Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 1,877 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 534,121
Pageviews Today: 762,513Threads Today: 223Posts Today: 3,709
08:47 AM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

My Response to Op-Ed By Former Bush Speechwriter Michael Gerson...

 
Iconoclastics
Offer Upgrade

User ID: 1521939
United States
01/04/2012 05:47 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
My Response to Op-Ed By Former Bush Speechwriter Michael Gerson...
Michael Gerson recently wrote an Op-Ed column about how Ron Paul will destroy America: [link to www.washingtonpost.com]

Here is my response to him and all other naysayers:

This column seems to suggest a Paul presidency would resemble a racist, anti-Semitic, delusional, paranoid, Lincoln-detesting, utterly imprudent administration. Obviously I do not agree. Of course I think it's entirely reasonable to question Paul's positions and opinions (I certainly do) but this column is more of a succession of straw man arguments and inflammatory insinuations than it is sensible criticism.

Gerson does bring up the salient point about the potential for governments to actually enhance liberty but he writes as if electing Ron Paul would be the most dangerous thing our country has ever embarked upon and that all that America has fought for up until this point would somehow be lost. He was actually somewhat persuasive until I remembered who he was. Someone who personally helped craft the lies for wars, torture, and other unconstitutional abuses. It feels quite brazen, hypocritical, and slightly unhinged for Gerson to be judging a Paul administration which he is imagining in his head, while giving no examination to his own very real administration. Need we be reminded of the 1.2 million plus dead Iraqis, Afghans, Americans and the millions more maimed, lost, and dislocated because of those lies? The massive expansion of government because of those lies? The enormous increase in debt because of those lies? The tragic erosion of civil liberties because of those lies?

We could endlessly speculate back and forth about what President Paul would have done during the Civil War, WWII, or the Civil Rights Movement... Or we could actually evaluate what Presidents like Clinton, Bush and Obama have done over the last two decades. Over those three administrations the military-industrial complex has exploded, the debt has quadrupled, the government has ballooned, and the Constitution has officially become irrelevant. Why not give the man who has been warning us all along of these problems a chance to prove his philosophy of adhering more closely to the Constitution? Why do we insist on picking establishment candidates when the results are always the same and/or worse?

From my point of view this whole precarious situation facing the nation can essentially be boiled down to a simple Ben Franklin quote: "Those who would give up their liberty for security will get (and deserve) neither." Ron Paul is the only statesmen who speaks the language of liberty and that is ultimately what is most important to me and a lot of other people, not just in this country but all around the world. I have addressed some of Gerson's points in much greater detail down below, if you are interested.

--

1. "...proposed the legalization of heroin use." Clearly decades of drug war propaganda have worked and what I mean by that is: presently we have 90,000 troops and just as many security contractors in Afghanistan, a place where 90% of the world's heroin comes from and "coincidentally" the same place we supposedly need to be "to protect our freedoms." (Gerson might remember that one...). We are spending billions of tax dollars fostering the heroin trade while also spending billions of tax dollars prosecuting addicts and marginal dealers. As far as I am concerned the only reason heroin isn't legal is because it would drive the street value down too far and diminish the ability of corporations and banks to use laundered drug profits to inflate their price-to-earnings ratio. Tens of billions of dollars in illicit drug money is funneled through major US banks every year. That money is not only helping keep the US economy afloat but it is also fueling the epic slaughter (50,000 deaths and counting since 2006) happening down in Mexico. So, for all intents and purposes, drug use is legal. It's just not legal for John STALKER.

2. "...promised to abolish the CIA," The CIA has been instrumental in both perpetuating the global drug trade and managing its financial/corporate associations. The Dulles brothers who are credited with founding the CIA were both Wall St. big wigs and there has been a slew of DCI's and deputy DCI's who were Wall St. insiders. It all makes sense when you look at it objectively. The only thing on Wall St. more valuable than money itself is information and intelligence. So naturally a relationship between the two worlds would exist from the get-go. In addition to illegal drug trafficking activities the CIA has also been engaged in what can only be described as a war against the third world. If a country has vital resources that we need and/or want, or a country is strategically located but uncooperative, the CIA will go in forcibly and clean house as long as the country cannot legitimately defend itself with nukes, ICBM's or any other significant deterrent. Everything from kidnappings, torture, assassinations, bombings, death squads, and dictators can be attributed to the CIA (and America by extension). The agency has an enormous amount of blood and terror on its hands. In reflecting upon the CIA's history I am reminded of the Solzhenitsyn quote which opens Gulag Archipelago, "Men, in order to do great evil, must first believe what they are doing is good."

3. "...called America the most 'aggressive, extended and expansionist' empire in world history." With over 700 bases in over 100 countries, 5 major wars since WWII, dozens of CIA coups and puppet regimes, tens of millions of deaths, unrivaled militarism and resource consumption I'd say that is fairly accurate.

4. "...accused the American government of a Sept. 11 cover-up." This is not even arguable. There was a cover-up. Even the people charged with investigating 9/11 have admitted as much. They were repeatedly lied to, misled, and misinformed. Testimony was scrubbed from the record, witnesses were withheld and gagged, and evidence was hidden or destroyed. The best thing we can say about 9/11 is that we don't really know what happened on 9/11, all we know is that we were lied to...

As for the bigoted newsletters which are evidently tied to Paul, I must admit they are off-putting but I am not convinced that he is actually that kind of person at heart. Especially after seeing this: [link to www.youtube.com] Unfortunately I do think his political ideas happen to crossover with other, less desirable points of view but that is neither his fault nor his responsibility. He has disavowed the writings, as he should have, and that is really all he can do at this point.

I also don't necessarily agree with his view of the Civil War or the Civil Rights movement either. But am I worried that electing him president would somehow convert us into a racist, compassionless, isolationist society? Absolutely not. In fact I think that insinuation is absurd. Almost as absurd as the notion that we must fight the War On Terror to protect our freedoms... If anything it is the War On Terror which has converted us into a racist, compassionless, isolationist society.

Last Edited by Iconoclastics on 01/04/2012 05:50 AM
"The person who is in love with their vision of community will destroy community. But the person who loves the people around them will create community everywhere they go." ~ Dietrich Bonhoeffer

"Doubt is not a pleasant condition but certainty is absurd" ~ Voltaire

"The World is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion." ~ Thomas Paine




On Twitter @Iconoclastics
humanitech
User ID: 8182739
United Kingdom
01/04/2012 07:18 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: My Response to Op-Ed By Former Bush Speechwriter Michael Gerson...
Michael Gerson recently wrote an Op-Ed column about how Ron Paul will destroy America: [link to www.washingtonpost.com]

Here is my response to him and all other naysayers:

This column seems to suggest a Paul presidency would resemble a racist, anti-Semitic, delusional, paranoid, Lincoln-detesting, utterly imprudent administration. Obviously I do not agree. Of course I think it's entirely reasonable to question Paul's positions and opinions (I certainly do) but this column is more of a succession of straw man arguments and inflammatory insinuations than it is sensible criticism.

Gerson does bring up the salient point about the potential for governments to actually enhance liberty but he writes as if electing Ron Paul would be the most dangerous thing our country has ever embarked upon and that all that America has fought for up until this point would somehow be lost. He was actually somewhat persuasive until I remembered who he was. Someone who personally helped craft the lies for wars, torture, and other unconstitutional abuses. It feels quite brazen, hypocritical, and slightly unhinged for Gerson to be judging a Paul administration which he is imagining in his head, while giving no examination to his own very real administration. Need we be reminded of the 1.2 million plus dead Iraqis, Afghans, Americans and the millions more maimed, lost, and dislocated because of those lies? The massive expansion of government because of those lies? The enormous increase in debt because of those lies? The tragic erosion of civil liberties because of those lies?

We could endlessly speculate back and forth about what President Paul would have done during the Civil War, WWII, or the Civil Rights Movement... Or we could actually evaluate what Presidents like Clinton, Bush and Obama have done over the last two decades. Over those three administrations the military-industrial complex has exploded, the debt has quadrupled, the government has ballooned, and the Constitution has officially become irrelevant. Why not give the man who has been warning us all along of these problems a chance to prove his philosophy of adhering more closely to the Constitution? Why do we insist on picking establishment candidates when the results are always the same and/or worse?

From my point of view this whole precarious situation facing the nation can essentially be boiled down to a simple Ben Franklin quote: "Those who would give up their liberty for security will get (and deserve) neither." Ron Paul is the only statesmen who speaks the language of liberty and that is ultimately what is most important to me and a lot of other people, not just in this country but all around the world. I have addressed some of Gerson's points in much greater detail down below, if you are interested.

--

1. "...proposed the legalization of heroin use." Clearly decades of drug war propaganda have worked and what I mean by that is: presently we have 90,000 troops and just as many security contractors in Afghanistan, a place where 90% of the world's heroin comes from and "coincidentally" the same place we supposedly need to be "to protect our freedoms." (Gerson might remember that one...). We are spending billions of tax dollars fostering the heroin trade while also spending billions of tax dollars prosecuting addicts and marginal dealers. As far as I am concerned the only reason heroin isn't legal is because it would drive the street value down too far and diminish the ability of corporations and banks to use laundered drug profits to inflate their price-to-earnings ratio. Tens of billions of dollars in illicit drug money is funneled through major US banks every year. That money is not only helping keep the US economy afloat but it is also fueling the epic slaughter (50,000 deaths and counting since 2006) happening down in Mexico. So, for all intents and purposes, drug use is legal. It's just not legal for John STALKER.

2. "...promised to abolish the CIA," The CIA has been instrumental in both perpetuating the global drug trade and managing its financial/corporate associations. The Dulles brothers who are credited with founding the CIA were both Wall St. big wigs and there has been a slew of DCI's and deputy DCI's who were Wall St. insiders. It all makes sense when you look at it objectively. The only thing on Wall St. more valuable than money itself is information and intelligence. So naturally a relationship between the two worlds would exist from the get-go. In addition to illegal drug trafficking activities the CIA has also been engaged in what can only be described as a war against the third world. If a country has vital resources that we need and/or want, or a country is strategically located but uncooperative, the CIA will go in forcibly and clean house as long as the country cannot legitimately defend itself with nukes, ICBM's or any other significant deterrent. Everything from kidnappings, torture, assassinations, bombings, death squads, and dictators can be attributed to the CIA (and America by extension). The agency has an enormous amount of blood and terror on its hands. In reflecting upon the CIA's history I am reminded of the Solzhenitsyn quote which opens Gulag Archipelago, "Men, in order to do great evil, must first believe what they are doing is good."

3. "...called America the most 'aggressive, extended and expansionist' empire in world history." With over 700 bases in over 100 countries, 5 major wars since WWII, dozens of CIA coups and puppet regimes, tens of millions of deaths, unrivaled militarism and resource consumption I'd say that is fairly accurate.

4. "...accused the American government of a Sept. 11 cover-up." This is not even arguable. There was a cover-up. Even the people charged with investigating 9/11 have admitted as much. They were repeatedly lied to, misled, and misinformed. Testimony was scrubbed from the record, witnesses were withheld and gagged, and evidence was hidden or destroyed. The best thing we can say about 9/11 is that we don't really know what happened on 9/11, all we know is that we were lied to...

As for the bigoted newsletters which are evidently tied to Paul, I must admit they are off-putting but I am not convinced that he is actually that kind of person at heart. Especially after seeing this: [link to www.youtube.com] Unfortunately I do think his political ideas happen to crossover with other, less desirable points of view but that is neither his fault nor his responsibility. He has disavowed the writings, as he should have, and that is really all he can do at this point.

I also don't necessarily agree with his view of the Civil War or the Civil Rights movement either. But am I worried that electing him president would somehow convert us into a racist, compassionless, isolationist society? Absolutely not. In fact I think that insinuation is absurd. Almost as absurd as the notion that we must fight the War On Terror to protect our freedoms... If anything it is the War On Terror which has converted us into a racist, compassionless, isolationist society.
 Quoting: Iconoclastics



Sadly in our ever expanding world of fake and corrupt elites and their polaring hierarchies, values and doctrines...that each group and faction (especially those at the top) have no interest, ability or capacity to honestly self asses and appraise their actions and agendas, nor admit their own fundemental flaws.

Whether old family elites, monarchies, governments or businesses and economic leaders and their collective cronies and their biased institutions of individual artifice and rivalry.. yet secretly globally inter-woven and connected to eachother for collective personal power and gains...hmm

To be truthfull hierarchies have always been the biggest environmental and humanitarian problem...by their very structuring and design...yet the sheep have been programmed well to select, accept and bow down to them.

So the 1% take more wealth and control at our expense of corse...the term to big to fail shows the true reality and equality of these corrupt hierarchies, because we should all be too big to fail..Not the people are in the position to realise that..on their respective artificial elitist treadmills.

So just remember this... no matter who you vote for as new leaders, rulers and saviours... the system they run will always be imbalanced in favour of the top few rather than the masses..and that's a fact!