Post subject: Ron Paul on the issues, show this to liberals.
Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 2:32 am
Free Palestine
Joined: Jun 27th, 2005 Posts: 21461 Location: Japan now USA
Ryan Dawson ANP
Environment Only Ron Paul has said he would legalize hemp which has been scientifically proven to be a better cleaner method for producing ethanol than corn or coal. Hemp has a multitude of uses all of them more environmentally friendly than what they would replace.
Ron Paul would end the wars. The pentagon itself is the 46th largest polluter compared to countries on harmful green house gasses. Ending the war would also end the use by the US of depleted uranium a radio active pollutant which will last thousands of years.
Ron Paul will also close the loop hole on SUVs and allow the market to remain free and will not engage in corporate welfare. He will protect property rights and has stated that he would subsidize research for alternative sources of clean energy, solar, wind and bio.
Gay marriage. It is not a difficult issue and Ron Paul doesn’t juggle his position. Any two adults of any combination who are not already married should be able to get married if they want and the government should have nothing to do with it.
The Wars Ron Paul would not only bring our troops home from wars that have nothing to do with protecting America’s national interests, he will go a step further and will close unnecessary bases in Germany, Japan, and elsewhere and save the US around a Trillion dollars a year!
The money cut on spending will allow for huge tax cuts and more money for education and healthcare. Furthermore it is the moral and ethical thing to do.
Foreign aid to dictators Ron Paul will end all aid to the entire Middle East including Israel. There is no reason the Military industrial complex should be allowed to finance itself buy awarding the money of the people of the US to despot and fascist nations to fund all sides of a military conflict. This would save again hundreds of billions of dollars.
Nukes Paul will freeze the 36 billion dollar a year nuclear program in the US and there is absolutely no reason the US needs to build any more nuclear bombs when it already possesses thousands.
Trade Ron Paul will trade and negotiate with everyone. Paul is willing to trade with Cuba who is no longer (if they ever even were) a threat to the US and should be able to mutually benefit from each other’s markets.
Paul also opposes NAFTA as it is unfairly designed to allow large government subsidized agribusinesses into Mexico where it can monopoly that industry and drive millions of workers out of business where they often get picked up in both Mexico and (illegally) in the US to be used as exploited labor.
Welfare Ron Paul wants to end the welfare state. No one will be kicked out into the street people who are already dependent will be taken care of however young people will be given the option to opt out of social security if they choose to and save their own money as it appears that the SS funds have already been spent by the Bush administration and there will be no money there in the future for all the people paying into it.
Education Ron Paul will get rid of the Department of Education which deals with education in title only and is in reality an institution to control schools and turn them into businesses acting as umbrella corporations to take “education” money and spend it on construction, beautification, etc. the DOE dictates what is taught in schools and acts as a method of indoctrination not education. States should be allowed more control. We don’t all need to read the exact same books in high school. Our public education is dismal.
Private schools free from the DOE do tend to teach better and out perform public schools. Crushing the DOE would liberate public schools from the rigid write and repeat joke that is posing as education right now. With federal tax cuts, and a trillion dollar spending cut from imperialism, combined with a stronger dollar and sound money, people would have more income, and state would have more to spend on education.
There is the misconception that the DOE pays for public schools. It does not. Public schools are paid by the states through their property taxes and somethimes a state lottery.
War on drugs Paul would end the CIA’s lucrative drug rings by legalizing drugs and taking away their profitability. Victims of drugs would be treated as addicts rather than criminals and given treatment. Less harmful drugs could be used recreationally and would adult decisions just as they are now with alcohol. There is absolutely no reason to put a marijuana user in jail solely for using marijuana. Marijuana may also have medical benefits in certain situations and would be perfectly legal as are other prescription drugs. Other benefits from this would stem from the legalization of the hemp and its multitude of benefits for the environment from paper to fuel.
Taxes Because Ron Paul over a trillion dollars from ending the war closing bases and ending nuclear proliferation, and senseless foreign aid, Americans would enjoy massive tax cuts. The income tax would be gone allowing people keep their own money rather than giving it to the government. No social programs would have to be cut to compensate for the loss revenue because we can save more than enough just by ending our imperial practices. The IRS would be gone. Many departments such as the Department of Homeland Security would also be cut. They are unnecessary in many cases unethical (they infringe on civil liberties and advocate torture etc) and we don’t need to waste money on them. Ron Paul has never voted to raise taxes.
Monetary policy Ron Paul is the only candidate running that even has a monetary policy. The big monster in the dark that creates inflation and the business cycles in housing and the stock market is the Federal Reserve. They create money backed by nothing out of thin air and loan it to the government to pay for imperial escapades and the government pays them back with interest by simply printing more money and devaluating the dollar. Paul would kill the spending and the borrowing as he would end the wars, and get rid of the Federal Reserve. This country used the gold standard until 1971 and could return to it to create sound money. We don’t need a secretive private bank controlling our money supply. At the very least if the Fed is to continue then there must be an audit and they have got to be more public and open.
Privacy Paul stands for transparency in government and privacy for the individuals. There would be no searches with out warrants. There would be no domestic spying. There would be no censorship of the Internet. There would be no phone tapping. And there would no longer be a Patriot Act.
Torture Ron Paul is opposed to torture no and ifs of buts about it. Gitmo would be closed down and renditions made illegal and people (soldiers or mercenaries) breaking the law would be prosecuted.
Israel Paul will end all aid to Israel. He takes no money from AIPAC and believes they should be prosecuted for spying on the US.
Iran Paul would stop the threats and sanctions on Iran. He would withdraw our naval war ships from their border. There is no reason to rush into WWIII with a country that based on the Evidence poses no threat the US and whose people should not be economically punished for having the “possibility” or “know how” of being able to one day harm the US.
Paul met the reports of the straight of Hormuz incident with skepticism right off the bat and stated this position in the SC debates. McCain and the other psychopaths smirked at this but later Paul was proven right.
Constitution Ron Paul is a strict constitutionalist. He has never voted to and will never break the constitution. It is unconstitutional to have undeclared wars. It is unconstitutional to avoid due process of law. It is unconstitutional to confiscate guns, land, or homes. Ron Paul would restore the constitution.
Gun Control The best way to control guns is to use both hands. Ron Paul supports the right to bare arms as it is part of the constitution. Gun free zones like Virginia Tech leave non-criminals like sitting ducks to an armed criminal. Armed citizens can bring a assailant down on their own, as they did in the Virginia Appalachian school of law, without waiting for fat, out of shape, chicken-shit cops to surround a building for four hours and do nothing until the shooter had killed himself. Police normally show up AFTER a crime when it is too late to prevent it. You have a right to defend yourself and home or deter criminals with the threat of it.
The Borders You may have noticed on the map that the US actually does have borders. It is a sovereign nation with a unique culture and common language. Illegal immigrants should not cut in line from those going through the legal process. There is no excuse to not just simply do the legal paper work. Illegal aliens are exploited for labor by large and small businesses. And if desperate people can cross the border, so can illegal weapons, terrorists, and criminals. It is wrong to use exploited labor and it is wrong to tighten the number of available jobs and drive down wages. If people want to work in the US and make money for themselves or their families, then come over the legal way, pay taxes like everyone else and get a job. Ron Paul would make it easier to come legally but much harder to come illegally. Furthermore he would end the hand out to illegal and end the causes of such desperation at least in Mexico, by ending NAFTA and opening up more trade to all nations.
Free Speech People have free speech that is part of the constitution. No where does the constitution state free speech “zones.” The entire country is a free speech zone. Ron Paul would not continue Bush and the Neocon’s practice of limiting free speech to designated zones. Paul has even been a victim of government censorship as the pentagon’s media outlet Fox News refused to allow Ron Paul in a presidential debate before the New Hampshire primaries even though it allowed others like Giuliani who had much less support than Paul.
There is only one candidate who will really stand for Change. Only one will end the wars, close the bases, end the IRS, cut hundreds of billions in spending, end corporate welfare, legalize hemp, and protect our liberties and the constitution.
RON PAUL 2008!
Now what about the other three?
_________________ END THE GOD DAMN WARS This site is against war, Zionism, (or any other form of racism), profiteering, and all forms of government corruption, mass media deception, and cover ups. This is not a site to flail on about space aliens-illuminati-masonic-dealcult-jewish-catholic-lizard-lucifarian-jesuit-queen-barvarian-etc bull hockey. Take that junk somewhere else. My Twitter "It doesn't matter who we are underneath. It is what we do that defines us." Batman
"If a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it or see it. Would Israel still blame it on Iran?"-Ry Dawson
ry ryan dawson author politics political antineocon anti-neocon antineocons anti-neocons raising the volume of peace - news the media is paid not to tell you how they blep you
Last edited by Ry on Fri May 16, 2008 8:54 pm, edited 4 times in total.
Joined: Jun 27th, 2005 Posts: 21461 Location: Japan now USA
updated
_________________ END THE GOD DAMN WARS This site is against war, Zionism, (or any other form of racism), profiteering, and all forms of government corruption, mass media deception, and cover ups. This is not a site to flail on about space aliens-illuminati-masonic-dealcult-jewish-catholic-lizard-lucifarian-jesuit-queen-barvarian-etc bull hockey. Take that junk somewhere else. My Twitter "It doesn't matter who we are underneath. It is what we do that defines us." Batman
"If a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it or see it. Would Israel still blame it on Iran?"-Ry Dawson
ry ryan dawson author politics political antineocon anti-neocon antineocons anti-neocons raising the volume of peace - news the media is paid not to tell you how they blep you
Revolution
Post subject:
Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2008 1:11 am
Rage against the neocrazies
Joined: Jul 2nd, 2005 Posts: 464
A liberal would read that and say but he is a Republican....
ledskof
Post subject:
Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2008 11:42 am
Anti-Neocon general
Joined: Oct 26th, 2006 Posts: 2074 Location: Atlanta
no that's not all a liberal would say.
Liberals basically means socialist, yes? Liberals want social programs and many of them feel the purpose of govt is social programs. Ron Paul wants to cut the DoE, social security, and welfare, and this isn't something that the liberal mindset jives with.
_________________ Is your view of the world in sync with what you 'know' about the world?
Ry
Post subject:
Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2008 7:32 pm
Free Palestine
Joined: Jun 27th, 2005 Posts: 21461 Location: Japan now USA
Paul wont cut social security he will take care of everyone in it he just will give the youth the OPTION to get out of it if they choose to.
Cutting the DoE doesn't hurt any social programs all the DoE does is turn schools into businesses.
_________________ END THE GOD DAMN WARS This site is against war, Zionism, (or any other form of racism), profiteering, and all forms of government corruption, mass media deception, and cover ups. This is not a site to flail on about space aliens-illuminati-masonic-dealcult-jewish-catholic-lizard-lucifarian-jesuit-queen-barvarian-etc bull hockey. Take that junk somewhere else. My Twitter "It doesn't matter who we are underneath. It is what we do that defines us." Batman
"If a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it or see it. Would Israel still blame it on Iran?"-Ry Dawson
ry ryan dawson author politics political antineocon anti-neocon antineocons anti-neocons raising the volume of peace - news the media is paid not to tell you how they blep you
Rudy
Post subject:
Posted: Sat Feb 16, 2008 11:59 am
Rage against the PC - Loading Error!
Joined: Jan 11th, 2008 Posts: 88
Ron Paul is the quintessential American, as every genuine American's foremost attitude should be adherence to the Constitution--let the chips fall where they may.
So it is not liberals that should be shown this, but Republicans! Where is his support within his own party? The grassroots support of the populace is fine and good, but I ask myself why this support has not manifested in elected officials? Who stands by Ron in Congress? Is there even a small coalition of like-minded congresspeople that could begin to act as a unit to steer this country back to Constitutional principles?
I watched many of the "debates", noticing that, when Ron Paul spoke, the other candidates (McCain and Romney were usually the ones in the same frame) had this smarmy, is-this-guy-for-real look on their faces.
I think Ron Paul is, as usual, wise to now focus his energies on his own re-election to congress. As he has said, it is important now to keep the movement alive, realizing that a defeat as a Texas congressman would damage the movement itself.
The movement has to gather more steam before it can be perceived by the masses as being viable. I say forget the "liberals". Concentrate on the own party, Republicans. Republicans are the first and foremost obstacle to the movement.
_________________ Every science begins as philosophy and ends as art. ~Will Durant, The Story of Philosophy, 1926
ledskof
Post subject:
Posted: Sat Feb 16, 2008 12:37 pm
Anti-Neocon general
Joined: Oct 26th, 2006 Posts: 2074 Location: Atlanta
Oh I didn't realize he wanted to give people the option to enter Social Security in the future. My understanding was that he wanted to only let current people stay in it and not bring anymore to it.
_________________ Is your view of the world in sync with what you 'know' about the world?
Ry
Post subject:
Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2008 11:42 pm
Free Palestine
Joined: Jun 27th, 2005 Posts: 21461 Location: Japan now USA
You have the option to opts out which most people would do because we know they already spent the money.
_________________ END THE GOD DAMN WARS This site is against war, Zionism, (or any other form of racism), profiteering, and all forms of government corruption, mass media deception, and cover ups. This is not a site to flail on about space aliens-illuminati-masonic-dealcult-jewish-catholic-lizard-lucifarian-jesuit-queen-barvarian-etc bull hockey. Take that junk somewhere else. My Twitter "It doesn't matter who we are underneath. It is what we do that defines us." Batman
"If a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it or see it. Would Israel still blame it on Iran?"-Ry Dawson
ry ryan dawson author politics political antineocon anti-neocon antineocons anti-neocons raising the volume of peace - news the media is paid not to tell you how they blep you
ramadoss
Post subject: Re: Ron Paul on the issues, show this to liberals.
Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 2:29 pm
Fights PNAC daily
Joined: Mar 25th, 2008 Posts: 104
Ry wrote:
Ryan Dawson ANP
Environment Only Ron Paul has said he would legalize hemp which has been scientifically proven to be a better cleaner method for producing ethanol than corn or coal. Hemp has a multitude of uses all of them more environmentally friendly than what they would replace.
Ron Paul would end the wars. The pentagon itself is the 46th largest polluter compared to countries on harmful green house gasses. Ending the war would also end the use by the US of depleted uranium a radio active pollutant which will last thousands of years.
Ron Paul will also close the loop hole on SUVs and allow the market to remain free and will not engage in corporate welfare. He will protect property rights and has stated that he would subsidize research for alternative sources of clean energy, solar, wind and bio.
He would also end the role of the EPA and force citizens to file individual lawsuits against corporations for environmental violations. If that plant next door is dumping waste you as an individual will have to spend your time and money to collect the evidence and file a lawsuit agains tthe company. You will then have to foot the bill for the entire court process against what could possibly be a company with virtually unlimited funds available to defend itself. Basically, you won't be able to do shit.
Quote:
Welfare Ron Paul wants to end the welfare state. No one will be kicked out into the street people who are already dependent will be taken care of however young people will be given the option to opt out of social security if they choose to and save their own money as it appears that the SS funds have already been spent by the Bush administration and there will be no money there in the future for all the people paying into it.
End federal welfare programs and it will transfer responsibility to the states or local communities which will have to raise local taxes to fund. Transfer of responsibility. If the state does not take up the responsibility you could possibly end up with 3rd world types of neighborhoods.
Quote:
Education Ron Paul will get rid of the Department of Education which deals with education in title only and is in reality an institution to control schools and turn them into businesses acting as umbrella corporations to take “education” money and spend it on construction, beautification, etc. the DOE dictates what is taught in schools and acts as a method of indoctrination not education. States should be allowed more control. We don’t all need to read the exact same books in high school. Our public education is dismal.
Private schools free from the DOE do tend to teach better and out perform public schools. Crushing the DOE would liberate public schools from the rigid write and repeat joke that is posing as education right now. With federal tax cuts, and a trillion dollar spending cut from imperialism, combined with a stronger dollar and sound money, people would have more income, and state would have more to spend on education.
There is the misconception that the DOE pays for public schools. It does not. Public schools are paid by the states through their property taxes and somethimes a state lottery.
The DOE has very little control over education in reality. It provides voluntary funds to the states and localities in return for agreeing to some terms such as NCLB. States are free to refuse federal funding at any time and not have to abide by anything the DOE attaches to the receipt of that funding. Local education systems determine their own curriculum, not the DOE. There is a lot of misconception about this, just trying to help clear it up. Eliminating public schools would require families to come up with funding for their childrens education on their own. Since welfare programs are out, those families will little income despite the tax breaks may have trouble paying for their childrens education. What happens if they cannot afford to send their children to school? A 100% private education system would leave even more children without a proper education than we have today.
Quote:
Taxes Because Ron Paul over a trillion dollars from ending the war closing bases and ending nuclear proliferation, and senseless foreign aid, Americans would enjoy massive tax cuts. The income tax would be gone allowing people keep their own money rather than giving it to the government. No social programs would have to be cut to compensate for the loss revenue because we can save more than enough just by ending our imperial practices. The IRS would be gone. Many departments such as the Department of Homeland Security would also be cut. They are unnecessary in many cases unethical (they infringe on civil liberties and advocate torture etc) and we don’t need to waste money on them. Ron Paul has never voted to raise taxes.
Transfer of responsibility. States will have to raise taxes to pay for previously federally funded programs. Your federal tax breaks will be offset by your local tax increases.
Quote:
Monetary policy Ron Paul is the only candidate running that even has a monetary policy. The big monster in the dark that creates inflation and the business cycles in housing and the stock market is the Federal Reserve. They create money backed by nothing out of thin air and loan it to the government to pay for imperial escapades and the government pays them back with interest by simply printing more money and devaluating the dollar. Paul would kill the spending and the borrowing as he would end the wars, and get rid of the Federal Reserve. This country used the gold standard until 1971 and could return to it to create sound money. We don’t need a secretive private bank controlling our money supply. At the very least if the Fed is to continue then there must be an audit and they have got to be more public and open.
A return to gold would at the very least temporarily destroy our economy. Nevermind that there isn't enough gold and that we would have to create a value per ounce of gold or risk having absolutely no control over inflation and deflation leaving our economy at the whim of the global gold market. Nations could buy and sell gold to control our economy.
Quote:
RON PAUL 2008! [/b]
But, go Ron Paul.
I could literally go on for hours about the negative aspects of Ron Pauls policies. They sound good on the surface but in reality would literally destroy the nation. We are not living in the 1800's anymore.
Rudy
Post subject: Re: Ron Paul on the issues, show this to liberals.
Posted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 2:08 pm
Rage against the PC - Loading Error!
Joined: Jan 11th, 2008 Posts: 88
ramadoss wrote:
He would also end the role of the EPA and force citizens to file individual lawsuits against corporations for environmental violations. If that plant next door is dumping waste you as an individual will have to spend your time and money to collect the evidence and file a lawsuit agains tthe company. You will then have to foot the bill for the entire court process against what could possibly be a company with virtually unlimited funds available to defend itself. Basically, you won't be able to do shit.
I think the counterpoints you raise, ramados, are reasonable, though I'm somewhat of a dabbler in this stuff and, so, don't know the finer points of these issues. Regarding the EPA, I can agree with you only insofar as the corporate connection goes. Corporate behavior can only be brought to heel by revoking their dubious status as legal "persons". With that done, localities would have the power to revoke a corporation's charter--that's a lot of clout with which to control corporate behavior. Furthermore, I question the integrity of any agency in the face of corporate power and influence. I see this as a good example of how a strictly constitutional federal government would necessarily change the face of politics. I see governors and state legislatures interacting much more importantly to address such problems as you raise.
ramadoss wrote:
End federal welfare programs and it will transfer responsibility to the states or local communities which will have to raise local taxes to fund. Transfer of responsibility. If the state does not take up the responsibility you could possibly end up with 3rd world types of neighborhoods.[/color]
But it is efficient for states and localities to deal with these things. On the other hand it is efficient for corporations to establish "centers of industry"; it streamlines their supply chains. But the employees of these industrial centers need to live nearby, creating great population densities which require greater welfare resources--not percentage-wise, but in absolute terms. So a state like Montana, which might have 1% of its population in need of welfare resources, now must pay as if 4% of its population needed welfare resources. The center of industry states are essentially subsidized by the less populous states. The burden of these states is thusly redistributed amongst all the states. Maybe all the states benefit by way of slightly reduced prices of manufactured goods made in the industrial states, but is such a socialist scheme really in the long-term best interest of everyone?
ramadoss wrote:
The DOE has very little control over education in reality. It provides voluntary funds to the states and localities in return for agreeing to some terms such as NCLB. States are free to refuse federal funding at any time and not have to abide by anything the DOE attaches to the receipt of that funding. Local education systems determine their own curriculum, not the DOE. There is a lot of misconception about this, just trying to help clear it up.
But WHY is there so much misconception about this? And is there, really? Let's see, if I do what DOE says I get a bunch of my tax money back (and some of somebody else's to boot) that I can use to run my schools. If I don't do what DOE says my tax money goes to the others who do tow the line and I still have to come up with that money locally to run my schools. So, if I have plenty of "extra money" I can choose freely; otherwise, I am forced to do what the federal agency says. This is precisely how the federal government has gotten away from us. This "do what we say or you won't get your tax money back" mechanism is widely utilized. I think, in principle it is more efficient to keep the tax money in the first place and make that resource work where the work needs to be done.
ramadoss wrote:
Eliminating public schools would require families to come up with funding for their childrens education on their own. Since welfare programs are out, those families will little income despite the tax breaks may have trouble paying for their childrens education. What happens if they cannot afford to send their children to school? A 100% private education system would leave even more children without a proper education than we have today.
Wait a minute, ramados, you just said it was a misconception that that federal government pays for public schools. It's my understanding that property taxes (and lotteries--yippee!) pay the lion's share of the cost. Anyway, the public education system in this country has been a scandal for years. I think it might be better for 80% of children to get a great education than for 100% to get a lousy one. But, again, once the responsibility is squarely on the shoulders of the states and localities, local politics can begin, once again, to be effective.
ramadoss wrote:
Transfer of responsibility. States will have to raise taxes to pay for previously federally funded programs. Your federal tax breaks will be offset by your local tax increases.
Quote:
Except that there is a huge hidden cost to this federal redistribution scheme: Bureaucracy. I think there is also an incalculable cost incurred in the time value of both money and local politics. The efficacy of local politics lies in the speed with which effect follows cause. With the loss of that speed comes the loss of political vitality.
ramadoss wrote:
A return to gold would at the very least temporarily destroy our economy. Nevermind that there isn't enough gold and that we would have to create a value per ounce of gold or risk having absolutely no control over inflation and deflation leaving our economy at the whim of the global gold market. Nations could buy and sell gold to control our economy.
Now, I'm no expert in this stuff, but it seems to me that it was this kind of reasoning that justified our fiat money system in the first place. There's enough gold for this purpose, and more in the ground. A gold-backed dollar would become more valuable as gold becomes more scarce. That is, you could buy more goods and services with it. Maybe I'm just simple-minded, but it doesn't make any sense to me that nations could, in concert with one another (how often does THAT happen), act to decrease the value of gold. If more was produced, I would think the function of the federal government would be to buy gold. Maybe you could explain to me, ramados, how this manipulation of a commodity's price might work?
ramadoss wrote:
I could literally go on for hours about the negative aspects of Ron Pauls policies. They sound good on the surface but in reality would literally destroy the nation. We are not living in the 1800's anymore.
Such destruction appears to be upon us. It doesn't make sense to me that more of the same will get us a different result. It is convenient for "business" that value be manipulated in competing contexts. But like the kid in the candy store who wants everything he sees, and, after eating voraciously, becomes ill, global corporate hegemony is a sick puppy. There's going to be only one way out: One World Government. The only alternative would be global economic revolution bringing great suffering before economic health and governments of free peoples could once again thrive. This latter will NOT be the choice of most.
_________________ Every science begins as philosophy and ends as art. ~Will Durant, The Story of Philosophy, 1926
exquisite
Post subject:
Posted: Wed May 14, 2008 6:08 am
Anti-Neocon Dragon
Joined: Nov 7th, 2007 Posts: 2240 Location: England
Quote:
Paul will end all aid to Israel. He takes no money from AIPAC and believes they should be prosecuted for spying on the US
he actually talked about israel spying on the US? last time i checked wikipedia israel spying on the US was classed as "conspiracy theory".
Quote:
He would also end the role of the EPA and force citizens to file individual lawsuits against corporations for environmental violations. If that plant next door is dumping waste you as an individual will have to spend your time and money to collect the evidence and file a lawsuit agains tthe company. You will then have to foot the bill for the entire court process against what could possibly be a company with virtually unlimited funds available to defend itself. Basically, you won't be able to do shit.
the EPA is practically useless.
from stinkipedia:
An extensive online questionnaire responded by 1600 EPA staff scientists who have worked in the agency for more than 10 years has determined that they have been pressurised to skew their findings. The survey included chemists, toxicologists, engineers, geologists and experts in other fields of science. About 40% scientists have reported that the interference has been more prevalent in the last five years compared to previous years. The highest number of complaints came from scientists who are involved in determining the risks of cancer by chemicals used in food and other aspects of our everyday life. These findings correlate with high prevalence of cancer among people in countries who use frozen, processed and preserved food and are used to a lifestyle where usage of drugs, chemicals and cosmetics are commonpractice.
You might as well take the action into your own hands.
Quote:
I could literally go on for hours about the negative aspects of Ron Pauls policies. They sound good on the surface but in reality would literally destroy the nation. We are not living in the 1800's anymore.
When Khanverse was here he had to post them here, but the old section got deleted, tiz a shame coz i thought that section was so funny.
Joined: Jun 27th, 2005 Posts: 21461 Location: Japan now USA
_________________ END THE GOD DAMN WARS This site is against war, Zionism, (or any other form of racism), profiteering, and all forms of government corruption, mass media deception, and cover ups. This is not a site to flail on about space aliens-illuminati-masonic-dealcult-jewish-catholic-lizard-lucifarian-jesuit-queen-barvarian-etc bull hockey. Take that junk somewhere else. My Twitter "It doesn't matter who we are underneath. It is what we do that defines us." Batman
"If a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it or see it. Would Israel still blame it on Iran?"-Ry Dawson
ry ryan dawson author politics political antineocon anti-neocon antineocons anti-neocons raising the volume of peace - news the media is paid not to tell you how they blep you
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum