Atlantis Online
September 16, 2019, 01:34:01 am
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: FARMING FROM 6,000 YEARS AGO
http://www.thisislincolnshire.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=156622&command=displayContent&sourceNode=156618&contentPK=18789712&folderPk=87030
 
  Home Help Arcade Gallery Links Staff List Calendar Login Register  

The Ron Paul Campaign - Promoted by Alex Jones' Conspiracy Believers

Pages: [1] 2   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: The Ron Paul Campaign - Promoted by Alex Jones' Conspiracy Believers  (Read 87 times)
KMFDM
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 2114



« on: December 04, 2007, 10:54:44 am »

Let's examine how Ron Paul's campaign was started, shall we?  He first came to people's attention in the Republican debates - the one voice of reason (in a chorus of Republican war cheerleaders).  You might remember he had an argument with Guiliani during one of the debates.

Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich, and virtually all the people in the Democratic field have the same position.

How did he become the preference of most on the fringe of politics?  He was endorsed by Alex Jones, who actively promotes him on his website, forum, etc., ignoring Paul's strange ideas, while talking up everything else.  Ron Paul is simply a creation of the Alex Jones media machine.  Without Jones to promote him, Ron Paul would be nowhere.
Report Spam   Logged

Trent
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 4456



« Reply #1 on: December 04, 2007, 03:12:03 pm »

Yeah, I don't get it either.
Report Spam   Logged

"That which does not kill us, makes us stronger."
Volitzer
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 11110



« Reply #2 on: December 05, 2007, 02:08:07 am »

What has Alex Jones been proven wrong about ??   Angry

Go back to COININTEL HQ, you can't sell that crap around here.
Report Spam   Logged
KMFDM
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 2114



« Reply #3 on: December 06, 2007, 12:55:59 am »

What has he been proven right about?

The answer: nothing.

It's all a bunch of assumptions that plays on the paranoia of people like yourself. It's entertaining, but there isn't any solid proof behind any of it.

However, this topic isn't about Alex Jones, but rather the fact that Ron Paul's success (such as it is) is simply the result of Alex Jones pushing Ron Paul towards people like yourself.

Just as the religious right has their leaders, so do conspiracy theorists - Alex Jones.



Report Spam   Logged
Volitzer
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 11110



« Reply #4 on: December 06, 2007, 02:32:00 am »

Go read the PNAC and the SPP documents.  Where Dick Cheney states that "We need a 'Peral Harbor type event to gain unity and usher in a North American Union."

He predicted 9/11 in July of 2001.

He's got $#!t loads of documents of the Illuminati's NWO plan to exterminate 80% of us.  You think all these lead toys and thimerisol laced vaccines are a co-incidence??  People get these vaccinations then get sick and die afterwards.

Besides what does KMFDM stand for ?? 
« Last Edit: December 06, 2007, 02:36:55 am by Volitzer » Report Spam   Logged
Tom Hebert
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 1370


« Reply #5 on: December 06, 2007, 06:48:54 am »

Some of them are paranoid, some of them are naive, some of them want something for nothing and a few of them are illegal tax protesters!   Angry
Report Spam   Logged
Volitzer
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 11110



« Reply #6 on: December 07, 2007, 02:43:29 am »

Right !!!!   Roll Eyes  All this coming from a guy who thinks the Federal-Reserve's fractional reserve lending practices and loan sharking interest hikes are all part of a normal "business cycle".

Now the President is getting involved to help homeowners, isn't that nice the Federal Reserve start the whole adjustable rate mortagege racket and now our beloved President is coming to the rescue with a solution.

Okay now can we see the Problem-Reaction-Solution politics taking place in the real-estate market Huh   Angry
Report Spam   Logged
KMFDM
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 2114



« Reply #7 on: December 07, 2007, 01:39:21 pm »

Some of them are paranoid, some of them are naive, some of them want something for nothing and a few of them are illegal tax protesters!   Angry


That's a good way to put it, Tom.  I think that Ron Paul attracts the anti-establishment types. The establishment is bad, but you are better off putting someone in there who honestly wants to fix it as opposed to make the kinds of changes he is talking about, which are unrealistic and (if implemented) would hurt a lot more than they would help.

Social programs, for instance.  The elimination of all of them like he wants would only hurt the poor.  He doesn't even believe in Social Security.
Report Spam   Logged
KMFDM
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 2114



« Reply #8 on: December 07, 2007, 01:42:58 pm »

Go read the PNAC and the SPP documents.  Where Dick Cheney states that "We need a 'Peral Harbor type event to gain unity and usher in a North American Union."

He predicted 9/11 in July of 2001.

He's got $#!t loads of documents of the Illuminati's NWO plan to exterminate 80% of us.  You think all these lead toys and thimerisol laced vaccines are a co-incidence??  People get these vaccinations then get sick and die afterwards.

Besides what does KMFDM stand for ?? 

I think that the Council for a New American Century said that (of which Cheney is a member of) but not Cheney himself. 

Ron Paul does NOT think that 9/11 was a conspiracy and that the government was involved, at least as far as I know.  People gravitate to him because they like his stands against NAFTA and the war in Iraq, he doesn't buy into any of the 9/11 speculation, at least as far as I have heard.  He's a likable fellow, but let's not put words in his mouth.
Report Spam   Logged
Volitzer
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 11110



« Reply #9 on: December 08, 2007, 01:36:33 am »

Some of them are paranoid, some of them are naive, some of them want something for nothing and a few of them are illegal tax protesters!   Angry


That's a good way to put it, Tom.  I think that Ron Paul attracts the anti-establishment types. The establishment is bad, but you are better off putting someone in there who honestly wants to fix it as opposed to make the kinds of changes he is talking about, which are unrealistic and (if implemented) would hurt a lot more than they would help.

Social programs, for instance.  The elimination of all of them like he wants would only hurt the poor.  He doesn't even believe in Social Security.

Right getting rid of the Federal-Reserve and the IRS would just hurt so many people.    Roll Eyes

Being anti-social program means less government in peoples' lives.  If the government wasn't givng corporations tax incentives to move offshore then there would be less need for welfare and food-stamps.  Many social programs are the 'solution' phase in the whole problem-reaction-solution agenda of politics.   Angry

Going to a fairtax system in which the money spent is taxed and not earned would really send the American economy into high gear.  Not sending our state and federal tax money withheld to the Federal-Reserve only to be loan-sharked to Americans later.
Report Spam   Logged
Volitzer
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 11110



« Reply #10 on: December 08, 2007, 01:43:04 am »

Go read the PNAC and the SPP documents.  Where Dick Cheney states that "We need a 'Peral Harbor type event to gain unity and usher in a North American Union."

He predicted 9/11 in July of 2001.

He's got $#!t loads of documents of the Illuminati's NWO plan to exterminate 80% of us.  You think all these lead toys and thimerisol laced vaccines are a co-incidence??  People get these vaccinations then get sick and die afterwards.

Besides what does KMFDM stand for ?? 

I think that the Council for a New American Century said that (of which Cheney is a member of) but not Cheney himself. 

WRONG !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Cheney's words exactly, read the PNAC documents.

Ron Paul does NOT think that 9/11 was a conspiracy and that the government was involved, at least as far as I know.  People gravitate to him because they like his stands against NAFTA and the war in Iraq, he doesn't buy into any of the 9/11 speculation, at least as far as I have heard.  He's a likable fellow, but let's not put words in his mouth.

It's called playing to your audience, many potential voters are your Joe ESPN and Linda Lifetime types who rarely think of politics and are all to willing to lump conspiracy truthers as conspiracy theorists.  Deep down I think he knows, he just won't advertise this fact.
Report Spam   Logged
Tom Hebert
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 1370


« Reply #11 on: December 08, 2007, 05:39:27 am »

Some of them are paranoid, some of them are naive, some of them want something for nothing and a few of them are illegal tax protesters!   Angry


That's a good way to put it, Tom.  I think that Ron Paul attracts the anti-establishment types. The establishment is bad, but you are better off putting someone in there who honestly wants to fix it as opposed to make the kinds of changes he is talking about, which are unrealistic and (if implemented) would hurt a lot more than they would help.

Social programs, for instance.  The elimination of all of them like he wants would only hurt the poor.  He doesn't even believe in Social Security.

I agree with you that he does provide some entertainment for this election, but that's about it.  I don't know how old you are, but we went through all of this anti-establishment mess in the '60s.  Finally the baby boomers realized that life just doesn't work that way.  You have to build on what has already been accomplished.

Speaking of entertainment, I have really enjoyed seeing the Republican candidates take nasty potshots at each other.  What happened to their rubber-stamp unity?  They're acting more like rats on a sinking ship.

Tom
« Last Edit: December 08, 2007, 05:40:13 am by Tom Hebert » Report Spam   Logged
Joanna
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 2120



« Reply #12 on: December 08, 2007, 03:07:30 pm »

Some of them are paranoid, some of them are naive, some of them want something for nothing and a few of them are illegal tax protesters!   Angry


That's a good way to put it, Tom.  I think that Ron Paul attracts the anti-establishment types. The establishment is bad, but you are better off putting someone in there who honestly wants to fix it as opposed to make the kinds of changes he is talking about, which are unrealistic and (if implemented) would hurt a lot more than they would help.

Social programs, for instance.  The elimination of all of them like he wants would only hurt the poor.  He doesn't even believe in Social Security.

Right getting rid of the Federal-Reserve and the IRS would just hurt so many people.    Roll Eyes

Being anti-social program means less government in peoples' lives.  If the government wasn't givng corporations tax incentives to move offshore then there would be less need for welfare and food-stamps.  Many social programs are the 'solution' phase in the whole problem-reaction-solution agenda of politics.   Angry

Going to a fairtax system in which the money spent is taxed and not earned would really send the American economy into high gear.  Not sending our state and federal tax money withheld to the Federal-Reserve only to be loan-sharked to Americans later.

We'd all like to get rid of the IRS, but Ron Paul does not advocate less government interference in people's lives, he's all for laws protecting the fetus, which is an intrusion on people's lives.  He's not even a true Libertarian.

As for getting rid of the IRS, you don't think they would find some other way to try and get your money?  More than likely, it would be more privatization - collection agencies trying to get your money instead. 

They should curb the power of the IRS, with a taxpayer's "bill of rights" invented instead.
Report Spam   Logged
Volitzer
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 11110



« Reply #13 on: December 09, 2007, 02:57:21 am »

If you would research the invalid ratification of the 16th Amendment you'd see that the founding fathers made it clear on purpose that the individual was to be tax free and companies were the ones to be taxed.
Report Spam   Logged
Volitzer
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 11110



« Reply #14 on: December 09, 2007, 02:58:45 am »

This is my absolute favorite anti-income-tax argument. Most claims that Americans aren't required to pay income tax rely on legal interpretations so tortured only a tax resister could possibly believe them. But the Ohio thing has just enough plausibility to give even sane people pause.
It all started when Ohio was preparing to celebrate the 150th anniversary of its admission to the Union in 1953. Researchers looking for the original statehood documents discovered there'd been a little oversight. While Congress had approved Ohio's boundaries and constitution, it had never passed a resolution formally admitting the future land of the Buckeyes. Technically, therefore, Ohio was not a state.
Predictably, when this came to light it was the subject of much merriment. One senator joshingly suggested that his colleagues from Ohio were drawing federal paychecks under false pretenses.
But Ohio congressman George Bender thought it was no laughing matter. He introduced a bill in Congress to admit Ohio to the Union retroactive to March 1, 1803. At a special session at the old state capital in Chillicothe the Ohio state legislature approved a new petition for statehood that was delivered to Washington on horseback. Congress subsequently passed a joint resolution, and President Eisenhower, after a few more jokes, signed it on August 7, 1953.
But then the tax resisters got to work. They argued that since Ohio wasn't officially a state until 1953, its ratification of the 16th Amendment in 1911 was invalid, and thus Congress had no authority to enact an income tax.
Baloney, argued rational folk. A sufficient number of states voted for ratification even if you don't count Ohio.
OK, said the resisters, but the proposed amendment had been introduced to Congress by the administration of William H. Taft. Taft had been born in Cincinnati, Ohio, in 1857. The Constitution requires that presidents be natural-born citizens of the United States. Since Ohio was not a state in 1857, Taft was not a natural-born citizen, could not legally be president, and could not legally introduce the 16th Amendment. (Presumably one would also have problems with anything done by presidents Grant, Hayes, Garfield, B. Harrison, McKinley, and Harding, who were also born in Ohio.)
Get off it, the rationalists replied. The 1953 resolution retroactively admitted Ohio as of 1803, thereby rendering all subsequent events copacetic.
Uh-uh, said the resisters. The constitution says the Congress shall make no ex post facto law. That means no retroactive admissions to statehood.
Uh, we'll get back to you on that, said the rationalists.
A call to the IRS elicited the following official statement: "The courts have . . . rejected claims that the Sixteenth Amendment . . . was not properly ratified. . . . In Porth v. Brodrick, 214 F.2d 925 (10th Circuit 1954), the court dismissed an attack on the Sixteenth Amendment as being 'clearly unsubstantial and without merit,' as well as 'far fetched and frivolous.'"
Just one problem. The Porth decision didn't specifically address the Ohio argument. It just sort of spluttered that attacks on the 16th Amendment were stupid.
OK, they're stupid. But great matters have turned on seemingly sillier points of law. It's not like the Ohio argument couldn't have been defeated on the merits. One suspects that from a legal standpoint "ex post facto" doesn't mean exactly the same thing as "retroactive." And of course the weight of 150 years of history, during which time everyone thought Ohio had been properly admitted, ought to count for something.
I'm not defending the crackpots. But if you're a parent you recognize that "because I said so" isn't much of an argument. Guess it's different if you're a judge.
Report Spam   Logged
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
SMF For Free - Create your own Forum
Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy