VS: Ron Paul 2012

[zonbron]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Capsula

Er zijn kleine nuances om de illusie te wekken dat er iets anders is tegenover de vorige president. Daar blijft het dan ook bij. Tenslotte is het al sinds begin vorige eeuw niet langer de President die het voor het zeggen heeft, maar de federal reserve.

2

NBC jp-morgan-chase-ceo-warns-of-us-defaulting

[Capsula]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door k9

Nee hoor, dat zijn van die samenzweringstheorien genre 9/11 .

Ah zo, dus Woodrow Wilson heeft niet toegegeven dat hij de macht uit handen gaf wanneer hij de federal reserve act ondertekende?

Ik raad u aan 'The creature from Jekyll Island' eens te lezen.

[donzigschaap]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door k9

http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/7/E/...02%7Drpp67.pdf

Het ging over hard drugs legaal maken trouwens .

http://www.time.com/time/health/arti...893946,00.html
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10080

De termen 'hard drugs' en 'soft drugs' zijn niet meer van deze tijd. MDMA (het hoofdbestanddeel van ecstasy) wordt bijvoorbeeld gezien als een 'hard drug', terwijl het één van de 'veiligste' drugs is, zo ook bij LSD en mushrooms.

[Rr00ttt]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door atmosphere

Zelfs de keiharde aanpak werkt voor geen meter , zoals al heel vaak is aangetoond.
Medisch gezien is alcohol overigens ook een harddrug ! Alleen is het legaal en algemeen geaccepteert

Heb je daar bewijzen van (dat ook een keiharde aanpak niet helpt)? Ik baseer me vooral op persoonlijke observaties en misschien heb ik daar een verkeerd beeld van.

[Salvadorii]

Nog wat feiten over de halve gare racist Ron Paul... Jullie weten wellicht dat hij niet in evolutie gelooft en dat hij uitgelachen wordt door bijna alle economen (hij is niet de enige zot die rondloopt helaas). Maar een aantal dingen dat jullie misschien niet wisten:

Hij is tegen elke vorm van sociale zekerheid - dus pensioenen en gezondheidszorg geregeld door de staat. Dus als je arm bent en ziek wordt, of je leeft heel lang - pech!

Hij vind dat kindermisbruikers recht op privacy hebben - een bedrijf dat merkt dat bvb kinderporno over zijn netwerk gedistribueerd wordt MAG DIT NIET VERTELLEN aan de overheid, aldus Paul. Sad but true zou Lars en James zeggen...

Hij vind dat de overheid niet moet tussenkomen om te vermijden dat er monopolies ontstaan (hou uw portefeuille maar klaar gewone man).

Paul is ook tegen de bescherming van gehandicapten tegen discriminatie - die moeten maar voor zichzelf zorgen...

Paul vind dat het milieu beschermen overbodig is en wilt de EPA opdoeken. Would you like industrial effluent in you coffee? Too bad its in there...

Hij wilt de Centrale Bank afschaffen (waanzin voor een moderne economie - er is geen land ter wereld zonder een centrale bank).

Hij wilt heroine, crack en crystal meth legaliseren.

Paul vindt ook dat spoedafdelingen het recht hebben om (hulp-behoevende) patienten te weigeren.


Conclusie: Wie in een harteloze wereld waar het ieder voor zich is wilt leven moet fan worden van die man. De mens als dier, daar staat hij voor.

Source: Motherjones.com

[Johan Bollen]

Verkiezingen: Obama
oorzaak crisis: terug te leiden op staatsschuld en gedoogbeleid ten opzichte van crimineel financieel systeem op Wallstreet.

Tot nader inzicht.

[Salvadorii]

Nog een feit over RP: Hij vind dat de overheid zich niet moet moeien met de gevolgen van natuurrampen - leuk als je langs de Mississippi woont, of langs de Gulf coast.

[donzigschaap]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Salvadorii

Hij is tegen elke vorm van sociale zekerheid - dus pensioenen en gezondheidszorg geregeld door de staat. Dus als je arm bent en ziek wordt, of je leeft heel lang - pech!

Onzin:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politic...ocial_Security
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politic...lth_care_costs

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Salvadorii

Hij vind dat kindermisbruikers recht op privacy hebben - een bedrijf dat merkt dat bvb kinderporno over zijn netwerk gedistribueerd wordt MAG DIT NIET VERTELLEN aan de overheid, aldus Paul. Sad but true zou Lars en James zeggen...

Heb het artikel opgezocht op motherjones.com, dit "feit" linkte naar dit artikel, waarin staat:

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door SAFE Act

This is what the SAFE Act requires: Anyone providing an "electronic communication service" or "remote computing service" to the public who learns about the transmission or storage of information about certain illegal activities or an illegal image must (a) register their name, mailing address, phone number, and fax number with the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children's "CyberTipline" and (b) "make a report" to the CyberTipline that (c) must include any information about the person or Internet address behind the suspect activity and (d) the illegal images themselves. (By the way, "electronic communications service" and "remote computing service" providers already have some reporting requirements under existing law too.)
The definition of which images qualify as illegal is expansive. It includes obvious child pornography, meaning photographs and videos of children being molested. But it also includes photographs of fully clothed minors in overly "lascivious" poses, and certain obscene visual depictions including a "drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting." (Yes, that covers the subset of anime called hentai).

Uit ervaring weet hij dat kinderporno vaak wordt gebruikt als excuus om de internetvrijheid te beperken. Verder staat er ook het volgende:

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door CNET

Failure to comply with the SAFE Act would result in an initial fine of up to $150,000, and fines of up to $300,000 for subsequent offenses. That's the stick. There's a carrot as well: anyone who does comply is immune from civil lawsuits and criminal prosecutions.
There are two more points worth noting. First, the vote on the SAFE Act seems unusually rushed. It's not entirely clear that the House Democratic leadership really meant this legislation to slap new restrictions on hundreds of thousands of Americans and small businesses who offer public wireless connections. But they'll nevertheless have to abide by the new rules if senators go along with this idea (and it's been a popular one in the Senate).
The second point is that Internet providers already are required by another federal law to report child pornography sightings to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, which is in turn charged with forwarding that report to the appropriate police agency. So there's hardly an emergency, which makes the Democrats' rush for a vote more inexplicable than usual.

Daar zit duidelijk meer achter.

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Salvadorii

Hij vind dat de overheid niet moet tussenkomen om te vermijden dat er monopolies ontstaan (hou uw portefeuille maar klaar gewone man).

Onzin: de link uit het artikel. Hij is van mening dat de overheid net het omgekeerde doet (monopolies versterken). Een echt vrijmarktmonopolie is extreem zeldzaam. De professor treed hem bij in dit filmpje.

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Salvadorii

Paul is ook tegen de bescherming van gehandicapten tegen discriminatie - die moeten maar voor zichzelf zorgen...

Weer werd er gelinkt naar een filmpje, kijk vanaf 3:25. Een case van pro-zelfstandigheid. Daar kan men voor of tegen zijn, maar daar is niets inherent slecht aan zoals u lijkt te beweren.

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Salvadorii

Paul vind dat het milieu beschermen overbodig is en wilt de EPA opdoeken.

Weer moest er een stroman van gemaakt worden, dus bij deze: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politic...ul#Environment

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Salvadorii

Hij wilt de Centrale Bank afschaffen (waanzin voor een moderne economie - er is geen land ter wereld zonder een centrale bank).

Wat is daar waanzinnig aan? Geld bijdrukken aan het tempo van de FED zal dan wel niet waanzinnig zijn zeker?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politic...ederal_Reserve

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Salvadorii

Hij wilt heroine, crack en crystal meth legaliseren.

Inderdaad, om eindelijk die probleemdrugs aan te kunnen pakken. Portugal geeft het voorbeeld.

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Salvadorii

Paul vindt ook dat spoedafdelingen het recht hebben om (hulp-behoevende) patienten te weigeren.

Dit kon ik niet vinden op motherjones.com en daar ga ik dus ook niet op reageren nu. U bent vrij om wat meer informatie te geven, in plaats van hetzelfde te doen als de schrijver van dat artikel op motherjones.com, namelijk stromannen neerpennen.

Mijn conclusie is dat u zich nogal gemakkelijk laat leiden door de schrijfsels van de blogversies van liberale media �* la Mother Jones en Grist, zonder verder op onderzoek te gaan in hoeverre die beantwoorden aan de werkelijkheid. Een andere conclusie is dat Ron Paul een zeer consistente libertarian is.

[k9]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Capsula

Ah zo, dus Woodrow Wilson heeft niet toegegeven dat hij de macht uit handen gaf wanneer hij de federal reserve act ondertekende?

Ik raad u aan 'The creature from Jekyll Island' eens te lezen.

A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is privately concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men ... [W]e have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated, governments in the civilized world—no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and the duress of small groups of dominant men.

Zijn de woorden.

Jij maakt ervan dat de VS anno 2011 de VS al 100 jaar overheersd word door de federal reserve.

[zonbron]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Salvadorii

Nog wat feiten over de halve gare racist Ron Paul... Jullie weten wellicht dat hij niet in evolutie gelooft en dat hij uitgelachen wordt door bijna alle economen (hij is niet de enige zot die rondloopt helaas). Maar een aantal dingen dat jullie misschien niet wisten:

Hij is tegen elke vorm van sociale zekerheid - dus pensioenen en gezondheidszorg geregeld door de staat. Dus als je arm bent en ziek wordt, of je leeft heel lang - pech!

Hij vind dat kindermisbruikers recht op privacy hebben - een bedrijf dat merkt dat bvb kinderporno over zijn netwerk gedistribueerd wordt MAG DIT NIET VERTELLEN aan de overheid, aldus Paul. Sad but true zou Lars en James zeggen...

Hij vind dat de overheid niet moet tussenkomen om te vermijden dat er monopolies ontstaan (hou uw portefeuille maar klaar gewone man).

Paul is ook tegen de bescherming van gehandicapten tegen discriminatie - die moeten maar voor zichzelf zorgen...

Paul vind dat het milieu beschermen overbodig is en wilt de EPA opdoeken. Would you like industrial effluent in you coffee? Too bad its in there...

Hij wilt de Centrale Bank afschaffen (waanzin voor een moderne economie - er is geen land ter wereld zonder een centrale bank).

Hij wilt heroine, crack en crystal meth legaliseren.

Paul vindt ook dat spoedafdelingen het recht hebben om (hulp-behoevende) patienten te weigeren.


Conclusie: Wie in een harteloze wereld waar het ieder voor zich is wilt leven moet fan worden van die man. De mens als dier, daar staat hij voor.

Source: Motherjones.com

* zucht *

Zoals ik al het al vermoedde, Motherjones, The Nation magazine, Media Matters, MoveOn.org, NPR en het Center for American Progress... Pure doublespeach! Het blad bij uitstek voor dubbelsprekende pseudo-linkie winkies die de links liberale kapitalistische elite verdedigen, met Soros als boegbeeld.

Nu begrijp ik waar U uw onzinnge beweringen ivm RP vandaan haalt. Ach, iedereen zijn ideaal, maar ik ga het niet nalaten om hier wat over Mother Jones, Media Matters en Soros neer te zetten.

The Soros empire: Billionaire megalomaniac undermines American values


George Soros is back. The leftist billionaire wrote a column this week calling for the legalization of marijuana. In the Wall Street Journal’s op-ed pages, Mr. Soros supports California’s Proposition 19, the ballot initiative that would legalize the possession of small amounts of marijuana and its domestic cultivation.

Proposition 19 is a major step toward Mr. Soros‘ ultimate goal: the legalization of almost all hard drugs - including cocaine and heroin. This is a cause Mr. Soros has pushed - and bankrolled - for decades. It would take America closer to his vision of a European-style permissive social democracy.

The prevalence of drugs threatens the very fabric of our society, destroying the lives (and brains) of millions of Americans. It also fosters child abuse, domestic violence, crime, illegitimacy, AIDS and social breakdown. It is a public scourge whose use should not be encouraged or legally sanctioned, but eradicated.

The fact that legalization would result in more drug-induced deaths and higher addiction rates, especially among children and teenagers, means nothing to Mr. Soros. He champions the culture of death. Abortion, atheism, pornography, gay marriage, euthanasia and doctor-assisted suicide - these are the issues central to Mr. Soros‘ progressive agenda.

Media elites pay little attention to Mr. Soros and his nefarious activities because they share his political philosophy. Hence, they refuse to shine a spotlight on his secretive, rapacious and immoral behavior. They are complicit in covering up his shady, manipulative and destructive business dealings and his extreme neo-Marxist views.

Mr. Soros is the sugar daddy of the Democratic Party and the modern left. His net worth is more than $7 billion. He is one of the richest and most influential men in the world.

Almost every major liberal organization, think tank or media outlet has been the beneficiary of Mr. Soros‘ largesse. The Nation magazine, Mother Jones, Media Matters, MoveOn.org, NPR and the Center for American Progress - all together they have received tens of millions of dollars from the financier. They serve as front groups and propaganda vehicles to promote Mr. Soros‘ brand of transnational socialism.

He has poured hundreds of millions into the former communist bloc. The former Soviet empire has thus become the Soros empire. Mr. Soros has worked behind the scenes to destabilize and influence governments such as Croatia, Slovakia, Serbia, Georgia, Kosovo and Ukraine. In the process, he has plundered countries’ natural resources.

Mr. Soros is a liberal imperialist who seeks to erect one-world government. He is a rabid anti-capitalist. He favors high taxes, lavish public spending, welfare statism, massive redistribution of wealth to the poor and a tightly controlled international regulatory financial system. He despises nationalism and the West’s Judeo-Christian heritage. His aim is to usher in a new global order - one based on scientific materialism and progressive social engineering.(Eugenics ???)

He champions amnesty for illegal immigrants and erasing our borders with Mexico and Canada. In his view, religion, nation-states and the family are repressive, antiquated institutions that must be abolished. He is the enemy of democracy and America.

During the presidency of George W. Bush, Mr. Soros called for “regime change.” He spent nearly $25 million hoping to defeat Mr. Bush in 2004. He failed - barely.

The billionaire is fostering greater financial chaos to devalue our currency. Mr. Soros is betting against the U.S. dollar, attempting to undermine its value on the global markets. Destroy the dollar, and America’s economic might goes with it. Mr. Soros wants to repeat his legendary 1992 assault on Britain’s pound sterling, in which he nearly bankrupted London’s central bank and caused an economic crisis - forcing English taxpayers to pick up the costly tab. Mr. Soros made out like a bandit, pocketing about $1 billion from his currency-manipulation scheme.
*** Zie de draad De VS mag zich niet verzetten tegen de afbouw van de $, NWO/globale munteenheid.Soros

He is a shrewd student of history. Like Leon Trotsky, one of the founders of the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution, Mr. Soros believes in fomenting permanent crisis in the service of permanent revolution. A protracted economic crisis will decimate the middle class - and bring with it the acceptance of unprecedented government intervention. This is what he hoped would happen over the past several years.

Mr. Soros is a hypocrite. He claims to want higher taxes on the wealthy and stricter corporate regulations. But his investment fund is registered in the Netherlands Antilles, enabling him to dodge income and dividend taxes to Uncle Sam. His investments and money are sheltered in offshore accounts - away from the clutches of the Internal Revenue Service or the watchful eye of the Securities and Exchange Commission. In 2002, he was convicted in France of insider trading. He has financial interests tied to Latin American drug cartels. For example, he reportedly has a major stake in Banco de Colombia, a bank known to be laundering money for drug kingpins. In short, he thinks the rules do not apply to him.

Mr. Soros is ultimately an amoral megalomaniac who is detached from reality. He refers to himself as “the pope’s boss.” He has admitted to having messianic impulses. “I fancied myself as some kind of god,” he once said. He went on to emphasize that “truth be known, I carried some rather potent messianic fantasies with me from childhood, which I felt I had to control, otherwise they might get me in trouble.” Yet Mr. Soros claims he has learned to deal with them - by embracing his world historical destiny. “It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.”

The fact that Mr. Soros is the power behind the Obama regime reveals its moral and intellectual bankruptcy - and the depths to which liberalism has fallen. Rather than being a hero and benefactor, he should be an embarrassment to liberals everywhere. Moreover, he poses a clear and present danger to the republic and its founding values.

If Republicans regain control of Congress, they should launch an investigation into Mr. Soros‘ nefarious political activities and shady financial dealings. He has declared war on conservatives; it is time we declare war on him.

washingtontimes

Mother Jones And The Defence Of Liberal Elites
by Michael Barker

(Swans - April 19, 2010) Intellectual freedom is regularly debased by financial dependency, and unfortunately many progressive organizations receive the majority of their funding from capitalist elites. Mother Jones presents the perfect illustration of a left-leaning magazine that acts as a mask for the soft power of liberal elites and their not-for-profit corporations, as liberal philanthropists from the ruling elites provide over 56 percent of the magazine's total annual revenue. This, however, does not prevent the magazine itself from suggesting that it engages in "smart, fearless journalism" that is "not funded by or beholden to corporations." With regard to their professed "value system" they add:

Principally we're about good journalism, following a story no matter where it takes us. We are interested in protecting the little guy and uncovering injustice. We also believe in good storytelling and coverage that surprises. We have no interest in preaching to a choir.

Thus if one were to simplify the situation and argue that there were two dominant facets to corporate power, it is evident that Mother Jones' journalism displays their ability to attack conservative-driven injustice but defend the guys and girls of the liberal elite. So while they are not beholden to for-profit corporations and do not write to please corporate advertisers, they nevertheless still preach to a choir that sings and worships within a liberal church, built for and by capitalists. For example, if we look at Mother Jones' coverage of one of the organizational mainstays of the US government's foreign policy-making establishment, the National Endowment for Democracy, we can see ample evidence of their inability to follow a story no matter where it might take them -- especially when it takes them to liberal elites.

Writing in Mother Jones in 2003, George Packer suggested that the National Endowment for Democracy simply "gives money to democratic groups in undemocratic places" (the unspoken assumption being that the U.S. is democratic). He then continues that as a result of such benevolence the endowment "has been accused by both the left and the right of meddling in other countries' affairs." But here he parts way with critical commentators, by suggesting that "meddling on behalf of democracy is exactly what we need, and the endowment should play a much larger role in the war on terrorism." ***DOUBLESPEACH***

Just over one year later Packer was defending the endowment again, this time in respect to their work in Iraq. Here Packer observed that in late 2003 President Bush gave a "fine speech" at the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), "sketching a keenly idealistic vision of the future of the Middle East." Ironically, Packer seems to have taken Bush's democratic bullshit at face value, and with no evident historical comprehension of the US government's democracy-manipulation strategies merely bemoaned the fact that "at the same time, the administration was letting grants for Iraq programs at the National Democratic Institute -- a subagency of the NED -- dwindle to close to zero." [b]The problem for Packer is not capitalist interference per se, just that conservative grantees are being prioritized over liberals.
...

In May 2005, Tom Engelhardt brought a breath of fresh air to Mother Jones' reporting on democracy-manipulating elites in his discussion of the ongoing hostility between the US government and Venezuela. The NED's interference in Venezuela has of course been examined in the mainstream media, and Engelhardt cites a Newsday report to critique the NED's aid to a civil society group that supported the coup against President Chávez in 2002. Engelhardt even goes so far as to suggest that: "Given the history of the United States in Latin America, when a coup occurs in a situation like this, it should really be assumed that the U.S. government was involved in plotting it, not just 'tacitly supporting' it." However, despite acknowledging the anti-democratic activities of the NED in Venezuela -- albeit by using the words of other journalists -- Engelhardt does not expand upon the limited critiques contained in the Newsday article. (2)

By November 2005, sometime after the wake of Ukraine's "Orange Revolution," Mother Jones yet again rallied to the defense of US democracy manipulators by celebrating the success of the media outlet Ukrayinska Pravda, which was "one of the most popular news outlets in Ukraine." Although the Mother Jones article was concerned with the manner by which Yushchenko had turned on this media outlet that had "help[ed] to prompt the revote that ushered Yushchenko into the presidency," highlighting the fact that "Ukrayinska Pravda itself was seeded with grants from several U.S. sources, including the National Endowment for Democracy," it consequently downplays any problems associated with this influence.
...

Given the outstanding service that Mother Jones has provided to US elites by shielding the NED from any form of meaningful inquiry, it is fitting that just last month Nicholas Schmidle would pen an article that provided another whitewash for the democracy-manipulating community. The puff piece in question was based on an interview with Serbian activist --- and former Otpor founder -- Srdja Popovic, who "with five revolutions already under his belt" (from Ukraine to Lebanon) had "just helped overthrow the government" of the Maldives by "guid[ing] the local opposition -- now the ruling party of this tiny nation in the Indian Ocean -- in the ways of peaceful revolt." Revolutionary aid, Schmidle reveals, is regularly provided to foreign activists via Popovic's group, the Centre for Applied NonViolent Action and Strategies (CANVAS), which Popovic says is "100 percent independent from any government." However, as I and others have demonstrated at length elsewhere, regardless of their funding sources, groups like CANVAS certainly appear to be fulfilling an integral role in facilitating "the new modalities of intervention under the rubric of 'democracy promotion.'" Such work has already demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that related organizations like the International Center for Nonviolent Conflict (ICNC) -- a group whose founder and primary funder is the controversial Peter Ackerman -- are a part of the US foreign policy elites' global, well-established democracy-manipulating network. Thus it is fitting that Schmidle cites one of Popovic's colleagues, Professor Stephen Zunes (and the chair of the ICNC's academic advisory board), to defend CANVAS's activities from misinformed writers -- myself included -- who "see conspiracies even where there aren't conspiracies, particularly regarding pro-democracy struggles against regimes the U.S. happens to oppose." (Two other ICNC advisors who are affiliated with CANVAS are John Gould and Kurt Schock.)

****There is, however, no conspiracy, just an unwillingness on the part of otherwise critical commentators to recognize that the left-leaning aspects of the democracy-manipulating establishment are just as problematic as those led by Republicans. Indeed, there is a simple reason why Popovic is successful, and this has a lot to do with his willingness to work with capitalist elites to undertake revolutionary work. For instance, in September 2009, Popovic, while acting as the president of the Serbian-based free-market outfit the Ecotopia Fund, launched the "Green Serbia" news service with the support of the US Embassy in Belgrade. (4)

Contrary to statements suggesting otherwise there is plenty of evidence that CANVAS maintains close working relations with the lucrative democracy-manipulating elites. In fact, Borzou Daragahi, writing for The Los Angeles Times (in 2008) revealed that CANVAS "is funded in part by the International Republican Institute, and [the] Washington-based Freedom House, which receives most of its funding from the U.S. government." (5) (Incidentally, ICNC founder, Peter Ackerman, is the former chair of Freedom House.)

Two years ago, Democratization Policy Council associate Amado Mendoza Jr. was listed as "a trainer-in-training" for CANVAS. Although the Democratization Policy Council now appears to have closed down its operations, it counted amongst their ranks many individuals who have worked and continue to work with "democratic" organizations like the arguably misnamed US Institute of Peace, and "humanitarian" groups whose work is intimately connected to democracy-manipulator extraordinaire, George Soros. On top of such connections, other particularly notable former associates of the Democratization Policy Council include Dragan Popovic (who was the program director at the NED-funded Humanitarian Law Center, one of Serbia's leading human rights nongovernmental organizations), and Iryna Chupryna (a former activist with PORA -- Ukraine's equivalent of Otpor -- where she "systematized and supervised PORA's external contacts"). (6)

As this brief article has demonstrated, there is no doubt that writers for Mother Jones are unable to publish articles -- in this magazine anyway -- that are critical of liberal elites associated with the National Endowment for Democracy. This inability to focus effective criticism on liberal capitalist elites renders the magazine's ambition to produce "socially conscious journalism" that takes "on corporate as well as political power" unfulfilled. This tragic situation is unlikely to change any time soon, because a glance at Mother Jones' board of directors reveals a bevy of liberal elites (like Democracy Alliance cofounder, Rob McKay), and their cohorts whose lives have been devoted to working to reform capitalism, often with the aid of liberal foundations. (7) Mother Jones is a vehicle for promoting low-intensity democracy, or polyarchy, and it is certainly not a delivery system for the type of radical journalism that is going to bring revolutionary change home to the United States. For this the public will require publications that are not beholden to capitalism, and if such media outlets are to ever break free of the influence of elite liberal philanthropists, they are going to need broad public support. Capitalists will never fund their demise, but we can.
swans

Wie is het nu die het meeste baat heeft bij het legaliseren van (hard) drugs ? RP of Soros(MotherJones,Obama,Ned...) ? Mijn mening staat vast.

Met de links liberale kapitalistische elite aan het roer heeft 'de kleine man' alvast geen nood meer aan een portefeuille...

Verder nog merk ik op dat Uw visie en commentaren ivm RP nog een paar stapjes verder gaan dan deze weergegeven in MotherJones (vele beweringen zijn gewoonweg niet terug te vinden). Dat is veelzeggend...

Ach, de links liberale dubbelspraak, what a waste of time...

[Capsula]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door k9

A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is privately concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men ... [W]e have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated, governments in the civilized world—no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and the duress of small groups of dominant men.

Zijn de woorden.

Jij maakt ervan dat de VS anno 2011 de VS al 100 jaar overheersd word door de federal reserve.

Yep, dat is dan ook exact wat hij zegt. En sinds die act werd ondertekend is daar geen verandering in gekomen. Of wel soms?

[zonbron]

Waarom zijn sommigen tegen Ron Paul, lees het hier
De Extreem-Anti-RP's zijn tegen de individuele vrijheiden en 'the constitution'

Blijkbaar vrezen sommigen dat Ron Paul zou winnen
De oorlog tegen Ron Paul

The War on Ron Paul
Whether the media establishments want to admit it or not, and believe me they don’t, Ron Paul IS the ‘front runner’ for the republican primary. Despite voracious denials and vitriolic arguments from almost every quarter to the contrary, he is the only one with a chance of shutting out Obama for the presidency in 2012. He appeals to all sides of the aisle, and is attracting the much sought after independent swing vote almost as fast as he has the youth of the nation. The Internet is indisputably Ron Paul country as countless polls and google trends have repeatedly shown. The gradual change in political rhetoric flowing out of Washington, D.C. over the last 3 years reflects an explosion of interest in the freedom message he spreads so tirelessly. The continuous growth in popularity of talk and news shows focusing on freedom and the Constitution broadcasts loud and clear the rising prominence of issues he has brought to the debate. For anyone with any powers of discernment, it’s a no-brainer.

So why do media pundits, dime a dozen politicians, and innumerable experts of self-aggrandized consequence spend great swathes of time, effort, and someone's money working so hard to convince the people otherwise? You can't turn on a TV, pick up a paper or surf the Internet without encountering the words "He can't win," or some other lame variation repeated ad nauseam with great gusto. According to all the most acclaimed talking heads, that mythical beast "The Front Runner" has yet to be seen on the horizon and is still to arise from some unknown lair, "blazing a new trail" of GOP fame and success across political skies sometime in the not too distant future. Their blind adherence to this tired refrain boggles the mind. Personally, I can find only one reason for the constant repudiation...fear. Fear of the known...Ron Paul, and fear of the unknown...future largess. The status-quo is cornered and its biggest backers are flailing in desperation through media and political mouthpieces.


With decades of consistency on record as proof, it is well known by all in Washington that Ron Paul will not compromise his principles for money, power or personal gain. Ron Paul is simply...not for sale. Lobbyists for special interests have never been able to rent his vote. This is such an undisputed reality that they don't even darken the door of his congressional office. His opinion can not be leased by the highest bidder, nor his silence ensured through threats and coercion. He is a man who stands his ground, refusing to back down, flip-flop, or play the political game of corporate footsie that entangles so many on the Hill. This is the kind of strength America not just needs, but deep down hungers for in a president. America does not need a president with the strength to circumvent law by executive order, ignore Congress and engage in needless conflicts, or break international and common law to achieve a victory. Those who stand to lose the most under a president who would not compromise the peoples' liberties, the Constitution or the rule of law for any reason are deathly afraid of Ron Paul.

...

Having hurled their verbal slings and arrows of foreign policy insanity and foreign aid abandonment, most pundits proceed to trot out the next big issue to be refuted...individual liberties. Of course they don't often mention those actual words, but delve deeply right to the perceived heart of the issue...heroin. Ron Paul wants to "legalize heroin" is touted gleefully to choruses of "and prostitution!" A round of smirks is the cue for visions of marauding bands of crazed, drug abusing prostitutes to begin dancing through the viewers' heads and scare them out of ever considering Ron Paul as a viable candidate for anything, much less republican party nominee. A thinking person might wonder why the fascination and focus on heroin, other than for the shock value of course, whenever individual liberty is mentioned. "Protecting individual liberty," Ron Paul often explains, "is the purpose of all government. Individual liberty is the right to your life, the right to your property and the right to keep the fruits of your labor." With those two simple sentences and a clear constitutional understanding of what they actually mean in regards to federal government overreach, almost everything that the status quo fights to maintain is essentially negated. Is it any wonder the most inflammatory phrases are employed at every opportunity to derail the very idea?

No matter how much Washington, D.C. wishes to protect Americans from themselves, lift them out of poverty, provide for their well-being, or ensure their safety from dangerous products and enemies, it cannot do so without infringing on their individual liberties and violating the Constitution. The federal government we live with today no longer serves the interests of the American people, but serves the special interests of: corporate cronyism; militarism for profit influence and empire; centrally planned debt management, counterfeiting, fraud and currency debasement. Those who would maintain the status quo, despite its almost certain destructive end, are beginning to realize just how much they have underestimated the power of a quiet, consistent message of truth delivered to the people by a man of principle. A man who would be president not for the power he could wield over the people, but for the power he would give to the people by restoring their Republic. So war has been declared again, but this time the war is on liberty...and Ron Paul.

lewrockwell

Relativatie
“And when the people desperately need a hero, we shall provide one to them”

[the_dude]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door k9

Nee hoor, dat zijn van die samenzweringstheorien genre 9/11 .

Er zijn wel degelijk grote verschillen tussen de kandidaten. Echter zoals ik al zei kan je niet zomaar het roer van de ene op andere dag omgooien.

dat zijn geen uitspraken van 9/11 doch van een typ in de jaren 20 of 30 (zoek het zelf eens op ) die vooruitgang wou voor iedereen voor het volk en doorkreeg hoe de vork in de steel zat. Er is er ook ene neergeschoten in de jaren '60 (met een magische kogel speciaal uit die tijd) die teveel voor het volk wou veranderen.

[k9]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Capsula

Yep, dat is dan ook exact wat hij zegt. En sinds die act werd ondertekend is daar geen verandering in gekomen. Of wel soms?

Dat is nooit gebeurd . Toon mij eens wat 2011 bewijzen dat dit het geval is.

[k9]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door zonbron

Waarom zijn sommigen tegen Ron Paul, lees het hier
De Extreem-Anti-RP's zijn tegen de individuele vrijheiden en 'the constitution'

Blijkbaar vrezen sommigen dat Ron Paul zou winnen

Hij had 1% van destemmen de vorige keer?

Nu staat hij niet erg hoog in peilingen of hoe de republikeinen hem zien?

De oorlog tegen Ron Paul

Tja

"Rockwell served as Ron Paul's congressional chief of staff from 1978 to 1982"



Het artikel is ook grotendeels onzin. Er word amper gesproken over ron paul in de media niet omdat ze bang van hem zijn maar omda hij al zoveel keer meedeed .

Relativatie
“And when the people desperately need a hero, we shall provide one to them”

Je vergeet dat de voorverkiezingen niet bepaald word door de gemiddelde VS burger.

[k9]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door the_dude

dat zijn geen uitspraken van 9/11

Dat zijn ik ook nergens, ik zeg dat ze gelijkaardig zijn als wat sommige over 9/11 zeggen .

[Capsula]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door k9

Dat is nooit gebeurd

Wat niet?

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door k9

Toon mij eens wat 2011 bewijzen dat dit het geval is.

Een privé-instelling leent al het geld in omloop aan de overheid. Als u daar de implicaties niet van ziet is dat mijn probleem niet.

Ik heb u trouwens een boek aangeraden over het onderwerp, als het u echt interesseert kan u wel wat tijd vrijmaken om het te lezen. Maar kom hier niet doen alsof je interesse hebt om de kwestie te bespreken als je tot niks anders in staat bent dan met uw duimen te draaien en te eisen dat iemand anders het eens rap bewijst.

[fatjohn]

Om een einde te maken aan de marginalisatie: Hij kreeg 1.2 miljoen stemmen in 2008 wat goed was voor 6 procent.

http://www.uselectionatlas.org/RESUL...r=2008&elect=2

Hij heeft sindsdien een belangrijke factor geweest voor de tea party. Zijn zoon is benoemd geweest tot senator met gelijklopende ideen en hij heeft veel van de economische malaise voorspeld. Ongetwijfeld doet hij het vast veel beter in een zwakker veld dit keer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationw...election,_2012

En ja hoor, hij vangt al regelmatig 10 procent in de polls. Niet te spreken over zijn favorietenrol onder "independents" die niet gepollt worden maar uiteindelijk zich wel nog inschrijven en gaan stemmen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xtl2ZuJpG9M

[zonbron]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door fatjohn

En ja hoor, hij vangt al regelmatig 10 procent in de polls. Niet te spreken over zijn favorietenrol onder "independents" die niet gepollt worden maar uiteindelijk zich wel nog inschrijven en gaan stemmen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xtl2ZuJpG9M

2

[k9]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Capsula

Wat niet?

De overheersing tiens.

Een privé-instelling leent al het geld in omloop aan de overheid.

Het is niet een prive instelling, het is deels overheid deel prive zowel in taken als in verantwoordelijkheden en bestuur.

Als u daar de implicaties niet van ziet is dat mijn probleem niet.

Oh jawel maar dat betekend nergens dat ze de "VS controleren" .

Ik heb u trouwens een boek aangeraden over het onderwerp, als het u echt interesseert kan u wel wat tijd vrijmaken om het te lezen. Maar kom hier niet doen alsof je interesse hebt om de kwestie te bespreken als je tot niks anders in staat bent dan met uw duimen te draaien en te eisen dat iemand anders het eens rap bewijst.

JIJ deed de bewering JIJ mag het bewijzen. Echter zie ik zoals 9/11 wat uit context getrokken zaken en voor de rest veel stilte.

Als voor dat boek

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_System

toont aan dat het niet zo is.