Why Ron Paul is Out: He will stop the New World Order

Discussion in 'Politics' started by RCG Trader, Jan 16, 2012.

  1. <iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/XRLPG_HplrA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

    There is nothing in this video that can be refuted. And Ron Paul is the only man who is talking about in government. That is why I refuse to call Ron Paul a kook. Can he win? No. But he is no kook. The NWO, knew a man like Ron Paul would arise, and they were ready. They can't make him martyr, so they will just ridicule.

    Seriously gentlemen, can you say that this is NOT going on?

    President Obama, and all future Presidents now have the power to make you just disappear.


    I was a former libertarian who has moved left. I am a Progressive now. The NWO threatens all.

    All I ask, is that you destroy the video. If you can, you are my new hero.

    Destroy it point by point. Dig in. Kill it.
  2. Ricter


    Ok, the first problem is the blanket claim that secrecy is repugnant. Admittedly that's a technicality, but you did invite us to "destroy" this piece bit by bit. : )
  3. yes, I did Ricter. Secrecy is repugnant, to a free and open society. Do you disagree?
  4. Given that we now have secret interpretations of laws, we can no longer be considered a free and open society.
  5. We decided long ago. That the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts, far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it.---JFK.

    Ricter, either you are enabling me:)

    Or I am disappointed.
  6. Yes, we have tipped. I laughed when I shown this video. But being curious at heart, I sought to defeat it. Imagine my chilling surprise. Now, I present this to ET. Kill the video. I am an idiot. Kill it. Please.
  7. Good luck.
  8. Ricter


    The reality is a point on a line running from total secrecy to total honesty. Randroids continually push for moving that point all the way to total honesty (because the Laissez Fairey will then take care of us), which is naive. It's not about the total absence of secrecy, it's about how much secrecy is tolerable (and how much honesty is survivable). But, Paul's statement does not even hint at nuance, which he could have done with the inclusion of "excessive", for example.
  9. Lucrum


  10. I missed it. Are you talking about Rand, or JFK. And I will not assult with appeals to authority. I mean this. Kill this video. This video keeps me from sleeping well at night.
    #10     Jan 16, 2012