View Full Version : Lugar says country can't afford Ron Paul's foreign policy views
27th December 2011, 03:45
Ok first we heard Chris wallace selling the other candidates as being the only reasonable ones to vote for over Ron Paul. Now listen carefully to what takes place and what message they are sending . They are saying the established republican party can not afford Ron Paul . What matter is not what the party want but what the will of the people want . The hard sell is being conducted to make Ron a loony guy with out of touch policies>CNN again Clearly an Obomber loving station
27th December 2011, 04:19
I say the country can't afford to put any value into Lugar's political commentaries.
27th December 2011, 07:16
Translation: military-prison-industrial-contractor-bankster complex cannot afford it.
Then, there is reality of who would be voting for him (with 58% of americans receiving substantial amount of their earnings from government, that is hardly a possibility [Source: G.Shilling, "Age of Deleveraging", p. 330 (http://books.google.pl/books?id=Q-jcWS_eEW8C&pg=PA330&lpg=PA330#v=onepage&q&f=false)]).
People would not vote to have their income cut - unless they would be brainwashed to believe it is actually good for them.
Since Dr Paul would rather not resort to such BS peddling, he will not get zombiedom votes. They will go to those offering more feeding options.
And here we are arriving to crux of matter, which is: without majority of population being enablers and enforcers of Elite role, that rule will not be possible.
Elite rules, because it positioned itself as arbiter between two naturally opposite groups: those who earn their living and those who consume (ever thought about zombish etymology of the word?).
With Ron Paul being squarely in the camp of producers and traders, with principles of real free market, sound money, limited government and non-agression being his hallmarks, this places him in contrast with all the other candidates, who just cater to status quo. Just listen to the political pundits, who point that those principles make him "unelectable". Yes, only those who cater to Aristocracy and zombiedom are welcomed as "choice".
Then there is another thing. Imagine what would happen IF Ron Paul would win and will not get immediately assasinated or disposed by coup d'etat, and start to enact his visions (as unlikely as it seems). Millions will face rough awakening from their la-la lands. No more faking the reality. No more free sh!t.
This means riots. This means millions angry people, lacking mental faculties to comprehend why juice stopped flowing. And lots of manipulators ready to direct this anger at their targets of choice. This is kind of crisis that will call for martial law - something that will play squarely to Elite hands. Complete polarization of society.
Facing that, possible Ron Paul administration would either turn lame, facing too much public opposition and bureaucratic inertia, or will face civil war. The War elites count on, as it will be easily spinned to show "inhumane face of free market" - no matter that crisis was made by decades of government policy and un-free market.
In a way - that would be perfect scape-goat. Which is why he might be allowed to win.
27th December 2011, 16:45
Great assessment Luke, as this can show the win win situation again and how supporting the rebellion is part of the Agenda with Alex Jones, Ron Paul, that Russian News station and company etc...
In one sense supporting the rebellion could be a quicker road to reorganization, centralization and a Vision to propel us the next thousand years.
As far as im concerned, if you are not thinking on this critical level in public arenas, supporting dialogue with this type of analysis, you are part of the problem. Not that the social engineers will use this think tank to discern public direction....But what can you do...
27th December 2011, 18:54
Millions will face rough awakening from their la-la lands. No more faking the reality. No more free sh!t.
Who says it has to be a "rough" awakening? Sure, you can cure a heroin addict "cold turkey" (a rough awakening), or you can cure him much more gently with methadone treatments. My point is that there are transition options that you are not considering with your "worst case scenario" assumptions.
27th December 2011, 19:03
A rock and a hard place.
America in the 20th century was no longer aligned with the colonial century's vision of milk and honey. By the 21st century, it had become a BOG, the very antithesis of its founding and foundational script: The Bill Of Rights.
Understanding that the POTUS in a BOG does not answer to the occupied but to the occupiers ... is Politics 101, 201, 301, 401 ... Helsinki ... it's the entire trukking political department!!
Question begs, what is the benefit of Ron Paul submitting to the BOG machinery of suffrage? No benefit. Side effect. The closer Paul takes it to election day ... the more exposure he can give to issues that matter. As long as Paul himself realizes this, then he gets it and is an asset to critical mass. Humble opinions all around.
27th December 2011, 19:12
The Nanny state was created to forge a clone army of addicted infants with super human rioting fuel. Couple this with WW3, terrorism, food shortage and an Ace in the hole in Exopolitics, I dont see where methadone inpatient detox centers will fit in the picture....
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.