Why the pessimism?

[gls]

I think we could win the primary with pretty much just the antiwar/non-interventionist Republicans anyway. Check out this poll from the spring: http://www.gallup.com/poll/147488/Americans-Positive-Afghanistan-Bin-Laden-Death.aspx

 

[Liberty74]

Maybe an anti-war, bring the troops home ad would benefit?

 

[bb_dg]

I'm just feeling down because there are such better ways he could have explained his policies instead of trying to change the mind of the audience. I think his surge recently was mainly due to people just leaning toward him, and I think he just pushed them away by being so controversial. He should have just played the game and answered the question what he would do if Iran did have a nuclear weapon instead of trying to convince everyone that that situation is not realistic.

 

[lucent]

I'm just feeling down because there are such better ways he could have explained his policies instead of trying to change the mind of the audience. I think his surge recently was mainly due to people just leaning toward him, and I think he just pushed them away by being so controversial. He should have just played the game and answered the question what he would do if Iran did have a nuclear weapon instead of trying to convince everyone that that situation is not realistic.

Are you psychic?

 

[PastaRocket848]

If the policy is to bring the United States to its economic knees and impose a totolitarian technocracy on the population it does not matter if we can't afford another war since destroying our economy is the chaos mandated to create the atmosphere for the social engineering necessary to finish the job.

Um, what?

 

[ItsTime]

I won over people this week with Rons answer he gave tonight. And those were gop insiders.

 

[Banksy]

abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz

 

[beardedlinen]

I'm just feeling down because there are such better ways he could have explained his policies instead of trying to change the mind of the audience. I think his surge recently was mainly due to people just leaning toward him, and I think he just pushed them away by being so controversial. He should have just played the game and answered the question what he would do if Iran did have a nuclear weapon instead of trying to convince everyone that that situation is not realistic.

^This.

 

[Rothbardian Girl]

I felt like he needed to emphasize the fact that war with Iran would have been fine as long as there was a declaration of war. I didn't hear that in his answer. He got three shots to try and explain himself, and he didn't do the best job. You know, I'm not as concerned about it as I once was. I think people are getting war-weary. We can worry about winning people in other states later. We just need the good people of Iowa to believe what Ron Paul has been saying.

At first I was panicking about it, but I mean, it's water under the bridge now. Just like all his other controversial moments, this one will be forgotten as well. People know what to expect from Ron about foreign policy now. This shouldn't be coming as such a huge shock to anyone. Yes, I'm a little worried that Ron didn't pick up any new support within the GOP for this, but maybe he has won over a few Indies and Dems who might be motivated to switch over, if there is still time. Who knows?

At least his answers on nearly everything else were good. I particularly loved his answer on the earmarks question.

 

[newbitech]

I'm just feeling down because there are such better ways he could have explained his policies instead of trying to change the mind of the audience. I think his surge recently was mainly due to people just leaning toward him, and I think he just pushed them away by being so controversial. He should have just played the game and answered the question what he would do if Iran did have a nuclear weapon instead of trying to convince everyone that that situation is not realistic.

disagree. he needs to rise above "the game" in order to be the president this country needs right now. there is genuine fear out there that our country is on the verge of collapse and is open to attack by nuclear armed enemies.

The myth that Iran and the middle east in general is an enemy to America needs to be dispelled. The only way that happens is if someone like Ron Paul gets up in front of the country and dismisses any pretense otherwise.

 

[CUnknown]

Ron did great! He is my President.

I have talked to many people who are just now starting to look at Ron positively, it's really amazing that he has come so far and that we continue to gain ground! Now is certainly not the time for pessimism -- just today I saw a positive Facebook discussion about Ron Paul from my friends, and it's one I didn't start! Amazing.

For every faux "conservative" who he loses with his foreign policy, he gains 1 independent and 1 Democrat. I think Ron will do very very well in open primary States and in caucus States, and he will do poorly in closed primary States. He's going to just squeak by when he wins this thing, but I do believe that the official campaign is going 1000x better than last go around, they have a strategy to win, and they're carrying it out, and we are going to win.

 

[bb_dg]

disagree. he needs to rise above "the game" in order to be the president this country needs right now. there is genuine fear out there that our country is on the verge of collapse and is open to attack by nuclear armed enemies.

The myth that Iran and the middle east in general is an enemy to America needs to be dispelled. The only way that happens is if someone like Ron Paul gets up in front of the country and dismisses any pretense otherwise.

You misunderstand the expression I was using. They were giving him a hypothetical situation, one that many republicans thinks is likely. He should have just said that he would have the congress declare war if they decided to and explain why declaring the war would be a better option than the president just flouting the military around. He shouldn't have tried to tell the people how unlikely the hypothetical situation was, they want to know what you would do if such a thing happened. He would have got more people to understand where he was coming from and why his approach to Iran would be the best. It's kinda frustrating.

 

[dolphin]

Originally Posted by dolphin
If the policy is to bring the United States to its economic knees and impose a totolitarian technocracy on the population it does not matter if we can't afford another war since destroying our economy is the chaos mandated to create the atmosphere for the social engineering necessary to finish the job.

Um, what?

I guess you have never heard of Hegelian Dialectic?

It explains my pessimism. Not enough of us know and Ron Paul is not allowed to tell anyone, or they would Wellstone his family. Since he can't tell the whole truth they are easily able to make his foreign policy sound crazy to a lot of people who have been dumbed down/brainwashed with a false perception of the geo-political reality. Particularly the Fundamentalists, Christian Zionists, and other groups who have been trained to interpret things in a biblical context.

I could add a ton more to back up what I am saying, but this is as much as I felt I could put in a single post that taken together will explain best what I am refering to.

Christian Zionism, CBN and other groups
Pat Robertson and CBN can be seen bluntly as a CIA psychological warfare "religion", which works with military "counterinsurgency" experts to crush indigenous rights and "guerilla" groups. To crush freedom in the name of freedom, and to starve people in the name of humanitarian relief. Some of Robertson's friends in his network of "Christian charities" have privately admitted being CIA.
http://www.takeoverworld.info/cbn.html

HOLY TERROR (PARTS I&II) (1996)
Through an interview and an incredible documentary we take a comprehensive look at the radical Christian Right and its efforts to take over political power at all levels of society. Through information provided by undercover agents and by monitoring of Christian Coalition TV programs, the documentary shows the strategies, the deviousness, and the dangers which these people pose to secular society and civil liberties. We also review the book "Holy Terror."
http://www.archive.org/details/AV_543_544-HOLY_TERROR



Heres is a quote from their Bible.

"Democracy is not a panacea. It cannot organize everything and it is unaware of its own limits. These facts must be faced squarely. Sacrilegious though this may sound, democracy is no longer well suited for the tasks ahead. The complexity and the technical nature of many of today’s problems do not always allow elected representatives to make competent decisions at the right time.”

The above quote is Excerpted from "The First Global Revolution " which is a publication of "The Club of Rome" (made the best seller list in 1991) http://books.google.com/books?id=8RNKHGbzUuAC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false




What is Globalization?

It is the collec*tive effect of pur*poseful and amoral manipula*tion that seeks to centralize eco*nomic, politÂ*ical, techno*logical and societal forces in order to accrue max*imum profit and political power to global banks, global corÂpo*rations and the elit*ists who run them. It is rapidly moving toward an full and final imple*men*ta*tion of Technocracy.

What is the Tri*lat*eral Commission?

Founded in 1973 by David Rock*e*feller and Zbig*niew Brzezinski, the Com*mis*sion set out to create a “New Inter*na*tional Eco*nomic Order”, namely, Tech*noc*racy. The orig*inal mem*ber*ship con*sisted of elit*ists (bankers, politi*cians, aca*d*e*mics, indus*tri*al*ists) from Japan, North America and Europe. Col*lec*tively, they have dom*i*nated and con*trolled trade and eco*nomic policy in their respec*tive coun*tries since at least 1974.

What is Technocracy?

Tech*noc*racy is a move*ment started in the 1930′s by engi*neers, sci*en*tists and tech*ni*cians that pro*posed the replace*ment of cap*i*talism with an energy-based economy. Orig*i*nally envi*sioned for North America only, it is now being applied on a global basis. Authors Aldous Huxley and George Orwell believed that Tech*noc*racy would result in a Sci*en*tific Dic*ta*tor*ship, as reflected in their books, “Brave New World” and “1984“.

What is Smart Grid?

Smart Grid is the national and global imple*men*ta*tion of dig*ital and Wi-fi enabled power meters that enable com*mu*ni*ca*tion between the appli*ances in your home or busi*ness, with the power provider. This pro*vides con*trol over your appli*ances and your usage of elec*tricity, gas and water.
http://www.augustforecast.com/


Still, President Lyndon B. Johnson apparently couldn’t be sure that his predecessor (John F. Kennedy) hadn’t commissioned the Iron Mountain Report. According to US News and World Report, the President “hit the roof” upon learning of it and ordered that the report be “bottled up for all time”.'

However, it was not until five years later that the Iron Mountain Report was confirmed to be a hoax. In 1972, fretting how the Pentagon Papers and other documents about the Vietnam War "read like parodies of Iron Mountain rather than the reverse"[1], Dr. Kurt Lewin confessed (he lied) in the March 19 New York Times Book Review that he had written the entire report. It was even listed in the Guinness Book of World Records as the "Most Successful Literary Hoax."

On November 26, 1976, the Iron Mountain Report was reviewed in the book section of the Washington Post by Herschel McLandress, which was the pen name for Harvard Professor John Kenneth Galbraith. Galbraith, who also had been a member of the CFR (Council on Foreign Relations) and an advisor to President Kennedy, said that he knew firsthand of the report's authenticity because he had been invited to participate in it. Although he was unable to be part of the official group, he was consulted from time to time and had been asked to keep the project a secret. Furthermore, while he doubted the wisdom of letting the public know about the report, he agreed totally with its conclusions.

He wrote: 'As I would put my personal repute behind the authenticity of this document, so would I testify to the validity of its conclusions. My reservation relates only to the wisdom of releasing it to an obviously unconditioned public.'[2]

TEXT: THE REPORT FROM IRON MOUNTAIN
http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/ironmtn.html

 

[newbitech]

You misunderstand the expression I was using. They were giving him a hypothetical situation, one that many republicans thinks is likely. He should have just said that he would have the congress declare war if they decided to and explain why declaring the war would be a better option than the president just flouting the military around. He shouldn't have tried to tell the people how unlikely the hypothetical situation was, they want to know what you would do if such a thing happened. He would have got more people to understand where he was coming from and why his approach to Iran would be the best. It's kinda frustrating.

not trying to argue with you. I just disagree with what you think his response should have been. Ron Paul cannot "have congress declare war" even as president. The president's job is to deal with realities, not hypothetical. There are plenty of real things going on for people to question. I agree, people are afraid and people are worried about what *might* happen. The point is, President Paul is not going to lead this country from fear of hypothetical. President Paul is going to deal with reality and lead from a position of strength. Especially when it comes to defending this country.

If this was a game a chess, Paul is basically saying, "take your hand off the piece and it's a legal move". The media is moving different pieces to different places and says "watch Ron Paul's face to see his reaction to an illegal move". The people need to not be misled, and Ron Paul is doing his part to ensure that doesn't happen. That is the only way he can help them alleviate their fears. The rest is up to the people to decide. Truth.

 

[dolphin]

Originally Posted by PastaRocket848
Um, what?

I may as well add this since you got me started.

The writer of Ombamanomics is a frequent guest panelist on Mclaughlin show.



At the very end of that interview listen to what he says about guaranteed Corporate profits for chosen companies because the government institutes policies to destroy their competition. (As in Monopoly)

Then put it together with this.

In 1932 the J.P. Morgan Executive Board explained to their Star Junior Executive Norman Dodd who years later was put in charge of the Congressional Reese Committee.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...empt_Foundations_and_Comparable_Organizations

"We will never see sound banking in the United States again...

Since the end of World War 1 we have been responsable for the
institutionalization of conflicting interests that can never be resolved."
---JP Morgan's Executive Board Members;[/b]

In other words perpetual chaos to facilitate social engineering. (Order out of Chaos/Hegeloan Dialectic.)

With that as the backdrop, this is what Norman Dodd says of a conversation he had with the President of the tax-exempt Ford Foundation in 1954 as part of his Congressionally mandated investigation of tax-exempt foundations:

“Mr. Dodd, we’ve asked you to come up here today because we thought that possibly, off the record, you would tell us why the Congress is interested in the activities of the foundations such as ourselves.” Before I could think of how I would reply to that statement, Mr. Gaither then went on and said: “Mr. Dodd, all of us who have a hand in the making of policies here have had experience operating under directives, the substance of which is that we shall use our grant-making power so to alter life in the United States that it can be comfortably merged with the Soviet Union.”

ED GRIFFIN: Why do the (Tax Exempt) Foundations (Rockefeller, Ford, Carnegie etc...) generously support Communist causes in the United States?

NORMAN DODD: Well, because to them, Communism represents a means of developing what we call a monopoly, that is, an organization of, say, a large-scale industry into an administerable unit.

ED GRIFFIN: Do they think that they will be the ones to benefit?

NORMAN DODD: They will be the beneficiaries of it, yes


Another ominous thread in the interview is when Dodd reveals of what his lead investigator discovered in the minutes-books of Carnegie Endowment for Peace. According to Norman Dodd, the following was recorded on the old-fashioned dictaphone machine by Katherine Casey as she was browsing the minutes-books in the CEP library:

We are now at the year 1908, which was the year that the Carnegie Foundation began operations. In that year, the trustees, meeting for the first time, raised a specific question, which they discussed throughout the balance of the year in a very learned fashion. The question is: “Is there any means known more effective than war, assuming you wish to alter the life of an entire people?” And they conclude that no more effective means than war to that end is known to humanity.

So then, in 1909, they raised the second question and discussed it, namely: “How do we involve the United States in a war?”

Well, I doubt at that time if there was any subject more removed from the thinking of most of the people of this country than its involvement in a war. There were intermittent shows in the Balkans, but I doubt very much if many people even knew where the Balkans were. Then, finally, they answered that question as follows: “We must control the State Department.” That very naturally raises the question of how do we do that? And they answer it by saying: “We must take over and control the diplomatic machinery of this country.” And, finally, they resolve to aim at that as an objective.

Then time passes, and we are eventually in a war, which would be World War I. At that time they record on their minutes a shocking report in which they dispatched to President Wilson a telegram, cautioning him to see that the war does not end too quickly.

Finally, of course, the war is over. At that time their interest shifts over to preventing what they call a reversion of life in the United States to what it was prior to 1914 when World War I broke out. At that point they came to the conclusion that, to prevent a reversion, “we must control education in the United States.” They realize that that’s a pretty big task. It is too big for them alone, so they approach the Rockefeller Foundation with the suggestion that that portion of education which could be considered domestic be handled by the Rockefeller Foundation and that portion which is international should be handled by the Endowment. They then decide that the key to success of these two operations lay in the alteration of the teaching of American history. …

The Monetary Conspiracy For World Government by Zahir Ebrahim
Posted on November 19, 2008 by dandelionsalad
by Zahir Ebrahim
Project Humanbeingsfirst
http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com...piracy-for-world-government-by-zahir-ebrahim/

 

[economics102]

Ron Paul kicked ass in that debate. If that kind of performance loses us votes, I don't know what to say because Dr. Paul was at the top of his game IMHO.

 

[WIwarrior]

I could only read the comments on the debate thread and it sounded like he cost himself the nomination. Then I watch the debate on the tube and read articles on the web and see that he did great. I was very happy with his answers and I think we gained lots of votes.

 

[shrugged0106]

I do kind of wish that he could have asked how any of them plan to pay for this big ol war with Iran. Thats really all he needs to say with the fence sitting GOP'ers. $ talks

 

[vita3]

People need to take a step back from the cliff.

 

[Aratus]

I thought RP dominated. The foreign policy answer was awesome. We can't afford another war even if we wanted another. I think this is going to resonate with Iowans. I'm truly disturbed that a lot of people here want him to pander and soften his message. He has never done this and he never will. I support him because he's so sure of his beliefs.

the rest of the candidates are boorish hawkish idiots, even erudite well educated jon huntsman.

its dawning on us that doctor ron paul is the very last enlightenment era voice of reason we have.