Ron Paul: The Bilderbergers Want to Control Our banks

Soulshiner wrote: You are assuming I don't know anything about this stuff. That would be like assuming you are jewish or a white power freak for posting this stuff. It doesn't say anything about Jews and your connecting of the dots does not mean that it means what you are implying. Try working with facts, not your own reading between the lines or the quoting of white power hate groups.

You don't. Otherwise you would fully understand that when Ron Paul uses terms like "The Bilderbergers Want to Control Our banks" he is talking about the old tired horse that the Jew run the world. I've been reading Ron Paul's tripe for 20 years now. It's well know that Ron Paul has use the "blame the Jew" option a number of times...

"The rhetoric when it came to Jews was little better. The newsletters display an obsession with Israel; no other country is mentioned more often in the editions I saw, or with more vitriol. A 1987 issue of Paul's Investment Letter called Israel "an aggressive, national socialist state," and a 1990 newsletter discussed the "tens of thousands of well-placed friends of Israel in all countries who are willing to wok [sic] for the Mossad in their area of expertise." Of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, a newsletter said, "Whether it was a setup by the Israeli Mossad, as a Jewish friend of mine suspects, or was truly a retaliation by the Islamic fundamentalists, matters little."

http://www.pjvoice.com/v32/32104paul.aspx

And honestly, this is OLD NEWS and I'm not going to listen to your deflections and lies. All anyone reading this has to do is spend a little time looking into Paul's background, his past statements and the group speak and code words that he uses among his "followers" to understand that Ron Paul is a racist and anti-semite. And if that doesn't bother you, well, history already knows what Ron Paul is... but it says a lot more about you.

I'm not concerned with what you think about me. Twist, lie and manipulate all you want, those methods are what says everything about you.

The Creature from Jekyll island is a good read. Maybe ole Ron is channelling it.

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

FredHayek wrote: Entertaining. I know you have to take the good and the bad with any candidate, but is the appeal of his isolationism and fiscal conservatism out bid by his wacky side?

Ok... evidently from your edited comment... you do agree with him. Go ahead... take the wacky side... Hitler appeared to have some good ideas too... too bad they ignored his wacky side. That little thing about the Jews... and homosexuals... and gypsies... and certain other religious groups... and that land grab... you go ahead and take the Ron Paul bad with the Ron Paul good. (I knew there were nuts on here... just waiting to come out of the woodwork.)

Major over-reach. I can still support someone without agreeing to all that they do. I support an independent Palestine but it doesn't mean I support most of the tactics they think will achieve that.

Or I can ally myself with someone without agreeing to them 100%. For example when the US provided military and economic aid to the Soviet Union during WWII.

Ron Paul has admitted himself he will not win the election, too radical, too old, & an anti-Israel tone, but I would like the Republican Party to know that its voters do want to see less spending and less meddling overseas.
Or should I support another Bush clone who will continue to increase the budgets and the debt ceilings?

FredHayek wrote:

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

FredHayek wrote: Entertaining. I know you have to take the good and the bad with any candidate, but is the appeal of his isolationism and fiscal conservatism out bid by his wacky side?

Ok... evidently from your edited comment... you do agree with him. Go ahead... take the wacky side... Hitler appeared to have some good ideas too... too bad they ignored his wacky side. That little thing about the Jews... and homosexuals... and gypsies... and certain other religious groups... and that land grab... you go ahead and take the Ron Paul bad with the Ron Paul good. (I knew there were nuts on here... just waiting to come out of the woodwork.)

Major over-reach. I can still support someone without agreeing to all that they do. I support an independent Palestine but it doesn't mean I support most of the tactics they think will achieve that.

Or I can ally myself with someone without agreeing to them 100%. For example when the US provided military and economic aid to the Soviet Union during WWII.

Ron Paul has admitted himself he will not win the election, too radical, too old, & an anti-Israel tone, but I would like the Republican Party to know that its voters do want to see less spending and less meddling overseas.
Or should I support another Bush clone who will continue to increase the budgets and the debt ceilings?

We are talking about RON PAUL... not Bush, not military aid to the Soviet Union, not Palestine... nice deflections Fred... but this topic and conversation is about RON PAUL. We are TALKING ABOUT RON PAUL. Deal with Ron Paul. If you're going to support RON PAUL, then discuss RON PAUL. Hopefully RON PAUL will not win the election because he is a racist, a homophobe and anti-Jewish-Israel-everything and a person like that (left or right) doesn't belong as leader of anything. It's a shame to Texans that he's been elected again and again in Texas.

There's no over-reach her Fred. If you call pure, simple, plain facts... facts that even Ron Paul admits to... facts straight from his mouth (er... see the f'king video at the top of this thread)... if you call that over-reach... then you have a very skewed sense of objectivity.

He's a neanderthal throwback to the 50's and 60's... spurting John Birch styled theories, seeing a Jewish banker behind every safe deposit box, wrapping his little pea brian around "protocols of Zion" sort of tripe... he's unstable and possibly crazy.

I am willing to overlook Ron Paul's whackier ideas because I think his main goals of bureaucratic shutdowns & limiting spending are what I want. Is that plain enough for you who cant understand comparisons.

Throwback to the 50's & 60's? Bircher? Like its a bad thing? I just watched tinker tailor and thank God there were paranoid. Bircher types out there protecting us from the communists both overseas and in America. McCarthy might have gone too far but the moles were there in the state department and other branches of government.

FredHayek wrote: Throwback to the 50's & 60's? Bircher? Like its a bad thing? I just watched tinker tailor and thank God there were paranoid. Bircher types out there protecting us from the communists both overseas and in America. McCarthy might have gone too far but the moles were there in the state department and other branches of government.

That answers that. Now I know where you are coming from. Now I know why you said... "I know you have to take the good and the bad with any candidate, but is the appeal of his isolationism and fiscal conservatism out bid by his wacky side?" I give you credit. You're honest. If you go along with the thinking of groups like the Bircher's and people like Ron Paul... you're racist and a anti-semite... but you're damn honest.

FredHayek wrote: I can still support someone without agreeing to all that they do.

Y'know, I can too....


But fascist/jingoistic/Bircher-types aren't one of them.

FredHayek wrote:

I can still support someone without agreeing to all that they do.

Yeah, so did many German people about Hitler. He was improving the economy so they could close their eyes to his position on Jews, homosexuals, gypsies, the mentally and emotionally challenged, etc.

Sure, you can disagree with some of what "they do" and expound. But be careful. You may find that what you disagree with is what comes back to bite you about this guy.