Post Ron Paul Supporters Debunked

[jonjon]

Post Ron Paul Supporters Debunked

Anyone clinging to a presidential candidate past that candidate’s ability to win has an agenda that is centered in a deception. Humans do not congregate with a dead carcass. These posts Ron Paul rallies are being used to keep Obama in office. Ron Paul is the perfect tool with his patriotic constitutional based vision. Now these covert liberals can attack the conservatives with terminology and accusations such as non-patriotic, sheeply, neo-cons, fascist, pro-federal reservists, and pro-going to war for profit traitors.

(Quoted from another thread)

"Real revolutionaries are quiet and confident, they do not reveal their true intentions to those who would stand against them. Real revolutionaries wear suits and cut their hair. They get in close." Reilly O'Neal (Ron Paul Staffer)

Read more:

These are the liberals that are shouting the Ron Paul mantra in hopes to divert the vote; their candidate is Obama.

Be leery of the wolves in sheep’s clothing.

[Scrumdiddles]

Post Ron Paul Supporters Debunked

Anyone clinging to a presidential candidate past that candidate’s ability to win has an agenda that is centered in a deception. Humans do not congregate with a dead carcass. These posts Ron Paul rallies are being used to keep Obama in office. Ron Paul is the perfect tool with his patriotic constitutional based vision. Now these covert liberals can attack the conservatives with terminology and accusations such as non-patriotic, sheeply, neo-cons, fascist, pro-federal reservists, and pro-going to war for profit traitors.

(Quoted from another thread)

"Real revolutionaries are quiet and confident, they do not reveal their true intentions to those who would stand against them. Real revolutionaries wear suits and cut their hair. They get in close." Reilly O'Neal (Ron Paul Staffer)

Read more: http://dinarvets.com.../#ixzz1xJKBmK4M

These are the liberals that are shouting the Ron Paul mantra in hopes to divert the vote; their candidate is Obama.

Be leery of the wolves in sheep’s clothing.

Let me guess you intentions are to stick the knife in and twist. How appropriate. You have no clue, ignorant statements like RP rallies are being used to keep Obama in Office. You are on my neg list to. You have no since of reality.

[jonjon]

Let me guess you intentions are to stick the knife in and twist. How appropriate. You have no clue, ignorant statements like RP rallies are being used to keep Obama in Office. You are on my neg list to. You have no since of reality.

Please place me on your ignore list because I don't buy your liberal agenda.

[Mongo]

Post Ron Paul Supporters Debunked

Anyone clinging to a presidential candidate past that candidate’s ability to win has an agenda that is centered in a deception. Humans do not congregate with a dead carcass. These posts Ron Paul rallies are being used to keep Obama in office. Ron Paul is the perfect tool with his patriotic constitutional based vision. Now these covert liberals can attack the conservatives with terminology and accusations such as non-patriotic, sheeply, neo-cons, fascist, pro-federal reservists, and pro-going to war for profit traitors.

(Quoted from another thread)

"Real revolutionaries are quiet and confident, they do not reveal their true intentions to those who would stand against them. Real revolutionaries wear suits and cut their hair. They get in close." Reilly O'Neal (Ron Paul Staffer)

Read more: http://dinarvets.com.../#ixzz1xJKBmK4M

These are the liberals that are shouting the Ron Paul mantra in hopes to divert the vote; their candidate is Obama.

Be leery of the wolves in sheep’s clothing.

No be leery of mice that surf......................Ron Jon:o

[cris]

Absolutely right jonjon.....The Paul campaign is a stealth liberal agenda

While some folks are truly interested in returning to a Constitution based

Government, others are obviously wolves for Obama.

Look at the Paul agenda as advocated by its supporters

Legalize drugs

Remove support from Israel

No more war for oil

Support for wallstreet & Bildeberg protestors

Disdain for businesses & job creating Corps

Hatred of the GOP

I could go on & on....before anyone says, 'Hey, I kinda agree with some of those'

realise, those are straight from the Liberal Democrat agenda and playbook.

While he sprinkles in some Constitution language & Federal Reserve ideas,

I dont trust this group one little bit.....And I dont believe thats the real agenda

Dont be fooled folks.....They want you to think they are

something they arent

I think this is why he does so poorly in elections, most people

feel a little uncomfortable with Pauls ideas

Edited June 9, 2012 by cris

[rothsdad]

The PTB have been playing both sides for years and no matter how much you are shown some of you will never figure it out because you're too brainwashed or too interested in sticking the knife in your fellow man.

http://just-another-inside-job.blogspot.com/2007/04/nazi-medal-commemorating-zionist.html

[TPSprayduster]

The PTB have been playing both sides for years and no matter how much you are shown some of you will never figure it out because you're too brainwashed or too interested in sticking the knife in your fellow man.

http://just-another-inside-job.blogspot.com/2007/04/nazi-medal-commemorating-zionist.html

Cris made some valid points and i cannot believe this movement has gotten away with this for so long. down right misleading. Thanks for bringing this to table.

[Mongo]

[TPSprayduster]

you should not refer to yourself as such sir.

[jonjon]

The liberals made this “bait and switch” work with H Ross Perot and George H Bush against Bill Clinton. Now that they have packed the Internet with all the villainous hatred toward all the republicans past and present they can’t imagine this same technique won’t work again. If we hadn’t had a sitting republican house of representatives and senate to make Clinton look good, he would have caused as much damage to the USA as Obama has. “Wake Up America” capitalism will not be our downfall, liberalism will.

[rothsdad]

The liberals made this “bait and switch” work with H Ross Perot and George H Bush against Bill Clinton. Now that they have packed the Internet with all the villainous hatred toward all the republicans past and present they can’t imagine this same technique won’t work again. If we hadn’t had a sitting republican house of representatives and senate to make Clinton look good, he would have caused as much damage to the USA as Obama has. “Wake Up America” capitalism will not be our downfall, liberalism will.

Too big to fail banks is not my idea of capitalism.

[Scrumdiddles]

Please place me on your ignore list because I don't buy your liberal agenda.

See there you go labeling everyone. That is the problem with the US, people like you that put everyone in a box and create hate towards them. So i conditionally accept your offer that i have a liberal agenda, on proof of claim that i do have a liberal agenda. Prove it jonjon instead of your empty allegation of hatred.

[Maggie123]

"No more war for oil"

cris Really? You want more war for oil? Sheesh Man, don't you get it?

[TPSprayduster]

See there you go labeling everyone. That is the problem with the US, people like you that put everyone in a box and create hate towards them. So i conditionally accept your offer that i have a liberal agenda, on proof of claim that i do have a liberal agenda. Prove it jonjon instead of your empty allegation of hatred.

ScrumD you are now acting like LD, lashing out and challenging instead accepting his post for what it is. He choose to ignore you so accept that.

[cris]

"No more war for oil"

cris Really? You want more war for oil? Sheesh Man, don't you get it?

My point Maggie, is that is in the Liberal Playbook/Agenda

Here's a good article on this subject

The Left’s ‘Blood For Oil’ Fraud

Posted By Rick Moran On June 8, 2012 @ 12:40 am In Daily Mailer,FrontPage | 2 Comments

The New York Times reports that crude oil output in Iraq is “soaring” and that Baghdad has expressed the goal of having the capability to produce 10 million barrels a day by 2017.

But of all the American oil companies, only Exxon has any significant contracts to exploit petroleum resources. The fact that the fields bid on by Exxon lie in the Kurdish section of Iraq and were not approved by the central government angered Baghdad who has forbidden the company to bid on other, more lucrative contracts.

This raises the question: What happened to all that oil that anti-war leftists insisted was the reason we went to war in Iraq in the first place? What about “No Blood for Oil”?

The slogan “No Blood for Oil” has been an anti-war shibboleth since the 1991 Gulf War. Like most liberal jargon, it is meaningless in any other context except as shorthand for American imperialism and capitalist exploitation.

In actuality, there are few things that are worth shedding blood over more than oil — specifically, cheap oil. But when anti-war protestors chant that slogan, they are unconcerned about the reality that oil is vital to life and prosperity in the United States. Instead, the catchphrase is used to evoke anger, implying that oil is important only to oil companies who profit from selling it, and to US politicians who do the bidding of the petroleum giants in going to war to benefit the companies.

At the height of anti-war hysteria in 2003-04, there was a weird paranoia from the left about why we invaded Iraq. There were “Cheney’s oil maps” that purported to show how we would divvy up Iraq oil among American oil companies (maps for Saudi Arabia and the UAE were also part of Cheney’s grand scheme). The maps, released as a result of an FOIA request from Judicial Watch, contain a map of Iraqi oilfields, pipelines, refineries and terminals, as well as two charts detailing Iraqi oil and gas projects, and “Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts.”

One would hope the American government had such maps — not to pinpoint the location of oil fields to take over as the left imagined, but as a necessary store of information that any government interested in Iraqi oil production would have. Scott Thompson, writing in crackpot Lyndon LaRouche’s Executive Intelligence Review, saw it differently:

Vice President **** Cheney has been plotting the conquest of Iraq since he was Secretary of Defense in President George H.W. Bush’s Administration—a plan then considered insane aggression. Moreover, on July 17, 2003, Judicial Watch announced that Cheney’s Energy Task Force had developed a map of Iraq dated March 2001, as well as maps of the neighboring United Arab Emirates (U.A.E.) and Saudi Arabia, which show that Cheney knew precisely how much the conquest of Iraq would be worth.

Lest anyone think this was an isolated interpretation of “Cheney’s maps,” a simple Google search reveals nearly 5 million results for “Cheney oil maps.”

Then there was the even weirder conspiracy theory advanced in Michael Moore’s fantasy/documentary Fahrenheit 9/11 that we went to war in Afghanistan not to oust the Taliban and kill Osama bin Laden, but to secure access for oil companies to the Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline. The fact that the Taliban was enabling mass murderer bin Laden by allowing him to live and train his terrorists in their country after the horror of 9/11 apparently wasn’t enough of a reason to go to war for Moore and his paranoid followers. They saw the evil, grasping hands of oil companies wanting to profit from the natural gas pipeline that would transit through southern Afghanistan. President Bush, being a former oil company executive (he also owned the Texas Rangers baseball team at one time but strangely, Moore didn’t accuse the president of wanting to establish a pro franchise in Kabul), wanted to do his former colleagues in the industry a favor and throw out the Taliban who we broke off negotiations with after the African embassy bombings.

To date, the pipeline has barely started and there have been no contracts let on the Afghan portion of the project. Michael Moore continues to push this conspiracy theory despite the fact that for all intents and purposes, the pipeline is a mirage.

But if we went to war for oil, what happened along the way that caused all that crude to slip through the fingers of the evil oil companies?

Something called “Iraqi sovereignty” intervened to thwart American imperialism. But this explanation isn’t any good because the left has been saying since the first post-invasion Iraqi government was voted into office that Baghdad is a “puppet” of the US. One would think puppets would do the bidding of their puppet masters.

Indeed, the most recent government auction of oil leases didn’t feature a single American company, says the New York Times. Is it because there aren’t enough American troops to scare the Iraqis into doing our bidding?

Richard Fernandez of Belmont Club answers that question:

The US firms tried going north to Kurdistan where they were welcome. But that made them anathema in the south. American oil companies are now being punished by Baghdad for daring to develop oil resources in the Kurdish regions.

Puppets “punishing” their puppet masters? Something is terribly wrong with the left’s interpretation of history. When they decide what it is, I’m sure they’ll let us know.

Iraq has proved that it is a sovereign nation capable of making its own policies and decisions. Of course, this singular fact doesn’t jibe with the liberal narrative that Iraq is a tool of American policy and grabbing Iraqi oil wealth was the primary reason we invaded.

American oil companies will no doubt share in Iraq’s oil wealth eventually. Our majors are among the most technologically advanced oil companies in the world and have proven themselves in every kind of terrain, on land and sea. But Iraq has internationalized the leasing process as the New York Times reports:

Exxon Mobil has by far the largest stake of any American company in Iraq, but most of the major players are European and Asian, like Lukoil and Gazprom from Russia, and Chinese companies like China National Petroleum and China National Offshore Oil Corporation.

None of those nations sent troops to Iraq, and were, in fact, major critics of America’s invasion and occupation. It throws the entire “No Blood for Oil” meme into a cocked hat when you realize that the winners in the Iraqi oil derby – after the Iraqi government and people — are from countries much admired by the left, and who had absolutely nothing to do with Iraq’s liberation or its continuing transition to a democratic state.

Funny we don’t hear any protests from the left against Russian imperialism or capitalist

http://frontpagemag.com/2012/06/08/the-lefts-blood-for-oil-fraud/

[rothsdad]

War for oil or war for Israel?

[Maggie123]

cris you just love to try and confuse me!

Just yesterday you said you would never view an article from the "leftest" New York Times! Now you post an article from them saying that because the US agenda to control Iraq's oil didn't work that "obviously" that was not our agenda? haha

[jonjon]

See there you go labeling everyone. That is the problem with the US, people like you that put everyone in a box and create hate towards them. So i conditionally accept your offer that i have a liberal agenda, on proof of claim that i do have a liberal agenda. Prove it jonjon instead of your empty allegation of hatred.

Scrum, I have read enough of your post to know that you are smart enough to know that a politically dead candidate has no way of being voted into office. The man couldn't get enough votes in the primary to get on the ticket. If everyone that voted for him in the primary writes him in on the ballot those votes would be wasted. I suspect that you will just go ahead and cast your vote for Obama though because you are not just plugging Ron Paul out of stupidity. Is that proof enough of your liberal agenda or are you going to keep taking the air head stance.

Edited June 9, 2012 by jonjon

[cris]

cris you just love to try and confuse me!

Just yesterday you said you would never view an article from the "leftest" New York Times! Now you post an article from them saying that because the US agenda to control Iraq's oil didn't work that "obviously" that was not our agenda? haha

You almost had me there Maggie I had to go

take another look......This is an analysis which includes quotes from

the NYT to refute it......Phew, I thought I was gonna have to backtrack on

that one

See its from The Daily Mailer?....Peace Maggie

Edited June 9, 2012 by cris

[rothsdad]

http://www.whale.to/c/dual_citizenship.html

[rightsonword]

See there you go labeling everyone. That is the problem with the US, people like you that put everyone in a box and create hate towards them. So i conditionally accept your offer that i have a liberal agenda, on proof of claim that i do have a liberal agenda. Prove it jonjon instead of your empty allegation of hatred.

Scrum, you know these people make blanket statements without having anything to back up their claims. I think the reason some here love the establishment so much is because they "debate" just like them: sling names and let emotions determine "truth."

+ 1 to you.

[jonjon]

Scrum, you know these people make blanket statements without having anything to back up their claims. I think the reason some here love the establishment so much is because they "debate" just like them: sling names and let emotions determine "truth."

+ 1 to you.

ROW, I have read enough of your post to know that you are smart enough to know that a politically dead candidate has no way of being voted into office. The man couldn't get enough votes in the primary to get on the ticket. If everyone that voted for him in the primary writes him in on the ballot those votes would be wasted. I suspect that you will just go ahead and cast your vote for Obama though because you are not just plugging Ron Paul out of stupidity. Is that proof enough of your liberal agenda or are you going to keep taking the airhead stance.

[Maggie123]

Awe the Daily Mail

"In actuality, there are few things that are worth shedding blood over more than oil — specifically, cheap oil. But when anti-war protestors chant that slogan, they are unconcerned about the reality that oil is vital to life and prosperity in the United States"

Please cris don't tell me you agree with this!

We do have alternatives, you know...

[jonjon]

Maggie, I have read enough of your post to know that you are due some considerations, If anything I have posted offends you dear I apologize. I have no way of reading your agenda.

[rightsonword]

ROW, I have read enough of your post to know that you are smart enough to know that a politically dead candidate has no way of being voted into office. The man couldn't get enough votes in the primary to get on the ticket. If everyone that voted for him in the primary writes him in on the ballot those votes would be wasted. I suspect that you will just go ahead and cast your vote for Obama though because you are not just plugging Ron Paul out of stupidity. Is that proof enough of your liberal agenda or are you going to keep taking the airhead stance.

TPS, he called me an airhead. Will you tell the mods for me? Jonjon also said something about me without supporting his statement. Isn't that against the rules, too? It's OK Jonjjon, I'm not a petty person. I'm an adult that knows when to take things in stride.

Anywho, My liberal agenda you say? I'm quite against abortion, big government, enjoy guns, don't adhere to carbon taxes, don't agree with high taxes, endless entitlements, etc.

But, I do want the FED to end, irrational and unwarranted wars to end, and I do enjoy the outdoors. If that makes me a "liberal." Fantastic.

I agree with most of Ron Paul's positions and hardly any of Obama's or Romney's. I don't care about party affiliations. I care about ideas and truth that will benefit me, my family, the US and the world. In my opinion, both Obama, Romney, and the other political establishment politicians promote the same ideas and politics that have gotten us in the mess we are in now - and which has gone on for well over a hundred years. So, how would I, a man who has a conscience and a desire for change, vote for Romney (or Obama) when I disagree with their positions. I don't care about the GOP just like I don't care about the DEMS. So, I will not vote for someone simply based n the letters in front of their name.

Correct me if I am wrong, but it is only logical, rational, and reasonable to vote for those you agree with and not for those you disagree with. This is what you are doing, too. So, no. I will not vote for Romney simply because he is GOP. I don't care if Obama gets reelected. They both push the same agendas.