Menu



error This forum is not active, and new posts may not be made in it.
Jim
Jim Allen

5807
11253 Posts
11253
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: The President That Hates His Country By Joan Swirsky
1/11/2012 12:21:54 PM
40% declare themselves Independents that leaves 60% to divvy up between the other two. Now if those not happy with Obammy and those not happy with the choices in the repub primary then you have a BIG OL' Third Party. per the Rasmussen numbers. His stance on foreign policy is your only real sticking point and that is understandable. Doesn't change my mind one way or the other. It is time for a Third Party that represents the people. No more of this duopoly

Quote:
You know Jim it's interesting that you reply to his article with a quote from a "recommended" DVD set a product that he's apparently interested in selling. A normal marketing device as you know with articles on different subjects. If the author had written "related" DVD's it would have something to do with the article but he didn't and it's just simple advertising. As to your question, no I've never heard of his claim for global earth quakes but in order to answer properly one would have to watch the videos which neither of us have. Sorta sounds like a different version of the "end times" prophecies. But rather then quote an unrelated DVD replying to the issues and points raised in what you said is is a "great read" would have been a more logical thing to do.

Now back to the article itself. Here's a guy that says
Quote:
Let me begin by making it very clear there are a lot of reasons to love Ron Paul.

He is a man with incredibly refreshing principles, ideas, qualities and character. There have actually been a couple of occasions where after listening to Paul, I have come close to joining the Ron Paul revolution.
something I'm sure you agree with and I totally disagree with (I find he has no endearing qualities and the only positives about him are his fiscal policies, smaller government and fight against the FED everything else is totally negative and kooky, IMO). Basically Richardson likes/loves Ron Paul and thought of getting on his bandwagon until he considered everything else he stands for and believes in which not only cancelled his positive stances it put him on the impossible to vote for list.

If the author was alone in thinking as he does it might be considered the exception to the rule and not the rule but when you read articles all over the net from different respected conservative sources you find that the majority agree with the author of this article.

Especially with the danger of a third party. I see you're in love with the word duopoly and if you read the previous articles above and on previous pages you'll see that there is a possibility that B Hussein and his supporters are behind all the rhetoric about a third party knowing that it'll insure his reelection. Add to that some of the so called conservatives who are advocating that as well and he'll win by a landslide (B Hussein). The numbers from the Rasmussen poll on this subject paints the picture in a way that is easily understandable. See the article I posted on the results of the Rasmussen poll. The numbers don't lie and if it happens I wonder if you and all the other third party advocates will feel like so many Americans that voted for B Hussein feel today?

Back to the article, it elaborates very well all the negatives about Ron Paul that the majority of the respected conservative writers agree with. Aside from Jones and other conspiracy theorists I've yet to find much support if any from the many respected conservative sources on the internet.

My dislike for almost everything the kook Ron Paul stands for is ongoing (for years) and all my reasons are stated in this thread and others. I don't need the articles and videos to support my opinions and beliefs they are ironclad and unchangeable but rather to possibly change the opinions and minds of fence sitter supporters of the kook Ron Paul.

BTW Jim, you don't need fodder to claim Ron Paul is a nut all you have to do is listen to him, he does the job very well all on his own. And, when you yourself write
Quote:
But to use as fodder to disclaim Ron Paul is a nut is pushing it... really pushing it just choose which nut to believe I guess.
it puts everything you're saying into a tailspin. If as you say the author is a nut (not cos of his article but unrelated DVDs) in the same sentence you're saying Ron Paul is a nut (which I totally agree with :) ). How can you justify supporting and voting for someone you admit is a nut??? Doesn't sound very logical or sensible to me.

Shalom,

Peter


Quote:
Just a quote from the recommended DVD Set site :

Quote:
Birth pangs in the news and the coming global earthquake

As massive earthquakes continue to shake the nations, few believers are aware that the Bible predicts a massive cataclysmic coming earthquake that will level every nation of the earth. When will this happen and what is the major event that will bring this about? By reviewing data from the United States Geological Survey, Joel also shows how massive earthquakes are rapidly increasing in frequency, pointing to the soon coming of Jesus the Messiah.

First I heard of a Massive Global Earthquake coming, have you heard about?

Anyways I find the guys article a great read and it probably sells some books and dvds too. But to use as fodder to disclaim Ron Paul is a nut is pushing it... really pushing it just choose which nut to believe I guess.

With 40% of registered voters identifying as independents, it doesn't look well for either party in my view and the third party is looking more viable everyday. I would not be so fast as to say people are happy in this duopoly.



Quote:
Hello Friends,

I just finished reading the below article and I must say that it was a bit of a surprise to me. In the past the author wrote how much he likes many of the kook Ron Paul's ideas but after reading the title of the article and the article itself I was surprised to read why he can't cast his vote in Paul's favor. I must admit much of what the author says I've written in my threads for quite a while now but it's refreshing to hear it from a man that claims there is much "to love" in Ron Paul (misplaced love in my opinion).

It's an interesting and factual article and well worth reading.

Shalom,

Peter

ELECTION 2012

Ron Paul’s Saul Alinsky?

Exclusive: Joel Richardson reveals 'scholar' candidate relies on for foreign policy



By Joel Richardson

Let me begin by making it very clear there are a lot of reasons to love Ron Paul.

He is a man with incredibly refreshing principles, ideas, qualities and character. There have actually been a couple of occasions where after listening to Paul, I have come close to joining the Ron Paul revolution.

But despite the allure of Paul’s constitutional convictions, his perspectives on United States foreign policy, radical Islam and the nation of Israel are an absolute deal breaker. Paul’s emphatic trademark claim that the present rise of Islamic terrorism globally is the result of “blowback” from American actions abroad is nothing less than ridiculous and an absolute insult to my intelligence.

According to Paul, radical Muslims are not radical because they have drunk deeply from the trough of an expansionist, racist and murderous ideology, but rather because American actions abroad have brought about the natural response of resistance. And just so that none of his supporters accuse me of misrepresenting him, here is what Paul himself infamously declared during the Republican presidential debate in South Carolina in 2008, concerning 9/11:

Have you ever read the reasons they attacked us? They attacked us because we’ve been over there; we’ve been bombing Iraq for 10 years.

How is Paul’s position any different from Jeremiah Wright’s claim that 9/11 was simply a case of “America’s chickens … coming home to roost”? Paul may say it in a far less shrill manner than Wright, but his position is virtually identical. More specifically, on Paul’s own website, in an article titled, “Foreign Occupation Leads to More Terror,” Paul clearly lays out his position:

Though it is hard for many to believe, honest studies show that the real motivation behind the Sept. 11 attacks and the vast majority of other instances of suicide terrorism is not that our enemies are bothered by our way of life. Neither is it our religion, or our wealth. Rather, it is primarily occupation. …

But where did Paul get this idea? We learn exactly from whom in the next paragraph:

Robert Pape has extensively researched this issue and goes in depth in his book “Cutting the Fuse: The Explosion of Global Suicide Terrorism and How to Stop It.” In fact, of 2,200 incidents of suicide attacks he has studied worldwide since 1980, 95 percent were in response to foreign occupation.

It is essential to take note of the fact that the primary support for Paul’s belief concerning blowback comes from Robert Pape. The problem for Paul here is that by most accounts, Pape is an agenda-driven pseudo-scholar whose works and “studies” have been thoroughly debunked by several other scholars. I appeal to all supporters of Paul to read the following articles debunking Robert Pape’s, and thus Ron Paul’s, claims:

But not only are Pape’s claims based on manufactured data, he has also been caught red-handed conspiring with the Hamas-linked group Council on American-Islamic Relations.

How many Ron Paul supporters can honestly say that they feel comfortable knowing that this is the man Paul looks to as one of his primary guides concerning foreign policy?

But beyond all of the high-minded analysis of data, I prefer to simply couch the discussion in terms that anyone can understand. Paul argues that if it had not been for our invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, we would have lost far fewer soldiers and we would all be far safer today. Let me ask this question: Would far fewer police officers be injured or killed each year if they all simply remained in their police stations and avoided ever engaging criminals? Of course they would. But would this make us all safer? Of course not. This is not hard to understand.

Evil exists, and there are times when it must be resisted. Freedom requires both responsibility and sacrifice. To cast the radical Islamic terrorists as the victims and the American people as those who deserve blame, which Paul has done, is simply asinine and downright disgusting. Ron Paul’s soothing grandfather-like persona may be far more palatable to most than Jeremiah Wright’s obnoxious rage-filled rants, but his habit of victim-blaming is no less repulsive and should be rejected by all genuine American patriots.

“Why shouldn’t Iran have nukes?” – Ron Paul

“Death to Israel!” –Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Finally – a few things about Paul’s stance on Israel and his Pollyannaish views concerning radical Islam.

To support his radical isolationist foreign policy, Paul has gone to some absurd lengths to deny the systemic evil of radical Islamism. Following his reliance on Pape’s debunked claims, according to Paul, the primary reason Israel is experiencing such resistance from the surrounding Muslim peoples is because of the Israeli “occupation.” I have heard this same claim made a thousand times by left-wing pro-Palestinian propagandists. Must I hear it from a so-called conservative as well?

But let’s think through the claim logically. Israel was officially established as a nation in 1948. But according to Islamic sacred tradition, it was roughly 1,300 years before when Muhammad himself, the founder of Islam, declared the following prophecy:

The Day of Judgment will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdullah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.

It is worth noting that this “prophecy” is listed as an eternal command within the actual charter of Hamas. But this vision of a last-days slaughter and wholesale genocide of the Jewish people was not “revealed” at a time the Jews were “occupying” anyone. There wasn’t even a Jewish state at the time. So what inspired Muhammad from the very early days of Islam to call for an eventual genocide of the Jewish people? If it wasn’t blowback, then what caused it?

There is much to love about Ron Paul, but until he is willing to acknowledge the very real reality of evil in this world, and the equally real need at times to confront it, he can kiss my vote goodbye. Too many Americans are looking desperately for a hero, and I’m sorry to say that Ron Paul is not the man.

See Joel Richardson’s 4-DVD set “The Return Is Near: Strategic Insights into the Most Important Moment in History.


Joel Richardson is the author of “Islamic Antichrist,” published by WND books, and “Why we Left Islam” and is the co-author with Walid Shoebat of “God’s War on Terror.” His blog is www.Joelstrumpet.com.


May Wisdom and the knowledge you gained go with you,



Jim Allen III
Skype: JAllen3D
Everything You Need For Online Success


+0
Jim
Jim Allen

5807
11253 Posts
11253
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: The President That Hates His Country By Joan Swirsky
1/11/2012 12:23:38 PM
Quote:
40% declare themselves Independents that leaves 60% to divvy up between the other two. Now if those not happy with Obammy and those not happy with the choices in the repub primary then you have a BIG OL' Third Party. per the Rasmussen numbers. His stance on foreign policy is your only real sticking point and that is understandable. Doesn't change my mind one way or the other. It is time for a Third Party that represents the people. No more of this duopoly

PS: the afore mentioned article is just another savvy blogger making a buck. Right?

Quote:
You know Jim it's interesting that you reply to his article with a quote from a "recommended" DVD set a product that he's apparently interested in selling. A normal marketing device as you know with articles on different subjects. If the author had written "related" DVD's it would have something to do with the article but he didn't and it's just simple advertising. As to your question, no I've never heard of his claim for global earth quakes but in order to answer properly one would have to watch the videos which neither of us have. Sorta sounds like a different version of the "end times" prophecies. But rather then quote an unrelated DVD replying to the issues and points raised in what you said is is a "great read" would have been a more logical thing to do.

Now back to the article itself. Here's a guy that says
Quote:
Let me begin by making it very clear there are a lot of reasons to love Ron Paul.

He is a man with incredibly refreshing principles, ideas, qualities and character. There have actually been a couple of occasions where after listening to Paul, I have come close to joining the Ron Paul revolution.
something I'm sure you agree with and I totally disagree with (I find he has no endearing qualities and the only positives about him are his fiscal policies, smaller government and fight against the FED everything else is totally negative and kooky, IMO). Basically Richardson likes/loves Ron Paul and thought of getting on his bandwagon until he considered everything else he stands for and believes in which not only cancelled his positive stances it put him on the impossible to vote for list.

If the author was alone in thinking as he does it might be considered the exception to the rule and not the rule but when you read articles all over the net from different respected conservative sources you find that the majority agree with the author of this article.

Especially with the danger of a third party. I see you're in love with the word duopoly and if you read the previous articles above and on previous pages you'll see that there is a possibility that B Hussein and his supporters are behind all the rhetoric about a third party knowing that it'll insure his reelection. Add to that some of the so called conservatives who are advocating that as well and he'll win by a landslide (B Hussein). The numbers from the Rasmussen poll on this subject paints the picture in a way that is easily understandable. See the article I posted on the results of the Rasmussen poll. The numbers don't lie and if it happens I wonder if you and all the other third party advocates will feel like so many Americans that voted for B Hussein feel today?

Back to the article, it elaborates very well all the negatives about Ron Paul that the majority of the respected conservative writers agree with. Aside from Jones and other conspiracy theorists I've yet to find much support if any from the many respected conservative sources on the internet.

My dislike for almost everything the kook Ron Paul stands for is ongoing (for years) and all my reasons are stated in this thread and others. I don't need the articles and videos to support my opinions and beliefs they are ironclad and unchangeable but rather to possibly change the opinions and minds of fence sitter supporters of the kook Ron Paul.

BTW Jim, you don't need fodder to claim Ron Paul is a nut all you have to do is listen to him, he does the job very well all on his own. And, when you yourself write
Quote:
But to use as fodder to disclaim Ron Paul is a nut is pushing it... really pushing it just choose which nut to believe I guess.
it puts everything you're saying into a tailspin. If as you say the author is a nut (not cos of his article but unrelated DVDs) in the same sentence you're saying Ron Paul is a nut (which I totally agree with :) ). How can you justify supporting and voting for someone you admit is a nut??? Doesn't sound very logical or sensible to me.

Shalom,

Peter


Quote:
Just a quote from the recommended DVD Set site :

Quote:
Birth pangs in the news and the coming global earthquake

As massive earthquakes continue to shake the nations, few believers are aware that the Bible predicts a massive cataclysmic coming earthquake that will level every nation of the earth. When will this happen and what is the major event that will bring this about? By reviewing data from the United States Geological Survey, Joel also shows how massive earthquakes are rapidly increasing in frequency, pointing to the soon coming of Jesus the Messiah.

First I heard of a Massive Global Earthquake coming, have you heard about?

Anyways I find the guys article a great read and it probably sells some books and dvds too. But to use as fodder to disclaim Ron Paul is a nut is pushing it... really pushing it just choose which nut to believe I guess.

With 40% of registered voters identifying as independents, it doesn't look well for either party in my view and the third party is looking more viable everyday. I would not be so fast as to say people are happy in this duopoly.



Quote:
Hello Friends,

I just finished reading the below article and I must say that it was a bit of a surprise to me. In the past the author wrote how much he likes many of the kook Ron Paul's ideas but after reading the title of the article and the article itself I was surprised to read why he can't cast his vote in Paul's favor. I must admit much of what the author says I've written in my threads for quite a while now but it's refreshing to hear it from a man that claims there is much "to love" in Ron Paul (misplaced love in my opinion).

It's an interesting and factual article and well worth reading.

Shalom,

Peter

ELECTION 2012

Ron Paul’s Saul Alinsky?

Exclusive: Joel Richardson reveals 'scholar' candidate relies on for foreign policy



By Joel Richardson

Let me begin by making it very clear there are a lot of reasons to love Ron Paul.

He is a man with incredibly refreshing principles, ideas, qualities and character. There have actually been a couple of occasions where after listening to Paul, I have come close to joining the Ron Paul revolution.

But despite the allure of Paul’s constitutional convictions, his perspectives on United States foreign policy, radical Islam and the nation of Israel are an absolute deal breaker. Paul’s emphatic trademark claim that the present rise of Islamic terrorism globally is the result of “blowback” from American actions abroad is nothing less than ridiculous and an absolute insult to my intelligence.

According to Paul, radical Muslims are not radical because they have drunk deeply from the trough of an expansionist, racist and murderous ideology, but rather because American actions abroad have brought about the natural response of resistance. And just so that none of his supporters accuse me of misrepresenting him, here is what Paul himself infamously declared during the Republican presidential debate in South Carolina in 2008, concerning 9/11:

Have you ever read the reasons they attacked us? They attacked us because we’ve been over there; we’ve been bombing Iraq for 10 years.

How is Paul’s position any different from Jeremiah Wright’s claim that 9/11 was simply a case of “America’s chickens … coming home to roost”? Paul may say it in a far less shrill manner than Wright, but his position is virtually identical. More specifically, on Paul’s own website, in an article titled, “Foreign Occupation Leads to More Terror,” Paul clearly lays out his position:

Though it is hard for many to believe, honest studies show that the real motivation behind the Sept. 11 attacks and the vast majority of other instances of suicide terrorism is not that our enemies are bothered by our way of life. Neither is it our religion, or our wealth. Rather, it is primarily occupation. …

But where did Paul get this idea? We learn exactly from whom in the next paragraph:

Robert Pape has extensively researched this issue and goes in depth in his book “Cutting the Fuse: The Explosion of Global Suicide Terrorism and How to Stop It.” In fact, of 2,200 incidents of suicide attacks he has studied worldwide since 1980, 95 percent were in response to foreign occupation.

It is essential to take note of the fact that the primary support for Paul’s belief concerning blowback comes from Robert Pape. The problem for Paul here is that by most accounts, Pape is an agenda-driven pseudo-scholar whose works and “studies” have been thoroughly debunked by several other scholars. I appeal to all supporters of Paul to read the following articles debunking Robert Pape’s, and thus Ron Paul’s, claims:

But not only are Pape’s claims based on manufactured data, he has also been caught red-handed conspiring with the Hamas-linked group Council on American-Islamic Relations.

How many Ron Paul supporters can honestly say that they feel comfortable knowing that this is the man Paul looks to as one of his primary guides concerning foreign policy?

But beyond all of the high-minded analysis of data, I prefer to simply couch the discussion in terms that anyone can understand. Paul argues that if it had not been for our invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, we would have lost far fewer soldiers and we would all be far safer today. Let me ask this question: Would far fewer police officers be injured or killed each year if they all simply remained in their police stations and avoided ever engaging criminals? Of course they would. But would this make us all safer? Of course not. This is not hard to understand.

Evil exists, and there are times when it must be resisted. Freedom requires both responsibility and sacrifice. To cast the radical Islamic terrorists as the victims and the American people as those who deserve blame, which Paul has done, is simply asinine and downright disgusting. Ron Paul’s soothing grandfather-like persona may be far more palatable to most than Jeremiah Wright’s obnoxious rage-filled rants, but his habit of victim-blaming is no less repulsive and should be rejected by all genuine American patriots.

“Why shouldn’t Iran have nukes?” – Ron Paul

“Death to Israel!” –Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Finally – a few things about Paul’s stance on Israel and his Pollyannaish views concerning radical Islam.

To support his radical isolationist foreign policy, Paul has gone to some absurd lengths to deny the systemic evil of radical Islamism. Following his reliance on Pape’s debunked claims, according to Paul, the primary reason Israel is experiencing such resistance from the surrounding Muslim peoples is because of the Israeli “occupation.” I have heard this same claim made a thousand times by left-wing pro-Palestinian propagandists. Must I hear it from a so-called conservative as well?

But let’s think through the claim logically. Israel was officially established as a nation in 1948. But according to Islamic sacred tradition, it was roughly 1,300 years before when Muhammad himself, the founder of Islam, declared the following prophecy:

The Day of Judgment will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdullah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.

It is worth noting that this “prophecy” is listed as an eternal command within the actual charter of Hamas. But this vision of a last-days slaughter and wholesale genocide of the Jewish people was not “revealed” at a time the Jews were “occupying” anyone. There wasn’t even a Jewish state at the time. So what inspired Muhammad from the very early days of Islam to call for an eventual genocide of the Jewish people? If it wasn’t blowback, then what caused it?

There is much to love about Ron Paul, but until he is willing to acknowledge the very real reality of evil in this world, and the equally real need at times to confront it, he can kiss my vote goodbye. Too many Americans are looking desperately for a hero, and I’m sorry to say that Ron Paul is not the man.

See Joel Richardson’s 4-DVD set “The Return Is Near: Strategic Insights into the Most Important Moment in History.


Joel Richardson is the author of “Islamic Antichrist,” published by WND books, and “Why we Left Islam” and is the co-author with Walid Shoebat of “God’s War on Terror.” His blog is www.Joelstrumpet.com.


May Wisdom and the knowledge you gained go with you,



Jim Allen III
Skype: JAllen3D
Everything You Need For Online Success


+0
Peter Fogel

1470
7259 Posts
7259
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: The President That Hates His Country By Joan Swirsky
1/11/2012 2:03:07 PM
Jim, I haven't seen the statistic that 40% declare themselves to be Independents but if you say it's so I'm assuming you saw it at a reliable source. BUT and once again a big but, you're assuming that the 40% will vote en bloc for a third party candidate or that the majority of them will and on that you're totally wrong. The independent vote will split between the Dems, GOP and the third party and once again we're left with a resounding win for the fraud and great pretender.

Jim, it's not only his stance on foreign policy that I and many others are against and you know it but I guess you have no problem with that either.

Shalom,

Peter


Quote:
40% declare themselves Independents that leaves 60% to divvy up between the other two. Now if those not happy with Obammy and those not happy with the choices in the repub primary then you have a BIG OL' Third Party. per the Rasmussen numbers. His stance on foreign policy is your only real sticking point and that is understandable. Doesn't change my mind one way or the other. It is time for a Third Party that represents the people. No more of this duopoly

Quote:
You know Jim it's interesting that you reply to his article with a quote from a "recommended" DVD set a product that he's apparently interested in selling. A normal marketing device as you know with articles on different subjects. If the author had written "related" DVD's it would have something to do with the article but he didn't and it's just simple advertising. As to your question, no I've never heard of his claim for global earth quakes but in order to answer properly one would have to watch the videos which neither of us have. Sorta sounds like a different version of the "end times" prophecies. But rather then quote an unrelated DVD replying to the issues and points raised in what you said is is a "great read" would have been a more logical thing to do.

Now back to the article itself. Here's a guy that says
Quote:
Let me begin by making it very clear there are a lot of reasons to love Ron Paul.

He is a man with incredibly refreshing principles, ideas, qualities and character. There have actually been a couple of occasions where after listening to Paul, I have come close to joining the Ron Paul revolution.
something I'm sure you agree with and I totally disagree with (I find he has no endearing qualities and the only positives about him are his fiscal policies, smaller government and fight against the FED everything else is totally negative and kooky, IMO). Basically Richardson likes/loves Ron Paul and thought of getting on his bandwagon until he considered everything else he stands for and believes in which not only cancelled his positive stances it put him on the impossible to vote for list.

If the author was alone in thinking as he does it might be considered the exception to the rule and not the rule but when you read articles all over the net from different respected conservative sources you find that the majority agree with the author of this article.

Especially with the danger of a third party. I see you're in love with the word duopoly and if you read the previous articles above and on previous pages you'll see that there is a possibility that B Hussein and his supporters are behind all the rhetoric about a third party knowing that it'll insure his reelection. Add to that some of the so called conservatives who are advocating that as well and he'll win by a landslide (B Hussein). The numbers from the Rasmussen poll on this subject paints the picture in a way that is easily understandable. See the article I posted on the results of the Rasmussen poll. The numbers don't lie and if it happens I wonder if you and all the other third party advocates will feel like so many Americans that voted for B Hussein feel today?

Back to the article, it elaborates very well all the negatives about Ron Paul that the majority of the respected conservative writers agree with. Aside from Jones and other conspiracy theorists I've yet to find much support if any from the many respected conservative sources on the internet.

My dislike for almost everything the kook Ron Paul stands for is ongoing (for years) and all my reasons are stated in this thread and others. I don't need the articles and videos to support my opinions and beliefs they are ironclad and unchangeable but rather to possibly change the opinions and minds of fence sitter supporters of the kook Ron Paul.

BTW Jim, you don't need fodder to claim Ron Paul is a nut all you have to do is listen to him, he does the job very well all on his own. And, when you yourself write
Quote:
But to use as fodder to disclaim Ron Paul is a nut is pushing it... really pushing it just choose which nut to believe I guess.
it puts everything you're saying into a tailspin. If as you say the author is a nut (not cos of his article but unrelated DVDs) in the same sentence you're saying Ron Paul is a nut (which I totally agree with :) ). How can you justify supporting and voting for someone you admit is a nut??? Doesn't sound very logical or sensible to me.

Shalom,

Peter


Quote:
Just a quote from the recommended DVD Set site :

Quote:
Birth pangs in the news and the coming global earthquake

As massive earthquakes continue to shake the nations, few believers are aware that the Bible predicts a massive cataclysmic coming earthquake that will level every nation of the earth. When will this happen and what is the major event that will bring this about? By reviewing data from the United States Geological Survey, Joel also shows how massive earthquakes are rapidly increasing in frequency, pointing to the soon coming of Jesus the Messiah.

First I heard of a Massive Global Earthquake coming, have you heard about?

Anyways I find the guys article a great read and it probably sells some books and dvds too. But to use as fodder to disclaim Ron Paul is a nut is pushing it... really pushing it just choose which nut to believe I guess.

With 40% of registered voters identifying as independents, it doesn't look well for either party in my view and the third party is looking more viable everyday. I would not be so fast as to say people are happy in this duopoly.



Quote:
Hello Friends,

I just finished reading the below article and I must say that it was a bit of a surprise to me. In the past the author wrote how much he likes many of the kook Ron Paul's ideas but after reading the title of the article and the article itself I was surprised to read why he can't cast his vote in Paul's favor. I must admit much of what the author says I've written in my threads for quite a while now but it's refreshing to hear it from a man that claims there is much "to love" in Ron Paul (misplaced love in my opinion).

It's an interesting and factual article and well worth reading.

Shalom,

Peter

ELECTION 2012

Ron Paul’s Saul Alinsky?

Exclusive: Joel Richardson reveals 'scholar' candidate relies on for foreign policy



By Joel Richardson

Let me begin by making it very clear there are a lot of reasons to love Ron Paul.

He is a man with incredibly refreshing principles, ideas, qualities and character. There have actually been a couple of occasions where after listening to Paul, I have come close to joining the Ron Paul revolution.

But despite the allure of Paul’s constitutional convictions, his perspectives on United States foreign policy, radical Islam and the nation of Israel are an absolute deal breaker. Paul’s emphatic trademark claim that the present rise of Islamic terrorism globally is the result of “blowback” from American actions abroad is nothing less than ridiculous and an absolute insult to my intelligence.

According to Paul, radical Muslims are not radical because they have drunk deeply from the trough of an expansionist, racist and murderous ideology, but rather because American actions abroad have brought about the natural response of resistance. And just so that none of his supporters accuse me of misrepresenting him, here is what Paul himself infamously declared during the Republican presidential debate in South Carolina in 2008, concerning 9/11:

Have you ever read the reasons they attacked us? They attacked us because we’ve been over there; we’ve been bombing Iraq for 10 years.

How is Paul’s position any different from Jeremiah Wright’s claim that 9/11 was simply a case of “America’s chickens … coming home to roost”? Paul may say it in a far less shrill manner than Wright, but his position is virtually identical. More specifically, on Paul’s own website, in an article titled, “Foreign Occupation Leads to More Terror,” Paul clearly lays out his position:

Though it is hard for many to believe, honest studies show that the real motivation behind the Sept. 11 attacks and the vast majority of other instances of suicide terrorism is not that our enemies are bothered by our way of life. Neither is it our religion, or our wealth. Rather, it is primarily occupation. …

But where did Paul get this idea? We learn exactly from whom in the next paragraph:

Robert Pape has extensively researched this issue and goes in depth in his book “Cutting the Fuse: The Explosion of Global Suicide Terrorism and How to Stop It.” In fact, of 2,200 incidents of suicide attacks he has studied worldwide since 1980, 95 percent were in response to foreign occupation.

It is essential to take note of the fact that the primary support for Paul’s belief concerning blowback comes from Robert Pape. The problem for Paul here is that by most accounts, Pape is an agenda-driven pseudo-scholar whose works and “studies” have been thoroughly debunked by several other scholars. I appeal to all supporters of Paul to read the following articles debunking Robert Pape’s, and thus Ron Paul’s, claims:

But not only are Pape’s claims based on manufactured data, he has also been caught red-handed conspiring with the Hamas-linked group Council on American-Islamic Relations.

How many Ron Paul supporters can honestly say that they feel comfortable knowing that this is the man Paul looks to as one of his primary guides concerning foreign policy?

But beyond all of the high-minded analysis of data, I prefer to simply couch the discussion in terms that anyone can understand. Paul argues that if it had not been for our invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, we would have lost far fewer soldiers and we would all be far safer today. Let me ask this question: Would far fewer police officers be injured or killed each year if they all simply remained in their police stations and avoided ever engaging criminals? Of course they would. But would this make us all safer? Of course not. This is not hard to understand.

Evil exists, and there are times when it must be resisted. Freedom requires both responsibility and sacrifice. To cast the radical Islamic terrorists as the victims and the American people as those who deserve blame, which Paul has done, is simply asinine and downright disgusting. Ron Paul’s soothing grandfather-like persona may be far more palatable to most than Jeremiah Wright’s obnoxious rage-filled rants, but his habit of victim-blaming is no less repulsive and should be rejected by all genuine American patriots.

“Why shouldn’t Iran have nukes?” – Ron Paul

“Death to Israel!” –Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Finally – a few things about Paul’s stance on Israel and his Pollyannaish views concerning radical Islam.

To support his radical isolationist foreign policy, Paul has gone to some absurd lengths to deny the systemic evil of radical Islamism. Following his reliance on Pape’s debunked claims, according to Paul, the primary reason Israel is experiencing such resistance from the surrounding Muslim peoples is because of the Israeli “occupation.” I have heard this same claim made a thousand times by left-wing pro-Palestinian propagandists. Must I hear it from a so-called conservative as well?

But let’s think through the claim logically. Israel was officially established as a nation in 1948. But according to Islamic sacred tradition, it was roughly 1,300 years before when Muhammad himself, the founder of Islam, declared the following prophecy:

The Day of Judgment will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdullah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.

It is worth noting that this “prophecy” is listed as an eternal command within the actual charter of Hamas. But this vision of a last-days slaughter and wholesale genocide of the Jewish people was not “revealed” at a time the Jews were “occupying” anyone. There wasn’t even a Jewish state at the time. So what inspired Muhammad from the very early days of Islam to call for an eventual genocide of the Jewish people? If it wasn’t blowback, then what caused it?

There is much to love about Ron Paul, but until he is willing to acknowledge the very real reality of evil in this world, and the equally real need at times to confront it, he can kiss my vote goodbye. Too many Americans are looking desperately for a hero, and I’m sorry to say that Ron Paul is not the man.

See Joel Richardson’s 4-DVD set “The Return Is Near: Strategic Insights into the Most Important Moment in History.


Joel Richardson is the author of “Islamic Antichrist,” published by WND books, and “Why we Left Islam” and is the co-author with Walid Shoebat of “God’s War on Terror.” His blog is www.Joelstrumpet.com.


Peter Fogel
Babylon 7
+0
Peter Fogel

1470
7259 Posts
7259
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: The President That Hates His Country By Joan Swirsky
1/15/2012 11:13:42 AM
Hello Friends,

According to John Bolton B Hussein is attempting to base part of his 2012 campaign on the claim of his foreign policy successes.

That's the biggest joke in town since his foreign policy is the worst of any president ever ..... even worse then peanut brain Carter. He's committed the most ridiculous mistakes since taking office and everyone knows it aside from the diehard progressive liberals and of course the MSM, B Hussein's propaganda arm. His apologetics made him the laughing stock of the world and world leaders pay little or no attention to him.

Below is a video with John Bolton and his take on B Hussein and his foreign policy.

Shalom,

Peter

P.S. The only person who would be worse then B Hussein is the kook Ron Paul whose foreign policy is is off the scales with his idiotic opinions and beliefs. Imagine how proud he should be to be considered worse then the fraud and great pretender B Hussein?! :)

VIDEO John Bolton: Obama Taking Credit For Killing Bin Laden Is Like Richard Nixon Taking Credit For Landing on the Moon in 1969

"The irony is, he's campaigning on the basis that he's a success as a foreign policy president. This is really amazing. ...It's because Navy Seal Team 6 killed Osama bin Laden, that is his definition of success. In 1969, when Americans landed on the moon, it is like Richard Nixon taking credit for that. Because it happened to occur during his presidency"


John Bolton: Obama Taking Credit For Killing Bin Laden Is Like Richard Nixon Taking Credit For Landing on the Moon in 1969 (Video) ...

Bingo.

More on Obama's scorched earth foreign policy:

BOLTON: "The irony is, he's campaigning on the basis that he's a success as a foreign policy president. This is really amazing."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=m0GNRSbCQWI



Peter Fogel
Babylon 7
+0
RE: The President That Hates His Country By Joan Swirsky
1/16/2012 12:47:28 AM

Ron Paul, Rand Paul

The dangerous new ‘Paul-iticians’ of the Tea Party

- Judi McLeod Sunday, January 8, 2012

Just at the very moment when a beleaguered America needs it least, the Tea Party Movement is serving up ‘Paul-iticians’ with what many thought were merely crumpets.

Incredibly, the Ron Paul/Rand Paul ‘Paul-iticians’ are even worse than the garden variety ones, who made going to Congress getting rich.

The Big Question of January 2012 must surely be: Will the Tea Party deliver the United States of America back to Barack Hussein Obama courtesy of the vote splitting destined as fate if Congressman Ron Paul, who fancies himself as the ‘Father of the TEA Party’, runs Third Party?

People tossed up in the confusion of the current presidential campaign might ask: “How will that be a Tea Party delivery?”

Rand Paul. Tea Party darling Rand Paul is now playing the role of UPI Delivery Boy to the hilt.

With a father roundly supported by the big conspiracy theorists of the day, Rand Paul is no conspiracy. Unfortunately, he’s the real thing.

Rand Paul is out there on the hustings campaigning for his father Ron Paul who blames America for 9/11 and that campaigning includes the trashing of presidential candidate Rick Santorum.

People who dismiss Congressman Ron Paul as a mere crackpot are inadvertently pushing the USA deeper into the danger zone. Ron Paul For President has found its way on the Drudge Report courtesy of Alex Jones and is garnering support from curious corners. WorldNetDaily publisher Joseph Farah, for one.

With warts that show notwithstanding, 76-year-old Ron Paul has taken a lead role, second only to Obama as ‘The Pied Piper of Today’s Youth’. Rather than the rats leaving the sinking ship, they are gnawing away at the electorate from the Comment Sections of prime news sites.

The young people who populate the so-called Ron Paul Revolution include troops returning from overseas duty. “We get twice as much support from active military personnel than all the other candidates put together,” is Paul’s boast. (Politico: Jan., 4, 2012).

This tragedy in the making is all the more epic because the rank and file of the Tea Party Movement has not changed. Millions of everyday Americans still want an end to Big Government and Big Taxes.

But just as GOP abandoned its small-c Conservative values disenfranchising millions of voters now rooting for Tea Party representation, the Tea Party leadership is doing the same thing to the very members who put them where they are.

With the Tea Party still being America’s only chance at real Hope and Change, Tea Party darlings are letting down the masses and are about to stab Uncle Sam right in the back.

There is no action but only publicity coming from Tea Party darlings at work.

While Rand Paul is out on the hustings attacking his father’s rivals, GOP star and Tea Party hero Marco Rubio is writing letters to Obama, accusing him of doing diddly squat about runaway government spending.

There is so much to admire about Rubio, but writing letters to Obama is not one of them.

Millions of letters have already been sent to Obama decrying how he is fundamentally transforming America into the Rubio-described “Deadbeat Nation”.

Obama—and Congress—have patently ignored each and every one.

Letter writing campaigns to self-serving politicians do not cut it anymore. Only action does.

Marco’s missive is minor in comparison to the betrayal of Rand Paul, who seems to be spending his time hijacking the Tea Party.

If Ron Paul breaks his word by breaking away for a Third Party ego run, the sins of the father will sink the career of his son and a betrayed America will never forgive a Tea Party who let it happen.

A Paul Revere message to the naive and gullible: Rand Paul has turned away from the principles of the Tea Party. It would be poetic justice if the Tea Party would turn on him.

Ever since the formation of the Tea Party, the Obama Regime has been searching for the most effective way to kill it.

They may have found it in a Tea Party man called Rand Paul.

Whoever thought the Brutus of the Tea Party would come from within?

google_ad_section_end
Judi McLeod

+0


facebook
Like us on Facebook!