-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Ron Paul for president
- Thread starter mach1chris
- Start date
DangerClose
Regular Member
The current, updated vote counts aren't the thing. The main thing is getting that caucus this weekend to count that was canceled "for snow."
rscottie
Regular Member
The mainstream media will not say anything positive about Ron Paul or even acknowledge him leading some of the polls.
Why? Because they wish to steer the sheeple to vote for the candidate that THEY think will be the easiest for Obama to beat.
Why? Because they wish to steer the sheeple to vote for the candidate that THEY think will be the easiest for Obama to beat.
No theory, no tin foil hat. I know what you people are up to, and you're getting close, but you will fail in your final moment. So mote it be.
rodbender
Regular Member
Cute:lol:
PrayingForWar
Founder's Club Member
You sound 10% as lucid as an OWS parasite, and those morons are the most delusional gaggle of bed wetters the welfare system sustains. How can you not be certain YOU aren't being manipulated into believeing a few hundred bluebloods and yids so firmly control EVERYTHING that there is no point in getting involved in the political endeavor?
All political power is driven by a mandate from the masses. The best way for the ruling class to cement their grip on power is to so alienate the masses that they no longer participate. You keep telling everyone to wake up, but I stand by my assertion that its YOU who lives in a nightmare that you're more than willing to promote. If the system is so rotten from the top as you say, there is no point in paying any attention yet you excoriate people for their paying attention to $#!t like football. You insist "they" monitor every word posted online and uttered over the phone, watch every move we make and maintain databases on everything we purchase yet I've seen you post incredibly subversive opinions and wish for civil war. Apparently "they" aren't as fearsome as you insist, which makes me often wonder if you aren't a plant who's agenda is to disenfranchise people from getting involved in politics.
Of course I guess that would make me a tin foil hat wearing dip$#!t too.
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
In practice, you know, it doesn't always work that way.
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
Hey, fellas,
Do you think we should tell PFW that its almost common knowledge that all internet traffic in the US is monitored? Gen. Hayden himself confirmed this, what? five years ago?
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
Certainly, I have never read Dreamer write that. It would be kinda foolish. The elites don't have to control everything. All they have to do is control or exercise near-controlling influence over certain things. For example, the monetary system.
Lord Evelyn Rothschild is Elizabeth's finance chief. Yeah--that Rothschild family. The very same. And, he's already on record (video no less) hinting at a one-world currency.
since9
Campaign Veteran
Nah. Well, ok.
PrayingForWar
Founder's Club Member
True, but regardless of how oppressive a regime is or how much control a despot wields it can fall. Once the political pressure has boiled over, enough of the people holding the guns will turn on their masters and over throw them. Russia was a good example. Now we have Libya which did that very thing.
So I'm not all that afraid of our government, and I don't feel nearly as oppressed as the people of the UK or Canada.
I didn't hear him say it, but it makes me laugh too think that for everyone surfing the net there is someone monitoring what they're doing and saying. They'd have to subcontract that gig to India. Furthermore I've heard of Epsilon, which I think is a computer system that monitors all telephone communications. They had a real backlog of going over conversations like:
"Jimmy bombed his english exam and has too attend summer school, I could kill him!"
Also, how many times have you heard of bureaucrats getting into trouble looking at porn on gov't computers? If the empire can not stop it's own drones from doing that, why should I be afraid?
I think that idea is an old one, and it's no suprise a pinko blue blood suggested it, especially given his family's history both real and rumored.
To be fair to Dreamer his warnings about "the NWO" are not unfounded. I maintain my skepticism that a small group of people control the entire world. I believe there are several groups of people pulling some pretty big strings and that there are not only conflicts between them, but within them. Since "they" can't seem to keep their $#!t straight, I prefer to live my life content that I can still do pretty much whatever I want, and that even when I inadvertently do something illegal and am confronted with an agent of government I tend to be left alone with a mere reprimand or insignificant fine.
So live in constant fear of black helicopters and agents hiding under your bed if you like, give up on politics and start burying beans and bullets in your back yard. (Not that I don't do my own prepping, but for any range of possible strife) Or just drop out, tune out or whatever that old hippie druggie suggested and give up. I prefer to enjoy life and try to play the game as I see fit.
slowfiveoh
Regular Member
You are misunderstanding the application of technology on several fronts.
#1. The reason you don't hear of bureaucrats getting into trouble for looking at porn anymore, is because they are now patently aware that it is monitored through several traffic monitoring systems, or SPI firewalls (Sonicwall etc.) simply denying your ability to get there. They have discovered, that if they must do the deed, its easier to simply plug in a personal aircard or use their phones 3/4g connectivity on their nice 5.5" high res LCD to view Mrs. Kitty Online, if you get my drift.
#2. Data forensics is far more valuable than simply logging of phone conversations. Yes, the lower tier of technology is often of great use to legitimate criminal organizations, but data monitoring is where the bread and butter is at. Confidence in encryption technologies is what makes data networks such an attractive tool for criminals/terrorists etc.
Therefore, the government has indeed gone to incredible lengths to monitor every bit of data they can get their grubby mittens on, to include a serious interest in the mid 90's in cracking encryption. A company called Narus answered the call with an incredible technology that could not only do SPI and < 128bit encryption cracking on the fly, but could do so whilst residing on the demarcation line of the worlds largest data centers. If you are interested, the device is called the "Narus STA 6400". STA stands for "Semantic Traffic Analyzer". If you need help deciphering what this means, and what it does, I can help you. However, Google is your best friend for your understanding if you do not understand already.
The NSA shoehorned its way into AT&T data centers and placed these devices inbetween the internal network of the data centers, and the outbound provider fiber trunk leaving the facilities.
They can literally, with ease, crack your cute little encryption protocols using nothing but fingerprint recognition of encryption types, and brute force the packets open on the back end.
The NSA, undoubtedly capturing the bits and bytes of this post will probably see it pass by at some point from their monitoring position at Sugar Hill, less than 100 miles away from my position at this very moment.
If you do not understand exactly how the technology works, it would behoove you not to make blanket statements about what they are, or are not doing. You would have to understand various routing standards, protocols, and just in general how ye old world wide web works.
Big brother likes your delicious data. He wants to know what you are doing. Bank on it.
MilProGuy
Regular Member
You are exactly right. We should each vote for the candidate we feel could best do the job.
Conservative America is comprised of the folks who believe in conservative values, both in their lifestyles and in government.
Conservatism is the opposite of Liberalism. Liberalism is responsible for the present occupant of the Oval Office.
MilProGuy
Regular Member
I'm not really influenced by the talking heads on T.V., nor am I swayed by the so-called "polls".
I listen to the candidates, themselves, and what they have to say and what they stand for.
Mr. Paul is just too "left field" in his thinking concerning who is responsible for the dreadful and disdainful attacks on our nation on 9/11/2001.
The "infidel hating" radical elements of Islam were responsible for the death and destruction of 9/11.
His foreign policy troubles me greatly. These are the two things that trouble me most about this candidate.
If he is, ultimately, the Republican candidate for President, I will vote for him...but I will doing so as a vote against Barack Hussein Obama.
slowfiveoh
Regular Member
"A single NarusInsight machine can monitor traffic equal to the maximum capacity (10 Gbit/s) of around 39,000 DSL lines or 195,000 telephone modems. But, in practical terms, since individual internet connections are not continually filled to capacity, the 10 Gbit/s capacity of one NarusInsight installation enables it to monitor the combined traffic of several million broadband users."
Nuff said.
Nuff said.
Are you referring to the candidate that is consistently becoming more popular as people find out about him? That Paul? The one who AT LEAST came in second in the last caucus? That Paul?
While the darling front-runners keep swapping places based on where they are from and how much the media talks about them in a particular state, Dr Paul has steadily charged upward.
georg jetson
Regular Member
Left field? How so? We go over to another country and mess with them. They get mad and attack us. Left field?!?!
This sounds like you're disproving your first statement.
What EXACTLY about his foreign policy? I see it as "Defend America, not Kuwait."
People (not you) are spreading rumors that he is an isolationist. This is not true. But he is absolutely correct that we are in places that we have no business being, and a SIGNIFICANT amount of hatred toward us is directly related to that. We invade surreptitiously, and then when we are invaded by their insulted kinsmen, we claim terrorism and go to war without even declaring it through Congress.
I am just one of many, many veterans and active duty militarymen who love Dr. Paul's Constitutional foreign policy.
rscottie
Regular Member
Ron Paul voted in favor of sending troops to hunt for Osama Bin Ladin. He recognized who it was that we needed to go after at that time.
Are you listening to soundbites or complete explanations from Ron Paul? He can be quite wordy in his speaking and most of the time the media breaks it down to one or two sound bites that do not actually reflect what he is trying to get across.
I read what he said in Iowa here: http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.com/2011/08/27/paul-says-u-s-intervention-motivated-911-attacks/
Notice how the media portrays it as saying we are to blame. Ron Paul does not use that wording. He cites our own Military studies that say attacks went up after we occupied some of these countries.
From what I have heard from Ron Paul, he will have no problem going after terrorists (such as Bin Ladin) but he also wants to remove some of the bases we have set up which the radicals use as an excuse to attack us. After those bases are gone, the radicals will not be able to say that they are attacking us because we occupy their land.
Last edited: