Ron Paul simple did not get elected because the elite did not want him .deal with it.

The issue we had with the Taliban is their protection of Al-Qaeda who was responsible for the attacks. Ron Paul fully supported going after Al-Qaeda.

 

what a joke, it's propaganda and certainly not accurate

 

so very true.the facts are we are a police state now and are on the edge of being no different than commuism russia was under stalin where russia is much more like we were before 1913.a free country where you had free speech and has more of a constitional government than we do .

we became a facist dictatership and lost our freedoms on 1913 when woodrow wilson signed the federal reserve act.

 

lol!!!

i thought we became a Fascist dictatorship when the North won the Civil War and stopped the Southern Whites from enjoying their private property rights.

 

I have a cousin who lives in russia so I know first hand all the stuff the western cortrolled media says about them is b.s. they say they dont have freedom of religion and thats all b.s I know for a fact from her. here though,it IS Happening where they are arresting people for their religious beliefs,you jst dont hear about it from the corporate controlled media.you got ot read independent news sourlces like american free press for instance to find ouw what they are suppressing from us.

- - - Updated - - -

amen to that,gives standing ovation.

 

what a joke

 

He's right. 1913 was detrimental to this country with the income tax and the Federal Reserve Act. Regarding your point, the attack on liberty was much earlier than the Civil War. The Alien and Sedition Act and the Indian Removal Act vastly contradicted the cause of liberty to say the very least.

 

Not sure if you realize just how appallingly terrible some of China's living conditions are - some Chinese would give their left leg to get into Hong Kong.

Hong Kong has seen growth unlike any other nation. Since it was given back to the Chinese this has slowed down and they've implemented education and healthcare programs. You've got to remember that it wasn't long ago that Hong Kong was 3rd world. It's unfair to compare Hong Kong with say... the United States or Europe.

Additionally, a lot of the problem with Hong Kong is its population density. It's a really small place. Naturally, scarcity leads to increased price.

 

yeah but again its a waste of time,elections are rigged,voting is a waste of time,whoever they want in there,thats whom will become president.I made a thread before obama got reelected saying he would be reelected.I said the same thing about Bushwacker and clinton as well.how did i know?

its not because i am a genuis or anything,its just i understood that the establishment was happy with the the atrocities they commited while in office and how they violated the constitution being a willing puppet for them is how i knew.

voting for rand paul will do know good.we need to go back to stuffing ballot boxes.

if people here ever read the book VOTESCAM,they would wake up and understand our votes dont matter or count.

- - - Updated - - -

woodrow wilson even admitted later on he betrayed the american people by signing the federal reserve act and tried to apologize to them for that.

 

that's a complete lie, wilson didn't say that

don't you get embarrassed having the lies you post refuted so easily?



The unhappiness of Woodrow Wilson

Did the president lament the day he "unwittingly ruined" his country by creating the Federal Reserve?

BY ANDREW LEONARD - FRIDAY, DEC 21, 2007

Did Woodrow Wilson bitterly regret his role in creating the Federal Reserve? Some readers of my post yesterday on Ron Paul and the Federal Reserve believe so. Two of them proffered an identical quote as evidence.

I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world -- no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.

On the hundreds of Web sites on which this quote appears, it is typically taken as proof of Wilson's remorse at handing over control of the nation's money supply to a cabal of Wall Street money men. A common framing: "Woodrow Wilson signed into effect the Federal Reserve Act on December 23, 1913. And said the following just six years later." Even the Wikipedia page for Woodrow Wilson includes the quote, as proof that "Historians generally agree that Wilson hated the Federal reserve, and it made him, by his own word, "a most unhappy man..."
Frequency of repetition doesn't make for reliable sourcing, however, and convincing documentary evidence that Wilson uttered such words, in reference to his role creating the Federal Reserve, is hard to come by. In fact, the available evidence suggests that the quote is an after-the-fact fabrication made by splicing together passages of different Wilson statements that have nothing at all to do with the Federal Reserve.

Two separate portions of the quote appear in The New Freedom: A Call for the Emancipation of the Generous Energies of a People," published in 1913. "The New Freedom" is a distillation of campaign speeches Wilson made while running for President in 1911.
On page 185 there is the following section:

A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is privately concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men who, even if their action be honest and intended for the public interest, are necessarily concentrated upon the great undertakings in which their own money is involved and who necessarily, by very reason of their own limitations, chill and check and destroy genuine economic freedom.

And on page 201:

We are at the parting of the ways. We have, not one or two or three, but many, established and formidable monopolies in the United States. We have, not one or two, but many, fields of endeavor into which it is difficult, if not impossible, for the independent man to enter. We have restricted credit, we have restricted opportunity, we have controlled development, and we have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated, governments in the civilized world -- no longer a government by the opinion and the duress of small groups of dominant men.

Now, this is all good rabble-rousing stuff, but its relevance to the creation of the Federal Reserve is nonexistent. The speeches these quotes were adapted from were delivered before the Federal Reserve was created. And as for the melodramatic utterance: "I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country," well, so far, the sourcing well is coming up dry.

Some may question whether such historical nitpicking is relevant to the current presidential campaign. They may do so as they please. But if you want to engage in conspiracy theory, it's a good idea to get your facts straight.

John M. Cooper, a professor of history at the University of Wisconsin, and the author of several books on Woodrow Wilson, writes:

"I can tell you categorically that this is not a statement of regret for having created the Federal Reserve. Wilson never had any regrets for having done that. It was an accomplishment in which he took great pride."

http://www.salon.com/2007/12/21/woodrow_wilson_federal_reserve/

 

Dujac!

How dare you disprove such splendid propaganda with facts and research!

Shame on you!

BTW, I got a sneak peek from the Ron Paul campaign for the 2016 election, this one will be aimed at bringing the troops home from their imperialistic missions yet again.

 

yeah stopped them from having slaves for property rights is sure being a dictator alright.how dare our government for wanting to aboloish slavery and keep blacks being trated as an object simply for being a different color,how dare they and how nazi like the north was for that.hee hee.

 

easy, i've been doing it for nearly 40 years

 

Okay, I owe my conversion to libertarianism to Ron Paul, but the more I've heard about the less I like him. Specifically his foreign policy and his desire to disband the CIA.

I think his is a nutcase, but not an obnoxious nutcase like Alex Jones or so-called Truthers, more like an eccentric-but-harmless-uncle.

I don't think there is an "Elite" really. Only a small group of Nihilistic Marxists who hate America, a lot of mislead people who believe them, and vote for opportunistic politicians who don't believe anything but have discovered that they can win elections by saying certain things.

Hardly a conspiracy, really.

 

Have you Heard Ron Paul or only About Ron Paul.
The Media run by the rich has done a hatchet job on Paul and most only know editorials based on commentary.

Over the years I have gotten five friends who were pretty non political to listen to him.
All liked what they heard. The trick is to read him. Listen to him and not all this "about" stuff that too often bears little resemblance to Ron Paul's philosophy.

After some 14 years of "nation building" Iraq, Afghanistan, wouldn't you appreciate a little "Non - Intervention"?
I would.


Moi

 

He gets a bad rap on foreign policy, because people don't understand his meaning. People look at the surface and assume what he means and spread it around. For instance, people believe he blames the U.S. for 9-11. This is not the case. He never said it was our fault. I will give an example to help explain his meaning. If a heinous criminal act is done, such as a murder or rape, the investigators, especially the profilers, will explore and examine all contributing factors and find the motive, not only to catch those responsible, but understand the contributing factors to help prevent similar incidents in the future. This is not in any way blaming the victim. Rather, it is trying to see how it happened.

So, Ron cites the blowback theory, which is a term used by the CIA meaning unintended consequences. Regarding 9-11 being blowback, there was a history that contributed to the motive behind the attacks. During the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, our government, including the CIA, financed, armed, and trained the Mujahedeen to repel the Soviets. Bin Laden worked with the Mujahedeen at the time and Al-Qaeda stemmed from the Mujahedeen. Years later in 1990, Bush Sr. gave a speech, ironically on 9-11 of that year, about forging a new world order. You have to admit, conservative principles and globalism, a new world order or one world order, do not go hand in hand. This speech was about the hopes of a new world order being justification to send troops to the Middle East to repel Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait. Ironically, not long before this, Saddam was our ally as Iraq was at war with Iran. In staging our forces to repel Saddam’s forces, we put boots on the ground in Saudi Arabia. Saudi is the holy land according to Muslims and those who are radicalized view this as justification to kill. This is not to excuse the terrorists or empathize with them. It is only to understand what happened and why. Islamic terrorists are evil and this means they are evil enough to kill people and justify killing people simply for “holy land” being touched by feet of the “infidel.”

Putting boots on the ground has been cited by Michael Scheur as the reason Al-Qaeda used for attacking us on 9-11. Thus, 9-11 was blowback for boots on the ground in Saudi. Scheuer was the head of the unit to track down Bin Laden, so he (Scheuer) knows much about what their motivations are after studying them so extensively. Now, this is not at all politically motivated on Scheuer’s part. He is a conservative Republican who never voted for a Democrat. There is a long history of blowback. Another example is the 1979 taking of hostages from the embassy in Iran being blowback for our CIA’s involvement in changing the Iranian regime in 1953 and instilling the Shah.

Regarding Iraq, Ron is right, the Bush administration was “giddy” about wanting to invade Iraq. In fact, during the Clinton years, a Republican think tank was formed called the Project for the New American Century (PNAC). As many felt the job had never been finished during the first invasion, PNAC pressured then President Clinton to invade Iraq. Clinton had his share of interventionist foreign policy disasters, but did not follow the advice of PNAC. Many PNAC members were associated with Bush Jr. and many became members of his cabinet. Interestingly, in the PNAC report Rebuilding America's Defenses, Section V, entitled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force,” it is clear it refers to another Pearl Harbor being needed for justification to invade Iraq.

9-11 was the next Pearl Harbor. It was only nine days after the 9-11 attacks in which PNAC send a letter to Bush Jr.advocating "a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq", or regime change:
...even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. Failure to undertake such an effort will constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism.

From 2001 through 2002, the co-founders and other members of the PNAC published articles supporting the United States' invasion of Iraq. On its website, PNAC promoted its point of view that leaving Saddam Hussein in power would be "surrender to terrorism."
Therefore, within a couple years Iraq was invaded and it seemed Iraq became the new focus rather than going after Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. Ron supported going after Al-Qaeda, but one problem he had with invading Iraq was there was no constitutional declaration. There was a resolution to use force, but not declaration. Another problem is, although Saddam was a scumbag, he opposed Iran and held them in check. As Saddam was removed, the new Iraqi government ruled with Sharia law and many of the citizens were persecuted. Our government claimed the region was more stable, but many Iraqi Christians lost their homes, churches burned down, and they had to leave the country. Iran was not held in check like it was and the new government was a radical Islamic regime. Unfortunately, this cost millions of dollars and more importantly the lives of many of our soldiers, the limbs of many of our soldiers, and the lives of many Iraqi civilians.

Now, you don’t support our involvement in Libya, Egypt, and Syria, do you?

 

It was this video that made me like him, and it was actually his Chinese troops on Texan soil video that drew me away, mostly because it's not a fair comparison because Texan Insurgents have never thrown planes into Chinese buildings. If there were people like that, then China would be perfectly justified in occupying Texas until there weren't any more people who wanted to do that.

EDIT: I do want to read his book, though.

 

I'm not completely sure what I'm supposed to take away from this post. The only thing I see is that evil people get angry when someone stops evil.

 

i've been reading what he writes, have seen him speak in person and listened to what he has to say for nearly 40 years

his rhetoric is a sham

 

Then tell me, what was the alternative? Ignoring Afghanistan for another 9 years, as we had been doing prior to that?

I find it amazing that more people do not understand that a lot of the failure in Afghanistan was created by the very fact that neither we nor anybody else tried to help them rebuild their country after the Soviets left. Not the Soviets, not the US, nobody. They were largely left to themselves and almost a decade of civil war started, fanatics carving out chunks to create their own theological totalitarian paradises, meanwhile killing thousands and destroying historical treasures.

And finally as part of a "final push", attacked the nation that was the nominal ally of their final strong opponent in Afghanistan. And it did not spring up from nowhere, AQ had been operating out of Afghanistan for almost a decade, and had struck (or attempted to) at the US many times.

Maybe we should have not done anything in Afghanistan. Then we would be seeing death tolls even higher, in a great many other countries including the United States. 9-11 was not the first time they attacked us.

Honestly, I believe that most rhetoric that politicians say is a sham. I think that at least 75% of the time it is an attempt to connect with a group of people in order to gain their support. And they no more believe in it then I do, they are just saying platitudes to try and win-keep a core constituency.

A lot of what I base my opinions on politicians is based upon what groups they are trying to reach. If a politician speaks out to the Unions, or the Isolationists, or the Socialists, or the Racists, or the Moonbeam Ecologists, then I know they are not a politician I have any interest in supporting.

However, who he has chosen to be that "core constituency" troubles me greatly. And I honestly do believe that he believes a lot of what he says. When a politician gathers around themselves a core group which stands against a great many things I believe (or in favor of a great many things I oppose), then I know they are not a politician I can support, regardless of party affiliation.

 

Thank You
I am not familiar with either video.

Moi

- - - Updated - - -

Thank you. We can disagree.
I am glad you consulted primary sources.
Best

Moi

 

The Taliban was overthrown. Time to leave.
As it turned out America supported the wrong Afghan.
No one in history has maintained dominion, or nation building in Afghanistan and many have tried.
The attitude that America is required to maintain global, Pax Americana is plainly suicidal.
It has been for every empire or nation that tried, or tried to dominate Afghanistan.

Read me now and believe me later -
If America had a draft, America would not be mired in the longest occupations / wars in history.
Cure: Beyond 9 months of a "War Powers Act", a draft should be required.
AND: Investigate "War Profiteering".

Conclusion: We can be aware of Afghanistan without drones and in country military. Yes we can
while practicing nonintervention as much as possible.

Moi

 

That was the problem when the Soviets left, and that is what caused the decade of bloody civil war. If we had just packed up and left after the Taliban was thrown out, the civil war would still be going on today instead of a lower level insurgency.

And what, we should have backed the Taliban instead of the Northern Alliance? Are you absolutely insane?

Wow, this alone tells me how much you actually know about Afghanistan.

Prior to the Soviet coup and invasion, the Khan dynasty had been in charge of Afghanistan for over 250 years.

To put it in perspective, during the same time period the British Monarchy has gone from the House of Hanover to the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha to the House of Windsor. That is 3 different British Dynasties, while they have only had one.

In fact, since 1709 when they broke away from Persia, they have had 3 dynasties in just under 300 years. That is pretty stable actually, and that entire time was under self-rule (if you notice the British failed in their attempt to conquer them).

So you are willing to sit back and do nothing as tens of thousands of people die in civil wars? Funny how little human life means to you, as long as it is only poor wogs I guess.

Oh, I read, but will not believe.

Actually, I think the "Thirty Years War" and "Hundred Years War" went on for much longer then this one, but I may be mistaken.

And I think the occupation of Japan and Germany also went on much longer, but I may be mistaken. And also there is this nation called "Ireland", you might as them if their occupation went on for more then 12 years.

But please, continue. Any other statements you want to make that are so easily blown away? Hmmm?

 

Mushroom, we simply disagree. I remain, unblown away.
The Khan, etc. may have had "nominal dominion" over Afghanistan but, I do believe the locals had day to day dominion on who traveled where, etc. And all those nominal dominion holders afterward.

Yes, let them sort themselves out.
Karzai was not the Northern Alliance, he is a southerner. I do believe the northern Pancho Villa looking guy was the one we should have supported.
Still best to NOT support, Let "them" sort themselves out.

Thoughts:
Non Intervention. No global police. Rather a beacon of higher aspirations by a people to be like America.
We can't stop the Civil Wars. Can we ? But, YOU, Mushroom are free to volunteer, just not under an American flag please. Like the Spanish Civil War for a model. Go get them Mushroom.
Stop Targeted Assassinations ala Drone.
Gotta respect Bill Clinton for being wise enough to call it quits in Somalia. We could still be there too.

Moi

 

Actually, I have volunteered, many times. I have worn the uniform under every President since Reagan.

Spanish Civil War was an atrocity, a pre-Cold War type of war, with countries lining up behind each side based upon ideology. And none cared about the death tolls, it was not their people fighting.

"Targeted assassinations". So we do what, drop a few tons of bombs on them instead, increasing collateral damage? Would that please your sensibilities? Or how about we just throw 30+ guys on the ground and get them that way. Once again even more people die on both sides, but none of those pesky evil drones were used.

Ah yes, Somalia. A (*)(*)(*)(*)hole that is still killing people from all over the world even 20 years later. A conflict that has killed over half a million people, and a death toll that just keeps rising. A mission where we were assisting the UN, primarily in protecting the refugee camps and food shipments from the UN.

Oh yes, so glad we are out of that. Now even more people that you could not give a (*)(*)(*)(*) about have died.

99% of the time, when I hear isolationists talk, what I really here is "I do not want to put my life in danger...", as if they have done that in the first place. Well, we have no draft in this country, so you are free to do or not do whatever in the hell you want.


Oh, and yes, we can stop civil wars. It has happened before, all it takes is the resolve to actually do it. The problem is that a lot of people have absolutely no spine and have mush instead of brains. They parrot stupid slogans and think that getting everybody to sing kumbaya will solve the problems of the world.

Personally, I call people like that "morons".