[mattduke]

Ron Paul's speech:

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this conference report on the War Supplemental Appropriations. I wonder what happened to all of my colleagues who said they were opposed to the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I wonder what happened to my colleagues who voted with me as I opposed every war supplemental request under the previous administration. It seems, with very few exceptions, they have changed their position on the war now that the White House has changed hands. I find this troubling. As I have said while opposing previous war funding requests, a vote to fund the war is a vote in favor of the war. Congress exercises its constitutional prerogatives through the power of the purse.

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/speech/t ... Supp.shtml

[Keith_McClary]

Weird.

Does anyone seriously think that the US will be able to sustain an empire of puppet dictators and protectorates over the Mideast and central Asia for the coming decades and derive any net benefit from it? The only beneficiaries will be the "merchants of death" a.k.a. "military industrial complex".

[eastbay]

Not all that weird at all.

These monsters all demand and will fund more and more war because they know their US constituents demand war. The American electorate craves dead civilians. Mountains of them. And this hi-tech killing machine don't come cheap.

Look at the recent presidential election. We witnessed a phantasmagoric display featuring McCain and Obama struggling to demonstrate which one was the most pro-war. Obama clearly won promising to deliver more war in Afghanistan and Pakistan... and anywhere he thought to do so... maybe with N Korea and Iran soon too. And he's delivering on his war promise because he must get re-elected in 2012.

Nope, no surprise at all. They all just want to get re-elected and are simply delivering what the stinkin' liberals and conservatives demand: More war.

Weird.

Does anyone seriously think that the US will be able to sustain an empire of puppet dictators and protectorates over the Mideast and central Asia for the coming decades and derive any net benefit from it? The only beneficiaries will be the "merchants of death" a.k.a. "military industrial complex".

[Caffeine]

Not all that weird at all.

These monsters all demand and will fund more and more war because they know their US constituents demand war. The American electorate craves dead civilians. Mountains of them. And this hi-tech killing machine don't come cheap.

I'm really not sure that that's true anymore. My impression of the situation is that the current agenda of both major parties is largely disconnected from the wishes of the electorate.

[eastbay]

Not all that weird at all.

These monsters all demand and will fund more and more war because they know their US constituents demand war. The American electorate craves dead civilians. Mountains of them. And this hi-tech killing machine don't come cheap.

I'm really not sure that that's true anymore. My impression of the situation is that the current agenda of both major parties is largely disconnected from the wishes of the electorate.

If there's a pro-peace political mood shift, I'm mising it, and if you're not right about that now, I certainly hope you'll be right at some point in my lifetime.

But wow!! Wouldn't that be something! I look forward to a time when the US electorate choses a pro-peace presidential candidate instead of a pro-war candidate like Obama.

[rangerone314]

Not all that weird at all.

These monsters all demand and will fund more and more war because they know their US constituents demand war. The American electorate craves dead civilians. Mountains of them. And this hi-tech killing machine don't come cheap.

I'm really not sure that that's true anymore. My impression of the situation is that the current agenda of both major parties is largely disconnected from the wishes of the electorate.

True, both major parties are largely disconnected from the wishes of the electorate.

I find it hard to believe that social conservative base of the Republicans and the large working-class & pro-labor base of teh Democrats supports illegal immigration, but the leadership of R & D both seem to want to look the other way regarding illegal immigration because it benefits some well-to-do people and makes labor supply cheaper.

[rangerone314]

Not all that weird at all.

These monsters all demand and will fund more and more war because they know their US constituents demand war. The American electorate craves dead civilians. Mountains of them. And this hi-tech killing machine don't come cheap.

I'm really not sure that that's true anymore. My impression of the situation is that the current agenda of both major parties is largely disconnected from the wishes of the electorate.

If there's a pro-peace political mood shift, I'm mising it, and if you're not right about that now, I certainly hope you'll be right at some point in my lifetime.

But wow!! Wouldn't that be something! I look forward to a time when the US electorate choses a pro-peace presidential candidate instead of a pro-war candidate like Obama.

electorate choses

As long as we have a two-party system, the fix is in.

[mos6507]

I look forward to a time when the US electorate choses a pro-peace presidential candidate instead of a pro-war candidate like Obama.

Your absolutist definition of pro-peace is much too rigid, not to mention impractical or perhaps downright foolhardy to follow. If he was truly pro war, Obama would not be issuing deliberately muted statements about what is going on in Iran and he wouldn't be willing to play Missile Command to defend Hawaii from NK. Both countries would have been burnt out cinders by now with a hawk in the whitehouse.

[Kristen]

I thought Obama promised to end the war? The reason people are so complacent is because we're so desensitized from hearing of it so often.

But you guys are right. No matter who you vote for you still get the same outcome.

[pablonite]

This guy was the only presidential candidate who was not a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, whose front man has been David Rockefeller for so many years now. They run American foreign policy and own the state department.

Ron Paul has made many startling speeches, mostly relating to the bankers control of America and if I am not mistaken has always supported the dismantling of the Federal Reserve.

Does anyone seriously think that the US will be able to sustain an empire of puppet dictators and protectorates over the Mideast and central Asia for the coming decades and derive any net benefit from it? The only beneficiaries will be the "merchants of death" a.k.a. "military industrial complex".

The world is being run by international banking interests and the destruction of American sovereignty has always been the goal of the CFR. Ron Paul seems to be having a problem with this plan but has no problem living the life as a senator for all these years doing nothing more than trying to get the word out. It's hard to say if he is for real or some type of false hope for all of the Americans "waking up" lately.

You just need to look at the big picture and it comes into focus rather quickly.

"Today, America would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order [referring to the 1991 LA Riot]. Tomorrow they will be grateful!"
Henry Kissinger, Bilderberger Conference, Evians, France, 1991
http://www.illuminati-news.com/quotes.htm