Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Ron Paul Revolution!!!!


Recommended Posts

I really don't understand how this thread keeps going, RP is never going to be President, without the backing of the republicans AND the media he would never ever stand a chance. The Media from what I have seen treat him like the slightly deranged uncle who everyone just nods at and smiles.

 

So everyone is arguing over nothing, whether you agree with him or disagree with him it makes no difference because he has no power to make any changes and never will.

 

I don't mind the guy, some stuff he says makes sense to me other bits seem so far out that they would never work.

 

I think Bazza isn't saying the US is like the Nazis, it is the vilification of people against war that all governments do, get the patroitism flying so everyone backs the war. Doesn't work for me because I am not patriotic in the slightest.

 

i tend to think of ron paul as currently on a speaking tour of the US. he is responsible for creating more liberty minded people than anyone else i can think of. anything to keep this going is good as far as im concerned. he is responsible for bringing some very important issues to the table. 5 years ago, no one was talking about monetary policy, or any of the many other issues he is making part of the debate these days.

 

i dont really think its an issue of whether he could be elected, its more of an issue of what could the guy do if he was elected. a few things pop right to mind. he could essentially rescind all previous executive orders. he could singlehandedly stop the drug war and could even pardon all nonviolent drug offenders, as well as gun offenders, or whoever else is in federal prison for no good reason. he could close down gitmo, the black sites, and the like and begin reversing the empire. he could essentially declare the patriot act, MCA06, etc null and void by non enforcement.

 

but to me, this is all a moot point. i do not believe voting will ever change anything as far as repealing the leviathan state, as much as i like to wish it could. the only thing that is going to do this is mass non compliance and withdrawal of consent.

Link to post
Share on other sites
This forum is supported by the 12ozProphet Shop, so go buy a shirt and help support!
This forum is brought to you by the 12ozProphet Shop.
This forum is brought to you by the 12oz Shop.
  • Replies 3.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

like i said before I agree with some of what he says, disagree with others.

 

When you say non vilent drug offenders, do you mean people done for possession? What about the gun offenders? sorry Im just not sure what you mean exactly. People with stolen guns? or unregistered guns? Not trying to confuse the situation just trying to get an idea of your point.

 

As always the problem is it all works in an ideal world which we dont live in.

Link to post
Share on other sites
like i said before I agree with some of what he says, disagree with others.

 

When you say non vilent drug offenders, do you mean people done for possession? What about the gun offenders? sorry Im just not sure what you mean exactly. People with stolen guns? or unregistered guns? Not trying to confuse the situation just trying to get an idea of your point.

 

As always the problem is it all works in an ideal world which we dont live in.

 

 

by non violent drug offenders i mean someone who is arrested for selling or possessing a controlled substance and harmed no one. for non violent gun offenders i mean someone who failed to follow an arbitrary firearms law such as the guy who recently had a malfunctioning ar15 that after 3 hours of tampering and modifications and torture by the ATF, they managed to get this weapon to fire 1, full auto burst and was sent to jail for several years. or the guy in NJ who moved back to the state with 2 handguns, who after talking with police on how to lawfully transport them and was told to carry them disassembled in his trunk with ammunition separately, who was sentenced to 7 years when he was caught with those guns in that state. obviously people who stole weapons or are in possession of a stolen weapon have violated someones rights by theft, they are nothing more than a common thief. given the completely arbitrary nature of firearms law, nearly every gun owner has broken a firearm law at least a few times over in their gun owning life. imagine this: you can own a shotgun that has an 18" barrel. if it is 1/32" of a inch less, you are in felony possession of a firearm. completely silly.

 

the only reason it doesnt 'work' in todays world is because people dont want freedom. they'd rather have government.

Link to post
Share on other sites

RP only needs the support of the people to become president.

 

The media is fueling his fire by going after him. Fuck, I was watching CNN during this entire Hurricane fiasco, and Wolf Blitzer was throwing RP under the bus every chance he got with his idea of shutting down things like FEMA and how awesome FEMA is and where the East Coast would be now without it. Pure hysteria.

 

This causes people to check out RP and his views, and to see for themselves how "terrible" and how "unelectable" he is. Of course this just expands his popularity, because most people just on looking at his issue's collect to his fundamental idea's of freedom, that's what he is and always be about, you don't like freedom you don't like RP.

 

We know where certain people on this board fill in with that though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with you in that all he needs is the support of the people, however it is hard to get that kind of support when the mainstream media is not on your side, I saw it in the switch in the favour of the press away from the Labour party i the last election over here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to admit I was shocked watching the footage of the straw poll and he can in close second and non of the media were using his name it is crazy, mainstream journalism nowadays is a joke. It is a shame because while I don't agree with a lot he has to say the other republican candidates are a whole different level of scary, to think any of them could potentially take the presidency is quite disturbing to me.

 

edit - I only dismissed him before because of the lack of support from the republicans and the media, just makes it such an uphill struggle that I doubt anyone could make it, Obama wouldn't have won the election without the tide of support from the media.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To say that RP is not getting his fair share of media coverage is just bullshit. He is in the news everyday. Those polls do not mean anything statistically. The Ames Straw poll has been shown not to be a indicator of anything. Only 4671 people voted for him out of 16,892 people voting. There are over 3,000,000 people elgible to vote in it. How is that statistically important?

 

To try and say that if you do not like freedom, that you do not like Ron Paul is just a sign of the kind of fact and logic twisting that all his supports are about.

 

 

Bottom line is that he is getting fair coverage in the media for the caliber of candidate he is.

Decy, do not buy into the hype that these guys are spreading on this thread. Here in America, Ron Paul is getting fairly treated, maybe better then he should, for being such a long shot to win the primary. Sure he might be getting some more exposure, which will be bringing in some more brainwashed followers, but I would love to see the stats comparing RP supporters to the amount of people who still think Elvis is alive or who say they have been abducted by aliens. There are always fools who believe in bullshit, no matter how crazy it is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

“Power worship blurs political judgement because it leads, almost unavoidably, to the belief that present trends will continue. Whoever is winning at the moment will always seem to be invincible. If the Japanese have conquered south Asia, then they will keep south Asia for ever, if the Germans have captured Tobruk, they will infallibly capture Cairo; if the Russians are in Berlin, it will not be long before they are in London: and so on. This habit of mind leads also to the belief that things will happen more quickly, completely, and catastrophically than they ever do in practice. … Such a manner of thinking is bound to lead to mistaken prophecies, because, even when it gauges the direction of events rightly, it will miscalculate their tempo. Within the space of five years Burnham foretold the domination of Russia by Germany and of Germany by Russia. In each case he was obeying the same instinct: the instinct to bow down before the conqueror of the moment, to accept the existing trend as irreversible.”

 

Welcome to your world. Google that, than just try to spin it on me in your next post.

 

I already know the procedure.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not have to google anything, also I am on my phone so I can't, but you post is a typical way that you knobslobbers refuse to discuss facts when it comes to Rom Paul. No statistics, no realistic solutions to real world issues, and changing the subject to arguments that have nothing to do with the current situation in America seems to be the norm with supporters. You provide a great example, you were discussing the lack of media interest in RP and I countered. You then tried to change the subject. Why is it that none of you can honestly discuss your candidate?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Because you can't hold you candidate up to the scrutiny of having realistic solutions to real issues facing this country. As a president, he will have to deal with the problems facing this country and so far, he has not been able to bring anything to the table to support his policies. His recent statement about FEMA is a great example, because even if he is right about FEMA, he still does not state anything to help Americans that will need help from disasters. He just wants to get rid of a agency that helps people, no matter how misguided that might be and not have anything in place to take care of americans in need. Does he just propose to let them fall and fail, because the market needs to correct itself? I do not know, because he never offers any realistic solutions to anything he proposes.

 

So, you might say that you refuse to discuss anything with me, but that does not mean I am going away, and I think it is because your candidate is severely flawed and you are unable to show otherwise.

Link to post
Share on other sites
To say that RP is not getting his fair share of media coverage is just bullshit. He is in the news everyday. Those polls do not mean anything statistically. The Ames Straw poll has been shown not to be a indicator of anything. Only 4671 people voted for him out of 16,892 people voting. There are over 3,000,000 people elgible to vote in it. How is that statistically important?

 

Fair SHARE of media coverage, and FAIR media coverage are two different things. I will admit that this time around Ron Paul has received more attention from the mainstream media, but let's not also dismiss the substantial amount of spin and bias that is thrown Ron Paul's direction. This is for any political candidate though, so it may be the norm when it comes to American mainstream media, but it's very obvious that our media will pay attention to the chosen corporate front-runners rather than politicians with strong legitimate grassroots support. These polls that are also "meaningless" seem to be very meaningful when it's a status-quo corporate agenda politician winning them. When it's Ron Paul or someone of his ilk, the media and people like you claim they don't mean anything at all. Can you explain what the reason is for the hypocrisy in that?

 

To try and say that if you do not like freedom, that you do not like Ron Paul is just a sign of the kind of fact and logic twisting that all his supports are about.

 

Logic twisting is your specialty CILONE, so what are you surprised about? You're the one claiming Ron Paul is a closet racist, that he isn't running for congress again because they changed his district to majority black, that he has domestic policies that cater more to corporations than to the people. This isn't logic twisting?

 

Bottom line is that he is getting fair coverage in the media for the caliber of candidate he is.

Decy, do not buy into the hype that these guys are spreading on this thread. Here in America, Ron Paul is getting fairly treated, maybe better then he should, for being such a long shot to win the primary. Sure he might be getting some more exposure, which will be bringing in some more brainwashed followers, but I would love to see the stats comparing RP supporters to the amount of people who still think Elvis is alive or who say they have been abducted by aliens. There are always fools who believe in bullshit, no matter how crazy it is.

 

Decy, do yourself a favor and don't listen to CILONE. Don't listen to any of us though, best to just make up your own mind. You seem to be doing a good job of that so far, so giving you advice isn't really even necessary. I guess CILONE just thinks he's privileged that way to be giving other people advice here on this forum, as if someone needs his advice.

As for Ron Paul being "fairly" treated, I would say that he is now getting the same treatment most candidates running for president receive. Most of the coverage on mainstream media though is coming from some sort of angle. Comparing Ron Paul supporters to Elvis being alive supporters, and abducted by aliens, etc. is another way people like you twist around logic. It's crazy how in one post you simultaneously accuse someone of doing something that you actually do right in the same breathe. Amazing.

 

 

:lol: :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Because you can't hold you candidate up to the scrutiny of having realistic solutions to real issues facing this country. As a president, he will have to deal with the problems facing this country and so far, he has not been able to bring anything to the table to support his policies. His recent statement about FEMA is a great example, because even if he is right about FEMA, he still does not state anything to help Americans that will need help from disasters. He just wants to get rid of a agency that helps people, no matter how misguided that might be and not have anything in place to take care of americans in need. Does he just propose to let them fall and fail, because the market needs to correct itself? I do not know, because he never offers any realistic solutions to anything he proposes.

 

So, you might say that you refuse to discuss anything with me, but that does not mean I am going away, and I think it is because your candidate is severely flawed and you are unable to show otherwise.

 

He already discussed and elaborated on his policies concerning FEMA:

 

 

If you have any actual responses to what he is saying in that video, I'd enjoy hearing it. Otherwise, you should refrain from saying things like "he has not been able to bring anything to the table to support his policies" (pretty much what you say about everyone you disagree with). He has several books out that you should read, and many interviews discussing his philosophy of the role of government that has been consistent for over 30+ years. There is no excuse for your naivety when it comes to understanding him as a candidate. His entire platform is supported with much explanation through many avenues that can be explored. It's your responsibility to figure that out, and clearly you don't have it figured out because you're asking questions like:

 

"Does he just propose to let them fall and fail, because the market needs to correct itself? I do not know, because he never offers any realistic solutions to anything he proposes. "

 

Very naive questions that have been answered in interviews, books, articles, etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is in support of the fact that the media is blatantly biased and at times deceptively manipulating facts about the Ron Paul campaign. This is only one example:

 

 

Out of the ~1000 people they interviewed, almost everyone was above 50 years old, there wasn't even enough to fill the boxes here:

Total 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+

Frm Speaker Hse Newt Gingrich 7% N/A N/A 1% 7%

Texas Congressman Ron Paul 6% N/A N/A 5% 4%

Frm MA Gov Mitt Romney 18% N/A N/A 17% 23%

Frm PA Senator Rick Santorum 1% N/A N/A * 4%

MN Congr Michele Bachmann 12% N/A N/A 13% 13%

Frm UT Governor Jon Huntsman 1% N/A N/A 2% 3%

Businessman Herman Cain 3% N/A N/A 5% 3%

Frm NM Governor Gary Johnson 2% N/A N/A * 2%

MI Congr Thaddeus McCotter 1% N/A N/A * 1%

TX Governor Rick Perry 32% N/A N/A 40% 29%

Someone else 4% N/A N/A 5% 1%

None/No one 6% N/A N/A 4% 6%

No opinion 4% N/A N/A 7% 5%

Sampling Error +/-4.5 +/-7.5 +/-8.0

What's interesting, is Rick Perry has the largest gap in those who support him earning over $50k, compared to those below (more people about $50k support him) where as Ron Paul is consistent. (1% difference with a greater error margin)

CNN did the same a while ago with a Marijuana poll where they failed to ask anyone under 35 years old to show that `most people think marijuana should not be legalized'. Distortion at its finest.

These were the results they posted:

Favor 41%

Oppose 56%

No opinion 2%

These came from the statistics in the PDF

Total 18-34 35- 49 50-64 65+

Favor 41% N/A 45% 41% 21%

Oppose 56% N/A 55% 58% 73%

No opinion 2% N/A 1% 1% 6%

Sampling Error +/-3.5 +/-8.0 +/-5.5 +/-6.0

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/04/19/rel6h.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This video has been controversial on the internet.

 

"Well, first i thought it was a very inappropriate question, you know, for the presidency to be decided on a scientific matter," he said. "I think it's a theory...the theory of evolution and I don't accept it as a theory. But I think the creator that i know, you know created us, every one of us and created the universe and the precise time and manner and all. I just don't think we're at the point where anybody has absolute proof on either side."

 

I happen to personally agree with him, and I respect his answer because he is up front and honest about something that is personal to himself and isn't ashamed to share it. I agree that the presidency shouldn't be decided on a scientific matter such as this also, but many people on the internet disagree. This question goes out to atheists or agnostics reading this thread.

How did you feel about this response from Ron Paul?

Do you feel that his personal beliefs play a role in his political policies?

Link to post
Share on other sites

"theory" means a recursively testable position stated in a fashion which allows for revision over time.

 

Theory is not something that hasn't been proven, because science doesn't work through the function of proving a theory. Rather, it works reductively by using recalcitrant data to undermine theories which are ineffective at producing pragmatic predictions in lab and real world settings. Theories can be true in so much as there is a theory of god which can neither be proven as well. Evolution is a process, it is not a theory which states that MAN CAME FROM MONKEYS. The position which states this is a hackneyed perspective on the totality of what "evolution" is said to be. The reasons it is pitted against the concept of a deity is that it conveys a metaphysics which is often irreconciliable with the metaphysics of christian dogma. However, the question of whether a candidate believes in creationism or "evolution" as it's commonly discussed is something which SHOULD be questioned of candidates. Why would we not wonder whether people understand how science works?

 

Stop using the word incorrectly and most major arguments against long held scientific positions lose all ground.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Glad to see you are back bitch, errr zig

 

First instead of replying to your individual posts, I will just break it down easily in my one post.

 

So, you think that 4671 people voted for him out of 16,892 people voting in a straw poll that requires a $30 fee to participate with over 3,000,000 people elgible to vote in it, is statistically important? hahahaha Please explain that one to the rest of us. I said it was meaningless and think all polls are meaningless, because they do not have a statistical foot to stand on, not just RPs polls, but you and him like playing the poor me candidate even when it is not true.

 

Next is easy, he does not say anything about what would replace FEMA if we get rid of it like he wants. Two problems with his approach, first (I know you disagree with this one) what is going to help the millions of people who need help and can not get covered by traditional insurance when a disaster happens? Does RP support letting them fail and go homeless? I think so, because he as not said otherwise. All he says is that FEMA is basically a horrible business model, which I will agree it is, but that brings me to my second point on this. FEMA is not a business and is not suppose to make money, it is suppose to help people. To say that it is losing money, is saying that it is doing what it is suppose to do, spend money helping people. Your candidate just wants to take away another way that americans needing help, have way to get help.

 

I really like the way RP views americans as just part of a business model and he so easily cuts them away as loses. Way to treat his fellow americans, especially when they are in need the most.

 

You then bring up some stats about media coverage. Two problems with this, first they are from April, which is very old when you consider that there are daily polls conducted. So you might as well broke out polls from 2008. Second, I am not arguing that some polls are more important then others, I in fact think that almost all polls are bullshit, based on their questions and who they use in their poll populations.

 

The last point you bring up is about religion, I am glad you like a candidate that believes i Adam and Eve, but not a scientific theory. This sounds about right for someone who does not have realistic answers in real issues facing Americans today.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Since you are from NYC, did the hurricane affect you and your place you live? Oh yeah, I forgot, you still live at home and are supported by your parents, so I am sure you did not think about flooding or anything else in your narrow minded world view.:lol: :lol: :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Since you are from NYC, did the hurricane affect you and your place you live? Oh yeah, I forgot, you still live at home and are supported by your parents, so I am sure you did not think about flooding or anything else in your narrow minded world view.:lol: :lol: :lol:

 

ahaha nah it wasn't so bad actually

Link to post
Share on other sites
Glad to see you are back bitch, errr zig

 

First instead of replying to your individual posts, I will just break it down easily in my one post.

 

So, you think that 4671 people voted for him out of 16,892 people voting in a straw poll that requires a $30 fee to participate with over 3,000,000 people elgible to vote in it, is statistically important? hahahaha Please explain that one to the rest of us. I said it was meaningless and think all polls are meaningless, because they do not have a statistical foot to stand on, not just RPs polls, but you and him like playing the poor me candidate even when it is not true.

 

I don't think the numbers reflect very much in terms of whether or not the candidate will be viable for nomination, but i think it's significant in some regard to the amount of support the candidate is able to generate for the campaign in general. It validates a candidate as a top tier contender, or at least should and has in the past. Instead when Ron Paul wins they completely ignored it and acted as if he didn't exist. They consider Sarah Palin more of a mainstream contender over Ron Paul and she hasn't even announced candidacy.

 

Next is easy, he does not say anything about what would replace FEMA if we get rid of it like he wants. Two problems with his approach, first (I know you disagree with this one) what is going to help the millions of people who need help and can not get covered by traditional insurance when a disaster happens? Does RP support letting them fail and go homeless? I think so, because he as not said otherwise. All he says is that FEMA is basically a horrible business model, which I will agree it is, but that brings me to my second point on this. FEMA is not a business and is not suppose to make money, it is suppose to help people. To say that it is losing money, is saying that it is doing what it is suppose to do, spend money helping people. Your candidate just wants to take away another way that americans needing help, have way to get help.

 

I didn't say it was trying to make money, I don't think anyone said that. I said that it's losing money, and will be unable to help anyone at all. It can't help rebuild Joplin, did you read that article?

 

Ron Paul has not discussed what would replace an institution like FEMA,, but all of your sensationalism about letting people go homeless and not helping them is exaggerated.

 

I really like the way RP views americans as just part of a business model and he so easily cuts them away as loses. Way to treat his fellow americans, especially when they are in need the most.

 

Explain to me where he does this. Where does Ron Paul treat individual american citizens with disregard in the manner that you're claiming? Why are you ignoring all of the rights and liberties this candidate will restore to the individual person in this country and deceptively twisting his policies to seem as if they are AGAINST the individual? It's just not honest, and you sensationalize the cutting of federally funded welfare programs that don't even properly work and have long track records of failure. I don't understand where you're even coming from.

 

You then bring up some stats about media coverage. Two problems with this, first they are from April, which is very old when you consider that there are daily polls conducted. So you might as well broke out polls from 2008. Second, I am not arguing that some polls are more important then others, I in fact think that almost all polls are bullshit, based on their questions and who they use in their poll populations.

 

Well, some people take them seriously. I'm not saying they mean a whole lot, I'm just saying they are a pretty good gauge.

 

The last point you bring up is about religion, I am glad you like a candidate that believes i Adam and Eve, but not a scientific theory. This sounds about right for someone who does not have realistic answers in real issues facing Americans today.

 

So you don't like candidates that believe in Adam & Eve? I'm sure you've supported plenty in the past, possibly even voted for some. I'm pretty sure Barack Obama is Christian.

 

 

////////////

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, 4671 people in Iowa seem to be of significance to you and his supporters??? That makes him a mainstream candidate? To say that they are treating him like he does not even exists, when you post a link to a youtube video that was recorded a day or so ago, just shows how separated from reality you are.

 

Also, you are glossing over the fact that he wants to get rid of FEMA and not have anything in place to help people. All he wants to do is get rid of all programs that help people who need help. He never mentions what those people should do instead (and neither do you), so I will assume he does not want to replace those programs with anything. Which means that he is willing to let those people who need help to fall and fail. Why do you gloss over such an obvious flaw in his policies? If someone loses their house to a natural disaster and the insurance company does not pay to replace it, wouldn't that person be homeless? I guess Ron Paul does not like anyone from Vermont, where it has not flooded in 100 years I believe. Does he propose to let them be homeless? That is what it is sounding like, because without FEMA, they will be, no matter how much you try to divert the subject.

 

I will make it simple, answer this, without FEMA, like Ron Paul wants, what will be in place to help people in natural disasters that are not covered adequately by insurance? Also, what about that states that have to rebuild when they also do not have enough money? I am sure you will gloss over these very relevant questions like you always do. Go ahead an bring in liberty someway like you always do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...