More Than 100 Retired Military Leaders Raise Concerns About CIA Nominee Gina Haspel

Joined
May 20, 2017
Messages
3,065
Likes
6,895
#2
They Call it Enhanced Interrogation but it is Torture plain and simple!
Tyranny starts cancelling the rights of Empires's designated enemies( terrorists) then they expand these conditions to encompass dissidents.
There is no excuse for torture they know it and that is why they play around with the words and definitions ' enhanced interrogation, (atrocious)'
 





Last edited:
Joined
Mar 27, 2017
Messages
2,124
Likes
5,257
#4
The CIA Didn’t Just Torture, It Experimented on Human Beings
https://www.thenation.com/article/c...ngs/&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=socialflow
 





Joined
Jan 29, 2018
Messages
902
Likes
951
#6
Snowden: 'Bloody Gina's' Tortures Involved Beating Pregnant Woman, Raping Man
https://sputniknews.com/us/201805181064571318-snowden-haspel-cia-torture/
This needs to be shouted from the rooftops. That woman is a bloodthirsty psychopath, and it needs to be front page news.....
 





Joined
Jan 29, 2018
Messages
902
Likes
951
#9
Ron Paul is the problem.
You mean Rand? Iirc he was the loudmouth (as usual) offering some rhetoric of resistance, only to fold like the laundry when it came time to back up his words. Perhaps I dont know the full story of his pops tho........
 





Joined
Mar 27, 2017
Messages
2,124
Likes
5,257
#11
His economic policies are corporate tyranny. He has a good foreign policy and is good on drugs, but austrian economics are ridiculous.
As opposed to what is in place now which is surely corporate tyranny?

Economy[edit]
In January 2008, Paul released an economic revitalization plan[7] and named Peter Schiff and Donald L. Luskin as economic advisors to his campaign.[8][9] National Journal labeled Paul's overall economic policies in 2010 as more conservative than 78% of the House and more liberal than 22% of the House (85% and 15%, respectively for 2009).[10] For 2008, his ratings were more conservative than 91% of the House and more liberal than 8% of the House (80% and 20%, respectively for 2007).[11] In 2006, as more conservative than 48% of the House and more liberal than 51% of the House.[12][13]

His warnings of impending economic crisis and a loss of confidence in the dollar in 2005 and 2006 were at the time derided by many economists, but accelerating dollar devaluation in 2007 led experts like former Federal Reserve chair Alan Greenspan to reconsider hard money policies such as those of Paul.[14]

Paul believes the size of the federal government must be decreased substantially. In order to restrict the federal government to what he believes are its Constitutionally authorized functions, he regularly votes against almost all proposals for new government spending, initiatives, or taxes,[15] in many cases making him in a minority of members of the house by doing so. For example, on January 22, 2007, Paul was the lone member out of 415[16] voting to oppose a House measure to create a National Archives exhibit on slavery and Reconstruction, seeing this as an unauthorized use of taxpayer money.

When the USA carries a deficit of 20 trillion with another 21 trillion missing from the Pentagon (not surprisingly enough to cover the national debt) putting the USA 41 trillion in the red (and that's only what's been revealed-there's more hidden debt I'm sure), yeah I'm thinking we need to change some government policies-and so did he...
 





Last edited:
Joined
Mar 27, 2017
Messages
2,124
Likes
5,257
#13
Paul would eliminate any regulation that at least attempts to reign in corporate power
SEE: Trump tax cuts-that battle has been lost for awhile now...

His government would exist only to protect property rights and that would serve large corporations the most who would just buy everything up.
He is also consistently anti-war and anti Federal Reserve...

Not to mention everything would be privatized and we see how well that works (it doesnt)
Agree. The problem is that when it folds there's no government safety net to mitigate the fallout...

He opposes any workers organization, again great for corporations, and gutting all social programs is savage.
Gorsuch, under Trump, just pretty much went ahead and did that with his SCOTUS decision the other day. As for social services, that's where the checks and balances of the legislative branch is supposed to come into play...

And finally, would it be any worse than it is now?
Trump may extend UK visit to play golf in Scotland
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-44219271

Forgiving Ron Paul (and All Other White People)
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ron-paul-newsletters_b_1176946.html


I think in this instance we could've invoked the old maxim: "Better the devil you know than the one you don't..."
 





Last edited:
Joined
Mar 27, 2017
Messages
2,124
Likes
5,257
#14
Yes, Trump is doing all that. I am not a Trump supporter, and I do aporeciate Paul being antiwar, but the fact remains that his economics are whacky.
Most of Paul's 2012 supporters became Trumpets, they were the framework for Trump, and so many people who used to call themselves Austrians or AnCaps became Trump supporters or online fascists.
Yeah, I read up on the Mises Institute. But do keep in mind that Hillary and the neocons are acolytes of Saul Alinsky, and Trump is a follower of Benjamin Franklin. But only in one way: Franklin is on the hunnert dollar bill. Let's take a look at his real influencers...

Explore The Influencers: Donald Trump’s allies in the Paradise Papers
https://www.icij.org/investigations/paradise-papers/us-president-donald-trumps-influencers/
 





Joined
Mar 27, 2017
Messages
2,124
Likes
5,257
#15
both parties serve the Corporate Interest
Knowing that with the rise of the robots that they will be the only ones able to pay taxes (which as we've seen they mostly don't). You can't tax a robot, and you can't tax the people with no jobs because robots now do those jobs. They will have to tax businesses to create a stipend for the unemployables. We can probably figure how that will go over. Now, what was that again about that Depopulation Agenda "conspiracy"...?

And the reason why our outdated infrastructure crumbles and we don't have anymore large-scale public projects which would repair and update that infrastructure (unless it's 5G) seems obvious: the government and the people are not on the same page. I don't even think they are in the same book. The government went too far global leaving the people behind in Dystopian Land. Now all it needs is a good privacy fence around the whole thing so our neighbors can't see what an overgrown and dilapidated backyard of a country that un-tending has let run riot. Next stop: rot and decay of neglected structures in said yard. Too busy with Syria to do anything about Flint and Americans drinking poison water. Our major cities have turned into literal concrete jungles. It seems painfully obvious that we are in the 6th and final stage of empire: decadence.
 





Last edited:
Joined
Jan 29, 2018
Messages
902
Likes
951
#16
Joined
Mar 27, 2017
Messages
2,124
Likes
5,257
#17
Not to mention he's a racist.
I read up on the newsletter controversy. I'm not gonna be a Ron Paul apologist, but I think it helps to note that: it's agreed that he wasn't the actual author of the texts as that person(s) identity is pretty much known. He never signed off on any of the pieces. His name was on the masthead of the publication. They made a million dollars or more off of it, so at some point I'm assuming it was just a check to the accountant every month with very little actual oversight by the man himself. In the end, with his name being on the masthead, he did take ultimate responsibility for the publication. This isn't to say that he didn't agree with some of the positions stated, it's just to point out the lack of oversight thing.
 





Joined
Jan 29, 2018
Messages
902
Likes
951
#18
I read up on the newsletter controversy. I'm not gonna be a Ron Paul apologist, but I think it helps to note that: it's agreed that he wasn't the actual author of the texts as that person(s) identity is pretty much known. He never signed off on any of the pieces. His name was on the masthead of the publication. They made a million dollars or more off of it, so at some point I'm assuming it was just a check to the accountant every month with very little actual oversight by the man himself. In the end, with his name being on the masthead, he did take ultimate responsibility for the publication. This isn't to say that he didn't agree with some of the positions stated, it's just to point out the lack of oversight thing.
That was my understanding of the situation as well.