Ron Paul: “The PATRIOT Act Was Written Many, Many Years Before 9/11

Coals

Active Member
http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/%3F-older-posts-ron-paul-%E2%80%9C-patriot-act-was-written-many-many-years-911-and-attacks-simply-



Politico notes:

Ron Paul isn’t backing down from his position that the U.S. has provoked terrorists through foreign military occupation and that officials tried to capitalize on Sept. 11 attacks.

“Think of what happened after 9/11, the minute before there was any assessment, there was glee in the administration because now we can invade Iraq, and so the war drums beat,” Paul said Thursday night before a packed room of more than 1,000 students and supporters. “That’s exactly what they’re doing now with Iran.”

***

His libertarian ideals have struck a cord with many, but conservatives remain deeply wary of Paul’s foreign policy positions, including his assertion that the U.S. provoked the Sept. 11 attacks by maintaining military bases in foreign countries. Paul’s position as the lone dove in the GOP race has made him a foil for some of his hawkish Republican opponents.

“Extremists have taken over, and they’re the ones who run the foreign policy and have convinced us to go along with all these wars,” Paul said Wednesday night.

Paul said that claims Iran could be developing a nuclear weapon are just part of an effort to scare Americans into going to war again.

Paul said of the possibility that Iran has a nuclear weapon is “not true at all.” “It doesn’t mean they might not want a nuclear weapon.”

No other country, Paul said, is capable of attacking the United States.

“How many foreign countries can threaten us right now?” Paul asked sarcastically. “How many are likely to invade us or drop a bomb on us? I can’t imagine.”

***

“The PATRIOT Act was written many, many years before 9/11,” Paul said. The attacks simply provided “an opportunity for some people to do what they wanted to do,” he said.

***

“I wish we could guarantee a democratic and honest election in this country as well,” Paul said. “The democratic process in this country has a long way to go.”
Mr. Paul is right:
  • The Patriot Act was planned before 9/11 (and see this). Indeed, former Counter Terrorism Czar Richard Clarke told Stanford law professor Lawrence Lessig:
After 9/11 the government drew up the Patriot Act within 20 days and it was passed. The Patriot Act is huge and I remember someone asking a Justice Department official how did they write such a large statute so quickly, and of course the answer was that it has been sitting in the drawers of the Justice Department for the last 20 years waiting for the event where they would pull it out.
(4:30 into this video).
  • The Afghanistan war was planned before 9/11 (see this and this)
 

jacob213

Active Member
bush and his buddies also used torture to get false confessions which he used to instigate his "war on terror"
 

labudman

Active Member
I laugh at people like all of you who think Ron Paul is someone to listen to. I mean seriously, should we be so liberal that we allow anything and everything to happen? Take a good long look at Europe and what's happened over there with the spread of Islam as a result of liberal ideals. I consider myself very liberal and progressive, but does that mean I'm going to stand back and watch America get taken over by foreign ideas, foreigners or people who could care less about what America really stands for? Absolutely NOT!!!
 

WillyBagseed

Active Member
I laugh at people like all of you who think Ron Paul is someone to listen to. I mean seriously, should we be so liberal that we allow anything and everything to happen? Take a good long look at Europe and what's happened over there with the spread of Islam as a result of liberal ideals. I consider myself very liberal and progressive, but does that mean I'm going to stand back and watch America get taken over by foreign ideas, foreigners or people who could care less about what America really stands for? Absolutely NOT!!!
The issue is not the USA being "taken over" by "foreign ideas, foreigners or people who could care less about what America really stands for"

We have an internal cancer called greed and corruption. The government and Corporations (banks, pharma, farmed out jobs for more profit) are what is slowly killing our once Great country, not foreigners......

Reagan - old timers disease, deregulation and trickle down(aka Let them eat cake economics aka VooDoo economics)
Bush Sr - "No new taxes" lol and more of the same
Bill Clinton - NAFTA, Glass-Stegall's repeal and the telecomm bill (if it wasn't for the internet bubble and his personality Bill Clinton would go down as one of the worst Democratic presidents in the history of the USA, at least to those who know what issues, just these 3 bills that passed, have caused)
Bush Jr - more deregulation, tax cuts for the "job creators" (lol, where are the jobs?) .. torture, expanded rendition, the Patriot act and general dumbassedness....
Obama - continuing many of Bush Jrs ignorant fucked up policies and general ball- less- ness.

That is what is killing us.

The "conservative party" we have today is very far right of what pre Reagan republicans used to be and the "liberal party" is also far right to what it used to be. There is no true "left liberal party" with any usable influence in this country anymore. If you want to try and say Slick Willy or Obama are lefty socialists you need to do a little more research on actual policies overall they signed off on and then figure out where they are. Altho they both have / had some liberal policies they are both in fact centrist democrats when overall policies are taken into account.

It has absolutely nothing to do with "liberal" ideals or, I hate to say it, true conservative ideals (not false conservative neocons) but everything to do with greed and corruption.

Much more to it than that but I work Saturdays and do not have time to make a full page post. :peace:

http://www.nationstates.net/nation=lots_of_lids
 

beardo

Well-Known Member
I laugh at people like all of you who think Ron Paul is someone to listen to. I mean seriously, should we be so liberal that we allow anything and everything to happen? Take a good long look at Europe and what's happened over there with the spread of Islam as a result of liberal ideals. I consider myself very liberal and progressive, but does that mean I'm going to stand back and watch America get taken over by foreign ideas, foreigners or people who could care less about what America really stands for? Absolutely NOT!!!
So what's so wrong with following the Constitution?
To "liberal" for you?
 

deprave

New Member
I laugh at people like all of you who think Ron Paul is someone to listen to. I mean seriously, should we be so liberal that we allow anything and everything to happen? Take a good long look at Europe and what's happened over there with the spread of Islam as a result of liberal ideals. I consider myself very liberal and progressive, but does that mean I'm going to stand back and watch America get taken over by foreign ideas, foreigners or people who could care less about what America really stands for? Absolutely NOT!!!
uh...Ron Paul is more Pro-National Sovereignty then any other candidate..its the other candidates..liberal or conservative that are pro NAFTA, TAFTA, GAT....To put it plain english for you: the rest of the candidates want to merge mexico and canada with the US
 

deprave

New Member
Willyßagseed;6753313 said:
The issue is not the USA being "taken over" by "foreign ideas, foreigners or people who could care less about what America really stands for"

We have an internal cancer called greed and corruption. The government and Corporations (banks, pharma, farmed out jobs for more profit) are what is slowly killing our once Great country, not foreigners......

Reagan - old timers disease, deregulation and trickle down(aka Let them eat cake economics aka VooDoo economics)
Bush Sr - "No new taxes" lol and more of the same
Bill Clinton - NAFTA, Glass-Stegall's repeal and the telecomm bill (if it wasn't for the internet bubble and his personality Bill Clinton would go down as one of the worst Democratic presidents in the history of the USA, at least to those who know what issues, just these 3 bills that passed, have caused)
Bush Jr - more deregulation, tax cuts for the "job creators" (lol, where are the jobs?) .. torture, expanded rendition, the Patriot act and general dumbassedness....
Obama - continuing many of Bush Jrs ignorant fucked up policies and general ball- less- ness.

That is what is killing us.

The "conservative party" we have today is very far right of what pre Reagan republicans used to be and the "liberal party" is also far right to what it used to be. There is no true "left liberal party" with any usable influence in this country anymore. If you want to try and say Slick Willy or Obama are lefty socialists you need to do a little more research on actual policies overall they signed off on and then figure out where they are. Altho they both have / had some liberal policies they are both in fact centrist democrats when overall policies are taken into account.

It has absolutely nothing to do with "liberal" ideals or, I hate to say it, true conservative ideals (not false conservative neocons) but everything to do with greed and corruption.

Much more to it than that but I work Saturdays and do not have time to make a full page post. :peace:

http://www.nationstates.net/nation=lots_of_lids
nice nation hehe, I just started here is my nation: http://www.nationstates.net/nation=freedomftw

but yeah I agree 99% but lets just call a sheep a sheep eh? The US government is AUTHORITARIAN CENTRIST....they aren't further right or further left, they are further south, away from the people.
 

sync0s

Well-Known Member
I laugh at people like all of you who think Ron Paul is someone to listen to. I mean seriously, should we be so liberal that we allow anything and everything to happen? Take a good long look at Europe and what's happened over there with the spread of Islam as a result of liberal ideals. I consider myself very liberal and progressive, but does that mean I'm going to stand back and watch America get taken over by foreign ideas, foreigners or people who could care less about what America really stands for? Absolutely NOT!!!
Wow. Just, wow.

Damn those foreigners..... They're all evil doers....
 

mccumcumber

Well-Known Member


I laugh at people like all of you who think Ron Paul is someone to listen to. I mean seriously, should we be so liberal that we allow anything and everything to happen? Take a good long look at Europe and what's happened over there with the spread of Islam as a result of liberal ideals. I consider myself very liberal and progressive, but does that mean I'm going to stand back and watch America get taken over by foreign ideas, foreigners or people who could care less about what America really stands for? Absolutely NOT!!!​

Do you have any idea what your talking about? Nothing in that paragraph makes sense.
 

labudman

Active Member
It's no wonder so many pot smokers are federal targets, most are easy pickings. Pretty much your typical, uneducated, winy, bunches of ignorance. What's so pathetic is that there are those of you writing in this forum, who actually think Ron Paul would make a good president. The man doesn't want to work within the system, he wants to re-create the system. He want's to destroy agencies like the IRS, who by the way are the only ones collecting money for our government. He want's to re-design education for kids. He wants to hit the rewind button on the internet. He is completely against drugs and any type of decriminalization. If you think he supports decriminalization, take a look at his voting records. This man is one step away from being invited to host the Alex Jones show, one breath away from sounding like the brainchild of "loose change" and yet still many of you can't tell he's a total crack pot. Despite how much you folks cry or wine, despite your desire to reform the government and despite what good intentions you might have, things remain the same and for one damn good reason. IT WORKS.

The founders of this country knew that there would always be a rich class and the majority would be poor, hence the reality of the so called 99%!!!

They knew this then and wanted to created a way for people to live free, despite being poor. So the US was born and regular poor people now had a voice at the table.

When they created this idea, it was never meant to develop into a government that bent over for it's citizens. It was meant to give the people a voice at the table of control and to keep the "99%" in check, to remind them of their place.

If all of us had everything we wanted, why would we work for anything more? If your boss pays you to much, will you keep working for him, or go into business for yourself? If the rich allow to many people to join the rich crowd, who will then have the "NEED" to work 4 food?

If you don't understand these principles, don't feel dumb, you're normal. That's why it took extraordinary people to create said principles.

RON PAUL WOULD BE BAFFLED BY SUCH WRITING> AND I BET HE WOULDN'T UNDERSTAND OR AGREE
 

Cali chronic

Well-Known Member
It's no wonder so many pot smokers are federal targets, most are easy pickings. Pretty much your typical, uneducated, winy, bunches of ignorance. What's so pathetic is that there are those of you writing in this forum, who actually think Ron Paul would make a good president. The man doesn't want to work within the system, he wants to re-create the system. He want's to destroy agencies like the IRS, who by the way are the only ones collecting money for our government. He want's to re-design education for kids. He wants to hit the rewind button on the internet. He is completely against drugs and any type of decriminalization. If you think he supports decriminalization, take a look at his voting records. This man is one step away from being invited to host the Alex Jones show, one breath away from sounding like the brainchild of "loose change" and yet still many of you can't tell he's a total crack pot. Despite how much you folks cry or wine, despite your desire to reform the government and despite what good intentions you might have, things remain the same and for one damn good reason. IT WORKS.

The founders of this country knew that there would always be a rich class and the majority would be poor, hence the reality of the so called 99%!!!

They knew this then and wanted to created a way for people to live free, despite being poor. So the US was born and regular poor people now had a voice at the table.

When they created this idea, it was never meant to develop into a government that bent over for it's citizens. It was meant to give the people a voice at the table of control and to keep the "99%" in check, to remind them of their place.

If all of us had everything we wanted, why would we work for anything more? If your boss pays you to much, will you keep working for him, or go into business for yourself? If the rich allow to many people to join the rich crowd, who will then have the "NEED" to work 4 food?

If you don't understand these principles, don't feel dumb, you're normal. That's why it took extraordinary people to create said principles.

RON PAUL WOULD BE BAFFLED BY SUCH WRITING> AND I BET HE WOULDN'T UNDERSTAND OR AGREE
No I disagree.
One he is a propent for rescheduling as of this moment
Two the system is broken, if you were a contractor or someone with building experience, you would know there is a time to demo a place to the foundation. IF the foundation was broke bull doze it too. We have the Constitution, that is a good foundation
Four the IRS? Are you kidding me? That is so antiquated with it's schedules and baffleling BS that most spend more for an accountant to get back what is rightfully theirs.
Five Rewind button on the Net? What does that mean?
Six...[ Despite how much you folks cry or wine, despite your desire to reform the government and despite what good intentions you might have, things remain the same and for one damn good reason. IT WORKS.]
Is this Obama on here? This place is broken and four more years of this, "working system" will cause even more damage.

I think Ron Paul would make you feel real stupid if you spouted that nonsense to him.
 

WillyBagseed

Active Member
When they created this idea, it was never meant to develop into a government that bent over for it's citizens. It was meant to give the people a voice at the table of control and to keep the "99%" in check, to remind them of their place.
I have absolutely no clue as to what constitution your stoned ass has been reading but the "idea" was to keep the government in check, not the 99%............ lol

You may wish to check your own uneducated, winy, ignorant self before accusing others of it.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


Do these appear to be written to put the 99% in their place or to keep the government in check?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
  • Ninth Amendment – Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.



I myself would not vote for RP due to the fact I think on some issues he is freaky crazy, however, trying to use false information about what the basis this country was founded on is not a good reason to drag him down. RP is a good guy and sticks to his beliefs, he has some fantastic personal freedoms policies, that being said, some of the other shit he would like to do makes want to hurl just a little every time I read or hear them.



If you want to argue what is actually in the Constitution you lose.(this is the valid way to argue, intent has many interpretations and the constitution is what it is, not what you think it is or want it to be)

If you want to argue what "intent" was you still lose because there were far more social issues many wanted in the constitution that were not put in as a compromise. (Yes, there were arguments and counter arguments on many issues but, guess what, they didn't make it into the constitution so they are moot)

Do not pick and choose from the Constitution like many religious people pick and choose from their bible. It is all or nothing, period.
 

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
Willyßagseed;6757647 said:
I have absolutely no clue as to what constitution your stoned ass has been reading but the "idea" was to keep the government in check, not the 99%............ lol

You may wish to check your own uneducated, winy, ignorant self before accusing others of it.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Well said. I think we can all agree that Labudman hasn't a clue. After all he thinks its the Muslims that are to blame for the financial ruin that is coming to Europe. I think we can dismiss most rhetoric coming from this new user as inflammatory and moronic.
 

mccumcumber

Well-Known Member
It's no wonder so many pot smokers are federal targets, most are easy pickings. Pretty much your typical, uneducated, winy, bunches of ignorance. What's so pathetic is that there are those of you writing in this forum, who actually think Ron Paul would make a good president. The man doesn't want to work within the system, he wants to re-create the system. He want's to destroy agencies like the IRS, who by the way are the only ones collecting money for our government. He want's to re-design education for kids. He wants to hit the rewind button on the internet. He is completely against drugs and any type of decriminalization. If you think he supports decriminalization, take a look at his voting records. This man is one step away from being invited to host the Alex Jones show, one breath away from sounding like the brainchild of "loose change" and yet still many of you can't tell he's a total crack pot. Despite how much you folks cry or wine, despite your desire to reform the government and despite what good intentions you might have, things remain the same and for one damn good reason. IT WORKS.

The founders of this country knew that there would always be a rich class and the majority would be poor, hence the reality of the so called 99%!!!

They knew this then and wanted to created a way for people to live free, despite being poor. So the US was born and regular poor people now had a voice at the table.

When they created this idea, it was never meant to develop into a government that bent over for it's citizens. It was meant to give the people a voice at the table of control and to keep the "99%" in check, to remind them of their place.

If all of us had everything we wanted, why would we work for anything more? If your boss pays you to much, will you keep working for him, or go into business for yourself? If the rich allow to many people to join the rich crowd, who will then have the "NEED" to work 4 food?

If you don't understand these principles, don't feel dumb, you're normal. That's why it took extraordinary people to create said principles.

RON PAUL WOULD BE BAFFLED BY SUCH WRITING> AND I BET HE WOULDN'T UNDERSTAND OR AGREE
And I thought your last post made no sense. Holy shit dude.
 

sync0s

Well-Known Member
A strict Constitutionalist isn't for recreating the government.. rather they're for restoring the government to what it was. It's everyone else who wants to either keep it the way it is (neocons) or recreate it(liberals)

When they created this idea, it was never meant to develop into a government that bent over for it's citizens. It was meant to give the people a voice at the table of control and to keep the "99%" in check, to remind them of their place.



You're so wrong in this statement it is absolutely unbelievable.
 

labudman

Active Member
Willyßagseed;6757647 said:
I have absolutely no clue as to what constitution your stoned ass has been reading but the "idea" was to keep the government in check, not the 99%............ lol

You may wish to check your own uneducated, winy, ignorant self before accusing others of it.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


Do these appear to be written to put the 99% in their place or to keep the government in check?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
  • Ninth Amendment – Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.



I myself would not vote for RP due to the fact I think on some issues he is freaky crazy, however, trying to use false information about what the basis this country was founded on is not a good reason to drag him down. RP is a good guy and sticks to his beliefs, he has some fantastic personal freedoms policies, that being said, some of the other shit he would like to do makes want to hurl just a little every time I read or hear them.



If you want to argue what is actually in the Constitution you lose.(this is the valid way to argue, intent has many interpretations and the constitution is what it is, not what you think it is or want it to be)

If you want to argue what "intent" was you still lose because there were far more social issues many wanted in the constitution that were not put in as a compromise. (Yes, there were arguments and counter arguments on many issues but, guess what, they didn't make it into the constitution so they are moot)

Do not pick and choose from the Constitution like many religious people pick and choose from their bible. It is all or nothing, period.
I don't disagree with your defense and after re-reading what I wrote, I will admit that, I crossed a line in my argument. That line obviously being when I used the foundation of this country as a leg to stand on. However, you have brought up a very good point and that is our constitution was clearly written to declare that we the people shall have rights.

I will defend what I said about the 99% though and that the founding fathers of this country had a great plan to give the poor a voice. If it wasn't for their plan, democracy would never have become what we know it to be today.

In Aristotle's work "Politics" he wrote about ideas that were so similar to those the founders of this country had, it makes a person who likes to think a lot like me wonder, how come it took so many years to get from those ideas to actually forming a government with similar ideas?

Maybe it would be better to instead say that our countries founders were trying to let the people know, they, as the majority could make demands, work together and create a country like they always wanted.

Anyway, all of this is getting far away from the point here, which I'm glad you agree with, to and extent. Ron Paul, says and does things that I feel make him unfit to hold the office of The President of the United States. This is my opinion!!!
 

labudman

Active Member
Well said. I think we can all agree that Labudman hasn't a clue. After all he thinks its the Muslims that are to blame for the financial ruin that is coming to Europe. I think we can dismiss most rhetoric coming from this new user as inflammatory and moronic.
In no way did I mean to say that Muslims are responsible for the financial downfall that the EU is facing.

What I meant was that the the liberal ideas of it have allowed a nearly unstoppable force to grow from within itself and I see the EU having a very hard time ridding itself of this disease later on. Maybe I listen to people like Pat Condell to often, but it's people like him who I agree with the most, so I guess I'm biased.
 

labudman

Active Member
A strict Constitutionalist isn't for recreating the government.. rather they're for restoring the government to what it was. It's everyone else who wants to either keep it the way it is (neocons) or recreate it(liberals)

[/B]



You're so wrong in this statement it is absolutely unbelievable.
Are you one of those guys who twists Jefferson's words? For example, do you think he meant we shouldn't have central banks like today when he said, "I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a moneyed aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power (of money) should be taken away from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs."

I also use Jefferson's quotes, SEE MY SIGNATURE? The difference is how their used though!
 

Smirgen

Well-Known Member
It's no wonder so many pot smokers are federal targets, most are easy pickings. Pretty much your typical, uneducated, winy, bunches of ignorance. What's so pathetic is that there are those of you writing in this forum, who actually think Ron Paul would make a good president. The man doesn't want to work within the system, he wants to re-create the system. He want's to destroy agencies like the IRS, who by the way are the only ones collecting money for our government. He want's to re-design education for kids. He wants to hit the rewind button on the internet. He is completely against drugs and any type of decriminalization. If you think he supports decriminalization, take a look at his voting records. This man is one step away from being invited to host the Alex Jones show, one breath away from sounding like the brainchild of "loose change" and yet still many of you can't tell he's a total crack pot. Despite how much you folks cry or wine, despite your desire to reform the government and despite what good intentions you might have, things remain the same and for one damn good reason. IT WORKS.

The founders of this country knew that there would always be a rich class and the majority would be poor, hence the reality of the so called 99%!!!

They knew this then and wanted to created a way for people to live free, despite being poor. So the US was born and regular poor people now had a voice at the table.

When they created this idea, it was never meant to develop into a government that bent over for it's citizens. It was meant to give the people a voice at the table of control and to keep the "99%" in check, to remind them of their place.

If all of us had everything we wanted, why would we work for anything more? If your boss pays you to much, will you keep working for him, or go into business for yourself? If the rich allow to many people to join the rich crowd, who will then have the "NEED" to work 4 food?

If you don't understand these principles, don't feel dumb, you're normal. That's why it took extraordinary people to create said principles.

RON PAUL WOULD BE BAFFLED BY SUCH WRITING> AND I BET HE WOULDN'T UNDERSTAND OR AGREE



Hmm should I listen to LAbudman or Ron Paul..... hmmm thats a toughie , perhaps LAbudman is better educated and has more experience than Ron Paul , Maybe LAbudman has authored more books than Ron paul on topics relevant to Running a nation...See: Foreign Policy , Economics and Individual Liberty for example, Perhaps LAbudman has warned us with predictions based on his education and experience that have come to pass and cost our country and its people greatly because BIG Government didn't listen ,Hmm LAbudman or Ron Paul .....hmm lets see LAbudman has the benefiit of the internets which is well known to boost ones IQ by 50 and ones bench press by 150 but that would be canceled out by Ron Pauls years of first hand experience which the internets cant provide, Hmmm .....Man this is tough which one of these guys are more likely to know what they are talking about ....
Hmm Ron Paul or LAbudman Who should I listen to...........:lol:
 
Top