The U.S. Congress Trades as Ron Paul!

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
APPEARS is the prequalifier, and in reality all you are doing is cherry picking out of context portions to TROLL for a REACTION.

Which is EXACTLY what ATS IS TRYING TO GET AWAY FROM.

So now you are saying I'm a troll and the kind of person ATS wants to get rid of simply because I questioned the validity of the questions?

I didn't cherry pick anything, I have addressed the questions themselves in other posts, and I read the entire thread.

This thread is posted in GENERAL CONSPIRACIES as a series of qualified questions.

It is not in Political Madness, it is not in Above Politics it is in GENERAL CONSPIRACIES that asks other conspiracy minded members of ATS to help determine WHAT IF ANY CONSPIRACY IS PRESENT.

And part of determining if any conspiracy is present is to first validate if the premise itself is valid. But you skipped all that and went straight into questions about it somehow meaning "he is the president of the corporate congress" and a puppet master.

Doesn't really matter what forum you post it in, the basic factors of intellectual honesty will still apply and logical fallacies and false connections should be pointed out. Especially if we are to ever find the truth.

Or is it now your opinion that the only way to determine if such is true to only study things which support the "theory"? Hope not, and thought better of that of you.

Now once again why is it YOU don't want to ACCEPT THAT.

What is your AGENDA that causes you to NOT WANT people to DISCUSS CONSPIRACIES on a CONSPIRACY RELATED web site?

Why is it you REFUSE to ACCEPT that is what is being done?

What is it you hope to accomplish?

As I pointed out before, if you had only asked the questions themselves then I wouldn't have said much too you. Those topics have been posted and discussed here before, and like I said - I think such questions themselves are perfectly valid and ones I have asked myself.

The positions he is in alone constitutes constant scrutiny. Such is not the issue, and why is that you refuse to accept that you made a mistake in the OP by making assumptions beyond what is really acceptable? That you jumped the gun in your excitement in maybe having found something interesting.

Anyway, this paragraph I quoted from you is nothing but a strawman. Where did I ever once suggest anything close to not wanting people to discuss conspiracies? I didn't. All I have done is question and point out the fallacy in your connections.

Do you really want to be one of those people who accuses people of crazy things everytime they meet a little criticism?

Sorry if this has been posted before. I got to about page 4 and I have to go somewhere soon. A couple of things.

If you go to the search area... smallbusiness.dnb.com...

And type "Ron Paul" for company name, and select district of columbia, and USA (leave everything else blank). You get the same result as the OP.

If you match the address there, 203 whatever, and go to RPs House of Representatives website, the addresses match.

Now go back to the search, type in "Nancy Pelosi", select district of columbia, and run the search. Ok, now you can see the # is different, but the building is the same (and it matches the building # listed on her House of Representatives website)

So RP is listed in there, he is a highish ranking congressman, who has ran for president (recently). Why would he not be listed there? Many high ranking congressmen/women are listed on there.

A bit of common sense and match making goes a long way guys.

PS. I think RP is a good person, I don't personally doubt him but I trust his message more than anything. A man can change, if you support his original message then that is what really matters.

Originally posted by moocowman
Christ ! There's a similar thing going on in the UK now I've seen this thing about RP it creeps the hell out of me.
...
What other countries got this sort of thing ?

New Zealand, Australia, Canada, Mexico (just to name a few big ones).

New Zealand is quite far a long on reclaiming sovereignty. Rob Mernard has established himself as a "Freeman on the land" in Canada.

It's global. It's more than local politics. It's universal sovereignty. Self responsibility.

All the Police Offices. All of the political offices. All the Politicians. All the countries. Are all incorporated FOR PROFIT.

[edit on 5-3-2010 by mryanbrown]

Originally posted by thatguy1
A bit of common sense and match making goes a long way guys.

PS. I think RP is a good person, I don't personally doubt him but I trust his message more than anything. A man can change, if you support his original message then that is what really matters.

I agree. While it may not be significant that he is incorporated for Congress in comparison to others...

People need to begin questioning WHY they are incorporated to hold office?

Do their allegiences lie with shareholders of the for profit US company or with the constuants of the real American Congress.

reply to post by mryanbrown

Should insider trading by Congress be allowed?

Judges, juries, and court personnel have access to information about the probable outcome of court decisions; and officials at the FDA [Food and Drug Administration], EPA [Environmental Protection Agency], and other administrative agencies have access to information about the likely outcome of regulatory proceedings. All of these individuals are prohibited by law from using such confidential information in the purchase and sale of publicly traded stocks. Likewise, members of Congress and their staffs are also privy to valuable confidential information not yet made public. They have information about the likely outcome of various votes, committee proceedings, and investigations. Such information can be extremely valuable to investors. Those who buy and sell stock on the basis of such non-public information will have an obvious advantage over those who lack such information. This is not the sort of information that even the most savvy and sophisticated investor would be able to obtain legally.

"'Senators' stocks beat the market by 12%' blared a headline in the Financial Times. So what? Isn't beating the market what everyone tries to do?... Like corporate executives, senators also have access to valuable inside information. They are aware of likely changes in the tax laws, government contracts, research funding, trade negotiations, etc. Any of these may have profound ramifications for the various companies or industries involved. In addition, those in Congress have the power to help or hurt individual companies and industries by changing the laws. This also can impact share price. Unlike corporate executives, congressmen can trade common stocks without restriction, buying and selling as much as they want whenever they want. They may vote on issues in which they have a personal financial interest. Furthermore, Senate members are not required to report their transactions to the Securities and Exchange Commission like corporate insiders...

insidertrading.procon.org...

I have no idea if this can be related to what is found in the opening post. I have been looking and I came across this. If Congress was traded publicly it would have a symbol and everyone would know it. What if it is traded privately?

Edited to add the article below.

After this generation's corporate scandals, Congress passed Sarbanes-Oxley in 2002 to improve corporate governance and audit independence. But one of the measures added reporting requirements and tougher standards for insider trading. Unfortunately, Congress forgot itself. It remains perfectly legal for a member of Congress to buy and sell stocks based on information that's not available to the public. Last year it was reported that a "political intelligence" firm tipped off its clients to an undelivered speech by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist on asbestos liability. The information was profitable to those in the know. "This is simply wrong that members of Congress can exchange information ... and get rich on it," says Rep. Brian Baird, D-Wash., who is co-sponsor of a bill to prohibit insider trading by members of Congress and their staffs.

www.seattlepi.com...

[edit on 5-3-2010 by jackflap]

reply to post by badmedia


Just a thought but as soon as you start focusing on some positives instead of focusing on the negatives your arguments will become a lot more effective.

You have a chance to contribute something positive to the thread but by taking a constant negative and decidedly hostile approach to everything you are in essence sabatoging your own arguments and suppositions because there is nothing positive or informative about them.

Some of us look for the possibilities the what ifs. We are on the quest for knowledge and udnerstanding.

We discover intriquing things and we discuss and debate them looking to see what fits and what doesn't.

Conspiracies are all about detective work, asking questions, questions that assume a certain level of guilt or complicity and that then either lead to the elimination of suspects and theories and motives or lead to more suspects, or different suspects, theories and motives.

Its a process that detectives in law enforcement use also, as well as private investigators.

It's hard but when you show up at a crime scene where the husband has been murdered and the wife is in tears, even though they are married you still have to ask yourself objectively could she have killed her own husband? If any kind of ellement is evident, then you start asking harder questions as to motive, associations, actions, etc., etc., by framing hypothetical scenarios and then seeing what other elements are evident to see if the scenario works.

It doesn't mean that the hypothetical scenario you first come up with is going to fit even though the questions regarding it seem damning. Just because the initial hypothesis is not correct does not mean in and of itself that the wife didn't murder the husband, different scenarios are looked at, different motives examined, different associations, etc., etc., until they are either all eliminated and exhausted and a determination of innocense is made, or the opposite the guilt is established.

Maybe because you are looking at this process in a negative way based on your affinity and admiration for a personality a person, a politician in this case Ron Paul, it's just not possible for you because of your political inclinations to be an objective and positive part of that investigatory team.

Maybe because you are bent entirely upon some notion of vindication and validation for wanting vindication its just not humanly possible for you to objectively look at the over all substance of this thread?

Maybe you have failed to notice that it has prompted a lot of positive discussion and information regarding the base underlying issue of corporate entities and how they play out across a broad spectrum of institutions and people that many posters find both intriquing, thought provoking, alarming and worthy of discussion and investigation that people do enjoy or at least feel a compulsion to particpate in on a genuine interest level.

Maybe the only way you feel you can achieve your political agenda and achieve that vindication and validation you seem to be solely and intently focused on is your belief that the incessent attempts to be negative, discredit, chastise, and attempt to domineer are the only skills you have or wish to use in such an entirely limited and self serving enterprise.

I really don't know, I don't really care, whether its a fragile ego, a propensity towards the negative, a political agenda, a cult like desire and admiration for a politcal personality, an overwhelming need for attention or to try to dominate by being domineering doesn't really much matter.

It's negative, it's not productive, it's adding little if anything of substance to the thread, and makes what you write hardly worth reading.

Maybe if you focused a little less on critiquing question and sentence structures in embellishing and out of context ways of others and trying to deminish others who have a general and genuinel passion for conspiracies and sharing knowledge you could then actually instead speak positively and passionately to your obvious reverence and worship of Ron Paul and try to do something positive in a positive way that would have a positive impact.

When a person isn't negative they don't have to be defensive about how that negativity is percieved by others.

Lots of people are particpating in the thread in positive ways, contributing great sources and links about what many of us feel is a corporate conspiracy.

But the truth of the matter is that the only absolute statement made in the Original Post is that Ron Paul really does trade as the United States Congress, and the United States House of Representatives.

You are free to start your own thread on the issue and frame your initial post anyway you like.

None of your agruments in fact can eliminate Ron Paul from possibly being a Puppet Master, because Puppet Masters are the hardest types of Masters to ferret out because they are ingenious at disguising themselves and the extent of their dominance.

Now there is not one word or portion of the Original Post I feel a need to retract or appologize for because they were all posed as questions and hypothetical questions in the original post except for the title which is actually true.

How you believe these things should be presented and how I believe they can be presented are two entirely different things and matters of personal opinion.

I am rejecting your arguments out of hand and carte blanche that the Original Post is some how misleading or speaks in absolutes, anyone but you can apparently read it as intended as a series of hypothetical questions and an open invitation for others to help in that detective process.

A lot of positive things are coming out of the thread please don't be frightened or reluctant to be one of them and contribute some of them on my behalf.

Thanks.




[edit on 5/3/10 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]

Congressman Paul Returns Over $100,000 To Treasury

Washington, D.C. - Congressman Ron Paul has continued to run his Congressional office in a frugal manner, and was able to return more than $100,000 from his allotted office budget to the Treasury this year, an increase over the $90,000 returned last year. “Since my first year in Congress representing the 14th district I have managed my office in a frugal manner, instructing staff to provide the greatest possible service to the people of the 14th district at the least possible cost to taxpayers,” said Paul.

politics.gather.com...

I found this article interesting after I found the other ones that explained how members of Congress can profit from insider trading. A hundred grand would be like pocket change in lieu of the profits to be made with the insider knowledge that these guys have.

No, I'm not any closer to an answer or even a theory but this stuff is damn interesting none the less.

I'm surprised that it took this long for the so-called "black helicopter" crowd to cannibalize their own savior. Just goes to prove that you can't break the cycle of conspiratorial thinking...

And, BTW, the title of this thread is pretty confusing.

Alright man, this is getting crazier by the second. What I was doing was trying to find out if Congress is in fact traded. I went to the Dunn & Bradstreet website where the information for the thread was found. I typed in Congress of the United States in their search bar. The information below is one of two links provided.

What Is the SBA HUBZone Program?

For qualified small businesses, the SBA HUBZone Program offers an excellent opportunity to secure government contracts. Although the Small Business Administration (SBA) maintains the HUBZone Empowerment Contracting Program, all federal buying agencies are part of the HUBZone Program and must abide by its requirements. The SBA Reauthorization Act of 1997 created the HUBZone program with the intention of promoting economic development in historically underutilized business zones by establishing preferences for government contracts in these areas. The Federal Acquisitions Regulation (FAR) gave HUBZone the ability to contract in January of 1999.

Ok so it is a program for qualified small businesses to obtain government contracts. There might be a conspiracy in just this but it gets even stranger.

In order to qualify for HUBZone contracts, your small business must meet certain eligibility requirements. These are: Your business must qualify as a small business under the SBA standards. For more information, read Registering with the SBA as a Small Business. 51 percent of your company must be owned by citizens of the United States of America The principal location of your business must be located within a HUBZone 35 percent of your employees must live within the area of the HUBZone The SBA awards HUBZone contracts according to regulations set up by FAR. The three basic HUBZone contracts awarded are: (1) competitive contracts, (2) sole source contracts, and (3) full and open competition contracts.

Ok, so I got that far and noticed that the requirements might actually fit for the Congress to be considered a small business. Correct me if I'm wrong from the above qualifications. Actually I hope I am wrong because wouldn't you know it, 203 Cannon House is in a qualifying HUBzone.

DETERMINATION OF WHETHER AN ADDRESS IS IN A HUBZONE 203 cannon house, washington DC is located in Census Tract 11001005900 which IS HUBZone qualified. The map below shows the relationship of this address (marked with a star) to qualified HUBZone areas. Below the map, you may find information on why the address was found to be in a HUBZone Area.

map.sba.gov...

What does this tell me? I don't know, I may have driven myself mad with this mind bending thread. I believe I smell pine knots burning, which is a sure sign that I'm thinking too much. Or am I?

Originally posted by Threadfall
I'm surprised that it took this long for the so-called "black helicopter" crowd to cannibalize their own savior. Just goes to prove that you can't break the cycle of conspiratorial thinking...

And, BTW, the title of this thread is pretty confusing.

Nonsense. The topic is quite clear. Congress is traded as RON PAUL on the market. Secondly no one is cannabalizing him. I think he is an intelligent person operating as honestly as he can in the system. However he is still a part of that system.

Let me ask you. Where in the Constitution(s) (including State) does it state a member of office must incorporate their name for Congress to do business in?

While he may be a vastly superior alternative to what we have been presented. He still plays within the hidden unconstitutional political system.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
Just a thought but as soon as you start focusing on some positives instead of focusing on the negatives your arguments will become a lot more effective.

So, only if I post things which support the claims and I being "positive"? And by questioning or disagreeing with the claims, I am being negative?

You have a chance to contribute something positive to the thread but by taking a constant negative and decidedly hostile approach to everything you are in essence sabatoging your own arguments and suppositions because there is nothing positive or informative about them.

In order to find the truth one must be able to determine fact from fiction. It has nothing to do with being positive or negative. All you are doing is making it clear that any opinions which do not agree with the original process is not welcome.

Some of us look for the possibilities the what ifs. We are on the quest for knowledge and udnerstanding.

If such was true then you would have welcomed my criticism. You can say and make claims all you want, but some of us look at the merits.

We discover intriquing things and we discuss and debate them looking to see what fits and what doesn't.

And yet, when I showed you what didn't fit it's not welcome. Saying it and actually following such are 2 different things.

Conspiracies are all about detective work, asking questions, questions that assume a certain level of guilt or complicity and that then either lead to the elimination of suspects and theories and motives or lead to more suspects, or different suspects, theories and motives.

And every bull-crap conspiracy is built on false connections and logical fallacies.

Its a process that detectives in law enforcement use also, as well as private investigators.

There is a difference in following the direction the evidence takes you in, and making baseless assumptions. If you had been following where the evidence took you, then your questions would have been towards what the reason and meaning behind the search was, you instead went into baseless accusation, far fetched to the point where you called him "the president of corporate congress".

It's hard but when you show up at a crime scene where the husband has been murdered and the wife is in tears, even though they are married you still have to ask yourself objectively could she have killed her own husband? If any kind of ellement is evident, then you start asking harder questions as to motive, associations, actions, etc., etc., by framing hypothetical scenarios and then seeing what other elements are evident to see if the scenario works.

It doesn't mean that the hypothetical scenario you first come up with is going to fit even though the questions regarding it seem damning. Just because the initial hypothesis is not correct does not mean in and of itself that the wife didn't murder the husband, different scenarios are looked at, different motives examined, different associations, etc., etc., until they are either all eliminated and exhausted and a determination of innocense is made, or the opposite the guilt is established.

Once again, the issue is that the base evidence does not support the questions themselves. The logical question after the evidence is presented is - why does that show up, what does it mean? Not, OMG this is saying he is the president of the corporate congress and a puppet master.

When you base things on assumptions, you end up looking like this:

Maybe because you are looking at this process in a negative way based on your affinity and admiration for a personality a person, a politician in this case Ron Paul, it's just not possible for you because of your political inclinations to be an objective and positive part of that investigatory team.

Really getting old having you misrepresent everything I've said OVER and OVER. Especially since you scolded me about reading comp.

It doesn't matter that it's Ron Paul, it could be anyone. It's the logical fallacy of your post that is being criticized.

Maybe because you are bent entirely upon some notion of vindication and validation for wanting vindication its just not humanly possible for you to objectively look at the over all substance of this thread?

Another strawman attack.

Maybe you have failed to notice that it has prompted a lot of positive discussion and information regarding the base underlying issue of corporate entities and how they play out across a broad spectrum of institutions and people that many posters find both intriquing, thought provoking, alarming and worthy of discussion and investigation that people do enjoy or at least feel a compulsion to particpate in on a genuine interest level.

And a thread that didn't include the logical fallacies and accusations could have done the same thing. You aren't trying to suggest that it was only because you made the accusations that this resulted are you?

In terms of asking if Ron Paul is "one of them", many threads have been posted on the topic.

Maybe the only way you feel you can achieve your political agenda and achieve that vindication and validation you seem to be solely and intently focused on is your belief that the incessent attempts to be negative, discredit, chastise, and attempt to domineer are the only skills you have or wish to use in such an entirely limited and self serving enterprise.

Another strawman. And is to ignore the point of why I said the OP was in error, and is to act as if my only reason for posting is some political agenda.

That because I am not in agreement with you, I must be on an agenda and thus against you. Which just so happens to be the same mentality GWB had when he said "You are either with us or against us".

And btw, I don't know if you know this or not - but feeling the need to make others want your validation is a symptom of narcissism, as is your apparent need to believe I am seeking such from them.

I really don't know, I don't really care, whether its a fragile ego, a propensity towards the negative, a political agenda, a cult like desire and admiration for a politcal personality, an overwhelming need for attention or to try to dominate by being domineering doesn't really much matter.

Apparently you do care. All I did was post my opinion. You took issue with that and replied, and here we are.

Btw, that paragraph is yet another ad hominem attack. Must be a "fragile ego", or "being drawn to the negative", a "politcal agenda" and so on. Disgusting.

Tell you what, prove to me that ATS wants these kinds of things, rather than people like me who point out logical fallacies and challenge them, and I'll leave this site and never post again.

It's negative, it's not productive, it's adding little if anything of substance to the thread, and makes what you write hardly worth reading.

And you have still not addressed the actual points.

Maybe if you focused a little less on critiquing question and sentence structures in embellishing and out of context ways of others and trying to deminish others who have a general and genuinel passion for conspiracies and sharing knowledge you could then actually instead speak positively and passionately to your obvious reverence and worship of Ron Paul and try to do something positive in a positive way that would have a positive impact.

And yet, the only reason I even pointed out the question and sentence structures was after you accused me of having poor reading comprehension. Funny.

If my crime is to only ask for a higher level of intellectual honesty in debate, and that makes me negative, then I'll welcome the label.

When a person isn't negative they don't have to be defensive about how that negativity is percieved by others.

Yet, you are the one being defensive here.

Lots of people are particpating in the thread in positive ways, contributing great sources and links about what many of us feel is a corporate conspiracy.

Which again is not a result of the logical fallacies of the OP. And so I'm not inclined to give credit in such a way. Do I really need to go link the numerous threads that are are exactly on those topics? Both the corporate part and the Ron Paul part?

reply to post by jackflap


Well the thing to check here is the first building on the Ron Paul Listing in the OP, that is not a Congressional Building but an Apartment Building, that he likely owns entirely or in part and does business as.

It's not unusual for a person to legally do business as a fictitous name entity as a sole proprietor.

What is very strange though is for a person to do business as a corporation that they don't own.

For instance if you worked for Publix Super Markets even as a store general manager you cuold not do business as Publix Super Markets or JackFlap, because basically you could legally open a business checking account and cash and deposit checks made out to Publix Supermarkets.

What is strange about this all, is that the way it appears, a check made out to the United States Congress could be cashed and deposited as Ron Paul.

Now when I was in the travel business I did business with several U.S. Congressmen. I would bill their office like any other person, in other words if Ron Paul was a client I would send the invoice for the airline ticket to Ron Paul's office, he would turn around and hand it in to an accounting and procurement office in Congress authorizing its payment and I would get a check within a few days from the United States Treasury that looked exactly like an Income Tax Refund Check.

It wouldn't say Ron Paul on it or the United States Congress on it, it would just be a check from the United States Treasury.

So to me its real strange why anyone in Congress is being traded or rated as an or entity, because basically it suggests that they can do business as the Congress, accept checks, and write checks as the Congress, but the Treasury Department writes checks for Congress and for Congress People when it is a legitimate goverment activity or procurement.

So what this system really appears to be is a way to get money to them, not from them.

It really looks like if I wrote out a personal check to The United States Congress Ron Paul could deposit it in his Ron Paul account.

It's very strange, what is stranger still is that I loved doing business with Congressmen and their employees and extending them credit because I never had to worry about the U.S. Government not being able to afford to pay me, suddenly going out of business, or splitting hairs over the size or legitimacy of bill that a congressmen signed off on.

I can't imagine just who would be concerned about the United States Congresses Credit rating, who exactly would be doing business with them where the size of the credit extended to them really created a real concern about the United States Treasury paying it?

China? Are we to believe China makes it's decision to flip us another trillion based on Dunn & Bradstreed Credit ratings.

I absolutely do not know what exactly it means but it would have to be a system that is benefiting the people who can do business as Congress or a sole individual like Ron Paul.

It would almost certainly have to be a system where things are flowing to them and not from them.

Having done business with a number of Congressmen, been friends, first name basis, even invited to their homes type of situation, so much of their spending is in fact paid by the Treasury there are few situations that they actually ever spend their own money.

This is all very wierd, and truly worthy of investigation, and why it's set up like this I don't think is going to be an easy thing to truly get to the bottom off, which is why I put it in conspiracies and not politics. Which is why I posed it not as a well formed conspiracy theory, but a question as to what the conspiracy could be.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
But the truth of the matter is that the only absolute statement made in the Original Post is that Ron Paul really does trade as the United States Congress, and the United States House of Representatives.

Now find out why rather than making assumptions. That would be "productive" and useful.

You are free to start your own thread on the issue and frame your initial post anyway you like.

No thanks.

None of your agruments in fact can eliminate Ron Paul from possibly being a Puppet Master, because Puppet Masters are the hardest types of Masters to ferret out because they are ingenious at disguising themselves and the
extent of their dominance.

Nor was such ever the point. I am simply telling you that I expect a higher level of intellectual honesty in discussion and that I am disappointed it was not there in the OP.

Yes, I like to base my opinons on facts, not assumptions. On where the evidence leads, not where I can take it. On the merits, not speculation.

If you want to live in a world of "what if's", then so be it. I'm more interesting in the world of "what is". And while finding the world of "what is" does require an open mind towards things and asking questions, it also requires the ability to determine what is not from the what ifs.

It is for that reason that I am thankful for every skeptic that posts on this site, and everyone who points out logical fallacies in arguments and debates.

Now there is not one word or portion of the Original Post I feel a need to retract or appologize for because they were all posed as questions and hypothetical questions in the original post except for the title which is actually true.

So what you are saying is that because you have presented it in the form of a question, you are then by default exempt from any responsibility in the fallacy of the question itself?

I am rejecting your arguments out of hand and carte blanche that the Original Post is some how misleading or speaks in absolutes, anyone but you can apparently read it as intended as a series of hypothetical questions and an open invitation for others to help in that detective process.

Ok, then show me how the search results suggests that Ron Paul is "president of the corporate congress".

reply to post by badmedia


You do realize you aren't saying anything right?



Anyway back on topic, Ron Paul has the potential to be a Puppet Master!

Clearly he is traded as the United States Congress and the U.S House of Representatives.

The seat of the secret government he is a high official in appears to be working out of the apartment building that comes up with the search of the Congress that automatically pulls his name first!

Then links him first to an Apartment Building that is not a Congressional Apartment Building.

From this secret headquarters that he owns and controls he not only runs the United States, with Obama as his Vice President, but the entire Galaxy and two neighboring ones.

Some people speculate he was not even born on this planet!

Others believe him to be a reptillian but I think he could possibly be a gray alien.

Many beleive he operates and controls the soul recycling machine in the Bermuda Triangle, and others believe he could be a devout Muslim since he does not favor supporting Israel.

There is much speculation that because he is from Texas and not a steer he might in fact be queer.

Meanwhile it is entirely possible he is behind the missing gold from Fort Knox since he is in on the finance committee.

Many people believe he could have given this gold to the Nibiruans to help them restore the atmosphere on their planet.

Others think it is possible he might have been deeply involved in the JFK assissination and quite possibly the second gunman.

People who looked just like him drank at Jack Ruby's Speak Easy!

Get back to me when you disect all those too, I will come up some more for you!

Thanks.

Edit to add I have placed you on my ignore list so while you are furiously working through that list keep in mind, I won't read now or ever another of your posts, cause I can't see them!







[edit on 5/3/10 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]

Sam Farr:

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, UNITED STATES
Also Traded as FARR, SAM 17TH CA THE CAPITOL (LONGWORTH HOUSE RM 1117), WASHINGTON, DC


Bob Filner:

BR UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Also Traded as BOB FILNER 2463 RAYBURN BLDG, WASHINGTON, DC

Darrell Issa:

BR HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, UNITED STATES
Also Traded as DARRELL ISSA , WASHINGTON, DC


Yeah, maybe next time before you go around accusing people of being "President of the corporate Congress" and then attacking people for pointing out the logical fallacy of the OP, you should maybe do a little freaking research.

I did nothing more than go to:

www.house.gov...

A list of congressman. I picked a few randomly from my state and entered their name. Surprise surprise, EACH AND EVERY ONE of them had the EXACT SAME types of entires.

You obviously didn't even do the smallest amount of research before posting. I guess they are also all "Presidents of corporate congress".

And you had the nerve to lecture me about being a good detective? Apparently, someone didn't really give a crap about the facts after all. It took me all of 2 minutes to do that.

Congrats, you now have 0 credibility! And I don't care if you ignore me anymore than the lion cares if the ostrich sticks their head in the sand. Lunch is lunch.



[edit on 3/6/2010 by badmedia]

reply to post by badmedia

A list of congressman. I picked a few randomly from my state and entered their name. Surprise surprise, EACH AND EVERY ONE of them had the EXACT SAME types of entires. You obviously didn't even do the smallest amount of research before posting. I guess they are also all "Presidents of corporate congress".

You don't find this in the least bit suspicious? Why would they come up like that and what in the heck does it mean? It could be that they are all presidents of a corporation. You see nothing strange here?

Originally posted by jackflap
You don't find this in the least bit suspicious? Why would they come up like that and what in the heck does it mean? It could be that they are all presidents of a corporation. You see nothing strange here?

Actually, those are small business listings according to the URLS. "smallbusiness.dnb.com".

It's pretty common for people who work under contracts and such to be seen as a "private/small business". Subcontractors and so forth.

Another thing is that each office/congressman is given a budget for their expenses in running their offices etc. I only know that because Ron Paul returns money every year because he doesn't use it all rather than wasting it in order to spend the budget etc.

I noticed that among all those listed like the one in the OP, they all have the business type "BR", while all the normal businesses do not. I do not know what the "BR" means, but it seems to relate to government offices/buildings in some manner.

But I really have no idea why they are there. I'm only pointing out how ridiculously dishonest the premise of this thread has been.

The only thing I find suspicious in this thread is why it was posted to begin with. I find it suspicious that it was posted when obviously not even the smallest amount of actual research put into it.

I don't get it? Why would ron paul be a schill for the very system he is decrying? The guy is constantly writing books on why our current economic practices (the ones being used and pushed by the current crop of corporations and politicians) are going to ruin our nation. The only logical answer i can draw is that TPTB in this situation are trying to stop him by releasing evidence that shows him to be "one of them" Knowing full well that the conspiracy community will pick it up and run wild with it.

Originally posted by DeathShield
I don't get it? Why would ron paul be a schill for the very system he is decrying? The guy is constantly writing books on why our current economic practices (the ones being used and pushed by the current crop of corporations and politicians) are going to ruin our nation. The only logical answer i can draw is that TPTB in this situation are trying to stop him by releasing evidence that shows him to be "one of them" Knowing full well that the conspiracy community will pick it up and run wild with it.

Ignorance? Most people think they need a drivers license to travel despite supreme court rulings to the contrary. Just because he isn't actively participating means nothing. He cries Constitution does he not?

Where in the Constitution does it say people who hold office must incorporate?

holy crap, im pretty sure i ended this thread with my last post. stop freaking out people, there are more important things to worry about


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com