PDA

View Full Version : Michele Bachmann Ron Paul would be a dangerous President




LD Jackson
12-18-2011, 01:50 PM
I know much has already been posted about Michele Bachmann's outrageous claims that Ron Paul would be a dangerous President, but I want to share a blog post I just published about it. It contains a transcript of the entire exchange between Paul and Bachmann at the debate in Sioux City.

http://www.ldjackson.net/news-politics/michele-bachmann-ron-paul-would-be-a-dangerous-president/

LibertyEagle
12-18-2011, 01:56 PM
Great job!

anaconda
12-18-2011, 01:59 PM
Dangerous to the status quo.

And thanks for taking the time and making the effort to post over there.

travelerru
12-18-2011, 02:41 PM
So here's a bit of irony I've noticed. When ever she rants about the threat of Iran, Bachmann always goes back to this refrain:

"Because they have stated unequivocally, once they gain a nuclear weapon, they will use that weapon to wipe Israel off of the map and they will use it against the United States." "If there is anything that history has taught us in the last 100 years, it is this - when a madman speaks, we should listen,"
http://www.politico.com/blogs/politico-live/2011/12/bachmann-iran-would-use-nuke-against-united-states-107923.html

However, every time Dr. Paul brings up the idea of listening to what OBL and others used as their justification for 9/11, he is ridiculed for "listening to the terrorists"...or something similar.

Doesn't this seem like a very blatant inconsistency?

I also thought it was interesting that she invoked Iran's constitution at the debate on Thursday. Would have been nice if Dr. Paul had suggested she and her follower(s) spend a little more time studying our own constitution. :)

seapilot
12-18-2011, 02:48 PM
So here's a bit of irony I've noticed. When ever she rants about the threat of Iran, Bachmann always goes back to this refrain:

"Because they have stated unequivocally, once they gain a nuclear weapon, they will use that weapon to wipe Israel off of the map and they will use it against the United States." "If there is anything that history has taught us in the last 100 years, it is this - when a madman speaks, we should listen,"
http://www.politico.com/blogs/politico-live/2011/12/bachmann-iran-would-use-nuke-against-united-states-107923.html

However, every time Dr. Paul brings up the idea of listening to what OBL and others used as their justification for 9/11, he is ridiculed for "listening to the terrorists"...or something similar.

Doesn't this seem like a very blatant inconsistency?

I also thought it was interesting that she invoked Iran's constitution at the debate on Thursday. Would have been nice if Dr. Paul had suggested she and her follower(s) spend a little more time studying our own constitution. :)

Welcome to the forums. Good job deducting and applying logical thinking.

Birdlady
12-18-2011, 02:58 PM
So here's a bit of irony I've noticed. When ever she rants about the threat of Iran, Bachmann always goes back to this refrain:

"Because they have stated unequivocally, once they gain a nuclear weapon, they will use that weapon to wipe Israel off of the map and they will use it against the United States." "If there is anything that history has taught us in the last 100 years, it is this - when a madman speaks, we should listen,"
http://www.politico.com/blogs/politico-live/2011/12/bachmann-iran-would-use-nuke-against-united-states-107923.html

However, every time Dr. Paul brings up the idea of listening to what OBL and others used as their justification for 9/11, he is ridiculed for "listening to the terrorists"...or something similar.

Doesn't this seem like a very blatant inconsistency?

I also thought it was interesting that she invoked Iran's constitution at the debate on Thursday. Would have been nice if Dr. Paul had suggested she and her follower(s) spend a little more time studying our own constitution. :)

Yes you make excellent points. Also if RP would have said that about the Constitution that would have been absolutely devastating!!

KingRobbStark
12-18-2011, 02:58 PM
So here's a bit of irony I've noticed. When ever she rants about the threat of Iran, Bachmann always goes back to this refrain:

"Because they have stated unequivocally, once they gain a nuclear weapon, they will use that weapon to wipe Israel off of the map and they will use it against the United States." "If there is anything that history has taught us in the last 100 years, it is this - when a madman speaks, we should listen,"
http://www.politico.com/blogs/politico-live/2011/12/bachmann-iran-would-use-nuke-against-united-states-107923.html

However, every time Dr. Paul brings up the idea of listening to what OBL and others used as their justification for 9/11, he is ridiculed for "listening to the terrorists"...or something similar.

Doesn't this seem like a very blatant inconsistency?

I also thought it was interesting that she invoked Iran's constitution at the debate on Thursday. Would have been nice if Dr. Paul had suggested she and her follower(s) spend a little more time studying our own constitution. :)

That doesn't work. You're using logic.

ONUV
12-18-2011, 04:17 PM
if you don't vote for the status quo, you'll die!

they're exhausting their last attacks.

LD Jackson
12-18-2011, 06:24 PM
Dangerous to the status quo.

And thanks for taking the time and making the effort to post over there.

You are quite welcome. It's my blog anyway, so I suppose I am guilty of self-promotion, but it is something I felt needed to be written.

row333au
12-18-2011, 10:18 PM
Since the 1980s, 'the invasion of Iran (and various other middle eastern countries) has been on the drawing boards. It was known to have been originated from the evolving plannings coming from Report to Iron Mountain which was created by various US government agencies commissioned for the CFR/Trilateral think tanks.... such nefarious strategy to be implemented under cloak and dagger and stealth using secret agencies to create false flags, assassinations, economic manipulations, artificial wars, creating World War 3 and etch (some very similar circumstances have eventuated). Precursor government programs and those with under different UN economic governance develop out of stemming from the original Report from Iron Mountain that are currently still evolving and developing.

Ever wonder about why the anglo-american constant involvement in the middle east? And the multi-global-trans-national corporations can force the governments to control and partner with the local and national governments as well as maintaining having warlords society existence?

It is imperative for WTO, IMF and other rich global factions to have super stronghold - that is being maintained (but not able to dominate) due to the economical/political/power structure of global resource for them to have dominant monopoly - since the whole global economic activities were made reliant on petrol base economy (ever since the 1920s) in order to funnel global dominance of controls....Therefore Iran's strategic importance to key areas of regional strongholds as well as very large oil deposit fields is very attractive for them.


The nuclear weapons angle or reasoning have been used since 1998 to be able to declare Iran as a threat but have so far failed (even with the use of Ayatolah Komeni which is another tactic move by 'TPTB').

There have been conflicting reports that even within agencies factions have contradicted each others and the diligent ones have won over (but there are constant challenges to discredit the prevalent ones). Most government official reports of "within days of acquiring operational weapons of mass destruction of nuclear base" have failed to eventuate since then.

One should look into Unclassified Report to Congress, on the Acquisition of Technology Relating to Weapons of Mass Destruction and Advanced Conventional Munitions dating since 1998 (its also classified as Recurring Reports) from Central Intelligence Agencies and the Congressional Research Service . There's also same type of reporting to UN Security Councils and Global Intelligence Network by IAEA Board (a restricted board of 35).



If you believe in conspiracy, try this....


William Scott Ritter, Jr. was an important United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991 to 1998, and later a critic of United States foreign policy in the Middle East. Prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq in March 2003, Ritter stated that Iraq possessed no significant weapons of mass destruction (WMD) capabilities and US government under George Bush were guilty of fraud. He became a popular anti-war figure and talk show commentator as a result of his stance.

On February 18, 2005 Scott Ritter told an audience in Olympia, Washington that George Bush had signed-off on preparations to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities, and that these preparations would be completed by June 2005. On the same occasion, he also made reference to the Iraqi elections, saying that the United States had manipulated the 2005 parliamentary election, changing the percentage of United Iraqi Alliance votes from 56% to 48%

He whistle-blow on the real purpose of the EU-3 intervention — to prevent the United States from using Iran's nuclear ambition as an excuse for military intervention - for which the EU-3 would deceitfully continue to participate in fraudulent diplomacy rather than confront the hard truth - that it is the United States, and not Iran, that is operating outside international law when it comes to the issue of Iran's nuclear programmes. He was gagged and made by the government 'never discussed in public'.

Since 2001, Ritter has been arrested on sex charges. He was acquitted on a single criminal attempt charge, and convicted on other charges (his claim of circumstantial by entrapment as a pedophile (very damaging to discredit him) which can not be proven but was convicted and charge within speedy trials 2005 was political motivated).

bolil
12-19-2011, 02:16 AM
The light is dangerous to the dark.

Todd38
12-19-2011, 02:29 AM
She is like Giuliani all tucked in. If u know what im sayin.

She has a penis? :eek:

PierzStyx
12-19-2011, 03:04 AM
I know much has already been posted about Michele Bachmann's outrageous claims that Ron Paul would be a dangerous President, but I want to share a blog post I just published about it. It contains a transcript of the entire exchange between Paul and Bachmann at the debate in Sioux City.

http://www.ldjackson.net/news-politics/michele-bachmann-ron-paul-would-be-a-dangerous-president/

Definitely deserve some love for such good work +rep