More Ron Bashing

[reverendjeremiah]

Meh, I breifly flirted with Paulism years ago when his yard art started popping up in S. Florida. So I guess it's a little bit of my own disappointment with what seemed to be a great candidate until I actually looked. Every candidate puts out good ad copy in someones estimation, Ron Pauls ad copy actually triggered my very first bout of political cynicism..lol. I was disappointed to find that he was not the candidate that I was initially led to believe that he was.

And your story is about the same for most other Paulians. As long as you only know of what is on the surface, everything is fine. In fact Paul seems like a Prophet to some of his followers.

Once you crap the superficial open and look at the stuff inside, you realize it is chock full of conspiracy theories, racism, anti-constitutionalism, and other assorted nasty.

Its then that you realize that even when you point out a very obvious flaw in Paul, that his followers brush it off, or call you a liar.

His followers declare that those who blindly follow parties are screwing up. Yet they vote Ron Paul every single time they can, which makes them hypocrites. Its not okay for someone to vote Democrat all the time, but it is glorious and intelligent to always vote Ron Paul everytime.

I wash my hands of them.

[jediphobic]

I reject Ron Paul because Libertarianism makes the same mistake Communism made. We have to find a political system that works in the real world, not just name some philosophical ideal, and work towards that to the exclusion of all else. I'm sorry but I just don't think we can abandon people just because they happen to not have the particular subset of values, skills, and talents that our society happens to favor at the moment. When you can honestly say that everyone has control over their own genetics, environment, education, and talents, then I will believe that Libertarianism can work.

BTW, I realize that Ron Paul has a lot of other problems as well, I just don't feel like the implications of Libertarianism are mentioned often enough.

[Bgood]

Rev Jerry wrote

Now, since you made the claim that 9-11 was an inside job, and have used such a conspiracy theory to try to discredit me, I insist that you present all of the credible evidence that you have to prove that 9-11 was an inside job.

ALL the credible evidence???!!!!I would be here for days trying to gather it all, there is so much and you know it. But there is one very juicy piece of evidence that I found on Wikipedia that shows the U.S. government has indeed planned to perform a terrorist attck on American soil as a false flag operation before 911. It is called Operation Northwoods and here is an exerpt:

Operation Northwoods was a series of false-flag proposals that originated in 1962 within the United States government, and which the Kennedy administration rejected. [2] The proposals called for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), or other operatives, to commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities and elsewhere. These acts of terrorism were to be blamed on Cuba in order to create public support for a war against that nation, which had recently become communist under Fidel Castro.[3] One part of Operation Northwoods was to "develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington."

Operation Northwoods proposals included hijackings and bombings followed by the introduction of phony evidence that would implicate the Cuban government. It stated:

"The desired resultant from the execution of this plan would be to place the United States in the apparent position of suffering defensible grievances from a rash and irresponsible government of Cuba and to develop an international image of a Cuban threat to peace in the Western Hemisphere."

Several other proposals were included within Operation Northwoods, including real or simulated actions against various U.S. military and civilian targets. The plan was drafted by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, signed by Chairman Lyman Lemnitzer and sent to the Secretary of Defense. Although part of the U.S. government's Cuban Project anti-communist initiative, Operation Northwoods was never officially accepted; it was authored by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, but then rejected by President John F. Kennedy.

Things that make you go Hmmmmm...and then JFK got wasted.

[The Grand Nudger]

Pretty sure he asked you for evidence regarding 9/11. There's "so much" of it that all you could find was Operation Northwoods? Doesn't seem to mention flying planes into the Twin Towers. Don't believe any Cubans were implicated in 9/11. That elements of our government would consider attacking our own is hardly surprising, but that doesn't mean that they did, or would be able to pull it off as planned.

[reverendjeremiah]

ALL the credible evidence???!!!!I would be here for days trying to gather it all, there is so much and you know it.

No, I dont know it, and that is why I specifically asked you to show me specific evidence showing that 9-11 was an inside job. Please, in the future, refrain from suggesting that I "know it". I dont know it, and you need to prove it to me.

But there is one very juicy piece of evidence that I found on Wikipedia that shows the U.S. government has indeed planned to perform a terrorist attck on American soil as a false flag operation before 911. It is called Operation Northwoods and here is an exerpt:

I see. I ask for specific evidence pointing to an inside job for the 9-11 attacks, and you show me a failed suggestion to Kennedy about false flag jobs to get people to support a war with Cuba.

Things that make you go Hmmmmm...and then JFK got wasted.

Actually I dont think he got killed because of that. His last speech was about back room deals between corporations and politicians and he was planning on exposing it, that the American people deserved to know what was going on. They blasted his ass and kept the war going. Of course, I have ZERO evidence for any of this, so I must flat out say that I dont know. Im not going to suggest that "you know what I mean" when there is no way for you to know.

Now...

...is it possible that you can find evidence of an inside job for the 9-11 attacks?

[paintpooper]

ALL the credible evidence???!!!!I would be here for days trying to gather it all, there is so much and you know it.

No, I dont know it, and that is why I specifically asked you to show me specific evidence showing that 9-11 was an inside job. Please, in the future, refrain from suggesting that I "know it". I dont know it, and you need to prove it to me.

But there is one very juicy piece of evidence that I found on Wikipedia that shows the U.S. government has indeed planned to perform a terrorist attck on American soil as a false flag operation before 911. It is called Operation Northwoods and here is an exerpt:

I see. I ask for specific evidence pointing to an inside job for the 9-11 attacks, and you show me a failed suggestion to Kennedy about false flag jobs to get people to support a war with Cuba.

Things that make you go Hmmmmm...and then JFK got wasted.

Actually I dont think he got killed because of that. His last speech was about back room deals between corporations and politicians and he was planning on exposing it, that the American people deserved to know what was going on. They blasted his ass and kept the war going. Of course, I have ZERO evidence for any of this, so I must flat out say that I dont know. Im not going to suggest that "you know what I mean" when there is no way for you to know.

Now...

...is it possible that you can find evidence of an inside job for the 9-11 attacks?

Here is the JFK speech.
http://cuttingthroughthematrix.com/trans...peech.html

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm
The neo-cons wanted to go to Iraq... in 1998. Clinton refused. Look who all signed that letter. All Bush cabinet members. Wolfowitz, head of World Bank... appointed by GWB, in 2004.... Deputy defense secretary.. before that and.... below

"He is a leading neoconservative.[5] As Deputy Secretary of Defense, he was "a major architect of President Bush's Iraq policy and ... its most hawkish advocate."[6] Donald Rumsfeld in his interview with Fox News on February 8, 2011 said that Wolfowitz was the first to bring up Iraq after 9/11 attacks during a meeting at presidential retreat at Camp David."

He was the first to bring up Iraq after 9/11. Well of course him and Donald asked Clinton to attack Iraq.

Now the World Bank is doing business in Iraq, Libya.
http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL...74,00.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424...46022.html

Funny before neither country really needed foreign financing. Its all nation building, with loans with hug interest rates. In Libya usury(interest) was ILLEGAL.

Also the IMF can now do business.

http://www.imf.org/external/np/sec/pr/2011/pr11329.htm

Both of those institutions were created after/during WW2. For the concept of nation building and "helping" economies plagued by war. They practice usury. Interest. Like most modern banks. But usury was illegal for so many years in many countries, now it seems normal, but it is not, it actually hinders the economic growth of countries.

http://empirestrikesblack.com/2011/06/fl...-for-euro/

http://goldnothoney.wordpress.com/2011/0...%E2%80%99/

I don't know the truth on 9/11s, but you have to look at who benefited the most from it. I'm not stating I have evidence, I just look at who benefits from certain things, nothing is a coincidence.

[The Grand Nudger]

Are you entirely sure that he isn't talking about the Soviet Union (and Cold War) there Paint/Rev?

[paintpooper]

Are you entirely sure that he isn't talking about the Soviet Union (and Cold War) there Paint/Rev?

I'm not entirely sure, I think it was bankers/military/energy. All of the above. Here is another piece.

"The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know."

That sounds more like blowing the lid off some secrets?
And then his brother got killed too... I mean fuck, they knew something.
And his brother got killed when it looked like he would get the nomination in '68.

[The Grand Nudger]

Sounds alot like a damning indictment of the Soviet Union and an opinion that it would be pointless to defend ourselves against the threat of the Soviet Union if, in doing so, we became indistinguishable from the same....

You're ignoring that The Kenneddy's were demonized by political factions that catered to complete fucking nutballs, and that said nutballs do nutball shit.

[reverendjeremiah]

Are you entirely sure that he isn't talking about the Soviet Union (and Cold War) there Paint/Rev?

I will need time to run through all of this that paint posted. I am familliar with some of it. I have a gig to play tonight, so I probably will not get to it immediately. Give me some time