Ron Paul showed the difference

It seems like every candidate, other than Ron Paul, are representing 4 more years of Bush.  That isn't going to change a thing.  Ron is starting to make more and more sense to me.

by Joe (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Sunday, January 6, 2008 at 12:23:28 AM
 

Connections FYI

The ABC Presidental Campaign debates tonight included: Fred Thompson, Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Mitt Romney, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, Bill Richardson, Mike Huckabee, Ron Paul. All are Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) members, except Huckabee and Paul.

Is Huckabee then an independent like Paul? Consider what he had to say about the CFR in January, “CFR a lot of good people”, http://truthinourtime.blogspot.com/2008/01/huckabee-lot-of-good-people.html.

Or, are you curious about the “Huckabee Surge” in November-December? Wonder how a little-known Arkansas governor could have done so impossibly well in Iowa? The same way B. Clinton did apparently, with a little help from a few of his friends.

In a December 16 interview, CNN’s Wolf Blitzer asked Huckabee who his foreign-policy advisers were. Well, one of them is Richard Haass. http://www.freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=69962. Richard Haass is president of the CFR. A little flattery goes a long way, apparently.

According to sources for Paul Watson and Alex Jones, the head of the hotel for the meeting did confirm that Hillary Clinton attended Bilderberg (BB) 2006. Her closest advisor is of course Bill Clinton (CFR, BB, and Trilateral Commission (TC)). “We can’t be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans.” - Bill Clinton, U.S.A. Today, March 11, 1993.

Obama’s top advisor is Zbigniew Brzezinski (CFR, TC), who co-founded the Trilateral Commission with David Rockefeller. His other top advisors include CFR members: former counterterrorism czar, Richard Clarke, and former Middle East negotiator, Dennis B. Ross.

John Edwards was selected as Kerry’s running mate at Bilderberg 2004. Edwards’ foreign-policy advisers include CFR members Barry Blechman, Derek Chollet, Michelle Flournoy, and Paul Kern.

Want to know how to get your man elected President? Make sure every horse in the race is your horse. Ever wonder why U.S. foreign policy has not changed in 70 years? Well, now you know. I had to laugh at all the post debate discussion. What’s the point? Anyway, if you are not too sick of it to read more, read “Comparing Candidates”, http://www.thenewamerican.com/node/6419. It would not hurt to get acquainted with who is really running the country.

Oh, and anyone who thinks that Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich and all their supporters are fools and kooks, you might want to remember this in the four years ahead as nothing significant changes. They were the only true non-Establishment candidates. Paul was the only one who dared expose the link between our rotten banking system, our failing currency, our disastrous war-mongering foreign policy, and the subsequent lack of funding for either social programs or individual private enterprise. Representative Kucinich says that he would end U.S. participation in the North American Free Trade Agreement and the World Trade Organization to stem the job losses they have they have caused.  Who wants losers like that?

by Paul Rye (6 articles, 1 quicklinks, 13 diaries, 253 comments) on Sunday, January 6, 2008 at 1:42:14 AM
 

Again, CFR membership means nothing to me...

... I am going to keep saying this until people get it. Membership in CFR, Bilderberg group and skull and bones is no indicator to me of any similarities in policies or ideological bent.

There are plenty of REAL evil people and groups that people of good character need to fight.

by Steven Leser (186 articles, 34 quicklinks, 31 diaries, 1251 comments) on Sunday, January 6, 2008 at 10:21:05 AM
 

It's a "free" country

So, bury your head in the sand, if you wish.  But, I’m going to ask you this question, again, that you did not answer the first time.

In 2005, CFR task force co-chairman Pastor testified in Congress in front of the Foreign Relations Committee: "The best way to secure the United States today is not at our two borders with Mexico and Canada, but at the borders of North America as a whole."[37] The CFR task force he headed called for one border around North America, freer travel within it, and cooperation among Canadian, Mexican and American military forces and law enforcement for greater security. It called for full mobility of labor among the three countries within five years, similar to the European Union.[5] He also appeared at a CFR forum called "The Future of North American Integration in the Wake of the Terrorist Attacks" on October 17, 2001, discussing the prospect of North American integration in the wake of the September 11 attacks.[38]

Do you think it is appropriate for our Government representatives to discuss things like that, that have obviously large implications for the U.S. in secret meetings with foreign government officials, bankers, businessmen, etc, or would you prefer more transparency?

So, answer the question.

And, just for the record, I never raised the non-issue of a silly Skull and Bones connection, you did, and I said it wasn’t credible, so as one who professes to believe in sticking to the issues, clean arguing, etc, why do you keep bringing it up? Also, I never said CFR, BB, or TC were evil, only that they are likely pursuing objectives that most Americans would not agree with, if they actually knew what they are.

by Paul Rye (6 articles, 1 quicklinks, 13 diaries, 253 comments) on Sunday, January 6, 2008 at 11:32:52 AM
 

WHO ARE THESE EVIL PEOPLE, AND GROUPS

 WE NEED THEIR NAMES,

by RICHARD SHADE (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 459 comments) on Monday, January 7, 2008 at 2:35:11 AM
 

Consideration of groups that exhibit strong influence

on the presidency of this country is important, I think.  I say that first, to make it clear it is not my intent to jack this thread.  The article is a report on the recent Republican/Democratic debate, and neither the moderator or the candidates stated the affiliations.

So, three groups you should check out are: Council on Foreign Relations, Bilderberg, and Trilateral Commission.  They are neither figments of the imagination of conspiracy-theorists with overheated imaginations, or social clubs where powerful and influential people meet in secret simply to sip Scotch and play darts.  Everyone should try to learn more about these groups: who founded them, for what purpose, what are their objectives, who are members, and how much influence do they really have on the executive branch.  Just do your homework, and do not limit it to MSM. 

by Paul Rye (6 articles, 1 quicklinks, 13 diaries, 253 comments) on Monday, January 7, 2008 at 5:19:25 PM
 

CONSIDERATION OF GROUPS

WHY DO SO MANY PEOPLE THINK THAT THESE GLOBALIST GROUPS HAVE NOT GOTTEN CONTROL OF THE WORLD, I WOULD MAKE A LIST OF WHAT THEY CONTROL BUT I WOULD BE HERE AL DAY, SO ITS EASYER TO SLOW WHAT THEY DON,T COUNTROL, IS WHEN YOU USE THE BATH ROOM, THATS IT. AND THATS MOTHER NATURE. AND BLIEVE ME THEIR WORKING ON THAT TO.

by RICHARD SHADE (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 459 comments) on Tuesday, January 8, 2008 at 4:07:22 AM
 

Some good research done by Theresa Dunford

can be found here:

http://www.shuartfarm.fsnet.co.uk/politics/t-dunford/united_nations.htm

If you can find a copy of Anatomy of a Revolution, by Lt. Col. Archibald E. Roberts, or any of his other works wherein he tried to expose the globalists' plans, let me know please. They are very hard to find.

by Paul Rye (6 articles, 1 quicklinks, 13 diaries, 253 comments) on Wednesday, January 9, 2008 at 11:25:06 PM
 

Correction

Sorry, the link I gave above, http://www.shuartfarm.fsnet.co.uk/politics/t-dunford/united_nations.htm,

only seems to work if you cut and paste it into your browser.

This one is hyperlinked and should work if you just click on it. The United Nations

by Paul Rye (6 articles, 1 quicklinks, 13 diaries, 253 comments) on Wednesday, January 9, 2008 at 11:36:22 PM
 

Tim

That's the way you saw it, and I'll accept that as evidence of your 20/20 vision.

by John Sanchez Jr. (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 820 comments) on Sunday, January 6, 2008 at 8:14:49 AM
 

Republican Nastiness

Watching Ron Paul take on the 5 neo-cons all at once was amazing.  His views came across as coherent and intelligent.

The other 5 snickering and ridiculing him reminded me of a bunch of high school bullies picking on the smart kid.

by M B (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 4 comments) on Sunday, January 6, 2008 at 9:57:52 AM
 

M B is right, and I'm even a Republican, sort of....

.....by 'sort of' I mean that when I was 14 I was for Nixon over McGovern, but was actually for Schmitz - but then, after Tricky got re-elected, that summer, I heard about Libertarianism, and more or less went for it and never looked back.  MB is right about the smug snickering, but the WORST of that against Ron Paul was from Mitt Romney.  In another debate many months ago Mitt interrupted Ron Paul TWICE saying "he forgot about 9/11....he forgot about 9/11" on an answer that had to do with Iraq, not 9/11. 

The only redeeming feature about how the GOP was stabbing each other in the back was that the BIGGEST recipient of it, other than Ron Paul, was Mitt Romney himself.  When Mitt was debating Huckabee on some foreign policy item, he said something like "well if you'd read my position on that - " to which Huckabee replied:  "which one?" which drew laughter from the audience.  This reached a climax when John McCain said, in response to something Mitt had said about himself actually being "the candidate of change" McCain said: "Yes, you are the candidate of change" implying that Mitt was a flip-flopper which was widely received with huge laughter and even applause.    A GOP commentator later mentioned that the GOP looked like a circular firing squad firing at Mitt Romney.

by Robert Johnson (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 11 comments) on Sunday, January 6, 2008 at 10:51:57 AM
 

Except you are wrong, particularly re Kucinich ...

In a democracy, why must things be CALM??? Debates are precisely where things SHOULD get hot and heated .. while staying rational.

 You've totally nailed alot of the debate .. but it is what WASN'T there that is the problem.  IMPEACHMENT.  Oh, the big ugly elephant in the room that NONE of these candidates (included the ever-so sainted RON PAUL) doesnt' want to talk about.

 Words are only inspiring IF they are based on DEEDS.  Ron Paul avoids the legal remedy for the BuZh administrations crimes .. and yet waves the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in everyone's faces.  This totally sickens me. The Consitutional answer to the problems of today is IMPEACHMENT; this is legal remedy.

Every single "player" in these debates is strictly in it for the POWER - not one person I listened to last night really had my good, as an American citizen, in their hearts.  This is not a high school debating club - this is a run for the position as Commander in Chief of the biggest military (as big as the rest of the world put together!) the world has ever known.  We should be RUTHLESS when deciding who should be running it  .. not listening to their stances and spin.

 Hillary can afford to "reposition" on Irak, because she is WELL AWARE that economic sanctions kills MORE PEOPLE with less economic overhead than military presence.  Her repositioning has less to do with vote getting, per se, than it does with knowing what she now knows.  She can still serve her masters and hope to bail out the federal economy.

 The figures given on the debate on the cost of the war were LAUGHABLE and showed just how much more lieing we are all going to be subjected to. The war hasn't cost one trillion .. it's cost AT LEAST $2 trillion (and that is a HUGE difference) PLUS the cost of taking medical care of already-damage d and certified medically disabled troops is already at a staggering $2 trillion.  The latest figures on the cost of the BuZh administration is .. TAA DAA .. $7 trillion dollars.

 The real issue is the cost of maintaining a web of US bases all over the world (probably over 1000 such), paying for the fuel for the jets, tanks and other hardware, paying for the heating fuel to keep the bases open .. and so on and on. NO ONE IS ADDRESSING THIS ISSUE, and in light of the current economic CRISIS, this is the issue that needs to be addressed.

ONLY one candidate seems to know what they are talking about . and that is Dennis Kucinich.  You put him in the "race" . and the shite will hit the fan; the REALITY Of American life will be exposed.

 And .. the truth is . Ron Paul is not the ONLY person with an economic recovery plan .. Dennis Kucinich's economic adviser, Dr. Michael Hudson, is superb.  Ask the Russians or the Chinese ... They know he knows his "stuff".

 Because the debates are televised (or in my case, watched via internet), it is easy to get caught up in the sweep of the minute. BUT to be a good, educated citizen; it's really necessary to step back and take a good hard look at the real issues involved in creating "change" .. and to my mind and heart, the ONLY real options are Kucinich and maybe, just maybe Gravel.  The rest are all still SPINNING ...

by ladybroadoak (37 articles, 20 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 384 comments) on Sunday, January 6, 2008 at 1:43:03 PM
 

Neo-Con Name Calling

  It has been my experience that almost without fail, anytime a republican is faced with any opposition or a differing point of view, they will end up slinging names and hiding behind inuendo and deceit. I think it's a requirement for joining the party.

by Rick Mason (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 26 comments) on Sunday, January 6, 2008 at 2:29:42 PM
 

Kucinich and Gravel

They don't want Gravel and Kucinich in the debates because they would humiliate and embarass the other candidates and expose the others as the liars and frauds that they are.

by Ty Shlackman (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 531 comments) on Monday, January 7, 2008 at 11:17:59 AM