[split from Ron Paul ends campaigning, but stays in the race for GOP nomination]
Some of this I have already stated (sorry for repetition), but here is my basic outline of this:
Cynical thought about the Ron Paul campaign Every campaign says, "we are still moving ahead...blah blah blah, what best for America." Gingrich, Cain, Perry, and Santorum all said that they were still going to push their agendas...it is basic PR; 101 type stuff. Every campaign still tries to influence the people who are loyal to it. Paul isn't doing anything special. This nonsense going around that "Ron Paul didn't end his campaign" is starting to freak me out. Are the Paul supporters as delusional as others have said and I not noticed it? I held no bones about this being a revolution. I took the word coup seriously when used to describe Paul's State GOP and delegate election success. That is what it was; a big middle finger to the mainstream process. They took over the party apparatus outside of the wishes of the majority of the party's constituency. It is an unavoidable fact. Whether they played by the rules in doing so is irrelevant. The Paul campaign has copped out after they realized that the RNC will get violent (in the wake of AZ and OK being comparatively worse than the other states). 'If the Paul delegates really think they are going to get away with voting to suspend the rules on live TV, they've got another thing coming.' The GOP will have them arrested on live TV and, I think, Paul is trying to prevent that at the very least. (I realize it might not quite be live tv.) I mean, seriously, Benton is encouraging me to vote? That kind of thing offends me. I mean, vote? A lot of good that did in the primary, eh, Benton? You go vote for something. Pfft. Not to mention I'm starting to think Webster Tarpley may have been right about Paul all along. Whether known or not, Paul has been used by Romney. Tarpley held the whole campaign that Huntsman and Paul were strategically chosen by Romney, because they were the most moderate and leftist, to be 'wingmen' allies to derail the possible success of any truly competitive clique (which turned out to be the Santorum evangelicals). It wouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure out Romney knew all along that the religious right would be his worst enemy during the primary, either. Possibly circumstantial evidence follows. Think of this, the PAC "Endorse Liberty" is a front for Romney. A Bilderberg steering member, Peter Thiel, almost singlehandedly bankrolled its "pro-Paul" operations, until it decided to support Romney so they can beat Obama, and, oh yeah, it is run by Mormons from Salt Lake City, Utah... Now I'm not saying every person must have the same thoughts based on a group they belong to, but...well...what do they say about birds of a feather?
Now, before I get to Romney's strategy with Paul I'll point out the obvious. Ron Paul's economic policy would have involved businesses like Bain Capital. Liquidating good assets from bad compaines? Who does that sound like? Romney in his private life? I submit that this is a strong factor in Paul's lack of criticism of Romney during the primary. Sure, Paul can bag on him for flip flopping and health care, their wives get along, but not over "I like firing people" comments as the liberals, and Gingrich and Santorum even, seized upon. Romney "liked Pauls supporters enthusiasm" because we are motivated and active, and we worked for him, for free. The fact that we have the potential to take over and run things was used to scare enough mainstream people out into voting for Santorum and Romney. "Anarchists that want to legalize drugs and prostitution?!?!?" That is what Romney wanted people to think. The disillusioned mainstream voter becomes active when they see "radical" things being promoted. Any clever GOP operative could have creeped on the Mises forum and understood the political fields that are meshed together here. For some reason I don't think the GOP (ROVE, KARL ROVE; shit flower or whatever Bush called him) or the likes of the those who attend Bilderberg are new at this; cointel. Paul served that purpose. They used us like we use protesters in other countries. How could we not see it? And Romney now has a base that is aware of the arcane nature of electoral rules and how to fight against a group that is attempting to exploit them. They may be able to use this strategy and the data against Obama (who will assuredly win the popular vote) as well. That is Romney and TPTBs grand strategy. And if you think this is absurd, look at Romney's advisers. It is Bush's team, from foreign policy to security and PR reps (Rubio will be the VP; best guess or Petraeus). How did they win in 2000? Did it have anything to do with arcane rules usurping the perceived democratic process? ... That pesky popular vote is problem for everyone...except the liberals and the progressive/socialist propaganda angle (the most effective one by far; religion ain't got sh**). Those delegates have a hell of a bed to make. (Make no mistake, I remain somewhat optimistic for the convention possibilites.)
I'd hate to be proven right.
Here's another view: if the movement falters because of this, then maybe it could be said that the movement failed Ron Paul, not the other way around. I thought the movement was supposed to be about the ideas, not about getting Ron Paul elected President (or Rand a VP slot now or the Presidency in 2016, etc.).
In any case, this is why I don't like electoral politics.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
maybe it could be said that the movement failed Ron Paul, not the other way around.
They are symboitic.
Paul commands a kind of emotional/personal respect that dead economists and philosophers cannot.
True, he's a living, breathing person.
Personally, I think the movement should start channeling some more Mohandas Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. and decouple itself from electoral politics. But that's just me.
That is Romney and TPTBs grand strategy
First of all, I don't think the Romney campaign or anybody anticipated the absolute levels of enthusiasm for Ron Paul in this campaign. So, they couldn't plan on something that was only realized in hindsight. Do you think Romney meant to book Detroit stadium and have it turn up empty?? Get real.
Second, even if you were right - so what? Romney is not a serious opposition to Obama. All these paper-polls showing Romney being a close challenge to Obama are going to be shown to be wishful thinking come November. Obama v. Romney is a landslide Obama re-election. Which is precisely why TPTB asked him to run and lose against Obama - they will trumpet the outcome of their phony baloney election as "a renewal of the Obama mandate". Doesn't matter that there isn't a dime's difference between the two.
Third, we win no matter what. I keep repeating this. It's important not to lose sight of this fact. Change will not come from within the political apparatus in any case. It's hopelessly far gone, just look at the absurd $60-$100 TRILLION in unfunded Federal obligations. That's more than the entire world GDP! Sure, that's a political system that's going to last. When this house of cards comes crashing down, the entire country is going to be ripe for an ideological shift and Ron Paul is leading the fastest-growing, freshest and most invigorating movement in living memory. This movement has been here all along but the Establishment has marginalized it using all kinds of boogey-men and straw-men (they want to fill our cities with drugs and prostitutes!) but what credibility will this Establishment have after they've bankrupted our once-great society?
Clayton -
Clayton:When this house of cards comes crashing down, the entire country is going to be ripe for an ideological shift and Ron Paul is leading the fastest-growing, freshest and most invigorating movement in living memory.
Or humanity wipes itself out in the Last War. Just sayin'.
Perhaps I'm crazy but I'm not actually that worried about "humanity" wiping itself out. Perhaps the US may be reduced to rubble in some chest-pounding war the Pentagon picks with China and Russia through Iran. If things start going that route, I will begin to consider taking more drastic steps for self-preservation.
Romney is not a serious opposition to Obama. All these paper-polls showing Romney being a close challenge to Obama are going to be shown to be wishful thinking come November.
Now, I know you're not gonna call me out the Romney foresight thing, then claim something like this...Obama has done some drastic things to garner support. He is desperate too.
Romney does have support of the people who are blind enough to think he is different from Obama. I've tried talking to some of them, but there are a lot.
You also cannot claim that the country is "ripe for ideological change" and say that Obama's support is unwavering. TPTB are just hedging their bets.
Which is precisely why TPTB asked him to run and lose against Obama
There are factions within TPTB...and, frankly, public perception does matter in this regard. The GOP may be infiltrated by the DNC, which is what happened to McCain in 2008, and that could be why they are doing some of the strategic things that they are doing. I don't think Tarpley is an idiot and the Bush team aren't either.
Third, we win no matter what. I keep repeating this.
I know. In a way I agree, Rothbard, Mises, and Hayek were all added to the political thought classes at my university in two years, and in a way I think this is part of the delusion. If you ask a girl to marry you and she says, "egghh, maybe" and you walk away thinking "Awesome. I won because she's considering." Nothing has changed except your perception of their perception, which may not even be true.
It's hopelessly far gone, just look at the absurd $60-$100 TRILLION in unfunded Federal obligations.
Where has the Establishment admitted to that?
Ron Paul is leading the fastest-growing, freshest and most invigorating movement in living memory.
Or at least he was, until his campaign thinks that the convention might get out of hand. The convention that could bring an infinitie amount of credibility to the cause that is. If the GOP gets its way, Paul won't even be there.
This movement has been here all along but the Establishment has marginalized it using all kinds of boogey-men and straw-men
You sound like Condie Rice and the planes on 9/11, "I don't think we could have forseen..planes...as missles..."
I don't think the Romney campaign or anybody anticipated the absolute levels of enthusiasm for Ron Paul
What a wildly ironic allegory that was.
Clayton:Getting RP into the Presidency won't "change" anything - the Presidency is not the highest authority in the land, Goldman Sachs, Lockheed-Martin and CIA are.
I like your optimism, but this is just nonsense. To suggest that
-bringing hundreds of thousands of troops home,
-closing bases around the world,
-pardoning harmless drug law offendors and getting them out of their cages,
-not pursuing enforcement of unconstitional federal drug laws at all, let alone in states where their own laws contradict the federal mandate,
-vetoing any unconstitutional bill (and everyone knowing he will),
-putting at least one, perhaps two or even three justices that he approves of on the Supreme Court,
-severely rolling back federal spending (at least in the Executive areas he has direct control over),
-rolling back the TSA,
-appointing people he approves of to the thousand or so positions every president must fill throughout the Executive Branch and beyond
-making moves to roll back the CIA and other abc agencies
-spending 4 years making statements that he has made for the past 30 years, but with the Presidential Seal behind him
..."wouldn't change anything" is pretty ridiculous. Obviously these would be "changes" in the immediate sense to begin with...but on top of that, if you honestly believe they wouldn't also move to change the political discourse and public perception of a lot of things, I think you're being naive.
The biggest roadblock to RP ever getting the nomination was ironically enough his supporters.
Look how easy they are to troll / get played
http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/tygrrrr-express/2012/may/14/ron-paul-says-stuff-supporters-cheer-world-atlas-s/#disqus_thread
Obviously these would be "changes"
Which is why - even if RP were to secure the Presidency - they are very unlikely to happen. Getting elected only gets you in the door. While the President has all sorts of powers on paper, that doesn't mean he could actually exercise them. Note that the Secret Service is a bit like the border fence... it can be used to trap the President as well as it can to keep him safe.
And of course, you're absolutely right that just him being there and fighting the fight would get massive publicity far surpassing anything we've gotten up to this point in time. So, I definitely want him to win. It's just that - in reality - he will be instantly facing immense obstacles to achieving every single one of the items in his platform.
Obama's support is unwavering
Nope, but Obama will easily be able to get the Dem base into the voting booth, guaranteeing his 45-50%. But Romney's support is downright anemic. Republicans will be staying away in droves and Romney will not attract a single swing or independent vote except Mormons... all 100,000 of them or whatever.
So, yeah, Romney v. Obama is a landslide for Obama. My prediction: Obama 55-to-35.
Clayton:First of all, I don't think the Romney campaign or anybody anticipated the absolute levels of enthusiasm for Ron Paul in this campaign. So, they couldn't plan on something that was only realized in hindsight. Do you think Romney meant to book Detroit stadium and have it turn up empty??
Uh...yeah. Psh. You think they'd actually do something like that by accident? As if. The Bilderberg Tri Lateral CFR commission committee of axis of evil that controls every move you make wouldn't have something like that happen by chance. I mean George Soros controls the weather. You didn't think something like stadium attendance was out of their control, did you?
Aristophanes:Where has the Establishment admitted to [$60-$100 TRILLION in unfunded Federal obligations]?
Reports on it can be found:
Here, here, here. (Of course I could post more, but this should be sufficient.)
The Bilderberg Tri Lateral CFR commission committee of axis of evil that controls every move you make
Cause Clayton never talks about that angle of things. Attendance to these menail events doesn't matter. Look at Paul's attendance; dropped out.
I mean George Soros controls the weather.
You include BS like this because... why? You are afraid that Tarpley was right all along and you've been duped? We all know how think tanks work, but when it comes to us being fooled by them..."No, no, no. Impossible. To suggest that is to say that Soros controls the weather." A standard response by someone in denial. A foolish red herring that doesn't address the point made.
We all admit that the FBI entraps terrorists with cointel, but can cointel be used in other contexts? "Absolutely not. You might as well say aliens probed Paul himself they could never pull one over on us."
Right?
EDIT: If there are other here who think Paul was somehow threatened and then we know that the Bush team is behind Romney...can we think of Hinkleys dinner date with Bush's son the night after the assassination attempt? Reagan stood up and spoke out against the trilateral commission when Bush Sr. was running against him (accusing it of being a shadow world government). But then he picks Bush, a founding member of the TC, for his VP.
and don't forget
ooohoooo ohoho Soros controls the weeeeaaatthheerr
Aristophanes:I mean George Soros controls the weather.You include BS like this because... why?
Because it's funny. And possibly true?
You are afraid that Tarpley was right all along and you've been duped?
Not at all.
We all know how think tanks work, but when it comes to us being fooled by them..."No, no, no. Impossible.
What think tank do you think you were fooled by?
To suggest that is to say that Soros controls the weather." A standard response by someone in denial. A foolish red herring that doesn't address the point made.
...or funny joke? mmmm. Mysterious mysteries we'll never know.
We all admit that the FBI entraps terrorists with cointel, but can cointel be used in other contexts? "Absolutely not. You might as well say aliens probed Paul himself they could never pull one over on us." Right?
Wait...you're suggesting Ron Paul is an FBI plant? Seriously?
Hehe. See? Three times in a single post. I knew you'd like it.
You are afraid that Tarpley was right all along and you've been duped? Not at all.
Just unwilling to address it, huh?
Clever girl, JJ. I'm thinking it is the people that still think Paul has not dropped out that are being fooled. My example, to which you witlessly replied, was simply that the GOP and/or other campaigns employ the same strategies that think tanks theorize and employ.
Do you know what "other contexts" means? All I referred to was the "tactic" of counter intelligence. It doesn't require the FBI to be involved.
What an imaginative critically thinking reader you are.
Aristophanes:What an imaginative critically thinking reader you are.
Thanks. I try.
P.S.
For the record, I didn't intend for you to get all bent out of shape about my crack to Clayton. I honestly didn't even notice it was you he was responding to. I honestly just saw his question about the empty stadium and thought a sarcastic response to him would be funny. You're very sensitive.
:EDIT:
Well now that you've gone back and added a bunch of quotations and responses, I guess I have to edit my post too, otherwise you might accuse me of "dodging".
Aristophanes:Just unwilling to address it, huh?
I didn't think there was anything to address. It was yawny enough to begin with, but Clayton already responded with a pretty long post of his own, so I didn't see a real need for it.
Clever girl, JJ.
That's me. Like a raptor.
I'm thinking it is the people that still think Paul has not dropped out that are being fooled. My example, to which you witlessly replied, was simply that the GOP and/or other campaigns employ the same strategies that think tanks theorize and employ.
If you say so!
The Webster Tarpley audio that someone is so proud of and finds so convincing:
It actually kind of blew me away to hear this. And it's actually kind of funny to realize someone finds this mumbler and his drivel convincing. I honestly thought there was going to be something of substance...something even warranting any amount of thought or consideration or...something. "A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for Romney". Oh. Wow. Interesting. Tell me more. "Well you see there's a deal in place. See you're a Ron Paul supporter, so you don't get this because you're more obtuse than an Obama supporter. But watch the debates. Ron Paul never attacks Romney. They're in cahoots. That's how I know. I mean, I'm a genius, so you know. But you know what, dear friend, you don't even have to be a genius like I am. Just watch the debates with your eyes open. He doesn't attack Romney. Ergo, Ron Paul is working for Romney. Ron Paul attacks the frontrunner of the anti-Romney vote. He's obviously not trying to get that vote for himself. He's just running interference for Romney."
And definitely listen after that part ,starting at 17:51...he claims that the (sham) anti-Romney/Bain film (which was proven to be full of lies and outright distortions) showed how Romney was a hyena and "guess who came out to defend him...Ron Paul!"
First of all, the film was such a sham that even individuals interviewed in the film went on national television to state that their comments were taken out of context to a point at which the subject matter their audio was used to lend support to, wasn't even what they were talking about when they made the statements. The Washington Post pointed out plenty of fallacies and gave the film "four Pinocchios".
Gingrich himself ended up having to make a public statement to the PAC that was airing the film, telling them to "either edit every single mistake or pull the entire film."
But of course, Tarpley not only goes on as if the film were accurate, he goes a step farther (of course because it's the only way he can support his narrative) saying that:
"Ron Paul came out...saying 'if you don't like creative destruction, if you don't agree that everybody should be fired and companies should be destroyed and shut down, and Romney should walk away with huge bonuses and golden parachute, and you know, ill-gotten gains and he shouldn't pay any taxes on it because it's all capital gains and carried interest...then you're all anti-capitalist."
Obviously Ron Paul said nothing of the kind. (Even if you concede this as hyperbole, Ron Paul still said nothing of the kind.) This is a gross distortion and mischaracterization of anything Ron Paul ever said. [1] [2] [3] (But of course, again, he has nothing else to point to to create his narrative, so, ya know.)
He claims Paul and Romney refused to attend the scheduled debate in Georgia, thus basically cancelling it, and that this is more evidence of them being on the same team. He (somehow) conveniently forgets to mention that Rick Santorum (remember him?)...the only other main contendor in the race also declined (the same day as Romney and Paul)...leaving Gingrich as the only one who wanted that debate. And Tarpley himself claims that Gingrich is basically the best debator, and of course he neglects to mention the significance of Georgia being Gingrich's home state. Gee. I wonder why none of the other candidates cared to attend that debate. It's because they're all in cahoots with Romney, and Gingrich was his main threat. That's why. I mean it's so blatently obvious.
His next piece of "evidence" is the fact that Endorse Liberty (the SuperPAC that originally ran a bunch of pro-Ron Paul stuff) is based in (Mormon town) Salt Lake City. Because, obviously a SuperPAC endorsing Ron Paul would obviously have it's headquarters in Galveston or some place like that. (This is what Tarpley said.) Right. An organization which by law cannot have any sort of cooperation with the campaign is going to locate its headquarters right in Ron Paul's tiny Congressional district, on an island, on the coast of Texas. For no fucking reason. So the fact that they didn't do that and instead headquartered it in Mormon Mecca Utah, that means Paul and Romney are in cahoots. When Paul had absolutely nothing to do with that SuperPAC and was legally prohibited from even communicating with them.
This idiot doesn't even seem to understand what a SuperPAC is or how it works. He keeps calling it "Ron Paul's superpac" and claims Peter Thiel donated millions of dollars to the Ron Paul campaign.
This guy is like the left-wing version of Dick "the dick" Morris. Direct quote:
"Suppose you're for peace. [...] Are there good reasons to vote against Ron Paul? Yes there are! Suppose I don't want to die when Ron Paul cuts two-thirds out of my food stamps. Suppose I don't want to die when Ron Paul destroys Social Security. [...] and similarly for unemployment benefits, for Head Start, for all the other things that he either wants to destroy or cut or thinks is unconstitutional...this barbaric program of genocide against the American people! How many hundreds of thousands, millions of dead Americans do we have to have so that Ron Paul can act out his fidelities for this faulty[?] Austrian School? Isn't that a good reason to vote against him? I think it is. You don't want to die. There's a good reason."
He goes on to describe how Ron Paul has his "own version of the New World Order". He quotes/paraphrases from a speech Ron Paul made on the Congressional floor in which he said "we have nothing to fear from globalism, a single world currency, and from free trade." Now, Tarpley himself admits Paul was talking about and probably meant to say "globalization", and he also states that by "single world currency" Paul was talking about gold. But Tarpley says these things and the host of the broadcast says "oh my. There it is, folks. Goodbye."
Tarpley says what Ron Paul is saying is that he has an alternative cheaper path to a universal empire and the New World Order. He says Ron Paul is saying "I don't need war", because
"once you have a single gold currency that no government can control, (except it would be controlled by, you know the City of London Bank, who traditionally have control of it), uh...if if you have free trade, that that means no government can influence any commodity flows or have any, you know, dirigistic mercantilist or protectionist policies—and then of course globalism, what he means by that I think he means more like globalization but he says globalism...globalization or globalism meaning what...uh deregulation, privatization, union busting, no estate tax, a race to the bottom, no social welfare, no safety net, and so forth...that of course is the recipe for...that is the end point of the enemy's New World Order. [...] Ron Paul's disagreement is basically over means, not ends."
So of course, deregulation, privatization...these are bad things, and dirigistic mercantilist policies are good things. Got it. Thanks Webster Tarpley.
And here's a few more gems:
"[Ron Paul] says if you have private property, private property trumps anybody's right to be served...private property rights trump human rights. No. I'm sorry. And we do...Ron Paul says 'you have no right to medical care'. Yes we do! We're Americans and we have economic rights. And I don't care what the Austrian School says." [...]
"A vehicle for peace, keep it clean, keep it single issue if you must, but don't add in the destruction of the social safety net, the hatred of the New Deal, that you're going to strip everybody of their economic rights, that' you're going to take down two-thirds of food stamp budget, that you're going to rape Mediaid and SCHIP and Head Start, and all this...you know but this entire, you know, Austrian School ideological baggage, that's a loser!"
"[Ron Paul] is a doctrinaire follower of this alien, poisonous, foreign ideology, the Austrian School, which has no roots in American history whatsoever. It's as far as communism or anything else you want to name. It's utterly alien. It's not in the Constitution, it's not in the Declaration of Independence, George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, Abraham Lincoln, were not followers of the Austrian School, uh, and so forth."
"Ron Paul, Rand Paul support the National Right to Work law, which would destroy all unions in the United States. There is no greater step toward totalitarian dictatorship than the destruction of all unions."
"This is the irony, is that Ron Paul says he doesn't want totalitarianism, but ironically everything he does brings it closer."
This is the guy Aristophanes is getting his stuff from. This is the guy that he "trust[s] on almost everything he says". Which actually explains a lot. Thanks for sharing that, Phany.
As for Tarpley, I'm actually dumbfounded. I'd actually never heard anything from this guy before, but I was interested because I had heard a few good things here and there about how he had some good insight on the war or on this or that. But jeezus. This is the guy? Is there some other "Webster Tarpley" people could have been talking about? This is the caliber of intellectual thought that passes for praise these days?
Good god.
If anyone disagrees with anything Ron Paul said "in defense" of Romney, and/or agrees with Tarpley's assessment of that situation (or his apparent feelings on the dealings of Bain and the content of that King of Bain film), I'd love to hear about it.
If anybody is cointel, it's Tarpley. He spouts economic nonsense left and right. He drones on interminably to make only the most shallow and obvious points, for example, that 9/11 was an inside job. His speeches and interviews leave more questions than answers.
If Ron Paul has secret connections, they cannot be to the Establishment - for the Establishment to use Ron Paul would be like the KKK using MLK Jr. That is, they would be cutting off their nose to spite their face. The CFR elites are very clever - too clever to use someone who will actually undermine their agenda.
A Ron Paul Presidency has always been a long shot. So what? We already know we're not going to change the system from the inside. A Ron Paul Presidency is just a means to a much larger end. Whatever agenda items he could actually achieve while in office pale by comparison to the political avalanche that he would trigger, potentially leading to a revival of classical liberal philosophy, Constitutionalism, nullification, secession, and a "death-through-neglect" of the Federal squid. Why settle for a $1T in Federal spending? Let's go all the way and start breaking up the Union and giving local people a say in how things are run in their part of the world again.
I say I believe almost all of what he says, and if you've read my mentions of him in other posts, his assessment of economics is as bad as Chomsky and where I disagree with almost all of what he says. I listen to him for geopolitics (same for Chomsky) and also listen enough to distinguish what is good information from his own demagoguery. The same as if you go to Alex Jones, the NYTs, or CNN. All perspective has bias.
You found all of the things I have disagreed with him on. He is a hardcore fan of FDR and th new deal. So, focusing on his rheotirc about Austrian theory in general is moot, in my opinion. It is predictable and we all know the standard responses.
I'm glad you felt compelled to transrcibe all of the strawmen and present them as if you know know all of Tarpley's worth. You were saying something like ...
I mean, I'm a genius, so you know. But you know what, dear friend, you don't even have to be a genius like I am.
Catching the obvious bias is easy, pat yourself on the back. Tarpley actually has an academic theory of the false flag procedure that is fairly compelling. That link is for a debate that was aired on CSPANs BookTV. You'll see his bias stackjed against the Establishment bias. (JJ, transcribe some of this.)
The host is a douche. You could have refuted Tarpley's point about it. Tarpley says that gold has traditionally been controlled by London finance, which is not untrue. Him being an ardent FDR supporter, he also comes from the LaRouche camp (I can already hear you say, "There ya go folks, goodbye.") which means that he pins a lot of US malfeasance on London and redirects FDR bad things onto others.
I actually think the Bilderberg connection through a Mormon run PAC that has since endorsed Romney is telling. Of course, if you write it off without consideration that is telling on your part. Don't call the fallacy fallacy or the libertairan sensitivity card and say, "Oh, it's so usual for Mormons to support other Mormons based on their common Mormoism, I'm libertarian and don't think people do that kind of thing."
This is the guy Aristophanes is getting his stuff from.
My opinion does differ from his. For example, I don't think Paul has a "deal" with Romney. I merely think that Paul knows what Bain does as a company and that it is a crucial part of the restructuring and liquidation process (Paul knows better) and I think Romney's staff has methods of manipulating their adversaries. After all, it is Bush's staff. A staff weathered in military grade political propaganda.
Clayton,
You may think this, but it is just his FDRish LaRoucheism that permeates through. It is obvious to us, I know. But, his deep politics analysis is pretty good (he does use circumstantial stuff though). I'll point you to his CSPAN presentation as well. - His points are anything but shallow in regards to this (the good stuff starts at about 39, but his whole presentation may be worth inquiry).
If Ron Paul has secret connections, they cannot be to the Establishment - for the Establishment to use Ron Paul would be like the KKK using MLK Jr.
Didn't the FBI infiltrate and extremify both the KKK and the Black Panthers? Your example is an exact example of the methodology of the Establishment. They do not need to "make a deal" with Paul, they merely need to manipulate him by working his goals and procedures into theirs.
That is, they would be cutting off their nose to spite their face. The CFR elites are very clever - too clever to use someone who will actually undermine their agenda.
So, to you using Ron Paul is ... a little "on the nose." Right. That's a good reason to dismiss something. After all, his presence on the MIAC documents in 2009 don't show that the DoHS knows that the movement is growing and is an existential threat to their power structure.
Let's go all the way and start breaking up the Union and giving local people a say in how things are run in their part of the world again.
This was my point.
Romney is more than happy to encourage your rhetorical extremism in the face of the mainstream voter. Your activism and extremism encourages the mainstream voter to come out and make sure Paul has a difficult time anyway.
This, to me, is a far more believable conspiracy theory than Ron Paul's, so secret no one can make heads or tails of it, strategy to ... oh wait, nothing.
Aristophanes:I say I believe almost all of what he says
And I bet you're damn glad, too.
You found all of the things I have disagreed with him on.
That was literally (at least) half the interview. "Almost everything he says" equals out to a shitload of nonsense.
Catching the obvious bias is easy, pat yourself on the back.
Bias? It's utter nonsense and again, it was at least half the interview. (I didn't bother to listen to the first half, I just started at 9:__ whatever you linked to, and it was the gift that kept on giving after that.
Tarpley actually has an academic theory of the false flag procedure that is fairly compelling. That link is for a debate that was aired on CSPANs BookTV. You'll see his bias stackjed against the Establishment bias. (JJ, transcribe some of this.)
Why, does he tell us all how John Kennedy rejected Operation Northwoods so that he could focus on the real steps toward totalitarianism by breaking up trade unions?
He goes on to describe how Ron Paul has his "own version of the New World Order". He quotes/paraphrases from a speech Ron Paul made on the Congressional floor in which he said "we have nothing to fear from globalism, a single world currency, and from free trade." Now, Tarpley himself admits Paul was talking about and probably meant to say "globalization", and he also states that by "single world currency" Paul was talking about gold. But Tarpley says these things and the host of the broadcast says "oh my. There it is, folks. Goodbye."The host is a douche. You could have refuted Tarpley's point about it.
I could have, but I didn't feel that in a forum of the Ludwig von Mises Institute for Austrian Economics it was really necessary to refute the notion that the world using gold as currency is a bad thing, or that "free trade is the desired end of the New World Order."
Aristophanes:Tarpley says that gold has traditionally been controlled by London finance, which is not untrue.
You mean, like, London financial companies have some gold under their control? Uh. I have gold under my control. What's your point?
I don't know what this is supposed to mean.
My opinion does differ from his. For example, I don't think Paul has a "deal" with Romney. I merely think that Paul knows what Bain does as a company and that it is a crucial part of the restructuring and liquidation process (Paul knows better) and I think Romney's staff has methods of manipulating their adversaries.
So you don't think Paul has a deal with Romney, but you think Paul thinks a company Romney used to run is necessary[?] in restucturing the economy, so he gives him the election?
I'm not following this.
Aristophanes:his deep politics analysis is pretty good (he does use circumstantial stuff though).
And the Grand Canyon is "a ditch."
they merely need to manipulate him by working his goals into theirs.
Got it. So the New World Order are going to manipulate Paul by working his anti-one world government, pro-free market/free trade goals into their pro-one world government, anti-free market/free trade goals. Got it. I mean that makes perfect sense. Diabolical.
Romney is more than happy to encourage your rhetorical extremism in the face of the mainstream voter.
Right. Because he's done so much of that. I've felt very encouraged by Romney over the last 4 years.
your rhetorical extremism
Huh? Whoever has hijacked the Aristophanes account, can you please return the account to its proper owner? Thanks.
There are Joe Sixpacks out in the streets today carrying signs that say "End the Fed" on them. I'm not saying the Elites are taking this lying down or that they won't work to turn any resistance to suit their purposes through agents provocateur, etc. But you keep insinuating that RP is somehow betraying the movement.
If you have something to say about RP, why don't you provide some kind of cite or evidence of any kind or even a plausible hypothesis? Instead, you keep pussy-footing around and implying that RP is useful to the Establishment or is actually backed by the Establishment: "the Bilderberg connection through a Mormon run PAC." RP has a Bilderberg connection now? Are you smoking crack?
Ending the FED is still an esoteric request if I'm not mistaken. The FED is very insecure. I realize this.
But you keep insinuating that RP is somehow betraying the movement.
No. That is not what I am trying to relay. Paul himself could have a number of reasons for doing what ever he does.
"the Bilderberg connection through a Mormon run PAC." RP has a Bilderberg connection now? Are you smoking crack?
Yeah. You can just google that. This is the first thing that Google sought to admonish on my inquiry. (he gave a total of just over 4 million dollars to Paul through the whole thing). As I said before, he doesn't need to be "dealing" with them. They have a use for him, however. I'm pretty sure Paul isn't in favor of "post national ocean-states" but I'd venture to say that some of the globalists are.(anti- establishment, anti-whatever; Thiel particpiates in the Federal Reserve system I don't hear him rally against it per se. Paypal is an international bank and has taken a public stance against wikileaks. I'm not sure I buy his anti spirit). The globalists are a diverese bunch.
We all know RevolutionPAC is being run by people that we know (Woods et al) and Endorse Liberty was constantly shown to be the "primary" Paul PAC by the media. Why wouldn't the Bilderberg member give money to Woods and his PAC? I remember very little of revolutionPAC in the MSM to boot.
If you have something to say about RP, why don't you provide some kind of cite or evidence of any kind or even a plausible hypothesis?
My hypothesis is that Paul has been manipulated by some of the elitists. And that from his almost win in Iowa (Paul had a night and day demeanor change when the media started saying that he might win. It gave me the impression that he didn't want to win when I saw him speaking and what he was saying that day) to his abrupt PR announcement this week, any time things are looking up he shoots himself in the foot. He just said at the last money bomb if he didn't get 2.5 million he'd close up shop, he got all of it, but still closed up (at least PR wise).
Other people in this thread has suggested that Paul was "gotten to" not by a deal, but by a threat. I think that he probably faces threats on a daily basis, large changes in behavior, could be indicative of a threat with substance. I think this combines into his realization that the delegate strategy will eventually result in violence played a part as well (possibly against his family or supporters). The GOP will not allow the Paul delegates to change the rules from the floor. Even if they are a majority, the Party won't allow it. I'm not being rhetorical. I think the party would literally call the police and have the participants arrested. Paul doesn't want this.
Someone (idk who) may have simply told Paul what will go down if his delegate scenario happens the way we all want it to and he has choosen to withdraw his full participation in it due to the consequences.
Aristophanes:(he gave a total of just over 4 million dollars to Paul through the whole thing).
Prove it. Oh you can't? Oh you mean he put money into a political action committee that Ron Paul had literally nothing to do with and by law could have literally no communication or coordination with? Okay, thanks.
You and Tarpley and Yahoo News. You really need to learn what the hell a "SuperPAC" is. (Apparently Yahoo News learned, and changed the title of the article, but the original lives on in the Internets. Click the link in that thread and see what they changed it to.)
Thiel particpiates in the Federal Reserve system I don't hear him rally against it per se.
I could say the same thing about you.
Endorse Liberty was constantly shown to be the "primary" Paul PAC by the media.
They had a lot more money, and it's more of a story when "The founder of Paypal donates $1.7 million to SuperPAC supporting Ron Paul"...as opposed to "SuperPAC headed by historian Thomas Woods raises $100k with 'moneybomb'".
Aristophanes:He just said at the last money bomb if he didn't get 2.5 million he'd close up shop
Prove it. Oh wait, he didn't say that? He said "if we don't reach our $2.5 million goal, I am not sure our campaign can go on"? Yeah. That's what I thought.
Scoff and tell me "If x, then y" is the same thing as "If x, then I'm not sure if y won't happen". Go ahead.
Other people in this thread z1235 has suggested that Paul was "gotten to" not by a deal, but by a threat.
ftfy
Did Paul take the money? It doesn't matter if he communicates with them or not. Thiel got Paul money. Paul used said money.
In what way does any of the Yahoo News stuff or that thread you linked (Prince fansite?) conflict with what I said? Endorse Liberty gave Paul money that they got from Thiel. Just because Colbert raised more or Gingrich raised even more through a "super" one doesn't negate the source of Paul's campaigns money...even if he wasn't communicating with them.
Because that's what you did?
Me: Paul ended up with money from a Bilderberg member. (Over 2.5 million)
You: So, Paul cannot speak with the donors about it by law.
Do you see what you did there? N o n s e q u i t u r ... at least for my point.
The point I make is that if the elites have use for Paul, they can help him along with money and there is evidence that that echelon of society has taken interest in him for one reason or another. Judging by the media coverage, party happenings, security state reticence, etc. I think it is safe to say they are not supporting him, but some of their elements gifted him some "no strings" cash (right, JJ) through a PAC not run by his associates.
Thiel's money brought the headline. Idiot. Why didn't Thiel give money to Paul through Woods PAC? It would have drawn the same headlines you proclaim to debunk the motivation for media coverage...he picked a PAC run by people who have never been associated with Paul in the past as opposed to a PAC that is being run by people who have associated with Paul in the past.
Thiel particpiates in the Federal Reserve system I don't hear him rally against it per se. I could say the same thing about you.
PayPal, in its international role in other countries cannot avoid being a component of the international banking cartel. Theil claims to be antiestablishment, but can only say those things about the U.S establishment.
I am a coerced participant in the FEDRESSYS that speaks out frequently. Is that the same thing?
Read that as if you are speaking it.
You sound like a punk kid on trying to pick a fight on the playground. Grow up you titmouse.
That is the same thing I said he said. He raised the money that he requested, but then still decided that he "can[not] go on."
Other people in this thread z1235 has suggested that Paul was "gotten to" not by a deal, but by a threat. ftfy
"Oh, well, people is plural, z1235 is singular and you can't proves it's a person anyway so you're wrong."
ftfy.
Aristophanes:Did Paul take the money?
Wha? No.
Thiel got Paul money. Paul used said money.
Uh. No. He didn't. Again, you really need to learn what a "super political action committee" is.
In what way does any of the Yahoo News stuff or that thread you linked (Prince fansite?) conflict with what I said?
Are...are you serious? The whole purpose of that link was to show that you and Yahoo News made the same mistake. It wasn't supposed to conflict with what you said. I honestly didn't think you were this dense.
Endorse Liberty gave Paul money that they got from Thiel.
"Not in citation given". Please quote the part where it even implies that.
Just because Colbert raised more or Gingrich raised even more through a "super" one doesn't negate the source of Paul's campaigns money...even if he wasn't communicating with them.
Wow. You really need to learn what a SuperPAC is. You sound beyond incredibly ignorant. (But I guess that makes sense. Since you are.)
Aristophanes:Scoff and tell me "If x, then y" is the same thing as "If x, then I'm not sure if y won't happen". Go ahead. Because that's what you did? Me: Paul ended up with money from a Bilderberg member. (Over 2.5 million) You: So, Paul cannot speak with the donors about it by law. Do you see what you did there? N o n s e q u i t u r ... at least for my point.
I'm actually speechless. You're like the CEO of ING going on about how small the country of Austria is when Tom Woods was talking about Austrian economics.
I mean, at least it's the Internet so you don't have to literally face the embarassment, but still. Learn what a SuperPAC is before you continue on with this.
I think it is safe to say they are not supporting him, but some of their elements gifted him some "no strings" cash (right, JJ) through a PAC not run by his associates.
See above. You and McInerney would have a nice little experience to share, should you ever meet.
Thiel's money brought the headline. Idiot.
You stay classy!
Why didn't Thiel give money to Paul through Woods PAC?
Because Woods' PAC wouldn't give Paul any money. (Nor would Paul take such money.)
Aristophanes:It would have drawn the same headlines you proclaim to debunk the motivation for media coverage
I wasn't "debunking" anything. You said "Endorse Liberty was constantly shown to be the "primary" Paul PAC by the media." I simply told you why.
I'm with Clayton. I never found you to be this dense. Whoever you are please return the account to its rightful owner.
...he picked a PAC run by people who have never been associated with Paul in the past as opposed to a PAC that is being run by people who have associated with Paul in the past.
He picked a PAC run by people he knew, and that (probably) he would have some creative control in. I think the only person on the RevolutionPAC board who has ever had even more than a single conversation with Paul is Tom Woods, and even his relationship would probably be accurately described as "acquaintance" at best. I think "run by people who have associated with Paul" is an overstatement.
RevolutionPAC is headquartered in Northbrook, IL...suburb of Chicago. Guess we all know what that means: Paul's totally in bed with Obama. I mean the proof's right there. Like, totally obvious to anyone who would open their eyes! Like writing on the wall, man.
This is easy! You, me and Tarpley should be detectives.
Aristophanes:Is that the same thing?
Did I say it was?
Okaaayy. Now what?
Grow up you titmouse.
Hey more class from our good friend Phany! Can't say I'm surprised. He just exudes the height of panache.
That is the same thing I said he said.
Ron Paul: If we don't reach our $2.5 million goal, I am not sure our campaign can go on.
Aristophanes: He just said at the last money bomb if he didn't get 2.5 million he'd close up shop
Aristophanes:Other people in this thread z1235 has suggested that Paul was "gotten to" not by a deal, but by a threat.ftfy"Oh, well, people is plural, z1235 is singular and you can't proves it's a person anyway so you're wrong."ftfy.
Other people in this thread z1235 has suggested that Paul was "gotten to" not by a deal, but by a threat.ftfy
huh?
Clayton:Perhaps I'm crazy but I'm not actually that worried about "humanity" wiping itself out. Perhaps the US may be reduced to rubble in some chest-pounding war the Pentagon picks with China and Russia through Iran. If things start going that route, I will begin to consider taking more drastic steps for self-preservation.
I think that, if the US is reduced to rubble in such a war (i.e. World War III), then the rest of the world will be, too. I think that those who run the US global hegemony are willing to drag the rest of the world down with them - to paraphrase The Count of Monte Cristo, they couldn't bear to live in a world where they have no power.
John James: wtf is this... Inside Report on AZ Posted on May 15, 2012 by Lew Rockwell Writes Doug Wead: "We are trying to make nice. Like our attempt to 'give' [Romney] the delegation from Arizona, an offer his man refused to [t]ake. So after three attempts to give him a majority we reluctantly won instead, thank you." More from the Rev. Wead: "[I]n Phoenix, Arizona, cocky Romney forces led by Nathan Sproul saw defeat snatched from the jaws of victory. Ironically, the Ron Paul forces came to the state GOP convention to play nice. They offered a deal. 'You know our knack for organizing?' they said, 'You know we have the numbers? Why don’t we make sure there are no surprises and nothing embarrassing. Your candidate has the nomination, we will give you 50% plus one of the delegation to Tampa, that gives you the majority, and let us have a nice delegation of the leftovers for our man too.' "But no. The Mitt Romney forces insisted on scorched earth. 'You can have one,' they said."
wtf is this...
Writes Doug Wead:
"We are trying to make nice. Like our attempt to 'give' [Romney] the delegation from Arizona, an offer his man refused to [t]ake. So after three attempts to give him a majority we reluctantly won instead, thank you."
More from the Rev. Wead:
"[I]n Phoenix, Arizona, cocky Romney forces led by Nathan Sproul saw defeat snatched from the jaws of victory. Ironically, the Ron Paul forces came to the state GOP convention to play nice. They offered a deal. 'You know our knack for organizing?' they said, 'You know we have the numbers? Why don’t we make sure there are no surprises and nothing embarrassing. Your candidate has the nomination, we will give you 50% plus one of the delegation to Tampa, that gives you the majority, and let us have a nice delegation of the leftovers for our man too.'
"But no. The Mitt Romney forces insisted on scorched earth. 'You can have one,' they said."
Yeah, I really don't see the point of "trying to make nice". Either Ron Paul and/or those close to him were "warned" that something bad could happen to him/them, or they were "warned" that the Republican National Convention could "get out of hand" (i.e. become contentious and even violent, provoking a repressive police crackdown etc.), or Benton and Wead (if not others) are really just jobbers at heart. Regarding that last possibility, I find it hard to believe that Ron Paul would assign such people to such high positions in his campaign organization. Regarding the first possibility, again, remember Paul Wellstone. I think "They" see this as a war of sorts, and "They" have been looking at it that way for a very long time.
Autolykos:or Benton and Wead (if not others) are really just jobbers at heart. Regarding that last possibility, I find it hard to believe that Ron Paul would assign such people to such high positions in his campaign organization.
I have a hard time believing that for Wead, but like I said about Benton, I'm not even sure he's really a "Ron Paul supporter" to begin with. Also like I mentioned, (and others who have been involved with Paul in the past have said), one of Paul's weaknesses is a trusting quality that leads him to end up putting the wrong people in influential positions in his posse. I don't think that necessarily means like evil people, but just ones who don't exactly end up being a net positive for him and his goals.
Regarding the first possibility, again, remember Paul Wellstone.
You keep bringing that up. I had to look up who that even was. I can't believe you're comparing some two-term senator from Minnesota with Ron Paul. It makes no sense. How in the hell could this guy I've never even heard of (even after his tragic death) be so dangerous as to require assassination (by DEW attack on a plane, no less) and 76 year old Ron Paul hasn't had a single heart attack.
Plus, it's past that point now. If anything even remotely mysterious happens to Paul, it will be bigger than 9/11 as far as conspiracy theorists are concerned. That is something they certainly do not need. It's not worth the risk. There are just too many people in too many areas interested in Ron Paul (meaning too much access and too much motivation) to have any sort of foul play.
John James:I have a hard time believing that for Wead, but like I said about Benton, I'm not even sure he's really a "Ron Paul supporter" to begin with. Also like I mentioned, (and others who have been involved with Paul in the past have said), one of Paul's weaknesses is a trusting quality that leads him to end up putting the wrong people in influential positions in his posse. I don't think that necessarily means like evil people, but just ones who don't exactly end up being a net positive for him and his goals.
Right, I've read that from you and others before. It's a shame if that is indeed the case.
John James:You keep bringing that up. I had to look up who that even was. I can't believe you're comparing some two-term senator from Minnesota with Ron Paul. It makes no sense. How in the hell could this guy I've never even heard of (even after his tragic death) be so dangerous as to require assassination (by DEW attack on a plane, no less) and 76 year old Ron Paul hasn't had a single heart attack.
My understanding is that Paul Wellstone was very popular in his home state of Minnesota at the time, if not also elsewhere. He was also about the only person who completely opposed the direction the government wanted to go in the aftermath of 9/11. (Even Ron Paul kept relatively mum at this time, if Eric Dondero is to be believed.) Besides, if 9/11 was an "inside job", then causing a very popular anti-war Senator from Minnesota to die in an "accident" wouldn't be beneath those who were behind it. There's also the "Amerithrax" case to consider in this vein.
John James:Plus, it's past that point now. If anything even remotely mysterious happens to Paul, it will be bigger than 9/11 as far as conspiracy theorists are concerned. That is something they certainly do not need. It's not worth the risk. There are just too many people in too many areas interested in Ron Paul (meaning too much access and too much motivation) to have any sort of foul play.
How many people supported JFK before he was assassinated?
The one advantage that I see Ron Paul supporters having over e.g. JFK supporters is that the former don't trust "authority" nearly as much as the latter did. But it's clear to me that the chips are increasingly coming down for "Them" and thus "They're" becoming increasingly desperate.
Maybe this will provide some perspective, although it means this thread will satisfy Godwin's Law: there has existed in recent history a conspiracy to systematically exterminate an allegedly identifiable group of people numbering in the millions, and it was all too successful.
Autolykos:My understanding is that Paul Wellstone was very popular in his home state of Minnesota at the time, if not also elsewhere. He was also about the only person who completely opposed the direction the government wanted to go in the aftermath of 9/11. (Even Ron Paul kept relatively mum at this time, if Eric Dondero is to be believed.) Besides, if 9/11 was an "inside job", then causing a very popular anti-war Senator from Minnesota to die in an "accident" wouldn't be beneath those who were behind it. There's also the "Amerithrax" case to consider in this vein.
That still doesn't account for the point I raised. It's irrelevant if killing someone isn't "beneath them". The point is, is it worth the outright cost and the risk. I don't see how in this case. I also don't see how this guy would be deemed worth a DEW attack to cause a plane crash, and no one has bothered to put anything in Ron Paul's food on the campaign trail where he's eating all kinds of stuff from anywhere and everywhere, often times, by himself.
You're going to use military technology to bring down a plane for some guy I've never heard of, but Ron f-ing Paul hasn't even stumbled on a set of stairs.
John James:How many people supported JFK before he was assassinated?
Not as much as you'd think, actually. Guy wasn't near as popular as he is now, ironically. Being famous and dying tragically tends to do that kind of lionizing. He won the popular vote by a margin of 0.16%. And while his approval rating did get up pretty high at one point, it was in decline, and down to 58% nationally by the time he died. In fact he was visiting Texas for that very reason...as he was polling even worse there. An article in the Houston Chronicle—published the day he died, actually—shared the results of a statewide poll that showed he would lose to Goldwater decidedly.
The one advantage that I see Ron Paul supporters having over e.g. JFK supporters is that the former don't trust "authority" nearly as much as the latter did.
You obviously weren't around in the 60s. I can't believe anyone would even try to make that comparison.
Huh? What does that have to do with anything?
John James:That still doesn't account for the point I raised. It's irrelevant if killing someone isn't "beneath them". The point is, is it worth the outright cost and the risk. I don't see how in this case. I also don't see how this guy would be deemed worth a DEW attack to cause a plane crash, and no one has bothered to put anything in Ron Paul's food on the campaign trail where he's eating all kinds of stuff from anywhere and everywhere, often times, by himself. You're going to use military technology to bring down a plane for some guy I've never heard of, but Ron f-ing Paul hasn't even stumbled on a set of stairs.
First off, I never said anything about a "DEW attack". (I'm assuming that acronym stands for "directed-energy weapon".)
Second, you disagree that "They" would've thought it worth it to crash the plane Wellstone was travelling in. That's fine. You're free to disagree with that all you want. But don't expect me to change my mind just because you say you disagree with me. (And if you say that's not what you're trying to do here, then what are you trying to do here, John?)
John James:Not a whole lot, actually. Guy wasn't near as popular as he is now, ironically. Being famous and dying tragically tends to do that kind of lionizing.
True, but you really don't think that JFK's popular support wasn't on par with, say, Obama's today (if not more)? I'll put it this way: my understanding is that JFK enjoyed more popular support (at least tacitly) than Ron Paul. I could be wrong, though.
John James:You obviously weren't around in the 60s. I can't believe anyone would even try to make that comparison.
1963 =/= 1968
I don't think you were around in the 60s either, though.
John James:Huh? What does that have to do with anything?
It has to do with the effectiveness of conspiracies.
Edit: nice attempt at a ninja-edit of your post after I already responded to it. Now I'll respond to your edited portion:
John James:Not as much as you'd think, actually. Guy wasn't near as popular as he is now, ironically. Being famous and dying tragically tends to do that kind of lionizing. He won the popular vote by a margin of 0.16%. And while his approval rating did get up pretty high at one point, it was in decline, and down to 58% nationally by the time he died. In fact he was visiting Texas for that very reason...as he was polling even worse there. An article in the Houston Chronicle—published the day he died, actually—shared the results of a statewide poll that showed he would lose to Goldwater decidedly.
In all honesty, how much of a margin do you think Ron Paul would win the popular vote by? As much as I hate to say this, I think he'd win it by a decidedly negative margin (i.e. he would lose, handily). So I stand by my assertion that JFK was more popular back then than Ron Paul is now. That doesn't mean I like that state of affairs, of course.
Autolykos:First off, I never said anything about a "DEW attack". (I'm assuming that acronym stands for "directed-energy weapon".)
Isn't that the conspiracy theory? You're the one who brought the whole thing up, I just looked it up.
Second, you disagree that "They" would've thought it worth it to crash the plane Wellstone was travelling in. That's fine.
I didn't say that. I said it doesn't make sense to me to suggest that this not-even-a-footnote-in-history Senator was targeted for assassination, while a voluntarist quoting Mises and Rothbard is trucking along with delegates in a threat to win the Republican nomination for President of the United States, without so much as a head cold.
You're free to disagree with that all you want. But don't expect me to change my mind just because you say you disagree with me.
I really don't understand why you bother to type stuff like this out. What does that even mean? Why would anyone expect anyone to change their mind because someone disagrees? I mean I know you have a crush on me, but I didn't think it was that bad.
(And if you say that's not what you're trying to do here, then what are you trying to do here, John?)
Making conversation with a confused person?
Well...he was the President, and "support" in that context is translated to "approval rating." I don't see why this is relevant though. I assume your argument is "well JFK was actually President, and was more popular than Ron Paul, and they killed him, so they could easily kill Paul and get away clean."
But that's kind of like saying "the ratio of whites to blacks in 1860 was 695:1 and it's not much lower, even now. Black slavery could easily be instituted again."
There are too many other factors in play that you're not considering.
?
You're comparing the Holocaust to the assassination of a single person? The defintion of "conspiracy" includes "secrecy". You may wish to argue the initial planning was held in secret, but there was obviously no secret about the Holocaust. I'm sure if you wanted to play semantics you could argue that "technically a conspiracy is just an evil plot, blah blah blah", but I think we all know an assassination is not the same thing as a methodical mass extermination.
If you're actually going to argue "hey, Hitler pulled of a conspiracy to kill millions of Jews, so the Bilderbergers could easily get away with killing Ron Paul", I'm not sure there's much to say to you.
Autolykos:In all honesty, how much of a margin do you think Ron Paul would win the popular vote by? As much as I hate to say this, I think he'd win it by a decidedly negative margin (i.e. he would lose, handily). So I stand by my assertion that JFK was more popular back then than Ron Paul is now.
Again you're equating "approval rating" with "wouldn't be satisfied with any official story given for his death, would call it an assassination from day 1, would do everything in his power to uncover the truth, and would be ever-more motivated to investigate and shine a light on Bilderberg/TriLat/CFR like never before and create havoc for them, and their operations."
And I think that's a pretty naive mistake.
I began editing before you responded. It wasn't an "attempt" at "ninja" anything. It didn't change the context of my post. All I did was add more detailed information. If anything I would think you would thank me for giving you those figures because you obviously believed they helped your case (which of course they don't). Obviously they don't help mine either, they're basically superfluous. I just thought people might be interested to know those details. But of course you would try to paint my addition of details that change literally nothing about my point or the context as some secret "ninja" edit, as if to say I was trying to slip something past you.
John James:Isn't that the conspiracy theory? You're the one who brought the whole thing up, I just looked it up.
There's a difference between suspecting the plane that Paul Wellstone was travelling in did not crash by accident and believing it was brought down intentionally by a directed-energy weapon. Just for the record, my position is the former, not the latter.
John James:I didn't say that. I said it doesn't make sense to me to suggest that this not-even-a-footnote-in-history Senator was targeted for assassination, while a voluntarist quoting Mises and Rothbard is trucking along with delegates in a threat to win the Republican nomination for President of the United States, without so much as a head cold.
No, you didn't say that literally. I don't think you had to. What you did literally say implies what I attributed to your position - that "They" wouldn't have thought it worth it to cause the plane that Paul Wellstone was travelling in to crash. Your reasoning seems to be as follows: since "They" apparently don't think it worth it to eliminate Ron Paul, "They" must not have thought it worth it to eliminate Paul Wellstone. If I'm mistaken here, then feel free to clarify.
John James:I really don't understand why you bother to type stuff like this out. What does that even mean? Why would anyone expect anyone to change their mind because someone disagrees? I mean I know you have a crush on me, but I didn't think it was that bad.
I can see no other good reason for your condescending tone, John. As I've mentioned many times before, your modus operandi quite often seems to be to berate people who disagree with you until they shut up, at which point you can presumably feel like you've "won". I find it hard to conceive that you have some sort of neurological disorder that prevents you from recognizing how you come off to other people.
Protip: asking "What the hell does that even mean?" does not constitute a polite request for clarification. It conveys condescension, if not disgust, at the fact that the person even made the statement that the question asked about in the first place.
John James:Making conversation with a confused person?
That assumes, of course, that I'm "confused". If you want me to agree with you that I am "confused", you'll have to do better than that. In any case, you're making conversation to what end, exactly?
John James:Well...he was the President, and "support" in that context is translated to "approval rating." I don't see why this is relevant though. I assume your argument is "well JFK was actually President, and was more popular than Ron Paul, and they killed him, so they could easily kill Paul and get away clean."
That's not exactly what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that "They" have gone after bigger targets in the past and gotten away with it. The circumstances are certainly different now, but I think there may come a time where "They" nevertheless think it's worth it to employ more extreme measures.
John James:But that's kind of like saying "the ratio of whites to blacks in 1860 was 695:1 and it's not much lower, even now. Black slavery could easily be instituted again."
I'm sorry but I don't see how this is analogous.
John James:There are too many other factors in play that you're not considering.
... Such as?
John James:?
My understanding is that there wasn't nearly as much of a protest movement or counterculture in 1963 as opposed to the later part of the decade (e.g. 1968).
John James:You're comparing the Holocaust to the assassination of a single person? The defintion of "conspiracy" includes "secrecy". You may wish to argue the initial planning was held in secret, but there was obviously no secret about the Holocaust. I'm sure if you wanted to play semantics you could argue that "technically a conspiracy is just an evil plot, blah blah blah", but I think we all know an assassination is not the same thing as a methodical mass extermination.
It was sufficiently secret that the vast majority of the German people didn't find out what was going on until after the war. A conspiracy doesn't have to be totally secret, just secret enough.
Methodical mass extermination could be thought of as a large number of single assassinations, could it not?
John James:If you're actually going to argue "hey, Hitler pulled of a conspiracy to kill millions of Jews, so the Bilderbergers could easily get away with killing Ron Paul", I'm not sure there's much to say to you.
You never have to say anything to me. But I don't understand why you find the notion so ridiculous as to just laugh it off.
John James:Again you're equating "approval rating" with "wouldn't be satisfied with any official story given for his death, would call it an assassination from day 1, would do everything in his power to uncover the truth, and would be ever-more motivated to investigate and shine a light on Bilderberg/TriLat/CFR like never before and create havoc for them, and their operations." And I think that's a pretty naive mistake.
I did say that one advantage that Ron Paul supporters have over people who supported JFK was that the former have much less trust in "authority" than the latter seemed to have had at the time - which, as far as I can tell, is essentially the point you're making above.
Let me also say this: given the far less trust in "authority" that Ron Paul supporters and their ilk have, I think "They" would have to be prepared for a lot more extreme measures than just a single assassination. But then again, I think the evidence points to "They" preparing "Themselves" for that very such thing, as well as trying to nip any "adverse reaction" in the bud.
John James:I began editing before you responded. It wasn't an "attempt" at "ninja" anything. It didn't change the context of my post. All I did was add more detailed information. If anything I would think you would thank me for giving you those figures because you obviously believed they helped your case (which of course they don't). Obviously they don't help mine either, they're basically superfluous. I just thought people might be interested to know those details. But of course you would try to paint my addition of details that change literally nothing about my point or the context as some secret "ninja" edit, as if to say I was trying to slip something past you.
I'll stand corrected on this. In my defense, I didn't see that you began editing before I responded.
Autolykos:No, you didn't say that literally. I don't think you had to. What you did literally say implies what I attributed to your position - that "They" wouldn't have thought it worth it to cause the plane that Paul Wellstone was travelling in to crash. Your reasoning seems to be as follows: since "They" apparently don't think it worth it to eliminate Ron Paul, "They" must not have thought it worth it to eliminate Paul Wellstone. If I'm mistaken here, then feel free to clarify.
Sure. Again, I said your story doesn't add up. I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm saying it doesn't make sense. I'm not saying "'They' must not have thought it worth it to eliminate Paul Wellstone"...obviously the guy's dead, and if your conspiracy theory is true, then someone did find it worth it to kill him. What I'm saying is that if that's the case, how was it not worth it to kill Ron Paul a long time ago?
Feel free to offer your explanation.
If you want me to agree with you that I am "confused", you'll have to do better than that.
There you go again. You really do say stuff like this quite often. Where did you ever get this idea that I was ever trying to convince you of anything? Is it some kind of self-esteem reinforcement bias or something?...related to your delusion that everyone is out to try to intimidate you? You have a need to feel important and don't get enough attention elsewhere (and apparently in the forum as well) so you just assume (or pretend) that people care what you believe and have some interest in trying to convince you of things?
I honestly don't get it.
In any case, you're making conversation to what end, exactly?
Pleasure.
...how is that different than what I said?
Autolykos:I'm sorry but I don't see how this is analogous.
Check the sentence right below it.
Such as everything that makes 2012 different from 1963, and everything that makes Ron Paul different from John F. Kennedy.
What does that have to do with anything?
It was sufficiently secret that the vast majority of the German people didn't find out what was going on until after the war.
Vast majority, huh?
Autolykos:You never have to say anything to me.
Aww. I didn't realize you felt so left out. I say things to you quite often. I didn't realize your appetite was so insatiable.
But I don't understand why you find the notion so ridiculous as to just laugh it off.
Because they're two completely different things.
If all you get from "wouldn't be satisfied with any official story given for his death, would call it an assassination from day 1, would do everything in his power to uncover the truth, and would be ever-more motivated to investigate and shine a light on Bilderberg/TriLat/CFR like never before and create havoc for them, and their operations" is "they have much less trust in authority that people who supported JFK", then you're either dishonest, or more dense than I thought.
@Aristophanes: To reiterate what JJ said, you are indeed confused about what a SuperPAC is. Tarpley isn't confused, he's disinfo.
A SuperPAC can support any candidate on any issue or even multiple candidates or opposing issues. The courts ruled that - as long as SuperPACs conform to certain rules - particularly not cooperating in any way with the political campaigns they express support for - they are simply an expression of free speech. EndorseLiberty is a SuperPAC. Its ads "supporting" Ron Paul strike me as half-hearted and some border on the farcical. Those that attempt humor are painfully un-funny.
For someone who sees conspiracies behind every bush, you seem to think in a very linear manner about EndorseLiberty, as if anyone who says "I support Ron Paul" thereby is proven to be, as a matter of fact, supporting Ron Paul. It's not possible that someone could say they support Ron Paul for the express purpose of trying to distort public opinion about his views? What does any of that have anything to do with Ron Paul himself?
Okay, I didn't realize you were splitting hairs over "how" the SuperPACs expend money. Endorse Liberty just spends money fronting for Paul, they don't give it to him. For God's sake. It makes no difference if the money actually goes to Paul and, frankly, it makes it worse that the money is spent in Paul's name without any of his acknowledgement. Who knows what their intentions are (which is my point of suspicion)? It reminds me of the brothel that was campaigning for Paul. (The brothel was an obvious trojan horse campaign tactic.)
This also still doesn't conflict with my point of the Bilderberg member using Paul. Anyway you split the hairs Paul is being financially supported by him.
He [Thiel] picked a PAC run by people he knew
Prove it. And when you do, gloss over the fact that this makes my point even more apt.
If RevPAC was being run by people in the Black Liberation Front, I might buy that. But, as it stands this is still a red herring for the point that Mormons, who have since endorsed Romney and got their money from a Bilderberg member fronted for Paul. This kept his campaign going for like two months.
That is the same thing I said he said. Ron Paul: If we don't reach our $2.5 million goal, I am not sure our campaign can go on. Aristophanes: He just said at the last money bomb if he didn't get 2.5 million he'd close up shop
Just because the words are slightly different, doesn't mean that the content behind them is...
Yeah, you wouldn't get that. Even as you call others ignorant.
EndorseLiberty is a SuperPAC. Its ads "supporting" Ron Paul strike me as half-hearted and some border on the farcical. Those that attempt humor are painfully un-funny.
So, you do recognize that it is indeed not a whole hearted supporter. This indicates that they could be used for trojan horse campaigning.
I don't think we disagree on EndorseLiberty. I don't exactly know what you think I meant other than the implication of what you just stated.
Also, do you not see conspiracies in the political realm almost everywhere? If I can recall from some of your posts....
Tarpley isn't confused, he's disinfo.
He's not disinfo, he is a progressive LaRouchian. I suggest you watch that 9/11 presentation.
John James:Sure. Again, I said your story doesn't add up. I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm saying it doesn't make sense. I'm not saying "'They' must not have thought it worth it to eliminate Paul Wellstone"...obviously the guy's dead, and if your conspiracy theory is true, then someone did find it worth it to kill him. What I'm saying is that if that's the case, how was it not worth it to kill Ron Paul a long time ago? Feel free to offer your explanation.
I don't see how that's different from my characterization of your apparent position. To repeat, that characterization was the following: since "They" apparently don't think it worth it to eliminate Ron Paul, "They" must not have thought it worth it to eliminate Paul Wellstone.
To try to answer your question: a long time ago, Ron Paul did not have anywhere near as many supporters, followers, and the like as he's had in recent years. All I can surmise is that Paul Wellstone may have appeared to be more of a threat to "Them" at the time than Ron Paul - especially since the latter (according to Eric Dondero) didn't directly protest the foreign policy decisions that the US government made in the aftermath of 9/11.
If you still don't think my position makes sense, that's fine. But we'll be at an impasse, as I'll still think it does make sense.
John James:There you go again. You really do say stuff like this quite often. Where did you ever get this idea that I was ever trying to convince you of anything? Is it some kind of self-esteem reinforcement bias or something?...related to your delusion [sic] that everyone [sic] is out to try to intimidate you? You have a need to feel important and don't get enough attention elsewhere (and apparently in the forum as well) so you just assume (or pretend) that people care what you believe and have some interest in trying to convince you of things? I honestly don't get it.
Why else would people interact in a forum like this, if they didn't have an interest in trying to convince each other of things (and thus care about what each other believes)? Here are the alternatives, as I see them: 1) to feel better about themselves by "winning" (which many people think can consist of the opponent retreating from the thread in question), 2) intellectual masturbation (i.e. to see how well their arguments hold up against others'), or 3) to derive amusement or some other sort of pleasure from the responses they get (i.e. trolling). If you see any other alternatives, feel free to list them.
John James:Pleasure.
How exactly does making conversation with a person who you think is "confused" give you "pleasure"? I don't think you're trolling here, but of course I could be wrong.
John James:...how is that different than what I said?
You attributed this argument to me: "well JFK was actually President, and was more popular than Ron Paul, and they killed him, so they could easily kill Paul and get away clean". I'm not saying the latter would necessarily be easily done, either right now or in the future.
John James:Check the sentence right below it.
I already did. Let me repeat myself: I'm sorry but I don't see how your statement is analogous. Either you're interested in convincing me of its analogy or you have some other (i.e ulterior) motive for making that assertion.
John James:Such as everything that makes 2012 different from 1963, and everything that makes Ron Paul different from John F. Kennedy.
Let me be more explicit. I'd like you to list - exhaustively, if you please - everything that you see as a factor in play that you think I'm not considering. Making blanket statements like the above inform me of nothing, understand? And if your purpose here isn't to inform me of anything, then again I'd like to ask, just what is your purpose? I fail to see how you could find this entertaining.
John James:What does that have to do with anything?
You wrote earlier: "You obviously weren't around in the 60s. I can't believe anyone would even try to make that comparison." I went out on a limb and assumed you were talking about all the protesting and counterculture that's attributed to "the 60s". However, those things were really only indicative of the later years of the 60s, particularly 1967 through 1969. Yes, the New Left was active even before 1960, but AFAIK their influence didn't really start spreading until the "Summer of Love" in 1967. In any case, there was hardly anything in the way of anti-war protests or counterculture in 1963 as compared to 1967-1969.
John James:Vast majority, huh?
I'll respond to this later, when I can watch those videos.
However, I'll also note for the record that you haven't bothered to refute my point that methodical mass extermination could be thought of as a large number of single assassinations. I'll take that as an implicit concession until further notice.
John James:Because they're two completely different things.
Perhaps you'd like to offer some substantive support for this assertion.
John James:If all you get from "wouldn't be satisfied with any official story given for his death, would call it an assassination from day 1, would do everything in his power to uncover the truth, and would be ever-more motivated to investigate and shine a light on Bilderberg/TriLat/CFR like never before and create havoc for them, and their operations" is "they have much less trust in authority that people who supported JFK", then you're either dishonest, or more dense than I thought.
Having much less trust in authority would seem to correlate with much greater motivation to do the things you list above, now wouldn't it? You can think of my term "have much less trust in authority" as a way to summarize your list. That's essentially what I intend it as, in this context.
Aristophanes:Okay, I didn't realize you were splitting hairs over "how" the SuperPACs expend money.
Oh please. Nice try at a face save, but you have no way to dodge yourself out of this hole. You're already in it and have been digging it for something like three posts now. Just admit you didn't know what a SuperPAC actually was nor what it could do in terms of spending.
It makes no difference if the money actually goes to Paul
Wow. Hundreds of thousands of donors seem to disagree.
the money is spent in Paul's name without any of his acknowledgement.
Hey! Look who's almost getting it! Now just change "in Paul's name" to "(allegedly) in support of Paul" and you'll actually (finally) have an accurate comment about SuperPACs!
Who knows what their intentions are (which is my point of suspicion)?
Ron Paul certainly doesn't. So I don't see how this supports your boy Tarpley's contention that Paul is in cahoots with Romney, and that's why "he has his superpac in Salt Lake City instead of Galveston."
Just fyi for anyone curious, Endorse Liberty is the PAC that publicized and popularized (if not actually created) what I consider the best Ron Paul promo video I've ever seen, as well as supplemental ads like this and ran them on television
This also still doesn't conflict with my point of the Bilderberg member using Paul.
Explain how helping Paul and spreading his message helps the Bilderberg group.
More apt? Because of circumstancial evidence that has a perfectly logical explanation? Maybe you shouldn't be a detective after all. Me and Tarpley will just be a duo.
Wha? Now you're alleging that without Endorse Liberty, Paul's campaign would have ended two months ago? Are you fricking serious? Jeez you're desperate.
Oh I see. So now when someone says something different from you say they did, it's okay, because you know what they really meant. I guess it's a lucky thing we have you to interpret when what people say means just that, or when it means something completely different.
So I guess when Tarpley calls the Austrian School an "alien, poisonous, foreign ideology", what he really means is that he just doesn't know what it is.
No, I mean, I understood what you wrote there, I just can't understand why in the world anyone would think that was an actual comeback. You said "people" as if to infer that multiple individuals believe and have voiced an opinion about something. The reality is only one person did. It kinda changes the whole connotation.
Kind of like if someone said "People in this thread have said Aristophanes eats babies" sounds a quite a bit different than "some guy named Frank said Aristophanes eats babies".
And you respond as if you were retorting with a comeback by essentially trying to say your "ah splitting hairs, tomato/tomotto" thing.