Sheeple and Ron Paul

At this point in our history the two headed political monster (mainstream Repubs and Dems) are merely rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic,

President Paul will aid at turning the ship around. I don't believe he can fix everything but I do trust he can begin to steer us in the right direction.

After the press lets up on purposefully ignoring Dr. Paul then the attacks will begin. I already see it here - taking his positions out of their logical context (misleading), telling half'-truths (lying by ommision) and outright fearmongering.

Here on ATS, I have often been impressed with the members' abilitities to thoroughly research.and dissect truth from illusion. That's why, IMHO, Dr. Paul is popular here. For his true detractors (not the ones that may be here as a part time job) I would simply recommend keeping an open mind doing your own investigation.

Pop some popcorn, watch Dr. Pul's youtubes and read his positions. If you stll disagree, well that's cool. Everyones entitled to their opinion.

Originally posted by galdur
Ron Paul is 76 years old today (born August 20, 1935).

With all due respect, isn´t that really way too old to be running for the presidency?

---------------------
Think Ron Paul's too old? Paul challenges any other candidate to 20-mile bike ride in Houston's 100F (100% humidity, too) Heat! Any Takers?
www.youtube.com...

Ron Paul is almost old enough to be my father and could run circles around me, I'm sure!

Ron Paul's voting record matches his words. He talks the talk, but most importantly, walks the walk! He has my support and vote. Keep bashing. You're wasting your time. "We" want our country back; "we" will have our country back; Ron Paul will be the next POTUS and will BEGIN the arduous task of righting this ship!

Today is Ron Paul's birthday and a money bomb is being held in honor of that event. I will be contributing...the only Presidential candidate to whom I've ever contributed. His campaign contributions are from the grassroots!

For the poster who said we get our rights from the Constitution, that is incorrect. Our rights come from our Creator or for those so-inclined, just from the fact of being born. The Constitution is meant to restrain the government, not The People!

Originally posted by Thundersmurf

Originally posted by davewr25
reply to post by Thundersmurf

 

I never said that change is impossible, but as long as people continue to accept the lies that are presented and the people in power continue to be in power, they will not allow change. As long as the system is structured the way it is, change is not going to happen. The reason I continue to state that one man can't make a difference is because as long as a group of people elects a "leader," the leader is one man. Collectively, as opposed to accepting what we are given, maybe the pawns should quit the game.

Then why write this thread? You seem opposed to the whole political system; is this thread about expressing your opinion about one candidate? or just generally hating on our decision to have faith in him?

The way I see it is, beating them at their own corrupted system (the voting/political system). We know that the structure has to change and if enough people are behind something then they become the majority. Majority rules.

Interesting thread so far. A few quality points made...

Bingo. Opposition to the political structure. I am not aiming to bash one candidate or another, I am aiming to help people understand that putting your faith in any one candidate that is currently locked into this system is a waste of time. Our government is like a 1910 Ford Model T that is FAR beyond repair. It needs to be stripped the core, removing almost every corrupt, broken and malformed part, and entirely restructured and organized.

As for the individual calling me a pompous kid, I now understand all the assumptiveness, but I never went into full detail about a solution because all attempts at requesting one from me were from a sarcastic standpoint in which my words were already useless. I've met many opinions in this thread so far, and I retained an open mind to all of them, and while I have stated that perhaps RP is the best candidate, I still continue to be patronized and insulted for my opinion. So then if you were to find a 1910 Ford Model T in a junk yard, then state that its a piece of crap, and then I say to you "Well what's YOUR solution to that problem?" with a sarcastic overtone, wouldn't you feel less inclined to share your opinion? Whereas if I were able to agree that it is a piece of crap, and state my ideas for how to fix it up, that would be a more constructive conversation would it not?

Someone (I don't remember who) stated earlier that most would agree that there is a visible problem with the way the current system is, and they feel the only way to help is to select a politician that conforms to their views and support them, and I call shenanigans on that. We need a shutdown, massive restructure in which our constitutional rights are honored, the electoral college system is eliminated, the corporate infrastructure is changed, and maybe also someone come to the realization that maybe a central government for an entire continent should not have absolute governing power.

That is as plain and obvious as I can be about some of the things that need to be done and changed, JUST off the top of my head. There hundreds if not thousands of other things that I, along with many others, would elaborate on how to fix the current state we are in, and constructive conversation rather than brash comments and sarcasm (which I am also guilty of) would be a better path to travel to attain that goal.

But again, I am one person. One person can't do everything.

I do not support anarchism as I fully understand the need for structure and guidance in most individuals, but conforming to a failing system that has conditioned you to believe you have no power is what many do. At least I'm speaking about it. No matter who I reach, no matter what I say, I am voicing my opinion, an opinion that is otherwise unheard by the politicians you speak of.

Originally posted by balon0
So Ron Paul can win and get assassinated the next day.

How about wait until Dec 21, 2012?

That is a bit risky, because several Ron Paul supporters promised an armed revolution if the Ron Paul revolution is not allowed to succeed and they may be joined by others as well.

May be he can die of "natural causes"? At his age, that wouldn't be too suspcious

However the problem would be his Vice-President choice. Quite likely he will select another Libertarian-Constitutionalist like himself and the whole point of getting rid of Dr. Paul would be lost, if he/she takes over and does the same things Ron Paul would have.

Getting rid of both of them, even if one of them to "natural causes" and another to an "accident" or openly admitted assassination, but perhaps blamed on a lone "lunatic", would still be extremely difficult to stop his supporters from screaming bloody murder! And the consequences can be quite unpredictable.

So what are the likely options, if it indeed turns out he is gaining in popularity and could be a threat?

1. Ensure he doesn't get the Republican nomination. If that fails and he wins, he can still be kept out of office by the electoral college electing a different candidate for President. It would also be a nice touch, because as a constituionalist, he knows it is not the people who elect the President, but the electoral college

2. If he doesn't get the Republican nomination, but still goes ahead and enters the fray as an independent (as he said he would), get rid of him to "natural causes" before the election itself, but close to the election date. Not sure what the constitutional position on the scenario is i.e, whether he will remain on the ballot and his running-made awarded the results, but it still doesn't matter because with the entire campaign concentrating on projecting Ron Paul and his Congressional record, even die-hard Ron Paul supporters may not vote for the dead man, not knowing too much about the running mate.

There are several other options I can think of that can be both useful for the elite to plan and Ron Paul camp to plan to avert, but I will reveal them later if anyone shows interest

reply to post by davewr25


hillary fan club strieks. booya!
lol.

reply to post by Habit4ming


Well, he´s been in congress for decades and during this time the federal debt has gone up some 1800% and government has grown massively. So, his influence there seems to have been minimal, at least as the policies of the one-party political system is concerned. I find it very unlikely that this lack of influence has somehow been elevated now after all this time.

Originally posted by galdur
reply to post by Habit4ming

 

Well, he´s been in congress for decades and during this time the federal debt has gone up some 1800% and government has grown massively. So, his influence there seems to have been minimal, at least as the policies of the one-party political system is concerned. I find it very unlikely that this lack of influence has somehow been elevated now after all this time.

-------------------------------------
Shows how long corruption has been rampant, doesn't it?? Both parties. Ron Paul has no influence?? The other candidates are NOW parroting what Ron Paul says, and has been saying for 30+ years. Why? Because they know that that's what We The People want! The last election cycle, they laughed at him! The other candidates are not laughing now--they mimic Ron Paul! The only difference is Ron Paul means it, they're just pandering for votes! Ron Paul's influence has grown and continues to grow.

This is not a new opinion, don't think you're the first to attempt to make this point. I know everything I'm about to say has probably already been said a hundred times... but I didn't have the patience to read all the comments to this delusional OP

Obama was a newcomer with next to zero political experience or voting record
Obama ran SOLELY off the vague promise of "hope" and "change"; not policies or specific ideas
Obama was a complete media darling, probably the biggest we've ever seen, with corporate funding to back it up

You act as if we all just heard about Ron Paul for the first time on CNN two weeks ago. We didn't. I, like I'm sure a lot of his supporters did, discovered him not during a presidential campaign, but through his stances on economic policy and his inspiring speeches on the house floor about the Federal Reserve, endless wars, and loss of personal liberties.

Obama was the one who exploited desperate times and desperate people with substanceless and emotion-provoking speeches about hope and change. Ron Paul is saying THE SAME THINGS HE'S BEEN SAYING FOR OVER 30 YEARS, it's just the people who's interests have evolved and the times we're living in that have brought us to a place where his ideas are more relevant than ever before.

Quit trying to compare Ron Paul with Obama or anybody else, it's not going to work, it's a flawed concept, it's simply false

reply to post by Habit4ming


It´s just rhetoric. Public spending has been steadily increasing for decades and the economic system is totally addicted to it. That´s the reality. In just the last decade the federal debt has grown by 170%. So, there´s very heavy and increasing momentum in govt. growth. The next one or two terms will hardly dent that trend, whoever is in the WH.

reply to post by davewr25


You miss the point. In every election we have to choose the better of two evils. Ron Paul may not be perfect, and the idol-worship that surrounds him may be a bit absurd--BUT--I can't think of ANY candidate, currently in the game, who would do a better job. His views are the most consistent in Washington, the least far removed from those of our founding fathers, and the most similar to my own (and many of those like me).

Many of us have simply become disenfranchised with the whole two party system. We watch as the Republican's steal our individual freedoms from us in the name of "homeland security" and "morality" and as the Democrats steal our individual freedoms from us in the name of "fairness" and "equality". I've come to realize that all of our "unalienable rights" are under attack from both sides, and the hypocrisy of those in government to push their own agendas is disconcerting. Our Constitution was intended to LIMIT government--but both sides pretend that it granted them power to decide everything for us--as if they know what's best (because we elected them). As I grow more and more tired of government, I have a strong desire in my heart to live more independently of government. No candidate is PRO-INDIVIDUAL-LIBERTY than Ron Paul. Period.

Here are my specific concerns. Read them and tell me who would be a better candidate for me to support.
I value small/unintrusive government, keeping the money that I earn, being responsible for my own successes (and failures), being able to own guns to defend my family and my property, not being engaged in endless wars, being responsible for my own health/diet/nutritional decisions, staying out of foreign affairs (just as we'd have them stay out of ours), holding everyone (including businesses) responsible for their own actions and accountable for their own life circumstances, and focusing on America first--always.

Ron Paul is a good man. He has never voted for any tax increase. If he is saying now he most likely was saying the same thing 20years ago. He wants to stay out of other countries business,thats how it should be unless they ask for help, you dont volunteer help. Measure a man by the fruits of his labor.

By the way HAPPY BIRTHDAY Ron Paul!!!!!!!!!!

Thank You sir for posting this!!!! I see you are getting the backlash beacuse you dont support his ATS Holiness. Its ok, they have fallen for rhetoric of a different kind, playing upon thier hopes and dreams. Ron Paul will actually be worse than your normal run of the mill politician. He is preying on our bad situation right now, and will only make it worse. He will stop all help to poor people if he has his way. He must think only the elite should live in this country. As a human being, it is our responsibility to help lift our fellow man. Anything less is pure greed and selfishness. ive said my peace. S& F to the op!!!!

Originally posted by LargeFries
reply to post by davewr25

 

davewr25, here is a follow-up letter to my previous post. i thought you would get a good laugh from it as well, as pathetic as the truth is:

Rhino_man: Why does Ron Paul hate the Constitution?

In 2009, he authored a bill that would have allowed the states to establish government churches and to persecute and discriminate based upon religion or sexual preference. It also would have stripped the Judiciary branch of its power to rule on the Constitutionality of state laws, something which is enumerated in the Constitution.

Holy Fark! I thought you were talking out your ass for a moment and then went and actually read the bill..
We the People Act - Prohibits the Supreme Court and each federal court from adjudicating any claim or relying on judicial decisions involving: (1) state or local laws, regulations, or policies concerning the free exercise or establishment of religion; (2) the right of privacy, including issues of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or (3) the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation where based upon equal protection of the laws. Allows the Supreme Court and the federal courts to determine the constitutionality of federal statutes, administrative rules, or procedures in considering cases arising under the Constitution. Prohibits the Supreme Court and the federal courts from issuing any ruling that appropriates or expends money, imposes taxes, or otherwise interferes with the legislative functions or administrative discretion of the states. Authorizes any party or intervener in matters before any federal court, including the Supreme Court, to challenge the jurisdiction of the court under this Act. Provides that the violation of this Act by any justice or judge is an impeachable offense and a material breach of good behavior subject to removal. Negates as binding precedent on the state courts any federal court decision that relates to an issue removed from federal jurisdiction by this Act.

That's scary. It completely breaks the separation of powers and would basically enable states to trample on protected rights as they see fit.

WTF happened Ron Paul? You used to be cool.

You don't get it. It is about the State having more power than the Feds to regulate your freedom and rights according to the Constitution. Go back and read your original post again.

The Supreme Court of the United States and each Federal court-- (1) shall not adjudicate-- ...

Please don't make me laugh harder at the incredible stupidity i see in people who think politics has anything left to offer.
Only with your consent can all the miserable nonsense the body politic serves up for you be allowed to happen.

Cut to flock of very wary sheep.
(Narration)
These sheep for the last four years have been watched over by a wolf, they understand now that it is a wolf and occasionally some of them get eaten, but it never happens directly so all the sheep see it.
Some are so docile they dont believe wolves eat sheep.
They know their numbers are being thinned out, and some of them know that when the sheep stood next to them vanished they could smell wolf.
Some disbeleive that its even possible for a wolf to be operating among them.
The situation is now this, the wolves need to move the sheep in a new direction closer to the trees where it makes kidnapping them easier and it is also easier to obfuscate their senses into a position where they cant see the wolf for the trees.
The sheep are wary though, so the pack of wolves have determined which of them is the most sheep like, and ronnie not only looks like a sheep, he smells like one too.
His fleece is made of the finest libertarian values, this is required to make the sheep realise how comfortable they can be dreaming of a field on a continent where the wolves can be seen for what they are, and, how good it would be to undo a lot of the wolf rules making it a sheep world.
How lucky the wolves are to have ronnie here now ready to bring the sheep right back into the field near the trees where they will be told to wait while ronnie finds the paperwork and gets a pen to sign off on their freedom.
When will the sheep find out ronnie is a wolf?
well the wolves hope that they never will, ronnie will always be able to blame the rules the wolves have made for their lack of progress, all the time they are being thinned out, the longer their "libertarian values" hold them in the pen where we need them the better.
you see the sheep have forgotten what libertarian values are, they are the values that WROTE the constitution the last time the sheep got together and en-masse chased the wolves, just far enough away for them to find a pen and secure their freedom.
All they do now is be all fluffy and soft and provide meals for the wolves.

Politics serves sheep to the wolves, thats it, the only "serving" it does.

Originally posted by stonebutterfly
Thank You sir for posting this!!!! I see you are getting the backlash beacuse you dont support his ATS Holiness. Its ok, they have fallen for rhetoric of a different kind, playing upon thier hopes and dreams. Ron Paul will actually be worse than your normal run of the mill politician. He is preying on our bad situation right now, and will only make it worse. He will stop all help to poor people if he has his way. He must think only the elite should live in this country. As a human being, it is our responsibility to help lift our fellow man. Anything less is pure greed and selfishness. ive said my peace. S& F to the op!!!!

I disagree... Although it may be our moral responsibility to help our fellow man, it's not the government's job to force us, at the end of a gun, to be morally responsible. If you TRULY want to help "lift your fellow man", why do you need government to do that for you instead of allowing you to do it yourself. I also disagree that it is "greedy" to not want to support free loaders.

Quite the contrary! I can't think of anything greedier than sitting on your fat ass, spitting out kids, not working a day in your life, and expecting other people to give you their hard earned money--simply because you have a pulse. What is more greedy than expecting something for nothing?

reply to post by davewr25


So by your logic -- and I used to (and sort of still do) hold this opinion -- what you're saying is that voting for anyone wouldn't make a difference.

With that said, what's wrong with voting for him anyway?? It doesn't cost money to vote right?? What are people losing when they do vote??

Even if he comes close and get a little more media attention, it will bring the American people closer to the realization of your point. Would it not?

Originally posted by Red Cloak

Originally posted by kro32
reply to post by Red Cloak

 

.....promote the general welfare."

It's in the preamble

Then that means that people also have the right to healthcare.

They have the right to choose their own healthcare. Not MANDATED by the Fed.

You don't know what your taking about! Ron Paul has only been talking about the same things for 30 years ! Dr.NO ON EVERYTHING ! He is the only Man for the Job !

reply to post by sumgai


Has voting for anyone made a difference?, have you even been allowed free and fair elections, what makes you think it will be any different now?.

You get exactly what you deserve and recurring stupidity is very deserving.

Originally posted by bftroop

Originally posted by Red Cloak

Originally posted by sheepslayer247
reply to post by LargeFries

 

Although I believe everyone should have free access to healthcare, can you point out to me where the constitution gives that "right" to every American?

So isn't Ron Paul correct in saying that it is not a "right"?

Aren't you just grabbing for straws here?

Why don't you post the rest of what Paul said from your link? It puts it in perspective.

edit on 19-8-2011 by sheepslayer247 because: (no reason given)

Where does it say in the Constitution that people have the right to clean water? Kindly point it out to me.

Where does it say you have to pay taxes!?

Amendment XVI - The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

topics.law.cornell.edu...

Duh????