That was literally (at least) half the interview. “Almost everything he says” equals out to a shitload of nonsense.
Bias? It’s utter nonsense and again, it was at least half the interview. (I didn’t bother to listen to the first half, I just started at 9:__ whatever you linked to, and it was the gift that kept on giving after that.
Why, does he tell us all how John Kennedy rejected Operation Northwoods so that he could focus on the real steps toward totalitarianism by breaking up trade unions?
I could have, but I didn’t feel that in a forum of the Ludwig von Mises Institute for Austrian Economics it was really necessary to refute the notion that the world using gold as currency is a bad thing, or that “free trade is the desired end of the New World Order.”
You mean, like, London financial companies have some gold under their control? Uh. I have gold under my control. What’s your point?
I don’t know what this is supposed to mean.
So you don’t think Paul has a deal with Romney, but you think Paul thinks a company Romney used to run is necessary[?] in restucturing the economy, so he gives him the election?
I’m not following this.
And the Grand Canyon is “a ditch.”
Got it. So the New World Order are going to manipulate Paul by working his anti-one world government, pro-free market/free trade goals into their pro-one world government, anti-free market/free trade goals. Got it. I mean that makes perfect sense. Diabolical.
Right. Because he’s done so much of that. I’ve felt very encouraged by Romney over the last 4 years.
Huh? Whoever has hijacked the Aristophanes account, can you please return the account to its proper owner? Thanks.
There are Joe Sixpacks out in the streets today carrying signs that say “End the Fed” on them. I’m not saying the Elites are taking this lying down or that they won’t work to turn any resistance to suit their purposes through agents provocateur, etc. But you keep insinuating that RP is somehow betraying the movement.
If you have something to say about RP, why don’t you provide some kind of cite or evidence of any kind or even a plausible hypothesis? Instead, you keep pussy-footing around and implying that RP is useful to the Establishment or is actually backed by the Establishment: “the Bilderberg connection through a Mormon run PAC.” RP has a Bilderberg connection now? Are you smoking crack?
Ending the FED is still an esoteric request if I’m not mistaken. The FED is very insecure. I realize this.
No. That is not what I am trying to relay. Paul himself could have a number of reasons for doing what ever he does.
Yeah. You can just google that. This is the first thing that Google sought to admonish on my inquiry. (he gave a total of just over 4 million dollars to Paul through the whole thing). As I said before, he doesn’t need to be “dealing” with them. They have a use for him, however. I’m pretty sure Paul isn’t in favor of “post national ocean-states” but I’d venture to say that some of the globalists are.(anti- establishment, anti-whatever; Thiel particpiates in the Federal Reserve system I don’t hear him rally against it per se. Paypal is an international bank and has taken a public stance against wikileaks. I’m not sure I buy his anti spirit). The globalists are a diverese bunch.
We all know RevolutionPAC is being run by people that we know (Woods et al) and Endorse Liberty was constantly shown to be the “primary” Paul PAC by the media. Why wouldn’t the Bilderberg member give money to Woods and his PAC? I remember very little of revolutionPAC in the MSM to boot.
My hypothesis is that Paul has been manipulated by some of the elitists. And that from his almost win in Iowa (Paul had a night and day demeanor change when the media started saying that he might win. It gave me the impression that he didn’t want to win when I saw him speaking and what he was saying that day) to his abrupt PR announcement this week, any time things are looking up he shoots himself in the foot. He just said at the last money bomb if he didn’t get 2.5 million he’d close up shop, he got all of it, but still closed up (at least PR wise).
Other people in this thread has suggested that Paul was “gotten to” not by a deal, but by a threat. I think that he probably faces threats on a daily basis, large changes in behavior, could be indicative of a threat with substance. I think this combines into his realization that the delegate strategy will eventually result in violence played a part as well (possibly against his family or supporters). The GOP will not allow the Paul delegates to change the rules from the floor. Even if they are a majority, the Party won’t allow it. I’m not being rhetorical. I think the party would literally call the police and have the participants arrested. Paul doesn’t want this.
Someone (idk who) may have simply told Paul what will go down if his delegate scenario happens the way we all want it to and he has choosen to withdraw his full participation in it due to the consequences.
Prove it. Oh you can’t? Oh you mean he put money into a political action committee that Ron Paul had literally nothing to do with and by law could have literally no communication or coordination with? Okay, thanks.
You and Tarpley and Yahoo News. You really need to learn what the hell a “SuperPAC” is. (Apparently Yahoo News learned, and changed the title of the article, but the original lives on in the Internets. Click the link in that thread and see what they changed it to.)
I could say the same thing about you.
They had a lot more money, and it’s more of a story when “The founder of Paypal donates $1.7 million to SuperPAC supporting Ron Paul”…as opposed to “SuperPAC headed by historian Thomas Woods raises $100k with ‘moneybomb’”.
Prove it. Oh wait, he didn’t say that? He said “if we don’t reach our $2.5 million goal, I am not sure our campaign can go on”? Yeah. That’s what I thought.
Scoff and tell me “If x, then y” is the same thing as “If x, then I’m not sure if y won’t happen”. Go ahead.
Did Paul take the money? It doesn’t matter if he communicates with them or not. Thiel got Paul money. Paul used said money.
In what way does any of the Yahoo News stuff or that thread you linked (Prince fansite?) conflict with what I said? Endorse Liberty gave Paul money that they got from Thiel. Just because Colbert raised more or Gingrich raised even more through a “super” one doesn’t negate the source of Paul’s campaigns money…even if he wasn’t communicating with them.
Because that’s what you did?
Me: Paul ended up with money from a Bilderberg member. (Over 2.5 million)
You: So, Paul cannot speak with the donors about it by law.
Do you see what you did there? N o n s e q u i t u r … at least for my point.
The point I make is that if the elites have use for Paul, they can help him along with money and there is evidence that that echelon of society has taken interest in him for one reason or another. Judging by the media coverage, party happenings, security state reticence, etc. I think it is safe to say they are not supporting him, but some of their elements gifted him some “no strings” cash (right, JJ) through a PAC not run by his associates.
Thiel’s money brought the headline. Idiot. Why didn’t Thiel give money to Paul through Woods PAC? It would have drawn the same headlines you proclaim to debunk the motivation for media coverage…he picked a PAC run by people who have never been associated with Paul in the past as opposed to a PAC that is being run by people who have associated with Paul in the past.
PayPal, in its international role in other countries cannot avoid being a component of the international banking cartel. Theil claims to be antiestablishment, but can only say those things about the U.S establishment.
I am a coerced participant in the FEDRESSYS that speaks out frequently. Is that the same thing?
Read that as if you are speaking it.
You sound like a punk kid on trying to pick a fight on the playground. Grow up you titmouse.
That is the same thing I said he said. He raised the money that he requested, but then still decided that he “can[not] go on.”
“Oh, well, people is plural, z1235 is singular and you can’t proves it’s a person anyway so you’re wrong.”
Uh. No. He didn’t. Again, you really need to learn what a “super political action committee” is.
Are…are you serious? The whole purpose of that link was to show that you and Yahoo News made the same mistake. It wasn’t supposed to conflict with what you said. I honestly didn’t think you were this dense.
“Not in citation given”. Please quote the part where it even implies that.
Wow. You really need to learn what a SuperPAC is. You sound beyond incredibly ignorant. (But I guess that makes sense. Since you are.)
I’m actually speechless. You’re like the CEO of ING going on about how small the country of Austria is when Tom Woods was talking about Austrian economics.
I mean, at least it’s the Internet so you don’t have to literally face the embarassment, but still. Learn what a SuperPAC is before you continue on with this.
See above. You and McInerney would have a nice little experience to share, should you ever meet.
You stay classy!
Because Woods’ PAC wouldn’t give Paul any money. (Nor would Paul take such money.)
I wasn’t “debunking” anything. You said “Endorse Liberty was constantly shown to be the “primary” Paul PAC by the media.” I simply told you why.
I’m with Clayton. I never found you to be this dense. Whoever you are please return the account to its rightful owner.
He picked a PAC run by people he knew, and that (probably) he would have some creative control in. I think the only person on the RevolutionPAC board who has ever had even more than a single conversation with Paul is Tom Woods, and even his relationship would probably be accurately described as “acquaintance” at best. I think “run by people who have associated with Paul” is an overstatement.
P.S.
RevolutionPAC is headquartered in Northbrook, IL…suburb of Chicago. Guess we all know what that means: Paul’s totally in bed with Obama. I mean the proof’s right there. Like, totally obvious to anyone who would open their eyes! Like writing on the wall, man.
This is easy! You, me and Tarpley should be detectives.
Did I say it was?
Okaaayy. Now what?
Hey more class from our good friend Phany! Can’t say I’m surprised. He just exudes the height of panache.
Ron Paul: If we don’t reach our $2.5 million goal, I am not sure our campaign can go on.
Aristophanes: He just said at the last money bomb if he didn’t get 2.5 million he’d close up shop
I think that, if the US is reduced to rubble in such a war (i.e. World War III), then the rest of the world will be, too. I think that those who run the US global hegemony are willing to drag the rest of the world down with them - to paraphrase The Count of Monte Cristo, they couldn’t bear to live in a world where they have no power.
Yeah, I really don’t see the point of “trying to make nice”. Either Ron Paul and/or those close to him were “warned” that something bad could happen to him/them, or they were “warned” that the Republican National Convention could “get out of hand” (i.e. become contentious and even violent, provoking a repressive police crackdown etc.), or Benton and Wead (if not others) are really just jobbers at heart. Regarding that last possibility, I find it hard to believe that Ron Paul would assign such people to such high positions in his campaign organization. Regarding the first possibility, again, remember Paul Wellstone. I think “They” see this as a war of sorts, and “They” have been looking at it that way for a very long time.
I have a hard time believing that for Wead, but like I said about Benton, I’m not even sure he’s really a “Ron Paul supporter” to begin with. Also like I mentioned, (and others who have been involved with Paul in the past have said), one of Paul’s weaknesses is a trusting quality that leads him to end up putting the wrong people in influential positions in his posse. I don’t think that necessarily means like evil people, but just ones who don’t exactly end up being a net positive for him and his goals.
You keep bringing that up. I had to look up who that even was. I can’t believe you’re comparing some two-term senator from Minnesota with Ron Paul. It makes no sense. How in the hell could this guy I’ve never even heard of (even after his tragic death) be so dangerous as to require assassination (by DEW attack on a plane, no less) and 76 year old Ron Paul hasn’t had a single heart attack.
Plus, it’s past that point now. If anything even remotely mysterious happens to Paul, it will be bigger than 9/11 as far as conspiracy theorists are concerned. That is something they certainly do not need. It’s not worth the risk. There are just too many people in too many areas interested in Ron Paul (meaning too much access and too much motivation) to have any sort of foul play.
Right, I’ve read that from you and others before. It’s a shame if that is indeed the case.
My understanding is that Paul Wellstone was very popular in his home state of Minnesota at the time, if not also elsewhere. He was also about the only person who completely opposed the direction the government wanted to go in the aftermath of 9/11. (Even Ron Paul kept relatively mum at this time, if Eric Dondero is to be believed.) Besides, if 9/11 was an “inside job”, then causing a very popular anti-war Senator from Minnesota to die in an “accident” wouldn’t be beneath those who were behind it. There’s also the “Amerithrax” case to consider in this vein.
How many people supported JFK before he was assassinated?
The one advantage that I see Ron Paul supporters having over e.g. JFK supporters is that the former don’t trust “authority” nearly as much as the latter did. But it’s clear to me that the chips are increasingly coming down for “Them” and thus “They’re” becoming increasingly desperate.
Maybe this will provide some perspective, although it means this thread will satisfy Godwin’s Law: there has existed in recent history a conspiracy to systematically exterminate an allegedly identifiable group of people numbering in the millions, and it was all too successful.
That still doesn’t account for the point I raised. It’s irrelevant if killing someone isn’t “beneath them”. The point is, is it worth the outright cost and the risk. I don’t see how in this case. I also don’t see how this guy would be deemed worth a DEW attack to cause a plane crash, and no one has bothered to put anything in Ron Paul’s food on the campaign trail where he’s eating all kinds of stuff from anywhere and everywhere, often times, by himself.
You’re going to use military technology to bring down a plane for some guy I’ve never heard of, but Ron f-ing Paul hasn’t even stumbled on a set of stairs.
Not as much as you’d think, actually. Guy wasn’t near as popular as he is now, ironically. Being famous and dying tragically tends to do that kind of lionizing. He won the popular vote by a margin of 0.16%. And while his approval rating did get up pretty high at one point, it was in decline, and down to 58% nationally by the time he died. In fact he was visiting Texas for that very reason…as he was polling even worse there. An article in the Houston Chronicle—published the day he died, actually—shared the results of a statewide poll that showed he would lose to Goldwater decidedly.
You obviously weren’t around in the 60s. I can’t believe anyone would even try to make that comparison.
First off, I never said anything about a “DEW attack”. (I’m assuming that acronym stands for “directed-energy weapon”.)
Second, you disagree that “They” would’ve thought it worth it to crash the plane Wellstone was travelling in. That’s fine. You’re free to disagree with that all you want. But don’t expect me to change my mind just because you say you disagree with me. (And if you say that’s not what you’re trying to do here, then what are you trying to do here, John?)
True, but you really don’t think that JFK’s popular support wasn’t on par with, say, Obama’s today (if not more)? I’ll put it this way: my understanding is that JFK enjoyed more popular support (at least tacitly) than Ron Paul. I could be wrong, though.
1963 =/= 1968
I don’t think you were around in the 60s either, though.
It has to do with the effectiveness of conspiracies.
Edit: nice attempt at a ninja-edit of your post after I already responded to it. Now I’ll respond to your edited portion:
In all honesty, how much of a margin do you think Ron Paul would win the popular vote by? As much as I hate to say this, I think he’d win it by a decidedly negative margin (i.e. he would lose, handily). So I stand by my assertion that JFK was more popular back then than Ron Paul is now. That doesn’t mean I like that state of affairs, of course.
Isn’t that the conspiracy theory? You’re the one who brought the whole thing up, I just looked it up.
I didn’t say that. I said it doesn’t make sense to me to suggest that this not-even-a-footnote-in-history Senator was targeted for assassination, while a voluntarist quoting Mises and Rothbard is trucking along with delegates in a threat to win the Republican nomination for President of the United States, without so much as a head cold.
I really don’t understand why you bother to type stuff like this out. What does that even mean? Why would anyone expect anyone to change their mind because someone disagrees? I mean I know you have a crush on me, but I didn’t think it was that bad.
Making conversation with a confused person?
Well…he was the President, and “support” in that context is translated to “approval rating.” I don’t see why this is relevant though. I assume your argument is “well JFK was actually President, and was more popular than Ron Paul, and they killed him, so they could easily kill Paul and get away clean.”
But that’s kind of like saying “the ratio of whites to blacks in 1860 was 695:1 and it’s not much lower, even now. Black slavery could easily be instituted again.”
There are too many other factors in play that you’re not considering.
?
You’re comparing the Holocaust to the assassination of a single person? The defintion of “conspiracy” includes “secrecy”. You may wish to argue the initial planning was held in secret, but there was obviously no secret about the Holocaust. I’m sure if you wanted to play semantics you could argue that “technically a conspiracy is just an evil plot, blah blah blah”, but I think we all know an assassination is not the same thing as a methodical mass extermination.
If you’re actually going to argue “hey, Hitler pulled of a conspiracy to kill millions of Jews, so the Bilderbergers could easily get away with killing Ron Paul”, I’m not sure there’s much to say to you.
Again you’re equating “approval rating” with “wouldn’t be satisfied with any official story given for his death, would call it an assassination from day 1, would do everything in his power to uncover the truth, and would be ever-more motivated to investigate and shine a light on Bilderberg/TriLat/CFR like never before and create havoc for them, and their operations.”
And I think that’s a pretty naive mistake.
:EDIT:
I began editing before you responded. It wasn’t an “attempt” at “ninja” anything. It didn’t change the context of my post. All I did was add more detailed information. If anything I would think you would thank me for giving you those figures because you obviously believed they helped your case (which of course they don’t). Obviously they don’t help mine either, they’re basically superfluous. I just thought people might be interested to know those details. But of course you would try to paint my addition of details that change literally nothing about my point or the context as some secret “ninja” edit, as if to say I was trying to slip something past you.
There’s a difference between suspecting the plane that Paul Wellstone was travelling in did not crash by accident and believing it was brought down intentionally by a directed-energy weapon. Just for the record, my position is the former, not the latter.
No, you didn’t say that literally. I don’t think you had to. What you did literally say implies what I attributed to your position - that “They” wouldn’t have thought it worth it to cause the plane that Paul Wellstone was travelling in to crash. Your reasoning seems to be as follows: since “They” apparently don’t think it worth it to eliminate Ron Paul, “They” must not have thought it worth it to eliminate Paul Wellstone. If I’m mistaken here, then feel free to clarify.
I can see no other good reason for your condescending tone, John. As I’ve mentioned many times before, your modus operandi quite often seems to be to berate people who disagree with you until they shut up, at which point you can presumably feel like you’ve “won”. I find it hard to conceive that you have some sort of neurological disorder that prevents you from recognizing how you come off to other people.
Protip: asking “What the hell does that even mean?” does not constitute a polite request for clarification. It conveys condescension, if not disgust, at the fact that the person even made the statement that the question asked about in the first place.
That assumes, of course, that I’m “confused”. If you want me to agree with you that I am “confused”, you’ll have to do better than that. In any case, you’re making conversation to what end, exactly?
That’s not exactly what I’m saying. What I’m saying is that “They” have gone after bigger targets in the past and gotten away with it. The circumstances are certainly different now, but I think there may come a time where “They” nevertheless think it’s worth it to employ more extreme measures.
I’m sorry but I don’t see how this is analogous.
… Such as?
My understanding is that there wasn’t nearly as much of a protest movement or counterculture in 1963 as opposed to the later part of the decade (e.g. 1968).
It was sufficiently secret that the vast majority of the German people didn’t find out what was going on until after the war. A conspiracy doesn’t have to be totally secret, just secret enough.
Methodical mass extermination could be thought of as a large number of single assassinations, could it not?
You never have to say anything to me. But I don’t understand why you find the notion so ridiculous as to just laugh it off.
I did say that one advantage that Ron Paul supporters have over people who supported JFK was that the former have much less trust in “authority” than the latter seemed to have had at the time - which, as far as I can tell, is essentially the point you’re making above.
Let me also say this: given the far less trust in “authority” that Ron Paul supporters and their ilk have, I think “They” would have to be prepared for a lot more extreme measures than just a single assassination. But then again, I think the evidence points to “They” preparing “Themselves” for that very such thing, as well as trying to nip any “adverse reaction” in the bud.
I’ll stand corrected on this. In my defense, I didn’t see that you began editing before I responded.
Sure. Again, I said your story doesn’t add up. I’m not saying it’s wrong, I’m saying it doesn’t make sense. I’m not saying “‘They’ must not have thought it worth it to eliminate Paul Wellstone”…obviously the guy’s dead, and if your conspiracy theory is true, then someone did find it worth it to kill him. What I’m saying is that if that’s the case, how was it not worth it to kill Ron Paul a long time ago?
Feel free to offer your explanation.
There you go again. You really do say stuff like this quite often. Where did you ever get this idea that I was ever trying to convince you of anything? Is it some kind of self-esteem reinforcement bias or something?..related to your delusion that everyone is out to try to intimidate you? You have a need to feel important and don’t get enough attention elsewhere (and apparently in the forum as well) so you just assume (or pretend) that people care what you believe and have some interest in trying to convince you of things?
I honestly don’t get it.
Pleasure.
…how is that different than what I said?
Check the sentence right below it.
Such as everything that makes 2012 different from 1963, and everything that makes Ron Paul different from John F. Kennedy.
Aww. I didn’t realize you felt so left out. I say things to you quite often. I didn’t realize your appetite was so insatiable.
Because they’re two completely different things.
If all you get from “wouldn’t be satisfied with any official story given for his death, would call it an assassination from day 1, would do everything in his power to uncover the truth, and would be ever-more motivated to investigate and shine a light on Bilderberg/TriLat/CFR like never before and create havoc for them, and their operations” is “they have much less trust in authority that people who supported JFK”, then you’re either dishonest, or more dense than I thought.
@Aristophanes: To reiterate what JJ said, you are indeed confused about what a SuperPAC is. Tarpley isn’t confused, he’s disinfo.
A SuperPAC can support any candidate on any issue or even multiple candidates or opposing issues. The courts ruled that - as long as SuperPACs conform to certain rules - particularly not cooperating in any way with the political campaigns they express support for - they are simply an expression of free speech. EndorseLiberty is a SuperPAC. Its ads “supporting” Ron Paul strike me as half-hearted and some border on the farcical. Those that attempt humor are painfully un-funny.
For someone who sees conspiracies behind every bush, you seem to think in a very linear manner about EndorseLiberty, as if anyone who says “I support Ron Paul” thereby is proven to be, as a matter of fact, supporting Ron Paul. It’s not possible that someone could say they support Ron Paul for the express purpose of trying to distort public opinion about his views? What does any of that have anything to do with Ron Paul himself?
Okay, I didn’t realize you were splitting hairs over “how” the SuperPACs expend money. Endorse Liberty just spends money fronting for Paul, they don’t give it to him. For God’s sake. It makes no difference if the money actually goes to Paul and, frankly, it makes it worse that the money is spent in Paul’s name without any of his acknowledgement. Who knows what their intentions are (which is my point of suspicion)? It reminds me of the brothel that was campaigning for Paul. (The brothel was an obvious trojan horse campaign tactic.)
This also still doesn’t conflict with my point of the Bilderberg member using Paul. Anyway you split the hairs Paul is being financially supported by him.
Prove it. And when you do, gloss over the fact that this makes my point even more apt.
If RevPAC was being run by people in the Black Liberation Front, I might buy that. But, as it stands this is still a red herring for the point that Mormons, who have since endorsed Romney and got their money from a Bilderberg member fronted for Paul. This kept his campaign going for like two months.
Just because the words are slightly different, doesn’t mean that the content behind them is…
Yeah, you wouldn’t get that. Even as you call others ignorant.
I don’t see how that’s different from my characterization of your apparent position. To repeat, that characterization was the following: since “They” apparently don’t think it worth it to eliminate Ron Paul, “They” must not have thought it worth it to eliminate Paul Wellstone.
To try to answer your question: a long time ago, Ron Paul did not have anywhere near as many supporters, followers, and the like as he’s had in recent years. All I can surmise is that Paul Wellstone may have appeared to be more of a threat to “Them” at the time than Ron Paul - especially since the latter (according to Eric Dondero) didn’t directly protest the foreign policy decisions that the US government made in the aftermath of 9/11.
If you still don’t think my position makes sense, that’s fine. But we’ll be at an impasse, as I’ll still think it does make sense.
Why else would people interact in a forum like this, if they didn’t have an interest in trying to convince each other of things (and thus care about what each other believes)? Here are the alternatives, as I see them: 1) to feel better about themselves by “winning” (which many people think can consist of the opponent retreating from the thread in question), 2) intellectual masturbation (i.e. to see how well their arguments hold up against others’), or 3) to derive amusement or some other sort of pleasure from the responses they get (i.e. trolling). If you see any other alternatives, feel free to list them.
How exactly does making conversation with a person who you think is “confused” give you “pleasure”? I don’t think you’re trolling here, but of course I could be wrong.
You attributed this argument to me: “well JFK was actually President, and was more popular than Ron Paul, and they killed him, so they could easily kill Paul and get away clean”. I’m not saying the latter would necessarily be easily done, either right now or in the future.
I already did. Let me repeat myself: I’m sorry but I don’t see how your statement is analogous. Either you’re interested in convincing me of its analogy or you have some other (i.e ulterior) motive for making that assertion.
Let me be more explicit. I’d like you to list - exhaustively, if you please - everything that you see as a factor in play that you think I’m not considering. Making blanket statements like the above inform me of nothing, understand? And if your purpose here isn’t to inform me of anything, then again I’d like to ask, just what is your purpose? I fail to see how you could find this entertaining.
You wrote earlier: “You obviously weren’t around in the 60s. I can’t believe anyone would even try to make that comparison.” I went out on a limb and assumed you were talking about all the protesting and counterculture that’s attributed to “the 60s”. However, those things were really only indicative of the later years of the 60s, particularly 1967 through 1969. Yes, the New Left was active even before 1960, but AFAIK their influence didn’t really start spreading until the “Summer of Love” in 1967. In any case, there was hardly anything in the way of anti-war protests or counterculture in 1963 as compared to 1967-1969.
I’ll respond to this later, when I can watch those videos.
However, I’ll also note for the record that you haven’t bothered to refute my point that methodical mass extermination could be thought of as a large number of single assassinations. I’ll take that as an implicit concession until further notice.
Perhaps you’d like to offer some substantive support for this assertion.
Having much less trust in authority would seem to correlate with much greater motivation to do the things you list above, now wouldn’t it? You can think of my term “have much less trust in authority” as a way to summarize your list. That’s essentially what I intend it as, in this context.
Oh please. Nice try at a face save, but you have no way to dodge yourself out of this hole. You’re already in it and have been digging it for something like three posts now. Just admit you didn’t know what a SuperPAC actually was nor what it could do in terms of spending.
Wow. Hundreds of thousands of donors seem to disagree.
Hey! Look who’s almost getting it! Now just change “in Paul’s name” to “(allegedly) in support of Paul” and you’ll actually (finally) have an accurate comment about SuperPACs!
Ron Paul certainly doesn’t. So I don’t see how this supports your boy Tarpley’s contention that Paul is in cahoots with Romney, and that’s why “he has his superpac in Salt Lake City instead of Galveston.”
Just fyi for anyone curious, Endorse Liberty is the PAC that publicized and popularized (if not actually created) what I consider the best Ron Paul promo video I’ve ever seen, as well as supplemental ads like this and ran them on television
Explain how helping Paul and spreading his message helps the Bilderberg group.
More apt? Because of circumstancial evidence that has a perfectly logical explanation? Maybe you shouldn’t be a detective after all. Me and Tarpley will just be a duo.
Wha? Now you’re alleging that without Endorse Liberty, Paul’s campaign would have ended two months ago? Are you fricking serious? Jeez you’re desperate.
Oh I see. So now when someone says something different from you say they did, it’s okay, because you know what they really meant. I guess it’s a lucky thing we have you to interpret when what people say means just that, or when it means something completely different.
So I guess when Tarpley calls the Austrian School an “alien, poisonous, foreign ideology”, what he really means is that he just doesn’t know what it is.
No, I mean, I understood what you wrote there, I just can’t understand why in the world anyone would think that was an actual comeback. You said “people” as if to infer that multiple individuals believe and have voiced an opinion about something. The reality is only one person did. It kinda changes the whole connotation.
Kind of like if someone said “People in this thread have said Aristophanes eats babies” sounds a quite a bit different than “some guy named Frank said Aristophanes eats babies”.
And you respond as if you were retorting with a comeback by essentially trying to say your “ah splitting hairs, tomato/tomotto” thing.
