Ron Paul's Urgent Warning

Originally posted by havok
What sickens me is that people still don't know about this man.
People still look at TV for their candidates. And the TV doesn't like Ron Paul.
People still follow CNN or FOX for the latest popularity contest winner.
It is truly disgusting.

And then, when I mention Ron Paul, people mostly say "He'll never get enough votes."

Well with that poor attitude, coming from alot of people, he won't.
We need to change that ideal.

That's the problem.
The media controls so much of the people, it's like quitting a bad habit.
Some people won't listen to reason, only what the MSM projects.
As if they allow it to make decisions for them.
Instead of listening to a man that actually knows the Constitution.

Which is why we are in the shape we are in today.

Ron Paul will have my vote next year, and if he's not on the ballot....
I will write his name in.

I can't wait to see what the media has in store for it's viewers.
What do they have waiting in the wings?
What is in store for those that worship it?

We all know why Paul doesn't get much attention.
Every channel talks in a condescending manner towards him.
I have watched many interviews with Paul and it seems that the journalist always acts as though what he says is a joke, or unproven theories, or just plain wrong.
I am convinced of what is taking place these days...


That's why I don't watch television.


Great video!

It's up to every single person to spread the information about Ron Paul....because the MSM will increasingly sideline him. His support has to come from a grassroots level using true grass roots methods. Here is a huge opportunity for everyone to do something constructive towards change, and the time to start is now. There is NO time to lose.

Originally posted by kro32
reply to post by macman

 

All your doing is trolling my posts and not bringing up one piece of evidence to have a debate with. I'm really curious why your calling me the troll

Yep, "I know you are but what am I" comes to mind.

If you took the time to actually read and understand the idea of States Rights, the application in 2011, the idea behind Jim Crowe laws and Ron Paul, we would not being have this discussion.
Instead, you rely on talking points from the Daily Kos, Huffington post and any other Liberal think tank you can name.

reply to post by Pervius


I think thats exactly what ex IMF chief Strauss-Kahn found out hense why he was set up!

reply to post by Talltexxxan


I hope you are right because us Australians would take him including his son to run our country

Originally posted by Talltexxxan

After watching the video and reading the comments, I sat in my office and thought to myself:

You know what?...... This man is gonna win this election!
And as soon as that thought came up, shivers and chills of excitment and patriotism waved through me.
God bless America and God bless this wonderful man for walking through the vally of the shadow of death.

GO RON, take it to the house!


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f5a8664bf78f.jpg[/atsimg]

Wow. From your post you'd have thought Ron Paul reunited the Beatles...after first resurrecting the dead ones. He is mortal.

reply to post by kro32

This man would destroy liberty with all the power he would give the States. Look at the mess California is going through and he'd be all for letting them do whatever they want. Let Arizona shoot the immigrants while California gives em free education.

Under Paul you would have no national uniformity and just one giant mess going from State to State.

Actually…yeah, I’m pretty sure the apparent anarchy you describe is more or less a perfect illustration of the liberty you say Paul would somehow destroy.

Under the constitution, the federal government doesn’t have any authority to handle the things you’re afraid of the states taking over (and it sounds like you don’t trust your fellow Americans to make the right decisions at a more-local level, but for some reason trust a distant centralized government that’s harder for you to rein in or change the course of as national opinions change) and all rights not specifically enumerated in the constitution as given to the federal government are reserved to the states, or to the people.

It sounds like Paul’s actually the only one on track here, since the government’s powers are actually very limited except under the broadest readings of certain clauses that are clarified in other writings and discussions by those involved – it sounds like you would actually spend your time better pushing for amendments to the contract (Constitution) so you can deal with liberty at the federal level, legally – and please note then, it’s you destroying liberty by taking it away from people…not Paul.

It was stated to make a point. I guess I should have dumbed it down for you a little bit so here goes. Ron Paul believes States should be able to make their own laws that trump National law for all intents and purposes and believes they will act the correct way and not do something foolish when given this power.

Looking at State legislatures and the history of State's laws do you really believe that?

The "National law"s you refer to are invalid as the government doesn't have any valid legal authority under the constitution to issue them - and I believe federal US history is replete with examples of foolishness they've committed after usurping this power.

I believe Jefferson spoke well on this matter:

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.

I am all for the Constitution but Paul isn't. The Constitution was written to give the Federal Government more power since the Articles of Confederation was giving it all to the States and the Federal Government had no authority over them. Paul want's to go back to the States trumping federal law.

I'd be interested in your posting of this profusion of powers and rights granted to the government by the constitution, actually. As far as I'm aware, the fairly short list in article 1 section 8, in addition to a few others scattered throughout, are it - with a clause to pass laws needed to carry out these powers.

From my reading of the documents themselves and the thoughts of those who put them together, they were to be strictly interpreted in a limiting fashion:

In questions of power, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.

When too much leeway is given to a distant & centralized national government, trouble ensues, liberty is restricted, and things go wrong. We've got a demonstrably worthless war on drugs and so many wasted lives and taxdollars as result by way of just one example, and there are plenty others.

The states were originally VIEWED as being unique, independent, and varied in makeup and behavior. Homogeneity through federal laws is a sad aberration as one size does not fit all.

reply to post by Praetorius


Think about this logically for a moment. Look through history at all the local and state laws that were horrendous, it even took the federal government to force states to end their discrimination against blacks because they refused too.

You do not think the federal government should have standards for say oh pollution maybe and you would be comfortable having states set whatever they feel is right. You know what's going to happen is corporations will go with whatever state officials are easiest to bribe to look the other way when they are dumping crap into rivers.

I know this because it's happened before. Have you any idea how clogged our federal court system is going to get with everyone running these state laws up to the Supreme Court? Look at the second amendment cases in 2010 the Supreme Court had to decide on and now times that by 50. It would be out of control.

Look at the State that recently elected David Duke into office and you don't think that there's a chance civil rights could disappear in places.

reply to post by jude11

Has anyone noticed Ron using slogans and cliches to get his point across and sway the masses? Every President has had at least one slogan used over and over in their speeches from the campaign to the Office. Of course Obama's "Yes We Can" turned out to be "Actually...No, I lied" but I haven't noticed Ron using a slogan yet.

No, I haven't. I also haven't heard him engaging in partisan bashing. Nor have I seen any dirt being dug up on the man despite the fact this isn't the first time he's run for president. What does that tell us? I mean, let's face it, with the kind of support he's managed to garner, his opponents are surely working double time to find a reason to cast doubt or slander on the man's reputation. How come we've yet to see anything even remotely negative?

The only thing they can come up with is "Ron Paul's free market philosophy is flawed," or "He's a nut because he thinks he can eliminate the Federal Reserve and the IRS and he thinks drugs should be legalized." HAHAHAHAHA! Is THAT all they can come up with? Ron Paul is the one that WILL bring change.....because RON PAUL IS NOT A LYING SACK OF COW DUNG LIKE THE REST!

RON PAUL 2012!!!

reply to post by NightGypsy


You haven't seen anything negative because he's not a big enough threat to warrant any action yet. No campaign is going to waste resources discrediting people until they feel they have too. I also haven't seen big pushes against herman cain either yet but they will come once somebody becomes a contender.

I would argue that in Ron Paul's views, the American people are allowing themselves to be subjected to an unprecedented level of abuse by the government. Seems like he's at a loss as to how he can wake the American people from their slumber.

reply to post by Talltexxxan

Originally posted by Talltexxxan

After watching the video and reading the comments, I sat in my office and thought to myself:

You know what?...... This man is gonna win this election!

Seriously, I think youre right.

reply to post by kro32


Kro32, I don't think I've ever seen one post of yours that wasn't ANTI-whatever the thread is about. If it's not that, you're busy trying to convince us of your superior intellect. I'm hoping you have more to offer these forums than this.

reply to post by NightGypsy


You may be right but I always back up my opinion with reasonable facts or research.

I enjoy a good debate.

Originally posted by the owlbear

Originally posted by coastlinekid
reply to post by jude11

 

This guy is are only chance to steer this country towards Liberty...

Go Paul!!!

I disagree. THE PEOPLE are our only chance to steer this country toward liberty. One man alone cannot do the job. Paul can help, in some regards, but it is up to every last person who disagrees with the constant loss of personal freedoms this plutocracy has bestowed on us in the guise of protection.

well said. he can be our voice but we have to be his support. together we can make great things happens

Originally posted by jazzguy
i love this guy, he's so transparent almost like you can stop him on the street and talk politics, he'd be a perfect approachable president. reading from a cue card is not his forte i think

edit on 27-7-2011 by jazzguy because: (no reason given)

No cue cards eh? Well, watch his eyes *g*

left, right., left.. right....*ding*
left, right., left.. right....*ding*
left, right., left.. right....*ding*

reply to post by kro32

Originally posted by kro32

 

It was stated to make a point. I guess I should have dumbed it down for you a little bit so here goes. Ron Paul believes States should be able to make their own laws that trump National law for all intents and purposes and believes they will act the correct way and not do something foolish when given this power.

Looking at State legislatures and the history of State's laws do you really believe that?

States already enact their own laws. They have their own legislatures which act in a similar way to Congress with the Governor having a similar role to the President. The set their own tax rates, enact different policies and enforce different rules. For example, the new health care bill was modeled after legislation passed by Romney when he was Governor.

This being the case, the states cannot pass a law that is unconstitutional.

I think where people get confused is with the idea of decentralization. Ron Paul has argued that policies, enacted by giant wasteful bloated federal government bureaucracies from the Department of Education to the EPA, are better handled on a state level because individual states are more in tune with the needs of their populace.

He is not advocating the deletion of rules or policies but feels that they would be better handled on a state level, and it makes sense.

How many examples do we need of federal agencies that have spent $500 on a toilet seat or $1000 on a hammer. Its difficult to think of a single federal government program that hasn't resulted in wasteful spending or nonsensical laws or general mismanagement from the bankrupting of Social Security to the failure that is the "Federal Reserve".

Originally posted by jude11


Side Question:

Has anyone noticed Ron using slogans and cliches to get his point across and sway the masses? Every President has had at least one slogan used over and over in their speeches from the campaign to the Office. Of course Obama's "Yes We Can" turned out to be "Actually...No, I lied" but I haven't noticed Ron using a slogan yet.

It's a long thread Sorry if this has been pointed out previously.

Ron Paul uses the term 'End the Fed' as a sort of campaign slogan, and has for years.
It's very catchy!

reply to post by jude11


I agree his genuine-ness is endearing and appealing. I like him because he appears to be the ONLY actual conservative in the GOP. But there are SO many things wrong with hi actual ideology for me personally, that I dont allow my appreciation of his intellect, candor, and integrity to mean I would actually support is likely disastrous policies

reply to post by jude11


Thanks for the heads up,
Ron Paul...he is the voice of reason in our insane world,
a beacon of sanity, an honorable man in the world of politcal madness.

S&F from me.

Originally posted by Praetorius
reply to post by kro32

 

This man would destroy liberty with all the power he would give the States. Look at the mess California is going through and he'd be all for letting them do whatever they want. Let Arizona shoot the immigrants while California gives em free education.

Under Paul you would have no national uniformity and just one giant mess going from State to State.

Actually…yeah, I’m pretty sure the apparent anarchy you describe is more or less a perfect illustration of the liberty you say Paul would somehow destroy.

Under the constitution, the federal government doesn’t have any authority to handle the things you’re afraid of the states taking over (and it sounds like you don’t trust your fellow Americans to make the right decisions at a more-local level, but for some reason trust a distant centralized government that’s harder for you to rein in or change the course of as national opinions change) and all rights not specifically enumerated in the constitution as given to the federal government are reserved to the states, or to the people.

It sounds like Paul’s actually the only one on track here, since the government’s powers are actually very limited except under the broadest readings of certain clauses that are clarified in other writings and discussions by those involved – it sounds like you would actually spend your time better pushing for amendments to the contract (Constitution) so you can deal with liberty at the federal level, legally – and please note then, it’s you destroying liberty by taking it away from people…not Paul.

It was stated to make a point. I guess I should have dumbed it down for you a little bit so here goes. Ron Paul believes States should be able to make their own laws that trump National law for all intents and purposes and believes they will act the correct way and not do something foolish when given this power.

Looking at State legislatures and the history of State's laws do you really believe that?

The "National law"s you refer to are invalid as the government doesn't have any valid legal authority under the constitution to issue them - and I believe federal US history is replete with examples of foolishness they've committed after usurping this power.

I believe Jefferson spoke well on this matter:

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.

I am all for the Constitution but Paul isn't. The Constitution was written to give the Federal Government more power since the Articles of Confederation was giving it all to the States and the Federal Government had no authority over them. Paul want's to go back to the States trumping federal law.

I'd be interested in your posting of this profusion of powers and rights granted to the government by the constitution, actually. As far as I'm aware, the fairly short list in article 1 section 8, in addition to a few others scattered throughout, are it - with a clause to pass laws needed to carry out these powers.

From my reading of the documents themselves and the thoughts of those who put them together, they were to be strictly interpreted in a limiting fashion:

In questions of power, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.

When too much leeway is given to a distant & centralized national government, trouble ensues, liberty is restricted, and things go wrong. We've got a demonstrably worthless war on drugs and so many wasted lives and taxdollars as result by way of just one example, and there are plenty others.

The states were originally VIEWED as being unique, independent, and varied in makeup and behavior. Homogeneity through federal laws is a sad aberration as one size does not fit all.

Thank you! I was just getting ready to reply to kro32 and found that you had done so, and much better than I would have.


Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People.
Ratified 12/15/1791.
The powers not delegated to the United States
by the Constitution, nor prohibited
by it to the States, are reserved to the
States respectively, or to the people.


I believe that is what Ron Paul believes to be best for the country. And it is in the Constitution, so I don't know why anyone could possibly argue that it is not what we should be doing. We all know it is FAR from today's reality, however.