Was Ron Paul Cheated?

reply to post by Hopechest


Your comment is short sighted and incendiary. Ron Paul was NOT willing to sacrifice 500 children! What an outrageous claim. He was against LEGISLATING the Amber Alert System. The system could have been and should have been put in place with out involving lawmakers. That is the modern problem. The lawmakers want to take credit for things and thusly create laws that make them look like the benevolent saviors. This is unnecessary.

To understand Ron Paul's method you must first learn the most basic principles of government. In the United States of America we have built our nation on the principle of Self Determination. That is what Ron Paul worked so tirelessly to preserve. It is was our current administration is trying to undermine.

reply to post by Hopechest


There are a few people in my life who I do not want to compromise: The accountant who issues my paycheck (40 hours multiplied by wage...no compromise), my doctor (don't cut corners on my procedure to bargain the price), my minister (10 commandments...no changes), police officers (making up rules as they go...don't think so), and government officials. I expect people to follow the rules and not compromise for compromises sake. Wrong is wrong.

Ron Paul taught us all how to say NO. Now our charge is to find a new standard bearer...who will take his place?

Originally posted by Hopechest
reply to post by Hopechest

 

Here is an example.

Ron Paul voted against the Amber Alert Bill because he believed it was not the Federal Governments responsibility to do so.

It did not matter that States were not doing this themselves, the only thing that mattered was Pauls principles.

That one bill has been responsible for saving the lives of over 500 innocent children who otherwise would have been dead.

Paul was willing to sacrifice the lives of these children in order to stand on a principle that at best falls into a grey area. Now do you think he would have an issue letting unemployment skyrocket or the economy collapse in order to stand for another of his principles?

This post shows your absolute ignorance regarding politics and legislation.

Are you aware of what else was in the Amber Alert Bill?

The year was 2003, it was House Bill S 151. Originally Paul was an outspoken supporter of the bill... until Joe Biden decided to add to the bill by combining it with what is known as "The RAVE Act" which was more funding and more legislation for the "Drug War". That is when he voted against the bill.

Perhaps you should actually research things instead of assuming you know what you're talking about.

I don't think our votes count. THe entire thing is rigged. They were afraid that Ron Paul would destroy Oblunder so they have to cheat and put Mitt against Oblunder knowing full well they were very similar that Mitt would lose. It's stage and very obvious.

The media's treatment prooves beyond a reasonable doubt that there was some kind of conspiracy against him. It cannot be denied.

con·spir·a·cy
/kənˈspirəsē/

Noun
A secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.
The action of plotting or conspiring.
Synonyms
plot - cabal - scheme - intrigue - collusion


All major media outlet essentially ignored Ron Paul; This cannot have been some coincidental over site. This was clearly an orchestrated attempt to ensure Ron Paul did not win the republican nomination. This is something harmful to society itself. Thus there was a secret plan by a group to do something harmful.

I think he was 'lucky', that he didn't get elected. If he had, can u just imagine what it would have been like for him trying to fight his way through 4 years dealing with the DemoPublican Juggernaut! and the media? I'mglad he did get a voice, I'm glad he did get to go toe to toe with the rest of the 'herd'. I'm glad he has a son who seems to have his head screwed on tight, and his eye focused down range. Evolution happens so slow, but sometimes, it just rocks! If Mr Paul did anything for us, it gave us a different voice to listen to, one that's not bogged down in some 'party' dogma. Anyway, I wish him all the best with whatever he chooses to do next. And just some times, the greatest 'statesman' we get to see, sometimes never even get a chane to lead.

If Paul got in they would of shot him.

reply to post by Darkphoenix77

Well it seems to me we have been 5 years without a budget, so Obama is a better choice than Paul how?

It's not the Presidents job to pass a budget that job belongs to congress. And the last budget the senate approved was in 09.

The simple fact that he introduced the We The People bill was enough to tell me that he wasnt going to get my vote. Wanting to stop the federal and supreme court from ruling on issues in states that deal specifically with rights spelled out in a FEDERAL document (the Constitution)? This is not saying that Obama was the right choice, only that Ron Paul was certainly not what I wanted.

reply to post by Darkphoenix77


its clear that he was cheated but there isnt much that can be done now. i would say his son could take the reins but he seems just as crazy as the other republicans.

ron paul looks remarkably similar to lee harvey oswald.
(oswalds death was faked..www.cluesforum.info..., along with the death of jfk;
The "JFK-MURDER" was a STAGED EVENT / JFK wasn't "KILLED" on 11/22/63!).






one of the surprisingly very few pictures online of a young ron paul.




i always thought oswald talked as if he had some tissue stuffed up behind his upper lip.
both paul and oswald have problems with eyebrows and the ears of both are similar.
there are who, what and where issues regarding ron paul and the early sixties.


even if this isn't the case, it is all theatre anyway.

Yeah maybe Paul is allowed to exist to give people hope and faith in the system..

reply to post by Darkphoenix77
Of Course Ron Paul was cheated....but then again,the system is nothing but one big cheat anyway....so not much difference..very predictable...that's why everyone new when the election was still hanging "in the balance",Ron would never receive a fair chance.Sad revelation to succumb to but hey....as long as they look good doing it....that is all that really matters right?...............(sarcasm)

reply to post by MastaShake
hahahahaha...your one of them shills huh?

I've gotta agree with Hopechest, at least to an extent. Paul would have been the most ineffective President ever. Before someone like Ron Paul can ever be President we would first need to get like minded people in other governmental positions. Not just in Congress but in state and local positions as well. So instead of complaining how there's no longer any hope you should get out there and get involved in the system. Ron Paul wasn't going to change things single handily so I fail to see why so many members on this site seemingly put all their eggs in his basket.

of course he was cheated, by both the left and the right

reply to post by Hopechest


Passing budget bills to "keep the government working" is only passing budget increases to what is already in the budget. It's that mentality that continues to increase national debt.

The voting public needs to understand is that "budget bills" always means "new spending and increased debt".

Everything we had in place before this so-called "national debt" started growing so quickly should have been just fine and dandy to cover our needs then and in the future (which is now the present). But we've had decades of what are called "special interests" lobbying for new spending in certain areas in the form of legislative bills to write laws in favor of their business. And those special interests are underwritten by banks, who is underwritten by a central private bank, known as the Fed, who has control of the money in circulation. When everything in the economy is based on the demand of stuff (not the supply of it), and dollars come from a Fed that prints them freely, of course the "national debt" is going to increase at the same rate that the value of it falls. Right in line with the rate that the price of essential commodities increases. It's the way currency works.

Doing stuff like raising minimum wage only further dilutes the value of the dollar, because in real terms the base worth of human capital is literally what dollar value per hour of lowest-common-denominator in terms of productivity. These are people who literally have no more productive skill than sitting in front of a console and pressing a single button when a single light indicates for them to do so, if for some reason of convenience a machine or electronic circuit can't be built to do that task. Because these lowest common denominator wage earners earn a percentage more per hour, in the retail market of stuff that those people buy the stuff is going to be priced higher because they have more dollars to buy that stuff. As demand goes up, price goes up, because supply in America never really changes for these people in this market (thanks, Walmart). As a result, gas increases and creates some burden on the discretionary income of the middle class, making their income less discretionary.

This is the concept known as erosion of middle class by government currency manipulation. I know this isn't written in any organized manner, and is mainly just a rant, but people need to start to understand how this stuff called currency works.

Living in the vague ether of hopefulness and trust that governments will provide for them leads to questions like "the government can't be in gridlock because who would approve the road projects?" The answer to "who would do stuff" is obvious. People would. Hope is a lost cause when you trust a government that doesn't represent you (or anyone you are close to)...

Ron Paul is a shill. He's playing a character.

Originally posted by buster2010
reply to post by Darkphoenix77

 

Well it seems to me we have been 5 years without a budget, so Obama is a better choice than Paul how?

It's not the Presidents job to pass a budget that job belongs to congress. And the last budget the senate approved was in 09.

I know that, but it still does not answer my question. Obviously he has been no better at getting Congress to cooperate than what they claim Paul wouldn't have been.

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
I've gotta agree with Hopechest, at least to an extent. Paul would have been the most ineffective President ever. Before someone like Ron Paul can ever be President we would first need to get like minded people in other governmental positions. Not just in Congress but in state and local positions as well. So instead of complaining how there's no longer any hope you should get out there and get involved in the system. Ron Paul wasn't going to change things single handily so I fail to see why so many members on this site seemingly put all their eggs in his basket.

I give you credit for pointing out the obvious, people need to get involved and at least try to change things on the local level. Knowing that congress and the presidency is bought and paid for however that is the only extent I see change happening on without an eventual breakdown in society.