Ron Paul gets even nuttier...

Suddenly said:
I always figured that Ron Paul's getting into bed with Chuck Baldwin, a man that essentially advocates the creation of an American Theocracy, would end his credibility as to skeptics.

It also puts the lie to the claim that he is in fact a libertarian rather than what he really is, a state's rights authoritarian. He opposes federal power, but all bets are off when it comes to the state and local level. He endorsed a radical social conservative who believes all law is and should be based in the word of God...
Click to expand...

Not to mention that Baldwin is a dyed-in-the-wool Troofer, thinks a superhighway system spanning Texas is a threat to American freedom, and believes that those who disrespect the Confederacy simply misunderstand how good slaves had it in the South.
 
Checkmite said:
Not to mention that Baldwin is a dyed-in-the-wool Troofer, thinks a superhighway system spanning Texas is a threat to American freedom, and believes that those who disrespect the Confederacy simply misunderstand how good slaves had it in the South.
Click to expand...


Sadly, the last statement is a familiar meme among Libertarians,as witness Lew Rockwell's endless over the top attacks on Abraham Lincoln as an evil tyrant, and his attempts to portray Jefferson David as a champion of individual liberty. That is one reason why, although a believer in limited government and a free market, I am not a Libertarian.
 
Last edited:
Patejdl said:
What is NWO btw? There's no definite meaning to the NWO thing.. old Bush spoke about it or even Sarkozy spoke about it ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VkpHmjgg7xU )
Click to expand...
It simply refers to the balance of power changing after the breakup of the USSR.

Ron Paul and his fellow paranoid conspiracy nutters think it's some sort of secret all-powerful organization that REALLY controls the world.
 
WildCat said:
Ron Paul and his fellow paranoid conspiracy nutters think it's some sort of secret all-powerful organization that REALLY controls the world.
Click to expand...

No Ron Paul never did mention anything like that. It's you and the conspiracy nutters who (who happen to like Ron Paul) mention it all the time. I don't get it. Is this a forum for critical thinkers or just a group of guys (little children mob) who like to pick on poor deluded persons and then make over-generalized assumptions just to show off how cool they are while they smite people who are quite criticaly thinking themselves.

The truth is there are people who want and lobby very strongly for today's and future's powerfull organisations (look at the world federalist association video in the link I posted earlier.. I mean what better evidence there is?? want PEACE? surrender your sovereignity.. simple as that). And basicaly this organisation itself is quite "hidden" which only means they don't like to get media attention.

But no.. in order to bash the whole idea of such painfully evident hyper-globalisation you chose to pick on poor idiots who think that the NWO is somekind of a devilish organisation which wants to enslave the planet. The truth is that people who are hyper-globalists are just ussualy old poor rich deluded people (Sorors is a good example... many quotes on his globalist agenda are out there) who want to save the planet from wars and etc. but they always fail to understand the true problems of governance comming from just a few places). You even go that far and put words, meanings and ideas into mouth of people who understand globalisation very well (no I don't really mean that whackjob Alex Jones.. he's insane). I'm a great fan of James Randi because he takes such an effort when he quotes someone to get it 100% right.. sadly not many fans of him do this too.. distorting the truth is a big crime. Randi knows that too...

How many times in the past there have been people who wanted global this or that?? This is your NWO and I don't see Ron Paul saying anything beyond this.
 
Last edited:
Patejdl said:
No Ron Paul never did mention anything like that. It's you and the conspiracy nutters who (who happen to like Ron Paul) mention it all the time. I don't get it. Is this a forum for critical thinkers or just a group of guys (little children mob) who like to pick on poor deluded persons and then make over-generalized assumptions just to show off how cool they are while they smite people who are quite criticaly thinking themselves.

The truth is there are people who want and lobby very strongly for today's and future's powerfull organisations (look at the world federalist association video in the link I posted earlier.. I mean what better evidence there is?? want PEACE? surrender your sovereignity.. simple as that). And basicaly this organisation itself is quite "hidden" which only means they don't like to get media attention.

But no.. in order to bash the whole idea of such painfully evident hyper-globalisation you chose to pick on poor idiots who think that the NWO is somekind of a devilish organisation which wants to enslave the planet. The truth is that people who are hyper-globalists are just ussualy old poor rich deluded people (Sorors is a good example... many quotes on his globalist agenda are out there) who want to save the planet from wars and etc. but they always fail to understand the true problems of governance comming from just a few places). You even go that far and put words, meanings and ideas into mouth of people who understand globalisation very well (no I don't really mean that whackjob Alex Jones.. he's insane). I'm a great fan of James Randi because he takes such an effort when he quotes someone to get it 100% right.. sadly not many fans of him do this too.. distorting the truth is a big crime. Randi knows that too...

How many times in the past there have been people who wanted global this or that?? This is your NWO and I don't see Ron Paul saying anything beyond this.
Click to expand...

 
[Sarah Palin defender mode] Why can't you people leave Ron Paul alone? Don't you know that the presidential elections are over? Why do you keep picking on him? Just because you disagree with some of his policies doesn't mean that he isn't really smart or that he hasn't had a distinguished congressional career. That you guys keep picking on him just proves that you are afraid of him, and need to destroy him so he doesn't run again in 2012, because if he does you know he will beat your simpering simian of sophistry Obama. [/sarah palin defender mode]
 
dudalb said:
Sadly, the last statement is a familiar meme among Libertarians,as witness Lew Rockwell's endless over the top attacks on Abraham Lincoln as an evil tyrant, and his attempts to portray Jefferson David as a champion of individual liberty. That is one reason why, although a believer in limited government and a free market, I am not a Libertarian.
Click to expand...

The funny part about that is, if they read the Confederate constitution, they'll find that it is, save some small procedural issues, nearly identical to the United States Constitution. The only additional restriction on federal power in the Confederate states was the specific inability to abolish slavery. But, of course, "it wasn't about slavery".
 
dudalb said:
Up until now, Ron Paul has pretty much confined his conspiracy theories to the NAFTA nonsense. But in a interview in the wake of Obama's election, Paul seems to be totally buying in the "Vast Global Conspriacy" Theory.

http://www.nationalexpositor.com/News/1474.html

Wow.Just wow.
I think now we now why Paul did not distance himself from the conspiracy kooks who filled his campaign: He Is One.
Click to expand...
Some people have really high hopes and dreams, and when they realize they are running out of time (getting older) they may becomes desperate and/or start blaming others.
 
Nope he didn't say anything in the line of conspiracy nutters but more in the line of "who cares about sovereignity" ala world federalist association nutters. But yes North American Union is a highly "unsure" thing actually...

Q: Are there people pushing for some kind of a global governance/world law/big world goverment/one world goverment - anything big global powerfull

A: Yes. Just a single group and there are more

It's more of like shooting a fish in a glass of water actually :P
 
Last edited:
dudalb said:
Sadly, the last statement is a familiar meme among Libertarians,as witness Lew Rockwell's endless over the top attacks on Abraham Lincoln as an evil tyrant, and his attempts to portray Jefferson David as a champion of individual liberty. That is one reason why, although a believer in limited government and a free market, I am not a Libertarian.
Click to expand...

I have some (faint) hope that the Constitution Party will drain off some of the LPs nuttier nuts and allow us to progress to a more centrist 'Classic Liberal' party. The LP is ripe for infiltration by people who simply want to promote more social freedom, more limited government, and a freer market rather than radical purists. After all, there are ten times more people like you, Dudalb, than there are people currently in the LP.
 
Patejdl said:
Nope he didn't say anything in the line of conspiracy nutters but more in the line of "who cares about sovereignity" ala world federalist association nutters. But yes North American Union is a highly "unsure" thing actually...

Q: Are there people pushing for some kind of a global governance/world law/big world goverment/one world goverment - anything big global powerfull

A: Yes. Just a single group and there are more

It's more of like shooting a fish in a glass of water actually :P
Click to expand...


Yawn. Sounds to me more like just saying stuff because it sounds warm and fuzzy rather then any concrete scheme for a One World Government.
 
Checkmite said:
The United Nations tried, but could not stop Bosnia and Croatia from attacking one another in 1993.

The United Nations tried, but could not stop NATO from bombing Bosnia in 1995.

The United Nations tried, but could not stop the United States from bombing Iraq in 1998.

The United Nations tried, but could not stop NATO from attacking Serbia in 1999.

The United Nations tried, but could not stop the United States from invading Afghanistan in 2001, and Iraq in 2003.

The United Nations tried, but could not stop Russia from invading Georgia in 2008.

The United Nations has tried, but has been functionally unable to end the Israeli-Palestine conflict.

The United Nations has tried, but has been functionally unable to end civil war in the Congo region.

The United Nations has tried, but has been functionally unable to end North Korea's nuclear weapons program.

I cannot decide what is more pathetic: the performance history of the United Nations, or the claim that the United Nations is supposed to be some all-powerful world government.
Click to expand...
Well, some swedes hyping of the UN is clearly more pathetic. And worst of all, a great deal of the swedish UN fanbois are vehemently against EU and NATO.
 
Tin Foil Timothy said:
There will be a one world government eventually. It's not a conspiracy, it's simply a natural political development.

All the continental unions, the EU, African Union, Asian Union, North American Union ( when it arrives ), South American Union, etc will eventually merge into a World Union.
Click to expand...

Right.

Because competition (and unfortunately, conflict) is one of the main driving forces in human history. And the formation of these unions is driven by the need to match the strength of the superpowers (USA, China, Russia).

We too will ultimately need to form a global union to balance the power and strength of the martian-venusian axis.

Oh, waitaminute...
 
Suddenly said:
He opposes federal power, but all bets are off when it comes to the state and local level. He endorsed a radical social conservative who believes all law is and should be based in the word of God...
Click to expand...

I find this to be a common thread among libertarians I know. Whatever the states decide is fine, as long as it isn't imposed by the federal government.
It does make me think that many of these people are just trying to make the bible the law of the land, but one step at a time, beginning with the state in which they live.
 
Checkmite said:
The United Nations SAID IT tried, but DID NOT WANT TO stop Bosnia and Croatia from attacking one another in 1993.

The United Nations SAID IT tried, but DID NOT WANT TO stop NATO from bombing Bosnia in 1995.

The United Nations SAID IT tried, but DID NOT WANT TO stop the United States from bombing Iraq in 1998.

The United Nations SAID IT tried, but DID NOT WANT TO stop NATO from attacking Serbia in 1999.

The United Nations SAID IT tried, but DID NOT WANT TO stop the United States from invading Afghanistan in 2001, and Iraq in 2003.

The United Nations SAID IT tried, but DID NOT WANT TO stop Russia from invading Georgia in 2008.

The United Nations SAID IT tried, but DID NOT WANT TO end the Israeli-Palestine conflict.

The United Nations SAID IT tried, but DID NOT WANT TO end civil war in the Congo region.

The United Nations SAID IT tried, but DID NOT WANT TO end North Korea's nuclear weapons program.
Click to expand...

Fixed.

RE: The NATO ones, who do you think controls NATO?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom