This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Ron Paul On The "One-Party System"
Ron 'I'm playing the long-game' Paul will not go quietly into the night - and rightly so, it would seem, given his truthiness. In a recent brief interview on CNBC's Futures Now, he managed to diss Romney, smash the 'belief' in a 'two-party' system, and undermine any hope for economic change from the farce of an election. Summed up simply: "There is essentially no difference between one administration and another, no matter what the platform."
Starting by agreeing with Jim Rogers recent views that we discussed here, he refises to endorse Romney and then it gets interesting...
"They haven't the vaguest idea what Austrian free-market hard-money economics is"
»
- 49181 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
When next to nobody is willing to risk his own security and stand in opposition to the tyrants alonside of Ron Paul how can you expect him to succeed. Unless you have stood up and had your own nose bloodied you have no right to criticize. In fact such criticism makes you a cowardly sniveling weasel.
So he should have ran independtly, I guess they threatened his life or his family's lives.
Nah, I think not. It seems that Rand will probably be offered more of a role in the next GOP election though.
threat is indirect.....as in "we the government won't protect your family from crazies any longer"...type ofblackmailing.
police unions used that in california senate race and got union busting exemption from republicans even before the election.
WHAT?????????????
Law enforcement AREN'T the "heros" and "white knights" they think they are, and they demand you to think they are???? NO say its NOT TRUE!!!!
No matter how hard it is to do either, it's easier to take over a ship (republican party) than to build one yourself.
A look at the original tea partiers, before they got co-opted, shows how a growing segment was ripe for mutiny against the pary leaders.
Yep, and then they took the goodies!!!
.
June 2 http://naturalsociety.com/explosions-military-helicopters-filmed-radiati...
three days later, Rand endorses Mitt and Ron admitted he had been frozen out of the process
fully captured government, bitchez.
America is dead, long live the insurgency.
Wolverines!
That's it...that's all.
Ron Paul 2012.
2012 RIP - 2016 RAND PAUL?
A real Ron Paul supporter wouldn't endorse Romney
Rand Paul is a traitor to his father's entire political career and legacy.
In politics, like father, like son. Like it or not akak. And yes, his father has a real legacy of words.
Hevy, weighty words. He punches so far above his weight, has the whole indignant squeaky voice thing down.
The Mouse That Roared.
Ron, The Texan Piston who could have but didn't.
ori
Writing in Ron Paul might not be as effective as everyone believes. I'm not aware of any states that count write in candidate votes unless they file as a write in candidate. Writing in Ron Paul will simply be counted as a "write in" vote and the only person that it would be a statement to is the person counting your vote.
Here's the official results from 2008, Paul got 42,426 votes since he wasn't a write in candidate in all 50 states:
http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2008/2008presgeresults.pdf
Some states don't count write in votes at all. I know he was a write in candidate in California in 2008 and I think New Hampshire as well, not sure how that happened. So, do consider the affects of a write in vote, for the most part it could be meaningless since there is no name attached to it, consider voting for a person listed on the ballot but definitely not Obama or Romney. Your state's office of Department of State is responsible for this, check with your own state rules to determine write in eligibility.
"consider voting for a person listed on the ballot."
Fuck that noise.
Fine go ahead, write in a name if it makes you feel good about yourself. It's completely meaningless to see the result of "Write In" since that's all a write in vote is counted as. At least you know your voice will be heard if you vote 3rd party. I'd love to vote Ron Paul, but it just isn't worth it to write in his name.
Well thank you for your permission to vote the way I want to.
Well, everyone's vote who writes in Ron Paul will be treated the same as everyone who writes in Paul Krugman. At least my vote will have a name attatched to it.
curiousity got me to read this, but in no way am i going to waste time and gas to place a vote for either one of these gaks.
and, still not understanding why r.p. didn't run as an independent. i think he could be the difference right now. jesse ventura pulled it off right here in minnesnota...
time was now and it didn't happen - saddening...
Everybody knows that the "none of the above button" is rebranded from time to time with names such as "Nader," "Buchanan," "Baldwin" or "Johnson." If I bothered to vote (which I won't) I would look for that button.
After all the posts you made over the last year you better get your ass to the voting booth and vote. Fucking quitter.
How's that?
"My Ron Paul sign is still up. Mom's was stolen a few weeks back. Got to take her my spare as well as a new Gadsden."
"My mother, also a life long Democrat, registered Republican this year in order to vote for Paul in the PA primary. Pigs were swooping through the skies and Satan caught a head cold."
"I did. Twice."
"The Ron Paul people who have infiltrated the complacency of everyday life are the ones who can make a difference. Rule yourself wisely and lead by example."
Just the first 4 I found with 5 minutes of effort.
I voted for Ron Paul in the primary. He is not on the ballot in November. In Pennsylvania if you write in a candidate for president you must include the name of a running mate. As most folks don't know this and as those who do know this will not be writing in the same vice presidential candidate there will be no aggregate vote to be reported. No one will see the write in vote except a technician somewhere and then it goes down the memory hole. I can make a more meaningful statement by withholding my consent to be governed by not voting.
Nevertheless my Ron Paul sign remains in place. Just letting my freak flag fly as Jimi would say.
Fair enough I guess.
When gestures are just about all that is left, they matter.
Or one could work toward goals like NOTA has.
"consider voting for a person on the ballot"?? I'd rather vote for Hitler.
True dat
There is also the option of sending a message by writing in Tyler Durden
(you can see if 1) your vote is counted, 2) you live in a ZH-freindly-Zone, 3) send a big ol' FU to TPTB, while 4) voting for local candidates all in one trip to the polling booth)
RON PAUL BITCHEZ!
a politcal announcement from the the league of Punk Fool Bitchez for Ron Paul.
So fly.
It's the same rubbish in every country in the uk lib/lab/con is all the same, basically you get the same core policies but with a little trimming around the edges.
Not that national democracy matters any more in europe because its all decided by barosso and van rumpoy, but hey i have a 500 millionth of a nobel peace prize so i guess it was worth losing my freedom for
They should have given Nobel to you, Sir!
Don't diss Ron like that.
He hasn't invaded any country or launched a war. He's not eligible for the Nobel Peace Prize.
chicks giving quarter for burning men in the desert. The only mistake ron paul made was patriochy to cover it up. (Rand, Sen. KY)
wisefool. dying in a VP debate tax code prison.
Ron Paul for Saint.
Saint Paul...hmmm has a ring to it...oh wait.
Ron Paul the great white hope. Where is he when he is needed?
He and that lady boy of a son have gone real quiet. Alex Jones used to be Ron Paul this Ron Paul that now he never mentions him.
Those two are as fake as Alex Jones.
If Ron Paul ran independently, my O/U on the percentage of vote he'd get would be over 15% (which would get him in the debates). And, TBH with how even the dumbest of layman can't stand politcs anymore, probably 25%.
My understanding of multiple party politics, is that although paul wouldn't win, he would probably take alot of the others vote share, so in order to get that share back they would have to steal his policies or make movements in that direction, which of course isn't ideal but it gets the ball rolling.
can he still opt to run independently?
no, he didn't.
No, ever hear o sour grape laws?
The problem isn't creating a viable 3rd party, it is that you need a viable 3rd , 4th, & 5th party to divide the entire electorate and reduce the sum of the corrupt parties to less than 50% and no more than a lesser coalition partner party. Otherwise the two evil parties can continue to dominate, if there is only 1 "real" alternative.
Nice man, nice ideas.
Yes, to both.
I have to think that a large % of the population agrees with Ron about the 1 party system. It would have been great to see him on the ticket as an independent.
Sorry, I got distracted from the message because of the 20 seconds of disclaimer lawyer speak at the end.. /sarc
From a purely financial standpoint yes I agree.
The snake oil comes in cherry or lemon flavor, but youre still getting snake oil.
Really. So you're okay with Statism? The cancer runs FAR deeper than the pocket book.
Statism? No. But I dont think it really matters anyway.
Ask any FED member what he cares about more.
Democrat? Republican? Libertarian? They're just different flavors of snake oil, to make people think they have a choice.
Ron Paul is a cranky geezer and a tool. In failing to endorse Romney, he's increasing the likelhood of Obama getting re-elected, correspondingly increasing the probability that Bernanke gets a third term. Junk away.
man fuck you and your bloods vs crips view of politics.
you waste time blaming politicians when the real blame should be cast upon yourself and other idiots like you that endorse this idiotic farce of a system.
you are a willing participant in your own demise but you're just too fucking stupid to see it which, in turn, makes your demise certain and well deserved.
Whoa settle down killer ..
Oh please, climb down off the high horse you rode in on. I'm a realist.
being well adjusted to a sick system is not a sign of good mental health.
you're not a realist...you just gave up.
Awfully judgemental. All you've done is make personal attacks on me, but you've failed to disprove my point.
I'm fairly certain that I speak for many here when I say to you that I saw no point whatsoever in your comment. Only an acceptance of a broken system as being the thing we should all embrace. When I am confronted by such commentary, I do become judgmental because I judge that comment and the mind that spawned it to be truly dangerous and a nearly perfect example of cowardice and conformity. And those are two traits which I do not respect. Given that you obviously posses those two traits in vast quantity, how can I not judge you to be a fucking moron?
In QN's defense, he may not be a moron --- he may simply be a coward, or be evil.
Sadly, he is likely some combination of all three.
Correct! Real heros do absolutely nothing but make personal attacks on those which they disagree.
Yup. He makes a thoroughly judgemental remark about Ron Paul then complains and whines that you were being judgemental to him.
his point is that you will have the same policies with Obama and Romney so what fucking difference does it make
When do you think that Romney would dismiss Ben Bernanke if he takes office in 2013?
I would say that would be when I have a legally binding contract signed by said Politician. Otherwise, it seems they can and do whatever they want to do once they're in in the seat of power, such as pass a bill that gives themselves a raise and golden parachute retirement benefits.
Impossible to do when you don't have one.
No, you are a coward. AND a dumbshit.
Yawn, sticks and stones.
If the pro-status-quo-indoctrination shoe fits ....
What is it that you believe we are to do, if you can assume we are a relatively small minority of voters? I do not believe that TPTB would care one little bit about our "protest" vote. If RP had the public following needed to get elected we would have seen a much better primary result, so you leave us with an impotent abstainment or to express our lesser of evils choice which you would suggest accomplishes nothing either. So are we having a constructive conversation here or just looking for someone to abuse verbally?
So we start a new party called the Protest Party and based on the number of pissed voters out there, they'd romp it in.
No you're not, because you aren't in control. If Obama wins, and presides over the collapse, he may be blamed for the carnage, resulting in a ultra neo-con fascist state. If Mittens wins the repubs could be blamed for the demise, resulting in a socialistish fascist state. You nor I can see into the future. It's better to not give the sham legitimacy.
Vote for a constitutional sheriff, and local people that will stand up for civil rights. The rest is a waste of time.
It wasn't until very recently that Romney even had anything bad to say about Bernanke:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWDJEc92d38 (4:40)
Get real. Voting for one of these two guys is a wasted vote, it simply says "I'm fine with the status quo". A vote for a third party is a vote of no confidence and will have more lasting impact.
If you vote 3rd party, you may as well use the ballot for toilet paper to maximize it's utility.
Still enjoying the snuggly, oh-so-cozy embrace of the Matrix, I see.
"Go ahead throw your vote away!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23_Ioj-TKj4
QN...if you vote for either mittens or Obam, you may as well use the ballot for toilet tissue...it makes no difference, zero, which one wins they are both employees!
This is simply not true. Although you will not elect your guy, you will take away votes from the party that loses them, and so they will have to fight for those votes in the future, so that does make a difference. Eventually your party may even get bigger and change the system.
Unfortunately your brain is not capable of looking further than a two headed one party system.
Great, so that means i have to vote for an idiot! Thats awesome! I give a shit whether the idiot 1 loses votes to idiot 2 and has to get them from somewhere else! Thats the point pinhead! You vote your conscience and what you believe to be the "right" thing to do. There are enough people settling. I aint one of em. Like Lewis Black says, "its like chosing between 2 bowls of shit." So which one would you rather have........dolt?
???
Writing in Paul, voting 3rd Party, saves one the inevitable grief that arrives from having to hear yourself say later: "Fuck! I can't believe I voted for that fucking idiot!"
I gladly accept your invitation.
agreed... paul should know better. I'm sure he does... he's a tool.
He knows the system better than most. He's been there for almost 30 years. You're aparrently just to dense to understand why he is doing what he has... Put your thinking cap on, then sit and think for a while. I understand not everyone has double digit IQs, but maybe you'll get it if you try hard enough.
HINT: go to the next page for the answer (from me)
A vote for Romney is a vote for Obama. A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for Liberty.
And whats your point? Obama or Romney they are both employees who answer to the same boss. We will be going to war in Syria and Iran no matter which one gets the job.
Israel will not be denied its destiny by the USA. Liberty and freedom were removed from the equation back in 1913.
Wow... I've not seen a poster's ratings crater so decisively as yours have in this thread.
Maybe it's Romney's fault for acting so damned unconstitutionally that a principled man can't endorse him.
"Who ya gonna vote for? The progressive, gun-grabbing architect of Obamacare . . . or Obama?"
The GOP treated Ron Paul's delegates (and supporters) terribly at the Illinois convention and most likely at other state conventions as well. Now the GOP and Mitt want everyone to forget their behavior in the primary and vote for the red team. I find it very hard to vote for a candidate that is okay using railroading techniques to win, even though I am embarrassed to have a second term for Oblama, who sounds like an bumbling idiot when the teleprompter is packed away. A write-in for Ron Paul is, to me, a vote against the whole corrupt system.
why vote? you'd only encourage them.
Ron Paul: Perhaps the only honest man in politics. And certainly the ONLY ONE with any integrity.
Obama/Romney/Ryan/Biden...Liars, lowlifes, whores and thieves.
Your last adjective is the one that galls me the most about them, yet some people on this site are asking me to vote for one of them? I'll vote for the disbandment of and the destruction of the Fed, the re-endorsement of the constitution, and the removal of the military complex from the position it holds over politicians. It would be marvellous to have a president stand up in congress and direct the generals to "Stand Down". Ron Paul wasn't going to be given the opportunity to say that. There are too many vested interests involved in making sure that that didn't happen, (from transport, weapons contracts, uniforms, right down to laundry and toiletry supplies). Can you imagine the disruption to their cozy arangement? Winning a military supply contract is the surest way to make money there is.
Sociopaths are the same no matter what party they belong to.
If he had not quit I would have voted for him. So now it is Gary Johnson.
They've got four acceptable choices where I vote (and Nader isn't even running this time):
CONSTITUTION PARTY
Virgil Goode
LIBERTARIAN PARTY
Gary Johnson
GREEN PARTY
Jill Stein
WRITE IN
It's unfortunate for us that the average American is too ignorant of economics and real politic to understand why Ron Paul is the only sane choice for president. Neither party can manage the national debt without breaking a lot of fiscal (and therefore sacred) eggs and doing that would mean they would not get elected again. At least Ron Paul tells the truth about what needs to be done. No one can truthfully claim that "No one ever told us this would happen" when it all falls apart.
Ron Paul told us what needed to be done and America did not listen.
We get the leaders we deserve.
I'll write in Ron Paul when I vote. It will be interesting to see if my vote even shows up in the precinct totals.
At least I will have tried.
That was his primary mission in running, to grow the movement of educated people. That worked, even if his presidential run didn't. There was no way Paul was going to stop the collapse, but to perhaps make it less bad, and point the guilt at the appropriate parties. Now, when it all falls, more people will realize he was right!
He will have educated many, which gives us a chance at rebuilding something good after the collapse. We may be able to avoid absolute tyranny after round 1 ends. In many cases, post economic collapse, when the country doesn't know what the cause is, they suffer an echo collapse from the idiot they brought in to fix things i.e. Wiemar Germany, and Hitler. Ron Paul may have spared us the Hitler part (round 2), but he can't fix the Wiemar part (round 1).
Nice, succinct analysis. The 'echo collapse' is a really strong, interesting frame of reference.
The Jedi picture is most appropriate
Trust the force Ron. : ]
Ron Paul --- one of the last few American patriots left - here's the thing that most don't want to acknowledge, even if the system wasn't rigged for two parties, even if the MSM was neutral and gave him airtime, even if he was given a 100% fair shot at being elected - he wouldn't win - why? Because America no longer values individual freedom, the consequence of risk, the admiring success - no we have fullfilled the founder's nightmare -
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.”
Regarding your quote:
"The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money. "
Alexis de Tocqueville
Often misattributed to:
The Truth About Tytler
http://www.lorencollins.net/tytler.html
http://www.snopes.com/politics/ballot/athenian.asp
I still think we could see a sort of New National Party. Start with the Dem and Rep platforms from 1954 and....well, maybe just stop there.
Something moderate in many respects but clear on the need to reduce the scope and cost of government, notably the police state and global imperialist aspects, along with common sense entitlement and regulatory reform.
And the major change: a relentless attitude toward corruption and the TBTF issues (mark to market rules, bailouts and so forth).
We're not dead yet.
1950's America, great choice as a base. Anything before Lyndon Johnson seems like a kind of paradise for sanity and solidarity, but how do we get back there from here? I agree with Ron Paul line for line, except that I would slap the kleptocrats harder and faster. Nothing to lose from that. But..., Ron is right on the issues, but any Romney lieutenant would tell you, he knows squat about winning elections, even in small, rural states where he should run the table. Women don't vote for personal responsibility, and that's only one segment of the problem.
The Republicans are what they are because it's so damn easy for the Dims to buy votes with taxpayer money. How, as a practical matter, do we change that? Not dead yet? Well said, and America has looked like toast many times before. Some here think a financial collapse is the answer. I think it is just one more problem.
Ways and Means, a practical path to power. Well, Obammy has been a great president, for Smith and Wesson.
Ain't been right since General Jackson imho. 1950 was already deep into the imperial experiment; it seems like halcyon days only because the truly ugly shit was securely under wraps and the moral decay would take one more generation to take deep root and do real damage.
I would note for the record that not only did Paul run the table on the Minnesota convention delegation, but the only reason Michele Bachmann even got a seat in Tampa was because the Paulistas took pity upon her and gave her the last one.
Nationally, he ONLY quadrupled his showing from last time. More or less.
In the 1950's we still had hard core segregationist Democrats firmly in control in the South, and de facto racism in Boston and other major cities. The pendulum swung way too far, but the 1950's were no paradise if you were not "Free, White, and 21", as the common saying of the day went.
So what does that have to do with building a new party platform? I am not discussing nostalgia or Utopia, nor their opposites.
The Founding Fathers' inspirational examples all had their share of 'real warts'. But going from a blank slate seems to be a prescription for getting nothing done.
Jim, you're way too sharp to have fallen for the "inspirational founding fathers" crap.
US is/was the New World and the attempt was to lay the seed of a rather insidious order.
Best source I know, so far, for general eye-popping...
"In 1789 Alexander Hamilton became the first Treasury Secretary of the United States. Hamilton was one of many Founding Fathers who were Freemasons. He had close relations with the Rothschild family which owns the Bank of England and leads the European Freemason movement. George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, John Jay, Ethan Allen, Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry, John Brown and Roger Sherman were all Masons.
Roger Livingston helped Sherman and Franklin write the Declaration of Independence. He gave George Washington his oaths of office while he was Grand Master of the New York Grand Lodge of Freemasons. Washington himself was Grand Master of the Virginia Lodge. Of the General Officers in the Revolutionary Army, thirty-three were Masons. This was highly symbolic since 33rd Degree Masons become Illuminated. [1]
Populist founding fathers led by John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and Thomas Paine- none of whom were Masons- wanted to completely severe ties with the British Crown, but were overruled by the Masonic faction led by Washington, Hamilton and Grand Master of the St. Andrews Lodge in Boston General Joseph Warren, who wanted to “defy Parliament but remain loyal to the Crown”. St. Andrews Lodge was the hub of New World Masonry and began issuing Knights Templar Degrees in 1769. [2]
All US Masonic lodges are to this day warranted by the British Crown, whom they serve as a global intelligence and counterrevolutionary subversion network. Their most recent initiative is the Masonic Child Identification Program (CHIP). According to Wikipedia, the CHIP programs allow parents the opportunity to create a kit of identifying materials for their child, free of charge. The kit contains a fingerprint card, a physical description, a video, computer disk, or DVD of the child, a dental imprint, and a DNA sample.
The First Continental Congress convened in Philadelphia in 1774 under the Presidency of Peyton Randolph, who succeeded Washington as Grand Master of the Virginia Lodge. The Second Continental Congress convened in 1775 under the Presidency of Freemason John Hancock. Peyton’s brother William succeeded him as Virginia Lodge Grand Master and became the leading proponent of centralization and federalism at the First Constitutional Convention in 1787. The federalism at the heart of the US Constitution is identical to the federalism laid out in the Freemason’s Anderson’s Constitutions of 1723. William Randolph became the nation’s first Attorney General and Secretary of State under George Washington. His family returned to England loyal to the Crown. John Marshall, the nation’s first Supreme Court Justice, was also a Mason. [3]"
Source: http://deanhenderson.wordpress.com/2011/06/08/the-federal-reserve-cartel-part-ii-the-freemason-bus-the-house-of-rothschild/
Brilliant man, incisive work.
Write in Dean Henderson for Prez!
ori
what's your point?
That the Freemasons of those days were all "luciferians"?
Can you not judge them on what they did, what they achieved?
Or is the ONLY benchmark : "what conclave of intellectuals you belong to?"
You forget the historic context of the Enlightenment period : bringing down the two swords of the feudal age, that had concentrated all the despotic powers in their own hands since the Crusades to the detriment of the "Serfs" : the Nobility and the Clerics; who had written the bloodiest page in the History of humanity.
The Enlightenment represented a new beginning that based its value systems on the Greek philosophical thread; on secular logic, analytic process, scientific progress, democracy and the Republican institutions well known to Man. Both the French upheaval againt Absolutism of Kings and Clerics as the anticolonial desire for freedom of American people were inspired by those values.
In those times, the Freemasons were the conclave where those ideas germinated and took form to inspire two historic revolutions that have changed the course of mankind.
So what is your point??? That there were dissensions and differences of opinion about degree of change? Normal, in any human organic family! The tree of diverse opinions hides the forest of progress achieved collectively. Perfection is NOT of this world.
Are you advocating a revisionist and reactionary reading of history based on conspirational values that annul the progress achieved; part of our collective DNA in Western civilization? !!
For once Falak, you make no sense or sound like a utopian romantic tossing some old cliches around to fit a big paragraph of prose.
Not sure where your word-splurge came from in response to my "know your history".
Enjoy your collective No-Bell.
ori
Falak's word splurge? Did you see yours? You must be typing by the inch now.
I can only hope that our society is too sharp to fall for the 'poison tree, poison fruit so please do nothing' crap.
We learn and take the good stuff. I am keeping it a bit simple here on ZH. I have learned as my virtual beard greys.
But when it is decision time, that is indeed the art. What is the right compromise and what is the wrong one? How, practically, does one advance? When is the material placed before us with much blood and toil to be swept aside in the (usually vain) hope that we can just invent something better using a blank slate?
Yes, it is important to study history and take an analytic stance on it. However, just as the Presbyterians studied and wrote about governance in a congregation with such force and logic that King George labelled the American Revolution "that Presbyterian revolution," so are we obligated to use the examples of history, not spit on them. Or at least use them at the same time as we spit on them, I suppose that's a matter of style.
To reiterate a bit for the weekend, I believe a case can be made that the mainstream American politics of the mid-1950s does represent what IN CONTEXT could be a 'radical reset' for our current system. That is not to advocate waving a wand and magically reinstating the entire universe of 1954. I am talking about party platforms. Have you read them?
--Avoid foreign entanglements
--Support prosperity at home
--Take care of the social compact in the least intrusive way possible
Bitching is well and good (bitchez!) but we need simple and moderate building blocks. Alternatively, start a riot or retreat to the land. I am not trying to judge people. Simply wondering where the civic experiment of America might find a peaceful, democratic path forward.
Or as Gandhi is said to have said:
"What do I think of Western Civilization? I think it would be a very good idea."
"I can only hope that our society is too sharp to fall for the 'poison tree, poison fruit so please do nothing' crap."
Let us bow our heads together.
http://goo.gl/mhSpC
If you can't beat them, eat them.
Another thing, we in the Netherlands have about 20 different party's, and the sheeple voted for just two. TWO. Cognitive dissonance, greed, fear.
It's FEAR. Mainstream fear. But it won't help them. Humans are just pretending to be smarter than apes. The big big ape ejaculates from his rock. Don't lick your fingers living in the sand down there. Ever.
Sure. The Dutch are famous for being the most fearful group of sissies of the world.
Your statement is false and misleading. are you trolling?
You are talking about the Dutch Parliamentary Elections of September 2012, here a link to some facts http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_general_election,_2012
The Dutch Parliament has 150 seats. Six parties have won some. 31, 30, 24*, 15, 13 and 12, respectively.
Your favourite (*?) could join a coalition (needs 76) with someone else IF the others would not find it... a bit on the smelly side
ZH should post the full version video:http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000121747
I just love when Rogers is speaking about how inept both Republicrats are and you can hear Faber in the background laughing in agreement.
It's also nice to hear a big fat chuckle in the background when Ron says a resounding NO to endorsing Obamney.
Why on earth didn't Paul challenge the Iowa secret vote count immediately? And why didn't he pass the torch to Gary Johnson months ago. Obviously since he actually did win Iowa, and other early vote states where there was action to hide his popularity, he had an immense following.
Don't know. I voted for ron in the primaries and have registered now as a libertarian for my upcoming vote for johnson. Complainers should run for local office themselves. keiser says that fraud (and entitlements) is so fundamental to the system now that cleaning things up will cause a collapse. Maybe now is the time to focus on local community cohesiveness, family survival, and wait out this storm. But if catherine austin fitts is right, the controllers' "slow burn" will grind on another 10+ years sucking everyone down into full government enslavement via constant ratchetting up of taxes, regulations, financial repression, etc. Unless the bulk of the banksters do jail time and the $2 quadrillion of derivatives are repudiated, the whole planet will be brought under fascist bankster control.
I wonder why more politicans dont call out the "powerful interests" that Paul refers to behind the FED and us Govt. I have a hunch the dont want to end up like JFK. I wonder if that thought goes thru Pauls head. If he gets taken out by them it whould make him truly the martyer like Obi-one.
I'm pretty sure Paul isn't afraid to die. If he was so worried for his safety, he wouldn't have lived in DC for almost 3 decades, during waves of crime, and the cold war. He's made a calculated judgement. I think he's right. I believe he is thinking that there's not alot more he can do within gov before the collapse. The rest of the work will have to be done afterwards, hence a younger protege to pass the torch to.
They have successfully painted him as fringe.
The problem is they have all the main stream media, politicians, and bankers in their pockets.
Did they seriously just cut the segment when he started veering into the One Party stuff? And people think our media is any different than that of the USSR
Stop sobbing you wankers. USA i finished and was finished all along. American exceptionalism is BULLSHIT. Banker. Serfs.
Conclusion
There is an old joke about a central bank official picking up a pizza. (Perhaps it’s Chairman Bernanke, on his way home after a long day of quantitative easing.) The clerk asks, “Do you want it cut in six slices, or eight?” The central banker responds: “I’m feeling extra hungry today; better make it eight.”
.
http://financialservices.house.gov/uploadedfiles/hhrg-112-ba19-wstate-pk...
.
Max Keiser destroys 2012 Nobel Peace Prize
Posted on October 12, 2012 by maxkeiser
http://maxkeiser.com/2012/10/12/max-keiser-destroys-2012-nobel-peace-prize/
.
" give it to monsanto ". frankenstein and the machine
update !
.
"Earthship Biotecture": Renegade New Mexico Architect’s Radical Approach
to Sustainable Living
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/10/11/earthship_biotecture_renegade_new...
USA Arizona: ArcoSanti - mini documentary (Paolo Soleri)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEqPBZ-2Vz8
.
America’s Moral Degeneracy
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2012/10/10/americas-moral-degeneracy/
.
" ..In the West, the Ministry of Propaganda continues to talk about the “Syrian revolt.” There is no revolt. What has happened is that the US and Israel have equipped with weapons and sent into Syria Islamists who wish to overthrow the secular Syrian government. Washington knows that if the Syrian government can be destroyed, the country will dissolve into warring factions like Iraq and Libya." .. pcr
Paul Craig Roberts is amazing. For those who don't know, he was an Asst Secretary of the Treasury under Reagan and was Editor of the WSJ for a time. Americans of all political stripes should listen carefully to this guy. He speaks the truth.
BULLSHIT. Roberts is a bootlicker. He just favors a different brand of boot.
There was a Syrian Revolt. A whole bunch of good and brave people died speaking out against their own brand of TPTB. Americans were indifferent and slept through it. Fast forward six months when destabilization serves US interests, and the spigot is opened.
For Roberts demeaning their deaths to further his propaganda, he can rot in a FEMA camp for all I care.
You might be right about the good and brave people who started the Revolt. That sounds totally plausible. But even if Roberts got that part wrong, that doesn't make him a bootlicker. Go to his site and tell him you think he fucked up on how it started. I bet he'll take it seriously. Whose boot do you think he's licking anyway?! As for FEMA camps should they come to pass, you'll be there too so you might want to rethink that.
I was wrong, Paul Craig Roberts isn't a bootlicker, he is a deranged sociopath. I can understand having hatred for a government (or an axis of governments), but when that hatred leads to the continuous disregard for the violation of the human rights of others to achieve his personal, he becomes certifiably insane, every bit as much as those he seeks to indict.
I looked read through various articles over the last three years (focusing on those with foreign relevance in titles), and the pattern of disregarding the violation of the human rights of others is a repeated tool of his argument construction against his perceived foe, even though he himself is engaging in the very practice he accuses others of. Some Examples:
Gadhafi is probably not a nice fellow. However, there is no doubt whatsoever that the current US president and the predecessor Bush/Cheney regime have murdered many times more people in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia than Gadhafi has murdered in Libya. Moreover, Gadhafi is putting down a rebellion against state authority as presently constituted, <SO IF THE US SHEEPLE EVER RISE UP YOU DON"T MIND BEING FIRST IN LINE TO CAMP FEMA OR A QUICK BULLET TO THE HEAD?> http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2011/03/29/obama-raises-american-hypocri...
I’m not an expert on Burma, but the way I see it the objection to a military government is that the government is not accountable to law. Instead, such a regime behaves as it sees fit and issues edicts that advance its agenda. Burma’s government can be criticized for not having a rule of law, but it cannot be criticized for ignoring its own laws. <YES IT CAN (be accuses of violated even the joke of a legal code, plus all those treaties it obligated itself to, and which you properly accuse the US of ignoring)> http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2010/11/14/burma-needs-rule-of-law—but-so-does-u-s/
How many people has China bombed, droned, and sanctioned into non-existence in the 21st century? <Dude, you can't be that dumb, and if you are China could use/sell the rest of your organs right now, they have paying customers> http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2012/02/15/washingtons-insouciance-has-n... http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/china-news/book-exposes-organized-killin...
Ron Paul opened the throttle a bit on that one. I never heard him talk about the very powerful people who have "their two guys in place" (referring to both Obama and Romney) before.
Wouldn't surprise me if Ron Paul starts dragging all sorts of 'Finest 535'-related skeletons out of the closet after he retires.
Ron Paul makes sense when he talks about the FED, the rest of the time it's hard to tell who's a bigger moron, him or the stupes that say they will vote for him......
What a senile sore loser.
Give examples of where you disagree with him so we can try to refute or stfu.
Not gonna get people to vote for your "team" with all that name calling partner.
Libertarians would do well to find another standard bearer. Ron Paul is too old at 77 to be an effective voice. He's a hypocrite for advocating smaller government will being a big pork barrel spender. He's corrupt for skimming such a large share of his campaign contributions to friends and family - in the same league as such shining ethics stars as Alcee Hastings, Jerry Lewis, and Maxine Waters. Without his House seat to keep him in the news, he'll quickly fade from view.
He was educating the masses dumbass! There's nothing he could have done about the coming economic shitstorm, save maybe taking the edge off just a smidge and pointing fingers in the right places (if he won, which was a long shot) He's preparing the people who will listen, for what's coming, to grow in numbers, so we don't end up with a Hitler in the ashes. He may have given the country a chance at rebuilding. He may have saved us from a different horror.
You fucking people think so one dimensionally. Do I really have to spell this shit out for you...? need a picture book?
Oh and fucktard, RP didn't pork barrel spend, he got his district's money back from the feds. He is easily the most principled politician in this country's entire history, including the founding fathers. I love Jefferson, but he had slaves after all, and he knew it was wrong.
hey quant! you're a fucktard.
"Ron Paul will not go quietly into the night"
Um sorry Tyler... that's exactly what he did when he bitched out and went home after he said he was taking his delegates to the convention... FUCK RON PAUL.
NOW he has more to say.... STFU Paul.
You mean the delegates that were stolen from him or the delegates that were not allowed to enter the convention?
Maine Walks Out of RNC:
Ron Paul's Maine Delegates Stand Strong Against Corrupt RNChttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTr7lZ5EXlE
SIX States Nominated The Champion Of The Constitution Congressman Ron Paul For POTUShttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Cw5crSkrhA&feature=related
Ron Paul delegates disqualified from the RNChttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZBSZsQAo3Q
And Ron Paul won Iowa but that was not acknowledged until after they decided it didn't matter and it never made the major news:
http://tiny.cc/u342lw
Yeah and he went out like the compromised a-hole that he is.... you are all blind...
Now's the time for another one of your enthusiastic endoresements of Obama, RA.
I want to hear more!! The 2 minute sound bites suck!