintpooper]

Your stubbornness is clouding the truth. Your making broad generalizations about people and a party.

Dickheads are dickheads, Poop. That you embrace this particular turd does not make him less of a turd.

What is the definition of a "dickhead". Or a turd. How can you call Ron Paul a turd or dickhead.
Who is not a dickhead or turd to you? Obama? Clinton?

---

Wow and I missed a a lot. Is going to take lots of time to correct all the misinformation now on this thread.

---

Nothing in the zeitgeist movie was accurate.

Wrong. Now we can get specific about certain things. Some are wrong, some are lies, some not accurate. But to call the whole thing not accurate, is actually not accurate.

I don't buy the whole movie of course not, I come up with own conclusions based on evidence not what someone tells me. But the movie still does open up some closed minds.

Rev... you still don't quite get it, we are both on the same side, but there needs to be a catalyst, yes Ron is government, and we think too much government is bad, but how do you dismantle the whole system without being a part of it?
If I ran for office tomorrow and got elected as a senator, would that automatically make me "the government" no I would fight to fix government while being a part of it, and there is no reason that can't be done.

Also I can explains conspiracy's(reality) really well. Which one would you like the full explanation on?

[reverendjeremiah]

Wrong. Now we can get specific about certain things. Some are wrong, some are lies, some not accurate. But to call the whole thing not accurate, is actually not accurate.

I don't buy the whole movie of course not, I come up with own conclusions based on evidence not what someone tells me. But the movie still does open up some closed minds.

i will give the movie that...it does have its attraction value. Sadly it doesnt hold up well once you do your homework.

[Bgood]

Hey thx for sharing your views Rev Jerry, perhaps I should revisit your link and reevaluate the debunking evidence, esp. on 9/11, although it is such a tedious and "unenlightening" process. Keep searching the truth and VOTE RON PAUL! Only kidding, haha! Ron Paul is such an old fart , he might not even survive another 4 years! So who he picks as a VP is quite important. I'd love to see Jesse Ventura as his running mate! aaahhh lol. Although we may disagree on certain matters, we can still be friends who piss each other off later....

[Cosmic Ape]

I can't support anyone who wants to destroy the EPA, no more loony right wing bullshit from that party.

[reverendjeremiah]

Hey thx for sharing your views Rev Jerry, perhaps I should revisit your link and reevaluate the debunking evidence, esp. on 9/11, although it is such a tedious and "unenlightening" process.

There are two things that Normal Bob smith said that really have stuck with me:

enlightenment sounds like the removal of burdons to me. How can adding on superstitious beliefs be "enlightening"? A skeptical atheist/agnostic sounds like what enlightenment should be. Instead of adding on falsehoods to a persons life, they honestly say "I dont know" and are enlightened from having to make up more lies to support the lies they already hold.

...and...

Normal sounds like a person who doesnt hold to strange ideas and beliefs. Atheists are not considered "normal" in america by those who think invisible, intangable angels and demons whisper thoughts into peoples minds. A normal person would look at death as merely death, where an abnormal person would make up all kinds of excuses for it, such as afterlifes, reincarnation, karma, etc... a normal person excepts reality for what it is and his limits of knowledge. An abnormal person just makes shit up and calls it "religion".

Keep searching the truth and VOTE RON PAUL! Only kidding, haha!

I would if not for some of his batshit insane ideas of racism, capitalism, etc..

Ron Paul is such an old fart , he might not even survive another 4 years! So who he picks as a VP is quite important. I'd love to see Jesse Ventura as his running mate! aaahhh lol.

ARGH!!! another conspiracy theorist!

Although we may disagree on certain matters, we can still be friends who piss each other off later....

Exactly. Dont think that i am posting hatefully. Im merely giving you my side of the story.

[reverendjeremiah]

To all ron Paul supporters I ask you this:

So you think voting in Ron Paul, in a split Republican/democrat system that we have now, will FIX anything? Explain exactly what Ron Paul can fix by himself without having to go through congress or the senate, who will both be teamed up to oppose him?

[Bgood]

Hey thx for sharing your views Rev Jerry, perhaps I should revisit your link and reevaluate the debunking evidence, esp. on 9/11, although it is such a tedious and "unenlightening" process.

There are two things that Normal Bob smith said that really have stuck with me:

enlightenment sounds like the removal of burdons to me. How can adding on superstitious beliefs be "enlightening"? A skeptical atheist/agnostic sounds like what enlightenment should be. Instead of adding on falsehoods to a persons life, they honestly say "I dont know" and are enlightened from having to make up more lies to support the lies they already hold.

This is interesting what Normal Bob has said. There is alot of truth in this paragraph, except for the slightly distorted understanding of what true enlightenment really is. Enlightenment IS the removal of burdens, as mentioned above, but primarily within the mind such as irrational fears, anxiety, etc. Adding on superstitous beliefs is NOT enlightening. Enlightenment aims at removing delusions and falsehoods of all kinds, specifically when dealing with inner thoughts about one's self. A skeptic/atheist/agnostic actually IS to a great extent what enlightenment should be as Bob also mentions. I do consider myself an atheist within my belief of buddhism. Critical research and personal investigation is always highly encouraged by the Buddha, even necessary. The "I don't know" mind-set is also an essential element in finding the truth in Zen and all of buddhism. With buddhism though these truths are more focused within one's own mental mechanics and thought processes rather than external things which are always ready to change and/or pass away. So my beliefs on Ron Paul and some conspiracy theories are subject to change one way or the other as time goes by. But I know that these things are simply judgements, not absolute truth by any means. I even have had doubts about aspects of buddhism, but as time passes and I gain more experience and closer acquaintance with it's extensive philosophy, my perceptions of it change and I frequently grow and see it in a new light or from a whole new angle. In other words, many AHA or Eureka moments occur as one delves deeper into the buddhadharma (teachings) which is highly encouraging and reaffirming of what was previously misapprehended by the student. Buddhism is a very flexible and adaptable religion at it's very core. It is not meant to be rigidly followed in any kind of mindless or mechanical way. The Dalai Lama himself is noted for saying that Buddhism is more of a science than a religion. I'm sure this sounds 'blasphemous' to some scientific minds, but the buddhist methods of meditation and "positive thinking" techniques for psychological healing actually ARE supported with evermore affirmative scientific data and research. Buddhism embraces science, and also states that if science ever disproves one of it's tenets of belief, then that belief is extinguished and not taught anymore. And BTW, the great majority of Buddhists don't believe in any God or gods. All the buddhas throughout time were human beings. Perhaps they are attributed with 'godlike qualities' such as boundless wisdom , compassion and symbolisms of other worldly illumination and auras, but nonetheless, they ate, slept and died just as we all do today. Buddhism just tries to bring out the most spiritual potential within us to try and make the world a more loving place. Any "supernatural" ideas in it are essentially not that important in the actual practice of the dharma. Rebirth/Reincarnation are only theories to imaginatively speculate on, not blindly believe as unquestionable reality or definite truth. In Buddhism, nothing is definite.

[paintpooper]

To all ron Paul supporters I ask you this:

So you think voting in Ron Paul, in a split Republican/democrat system that we have now, will FIX anything? Explain exactly what Ron Paul can fix by himself without having to go through congress or the senate, who will both be teamed up to oppose him?

Well in my opinion that shows something too. If the established government(which currently sucks) and establishment media(which sucks as well) are both united against one man, when they usually just fight each other, that shows something to me.

If not Ron then who can fix it? Obama? He is the system, he lied to us all and is just as crooked as the rest.
JFK and RFK were aware of the system, look what happened to them.

I'm not an expert on executive powers and what that branch of government can do without support from the judicial or legislative branches.

What I do know, is that the presidency gives you the pulpit to address the nation and spread a message, that is what we can hope for. It's not really changing laws or things on the books, but changing how the people view government and it's responsibility to us the people. Then in turn the people will wake up and pull the curtain back on this political theater that has been going on much to long.

If I walk into a BOA branch (who steals millions from Americans) and steal 100 dollars, I will goto jail a long time.
When a BOA executive steals 5 dollars every time you use an ATM, he only gets more money no jail. Because government has made rules protecting corporations the line between government and corporations is very slim today, its like communist fascism. The government controls the people by using private corporation, but they are all one in the same, as the government creates favorable laws for them, then Senator becomes CEO and vise-versa, why people don't give a shit about this is beyond me, its all out there.... mostly on the internet, then we wonder what these SOPA bills are really about.

That is one thing about Ron Paul. I believe even if bills like that passed senate congress, he would never sign them, and veto anything he could. Why the government thinks it has to continually create new laws all the time is crazy. Then they try to pass bills like SOPA and NDAA that actually have nothing to do with the current issues we all face daily.

I would love to have Dennis Kucinich or Bernie Sanders run against Obama, but they are not, or Noam or some intellectual leftist, but they are not. Ron Paul has a base, he is running, he has money, he has experience, I see it as the only viable option other then violent revolution at this point in time.

If you can get an techno-anarchist to run and have the support Ron does, ill vote for them, but that won't happen. So I see it as the option we have to make a change in this election cycle.

Its a joke, a farce, and I'm fucking tired of it.

[reverendjeremiah]

The question wasnt WHO could change things in the presidency, but HOW could they change it.

All Ron could be able to do to remove the dept of education was to incourage a bill to be introduced to remove it. It will then have to go through all of the comittees, House of reps, then the Senate and their committees and then, and only then, would he be able to sign the bill. Ron Paul would only have the powers of Veto and approval, and even his veto power can be circumvented by another pass through by congress and the senate.

Now, Ron Paul says he will stop the wars. But only the houses have the ability to declare and stop wars, not the president. So now Paul can pull some weight because he is commander in cheif of the armed forces (if he is president), but he CANNOT step up as a single leader and declare that the war against terror is over. congress and the Senate would bypass him and put him in his place, and even possibly take him up in front of the judicial branch to be investigated for trying to go beyond his executive powers.

this means Ron Paul could not stop the wars unless he has a MAJOR backing of the houses.

This also means that all of his campaign promises to shut down this dept or that would have to have a MAJOR backing of the houses as well, and I can tell you that he would not have enough support to close ANY of those depts.

So, in other words, voting in Ron Paul will not change SQUAT.

That is why I laugh about Ron Paul. He makes big claims that he will not be able to accomplish, and most of his followers do not understand the basics of our 3 tiered government.

The most he could do is pull our forces out of Libya, and that would be political suicide with our allies in Europe who depend on Libya for much of their oil.

Voting Ron Paul is a waste of a vote.