Ron Paul 2012

Carthoris, man, some folks just don't get it.

From ABOLITIONIST Lysander Spooner, the pamphlet "No Treason" written in 1870:

"Nearly a hundred years ago we professed to have got rid of all that religious superstition, inculcated by a servile and corrupt priesthood in Europe, that rulers, so called, derived their authority directly from Heaven; and that it was consequently a religious duty on the part of the people to obey them. We professed long ago to have learned that governments could rightfully exist only by the free will, and on the voluntary support, of those who might choose to sustain them. We all professed to have known long ago, that the only legitimate objects of government were the maintenance of liberty and justice equally for all. All this we had professed for nearly a hundred years. And we professed to look with pity and contempt upon those ignorant, superstitious, and enslaved peoples of Europe, who were so easily kept in subjection by the frauds and force of priests and kings.

Notwithstanding all this, that we had learned, and known, and professed, for nearly a century, these lenders of blood money (the Rothschilds) had, for a long series of years previous to the war, been the willing accomplices of the slave-holders in perverting the government from the purposes of liberty and justice, to the greatest of crimes. They had been such accomplices FOR A PURELY PECUNIARY CONSIDERATION, to wit, a control of the markets in the South; in other words, the privilege of holding the slave-holders themselves in industrial and commercial subjection to the manufacturers and merchants of the North (who afterwards furnished the money for the war). And these Northern merchants and manufacturers, these lenders of blood-money, were willing to continue to be the accomplices of the slave-holders in the future, for the same pecuniary considerations. But the slave-holders, either doubting the fidelity of their Northern allies, or feeling themselves strong enough to keep their slaves in subjection without Northern assistance, would no longer pay the price which these Northern men demanded. And it was to enforce this price in the future — that is, to monopolize the Southern markets, to maintain their industrial and commercial control over the South — that these Northern manufacturers and merchants lent some of the profits of their former monopolies for the war, in order to secure to themselves the same, or greater, monopolies in the future. These — and not any love of liberty or justice — were the motives on which the money for the war was lent by the North. In short, the North said to the slave-holders: If you will not pay us our price (give us control of your markets) for our assistance against your slaves, we will secure the same price (keep control of your markets) by helping your slaves against you, and using them as our tools for maintaining dominion over you; for the control of your markets we will have, whether the tools we use for that purpose be black or white, and be the cost, in blood and money, what it may.

On this principle, and from this motive, and not from any love of liberty, or justice, the money was lent in enormous amounts, and at enormous rates of interest. And it was only by means of these loans that the objects of the war were accomplished."

"Ending slavery" was merely a propaganda tool used by the north to gain support for thier war.

+ rep if I could give you some....so it is in word only for now...
 

Parker

Well-Known Member
from a miltary standpoint, pulling out of wars is incredibly hard. and war is expensive, but alot of your favorite republicans are makin money off of it. they dont wanna get out and yes we are run by "big corporation" not solely our presidente. i mean why didnt bush bring us home after 8 years? and no new wars have been started. libya is not a war, and if it was we aiont involved so, oh well.
No it's not hard. We leave the same we we went in. Pick up and go. Tell me why it's hard on Americans to leave. I want to know because no one has explained it yet.
Obama lied when he said he'd get us out or at best was so uninformed he should have kept his pie hole shut. Anything to get elected. If he was running a business he'd be fired.
Why mention Bush? What does Bush have to do with Obama except that they could pass for twins on policies? Involvement in the Middle East and bailouts. Yea tons of difference. But Obama is cooler so lets go with him. yes We Can. The lessor of two evils is still evil.
Libya not a war somehow makes our illegal involvement better???? Obama is a war monger just like his brother Bush.
We spend billions of dollars propping up dictators only to spend more money bringing them down. Not the first time. You haven't thought this through.
 

londonfog

Well-Known Member
To suggest slavery was ever at the same level in the north as the south is about as silly as it gets.
WTF when did I say that !!!!! see there you go changing history again...please show me were I said slavery was on the same level as the south ...you can't ....my argument was that they did start and have slaves in the north and how the American Revolution changed that...stop trying to change what people say... and to my point about about the south being more wicked then the north well I think you just answer that yourself...Thanks
To suggest slavery was ever at the same level in the north as the south is about as silly as it gets.
and this statement belows truly shows your mindset...you give this as fact when its really your opinion
The idea you should take away from this is that slaves didn't matter much to anyone at all at this point in history, North or South, with the exception of the slaves. Overall, no one cared about them or wanted them to be considered people unless it improved their position somehow. To try and say that this makes the North superior or the South inferior as far as morals is ignorant to say the least.
Not me I think it was a lot of people who felt slavery was wrong ( I would hope so )...but even still what I took from the Civil War was that you had two wicked sides..one way more wicked then the other, but both still wicked in its own right...both sides lost a lot men, families, property..now you can say whatever the reason you want for why the war started, began,whatever....but I believe they fought and dead (both sides) for the evil and wickedness that both participated in at one time or another...and the side that lost the most was the most evil and wicked of the two..again your statement made my point
To suggest slavery was ever at the same level in the north as the south is about as silly as it gets.
 

Carthoris

Well-Known Member
WTF when did I say that !!!!! see there you go changing history again...please show me were I said slavery was on the same level as the south ...you can't ....my argument was that they did start and have slaves in the north and how the American Revolution changed that...stop trying to change what people say... and to my point about about the south being more wicked then the north well I think you just answer that yourself...Thanks
"Again you make statements that shows how blind you are to this subject...Lets start with you saying "They didn't have slaves in the North for the most part, so freeing them didn't mean jack crap to the Northerners". How incorrect you are they did have slavery in the North in fact New Egland was one of the biggest slave trade hubs in the colonies, but with the American Revolution that changed in the North."
By saying my statement that slavery didn't exist in the North for the most past and that the North was one of the biggest slave hubs, you are trying to say slavery was big in the North. This is a complete falsehood. Id hazard a guess that most if not all states in South had more slaves than the entire North put together. New England was almost the entire North - how can it be a 'major slave hub' but only have 5-10% of slaves overall? So in closing, slavery barely existed in the North, so abolishing it meant jack crap to them.

and this statement belows truly shows your mindset...you give this as fact when its really your opinion
I also subsequently gave facts that proved my position. You notice you are the only one defending your position? It is because your position is lala land.
Not me I think it was a lot of people who felt slavery was wrong ( I would hope so )...but even still what I took from the Civil War was that you had two wicked sides..one way more wicked then the other, but both still wicked in its own right...both sides lost a lot men, families, property..now you can say whatever the reason you want for why the war started, began,whatever....but I believe they fought and dead (both sides) for the evil and wickedness that both participated in at one time or another...and the side that lost the most was the most evil and wicked of the two..again your statement made my point
This is why you are poisoned. Neither side was wicked. America had a tiny portion of slaves world wide - we founded a new country because we knew England was wrong with what she was doing. We were going towards freedom. Then as soon as we got away from her, we started doing it to ourselves. This is why the South rebelled. It had nothing to do with slavery, and the facts prove that. Once again, slavery was never at risk. If might makes right, then yes, fine, the North is very righteous in what they did.

You probably have some form of bud rot. You might want to cut the blackness and ignorance from your soul before you are engulfed.
 

londonfog

Well-Known Member
This is why you are poisoned. Neither side was wicked. America had a tiny portion of slaves world wide - we founded a new country because we knew England was wrong with what she was doing. We were going towards freedom. Then as soon as we got away from her, we started doing it to ourselves. This is why the South rebelled. It had nothing to do with slavery, and the facts prove that. Once again, slavery was never at risk. If might makes right, then yes, fine, the North is very righteous in what they did.

You probably have some form of bud rot. You might want to cut the blackness and ignorance from your soul before you are engulfed.
sorry to tell you but this country was wicked because of slavery back then ...glad to see we have come to do better...anytime you have to build a country on the back of someone else with force,rape,murder,torture,lies,hatred, etc...its wicked...and I guess that when we have to agree to disagree big time...I teach my kids the way I do because of people like you...never forget your past, but always reach for the better tomorrow..
 

OregonMeds

Well-Known Member
Why are you guys still debating slavery in the past when technically we're all slaves to money right now? You might think you are free, but if that were the case you'd be able to say fuck this system and just go off in the woods and live like your ancestors did off the land and off the grid.

But in reality you can't do that. You would be trespassing on private property, violating open hours of National Parks, violating codes for making fire to keep yourself warm or violating laws taking timber to feed your fire or erecting a building without a license or violating building codes, killing game or fishing without a license, or even if you owned your property and just farmed and weren't breaking sb510 or any of the other laws you would be expected to pay property taxes to keep the property you already own every year.

There is no way you can be free if you have to pay to keep the land _you already own_ every single year.

You are forced to work in some way or another, therefore slaves to some degree whether you want to believe it or not. Slaves to debt, slaves to interest, slaves to taxes. Nobody is whipping you, but still a slave.
 

londonfog

Well-Known Member
Why are you guys still debating slavery in the past when technically we're all slaves to money right now? You might think you are free, but if that were the case you'd be able to say fuck this system and just go off in the woods and live like your ancestors did off the land and off the grid.

But in reality you can't do that. You would be trespassing on private property, violating open hours of National Parks, killing game or fishing without a license, or even if you owned your property and just farmed and weren't breaking sb510 you would be expected to pay property taxes to keep the property you already own every year.

There is no way you can be free if you have to pay to keep the land _you already own_ every single year.

You are forced to work in some way or another, therefore slaves to some degree whether you want to believe it or not. Slaves to debt, slaves to interest, slaves to taxes. Nobody is whipping you, but still a slave.
sorry but my reality with this thing people call slavery now is nothing to the slavery of past...Hate when people try to change history and will always speak out when I see it done. but to get the convo back on track...Ron Paul ...ummmm...NO...don't like his views on the Civil rights vote of 64...Obama 2012
 

deprave

New Member
Old video


Ron Paul blasts his opponents with superior intellect.
[video=youtube;CWpICzxteMk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWpICzxteMk[/video]

On January 30th, 2008, Ron Paul debated Mitt Romney, John McCain and Mike Huckabee at the Reagan Library. In the debate, he overwhelmingly demonstrated himself and his intellect as the right choice for the office of President of the United States. He was right then and he's still right now. Republicans picked the wrong man in 2008. Hopefully they can get it right in 2012. Ron Paul is right on the economy, on foreign policy and he's right for America. ---- http://www.RonPaul2012.com | http://www.facebook.com/RonPaul12 | http://www.LibertyForest.com | http://www.facebook.com/ronpaul

As Ronald Reagan said of Congressman Paul back in 1978, "Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country."
 

londonfog

Well-Known Member
Old video


Ron Paul blasts his opponents with superior intellect.
[video=youtube;CWpICzxteMk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWpICzxteMk[/video]

On January 30th, 2008, Ron Paul debated Mitt Romney, John McCain and Mike Huckabee at the Reagan Library. In the debate, he overwhelmingly demonstrated himself and his intellect as the right choice for the office of President of the United States. He was right then and he's still right now. Republicans picked the wrong man in 2008. Hopefully they can get it right in 2012. Ron Paul is right on the economy, on foreign policy and he's right for America. ---- http://www.RonPaul2012.com | http://www.facebook.com/RonPaul12 | http://www.LibertyForest.com | http://www.facebook.com/ronpaul

As Ronald Reagan said of Congressman Paul back in 1978, "Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country."
deprave how will you get the Republicans to give him the nod ????
 

deprave

New Member
as Ronald Reagan said of Congressman Paul back in 1978, "Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country."

Tell them the truth about Ron Paul who is a great republican, a real republican, As Reagan said "Libertarianism is at the heart of the republican party".

The veterans stand behind Ron Paul, fact. :)


Ron Paul will win fiscal conservative and social conservative vote, fact. :)

Ron Paul will win independent vote, fact. :)

Ron Paul will win age 20-30 FACT :)

Ron Paul has got your back, fact. :)

RON PAUL REVOLUTION 2012
[video=youtube;ZK65eVjPqpQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZK65eVjPqpQ&feature=channel_video_title[/video]
 

deprave

New Member
[video=youtube;l1W8HEGzKQQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1W8HEGzKQQ&feature=channel_video_title[/video]
 

deprave

New Member
Afghanistan is now the longest war in American history, it cost us "10 billion dollars an hour. "

53% of troops interviewed thought "there was no end to the war" - Morale is low.
 

deprave

New Member
[video=youtube;lRmiBRpZVN8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRmiBRpZVN8[/video]

Congressman Ron Paul, chair of the Financial Services Monetary Policy Subcommittee, talks about the relationship between the Fed, inflation, and our national debt.

This hearing took place on Wednesday, May 11 and was entitled, ""Monetary Policy and the Debt Ceiling: Examining the Relationship Between the Federal Reserve and Government Debt." For more info: http://financialservices.house.gov/Calendar/EventSingle.aspx?EventID=239789
 

OregonMeds

Well-Known Member
Afghanistan is now the longest war in American history, it cost us "10 billion dollars an hour. "

53% of troops interviewed thought "there was no end to the war" - Morale is low.
Our government never wanted to exit or win hence no exit strategy. The goal is a permanent presence in all those countries, that is the win, a neverending occupation.

Afghan president confirms US demand for permanent bases

By Mike Head
11 February 2011

Afghan President Hamid Karzai has confirmed for the first time that the Obama administration has demanded the establishment of a system of permanent US military bases across the country, effectively laying the basis for an indefinite neo-colonial occupation.

Karzai stated that his government was negotiating with US officials on a range of strategic agreements, including the permanent bases. He said Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had discussed the issue with him during last week’s Munich Security Conference in Germany.

Referring to his discussions with US officials and senators, the Afghan president said: “Yes they want this [permanent bases] and we have been negotiating with them.” He made clear his readiness to oblige: “We believe that a long-term relationship with the United States is in the interest of Afghanistan.”

Karzai’s disclosure, made at a media conference on Tuesday in his fortified presidential place in Kabul, underscores the fraud of President Obama’s pledge that July 2011 would see the beginning of a withdrawal from Afghanistan. It also exposes the White House claim, adopted by last year’s Lisbon NATO conference, that the country’s security would be handed over to Afghan forces by 2014.

Washington’s plans further demonstrate that the protracted war in Afghanistan—now in its 10th year—is being waged not to defeat “terrorism” or promote democracy, but to secure US hegemony in Central Asia, one of the most energy-rich and geo-strategically vital regions of the globe.

When Obama announced his Afghanistan troop “surge”—doubling the number of US troops to 100,000 and the total NATO-led force to 150,000—he insisted that the US had no intentions of permanently occupying the country. In reality, plans are being drawn up for US military forces to stay for many more years, if not decades.

Karzai insisted that any long-term US bases would not be “used as base against other countries and that Afghanistan is not a place from where our neighbours could be threatened”. He also said he hoped for a relationship “that brings security to Afghanistan, that brings economic prosperity to Afghanistan and an end to violence”.

Nothing could be further from the truth. A number of Afghanistan’s neighbours, notably Iran, Pakistan and China, will necessarily regard the establishment of permanent US bases as threatening. Afghanistan will in effect become a staging post for operations in the region, as well as within the country. As for security and prosperity, the US invasion in 2001 has produced only destruction, carnage and impoverishment, and an indefinite military occupation will perpetuate the devastation.

Karzai claimed that any long-term agreement would need to be approved by the parliament and the Loya Jirga, the traditional assembly of tribal leaders. But his immediate statement of support in principle highlighted his subservience to Washington.

Just last month, Karzai’s spokesman Waheed Omer said the issue had not been discussed with the United States. Omer had been responding to a NBC news interview with senior US Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, who said he wanted the Obama administration to consider such permanent bases.

Graham made clear an intention to also send an intimidating signal to Pakistan, whose government is despised by ordinary Pakistanis for its collaboration in the bloody US war. Graham said the bases “would be a signal to Pakistan that the Taliban are never going to come back in Afghanistan,” which “could change their behaviour”. The Obama administration has been demanding that the Pakistan government and military escalate their involvement in the AfPak war.

Last August, the White House brought forward legislation to provide $1.3 billion in additional funds during fiscal year 2011 for “multiyear construction of military facilities in Afghanistan”. Among the plans were $100 million expansions for each of three major US air bases in strategically critical parts of the country: Shindand, in the west not far from the Iranian border; Camp Dwyer, in the southwest near Pakistan and Iran; and Mazar-i-Sharif, in the north, close to the former Soviet Central Asian republics and Russia. Another major US air base is at Bagram in the northeast, not far from borders with China and Pakistan.

The Pentagon is seeking to realise the central thrust of the October 2001 invasion—an unprecedented projection of American military power into the heart of Central Asia, the hotly contested region, rich in oil, gas and other minerals, opened up by the collapse of the Soviet Union. From the Afghan facilities, US air force bombers, surveillance flights and predator drones can dominate the region.

Over the past decade, the decline of the US economy and the rise of China have further intensified the scramble for supremacy over the region, which also sits astride crucial land, pipeline and shipping routes for energy supplies.

Permanent US military bases are also being established in Iraq, where some 50,000 US troops remain despite the Obama administration’s pretence of withdrawing all combat forces. The major facilities include Joint Base Balad in Iraq’s north, Camp Adder in southern Iraq, Al-Asad Air Base in the west and the Victory Base Complex around Baghdad International Airport.

The bases in Afghanistan provide headquarters for the escalating aerial bombings and attacks by special forces hit squads that play a central role in the Obama administration’s onslaught in the country. Camp Dwyer, a Marine base and air field in southern Helmand province, has been described by a Pentagon document as “a key hub” for special forces operations in southern Afghanistan, the scene of US offensives in both Helmand and Kandahar provinces.

According to US military statistics, American and allied aircraft are now flying about 10 bombing missions a day. In the first 29 days of January, NATO planes conducted 284 separate sorties, compared to 157 in January 2010. Under General David Petraeus, appointed by Obama to command the Afghanistan “surge,” there have been 3,620 “weapons sorties” over the past six months, double the 1,813 during a similar period under Petraeus’s predecessor, General Stanley McChrystal.

Obama’s surge has also featured the killing or capture of thousands of alleged Taliban militants by special operations forces; surface-to-surface missile attacks in Kandahar, Afghanistan’s second largest city with half a million people; tank operations in Helmand; and the demolition of three villages in the Arghandab River Valley.

In a February 7 interview with the Financial Times, Petraeus claimed there had been “very, very few civilian casualties in the course of these operations”. This bald-faced lie was thrown into relief by a report yesterday from the Afghanistan Rights Monitor group that an average of two children per day were killed in the fighting during 2010.

Of the 2,421 civilians the group registered as killed in security-related incidents, 739 were under the age of 18. It blamed NATO-led forces for 17 percent of the deaths, and “armed opposition groups” for two-thirds.

On Monday, another innocent child died. The NATO-led International Security Assistance Force announced that a child had been killed inadvertently in an air strike during coalition operations in Helmand.

Late last year, a UN report confirmed that civilian, as well as military, casualties in Afghanistan hit record levels in 2010, jumping by 20 percent in the first 10 months of 2010 compared with 2009.

Civilian casualties in NATO operations, often caused by air strikes and night raids, have deepened the popular opposition to the US-led occupation, an opposition that goes far beyond the Taliban. A Western media poll last December found that 73 percent of Afghans said US air strikes were “unacceptable”.

President Karzai and his regime have now agreed that this criminal and catastrophic enterprise—a linchpin of the Obama administration’s entire foreign policy—will extend indefinitely.

The author also recommends:
Obama orders new Afghan surge
[7 January 2010]
 

deprave

New Member
Good Morning and Happy Rapture Day Rollitup.

Maddow To Obama You'd Better Start Kissing Some Union Worker Ass Or Forget About Re-Election!


[video=youtube;gnJ7AeFOJyc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnJ7AeFOJyc[/video]

So now according to democrat Maddow, Ron Paul is not only the best republican candidate, but the republicans are most likely to win.

Ron Paul has got the crooks scared shitless by now. This years Ron Paul smear campaign is only warming up. Now that Obama threaten to give up part of Israel to Muslims this will be the aim of the next attacks on Ron Paul. They are going to push hard the usual smears and lies that electing Ron Paul will threaten Israels security and give the middle east to the muslims. This will be the republican talking point even more. We must explain to the social conservatives the truth about Ron Paul, the message to them is simple, Ron Paul is the only real republican, The Reagan republican, a veteran who is supported by veterans and places great importance on our national defense and understands our military the best. Ron Paul places importance on christian family values, he has delivered thousands of babies and been faithful to his wife for many years, Ron Paul is pro-life.

Furthermore, not only is Ron Paul a veteran with an impressive military career, HE IS THE ONLY VETERAN RUNNING!

RON PAUL RESPONDS TO OBAMA'S SPEECH
[video=youtube;IMXy-u8vqyE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMXy-u8vqyE[/video]

If we get to see Ron Paul vs Obama I am convinced at this point it could be a Ron Paul landslide victory, to early to tell but I like to be optimistic. The challenge for Ron Paul is convincing the Republicans to back him and hopefully to get more of the media to talk to him with serious questions instead of gossip. (Including his debate questions)

If the biast media takes him seriously and he wins the republican nomination, many democrats will vote for him. It is really looking up for Ron Paul lately as far as the republican nomination his opponents are all shills, Ron Paul has superior Intellect and Wisdom. We all know what happens when a straight talking veteran hits the primaries don't we? Yea we get George W Bush, John McCain, George Bush, Ronald Reagan...and now Ron Paul. It is clear as day this is now what the people want, the "age of Ron Paul" is upon us and the Ron Paul Revolution Continues....
 

londonfog

Well-Known Member
Wow how can you even look ahead saying Obama vs Paul...don't you think Paul needs to get out of his primary first...???? You really wasting energy if you not trying to get him past the primary...Its not Obama he needs to worry about right now...just saying;-)
 

deprave

New Member
"What The President Did Is A Slap In The Face Of The People Of Israel!" Rick Santorum


[video=youtube;Ak9okwnhpnk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ak9okwnhpnk[/video]


And so it begins as I predicted only hours ago, the psy-op against the american people begins, In an interview with Dick Santorum overnight torture guru, fraud, and prominent neocon . Dickface says that "one" of his opponents (ron paul, hes to scared to say the name) policy ideas would endanger Israel, fascist and friends try to get him to apologize or correct himself over the McCain incident but he just doesn't get it, he then attempts to advocate for torture with a smile on his face. Did someone tell this guy McCain was a POW Yet?

BOY ARE THEY SCARED OF RON PAUL OR WHAT?!?!? This makes how many of ron pauls opponents that made an ass of themselves in just the past two weeks? ALL OF THEM EXCEPT HERMAN CAIN HAVE PUBLICLY MADE AN ASS OF THEMSELVES IN JUST TWO WEEKS. This is why I am talking about Obama Vs Paul Londonfrog.
 

londonfog

Well-Known Member
"What The President Did Is A Slap In The Face Of The People Of Israel!" Rick Santorum


[video=youtube;Ak9okwnhpnk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ak9okwnhpnk[/video]


And so it begins as I predicted only hours ago, the psy-op against the american people begins, In an interview with Dick Santorum overnight torture guru, fraud, and prominent neocon . Dickface says that "one" of his opponents (ron paul, hes to scared to say the name) policy ideas would endanger Israel, fascist and friends try to get him to apologize or correct himself over the McCain incident but he just doesn't get it, he then attempts to advocate for torture with a smile on his face. Did someone tell this guy McCain was a POW Yet?

BOY ARE THEY SCARED OF RON PAUL OR WHAT?!?!? This makes how many of ron pauls opponents that made an ass of themselves in just the past two weeks? ALL OF THEM EXCEPT HERMAN CAIN HAVE PUBLICLY MADE AN ASS OF THEMSELVES IN JUST TWO WEEKS.
How do you compare Ron to Romney????
 
Top