It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ron Paul is NOT the 'last hope' for Amerika

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 09:57 AM
link   
Not Ron Paul, not JFK, not Abe Lincoln, not Jackson, not even Franklin, Jefferson or Washington ever were nor ever could be or would have wanted to be, Americas Last Hope.
It's a republic, it requires ACTIVE populace participation, at every level, local, district, county, state, and federal to be empowered.
The Real Last and Only Hope for America, (or any nation) is for Americans to stop with this helpless, weak, scared, confused, lazy, ignorant, defeatest attitude and mind set.
One person doesnt make it all happen or not happen.
(So Ron Paul passes away in 5 years from old age, then what, back to zero?)
The last hope?
My gawd people, if he wasnt such a sweet little old man I bet he'd like to slap the stupid off that statement.




posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 10:03 AM
link   
You are correct. People will claim they can do nothing and that everything is controlled by TPTB but it's simply not true. I often use the example of one lady who was upset that the government was not treating the elderly fairly in their legislation and it bothered her so much she decided to change it.

With no resources she developed, through very hard work, what today is known as the AARP. One of the if not the most powerful lobby group in Washington as well as doing much for the elderly. To say that people cannot change the government is a defeatist attitude.



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 10:07 AM
link   
Maybe not Amerika, but RP or another civil servant that understands their role and would make decisions with good intention for the American people WOULD be the last hope for us.

If you knew anything about our establishment "politicians" you would know they constantly makes decisions advocating useless wars, subsidies for huge corporations and write and pass bills that rob us of our liberties.

Have fun educating the masses, you might as well try to make a river run upstream.



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 10:08 AM
link   
reply to post by HappilyEverAfter
 


I think you are misunderstanding. Most people who say he is our last hope don't mean he is our Savior. They simply mean our country is about to collapse completely and many of us are willing to give him a chance to save this nation while doing it 'their' way. (elections)

Of course, I can't speak for everyone and perhaps there is a Ron Paul religion somewhere.


But for everyone I know who supports him and says that statement, it just means "Ron Paul or end of the U.S. as we know it."

I do want to applaud you though. Everyone should be active and not so reliant on the government.



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 10:10 AM
link   

edit on 13/8/2011 by RizeorDie because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 10:11 AM
link   
Alot of Ron Paul supporters ignore the fact that none of his ideas would ever pass Congress therefore he would probably be one of the most ineffective Presidents ever. He refuses to comprimise on anything as his voting record shows and Congress will never agree to his ideas so he will sit in the oval office with his arms crossed whining how people don't understand what he's trying to do.

Like Ron Paul or not that is what will happen and a good reason not to vote for him.



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 10:11 AM
link   
reply to post by HappilyEverAfter
 


I thought everyone coming together to raise funds and support him, was americans coming together to make a change?



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by kro32
 


You define ignorance.

"Oh the scummbags in DC wouldn't be down so having a good guy in office like RP would be useless" Are you for real?

I would rather delay the deterioration of my country and constitution, with a chance of some improvement, than just hand it to the wolves.



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 10:17 AM
link   
reply to post by kro32
 


The thing I don't understand about you is your adamant disapproval of the ONLY person seeking the office of President that defends the Constitution - while you're displaying the Constitution as your avatar. The ONE man who defends your true Liberty and the states choice, yet you are consistent in insulting him and his chances to do anything for our nation.

You are incorrect to say he would have no support. He would have the support of a nation and MANY members of Congress. He consistently does. Furthermore, Obama has over 90 Executive Orders in 2 years. Ron Paul has stated he will be the "President of Repeal." I think he will get A LOT done. Your statement is simply flawed perception and opinion.

First thing - These wars are illegal and unconstitutional. Think he can't bring them home? Guess again.

He would definitely not be in office whining about doing nothing.
edit on 13-8-2011 by EagleTalonZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 10:17 AM
link   
reply to post by EmVeeFF
 


My point was that the job of the President is to set the agenda for the nation and preside over that process. Anything the Congress sends him he will veto because he doesn't compromise and a good President must move the country along whether he agrees with everything or not. Ron Paul will draw a line in the sand and say my way or the highway which is voting record proves.

His other agenda's such as elimination entire departments will never work. Ronald Reagan tried to eliminate the Department of education and it was impossible for him to do so yes Ron Paul will be very ineffective and he will bring the country to a standstill.



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by EagleTalonZ
 


I actually like Ron Paul but I would like people to focus on the reality of him instead of putting a halo over his head and think he does no wrong. I only focus on him so much because there are so many topics about him.

By the way eagle, the tag in your avatar is completely wrong. The Constitution was written to form a more perfect union of the States and the issue of people's rights was never brought up at the convention during the process. Only Jefferson wanted the Bill of rights added, as an afterthought, was it discussed and then only added so they could have enough votes to pass it.

Hamilton and his federalists didn't want the bill of rights added to the Constitution.



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by HappilyEverAfter
Not Ron Paul, not JFK, not Abe Lincoln, not Jackson, not even Franklin, Jefferson or Washington ever were nor ever could be or would have wanted to be, Americas Last Hope.
It's a republic, it requires ACTIVE populace participation, at every level, local, district, county, state, and federal to be empowered.
The Real Last and Only Hope for America, (or any nation) is for Americans to stop with this helpless, weak, scared, confused, lazy, ignorant, defeatest attitude and mind set.
One person doesnt make it all happen or not happen.
(So Ron Paul passes away in 5 years from old age, then what, back to zero?)
The last hope?
My gawd people, if he wasnt such a sweet little old man I bet he'd like to slap the stupid off that statement.


Ron Paul is a defeatest mind set?
I don't see it. He seems a testament to integrity and strength of character.
Character is the little thing that holds you together while everyone else is crumbling around you.
Character counts. Don't be guilty of age-ism. If 50 is the new 30 then I think 75 is the new 50.

Does that make sense?
So anyway OP, I see you don't like Ron Paul...Who are you pulling for?
You mind providing a "for example?"



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 10:24 AM
link   
reply to post by kro32
 


Well when I made the avatar, I had only read it from Ron Paul. After more research, the quote originates from Patrick Henry.


“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.”

Source

So you can take it up with him.

edit on 13-8-2011 by EagleTalonZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by EagleTalonZ
 


Well he was kinda right and kinda wrong. Point taken however



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by HappilyEverAfter
 


Buzzzzzz! Wrong. But thanks for playing. We are a Republic on paper. But functionally we are not. A Republic is predictaed on the concept that 'all citizens are equal'. But in our 'Republic' we have allowed the extreme minority --- the wealthy elite --- to conecnetrate so much welath into a few hands that it allows them to disproportionately affect legislation and policies. They have sufficeint influence, by virtue of their wealth, to do whatever they want and stack the deck in their favor. So essentially, less than 10% of the population is calling all the shots. Show me a blue-collar President in the last 50yrs.

Half of Congress are millionaires compared to 1% of the population; 10% have wealth >$10M compared to just 1.6% of the population. The median net worth in the US is around $86,000 (I say around because it is dropping like a stone and these are 2009 numbers). The net work for The House? $765,000 The Senate? $2.38M

So where's 'The Republic' in that? They have no concept of how we all live and are clearly predisposed toward the minority. Look at the trends in legislation and recent events. We perhaps started out as a Republic, we may be a Republic on paper... but we are a Republic in name only. We are, for all intent and purpose, an aristocracy. Plain and simple.

We can vote? Sure we can... here People, you can have this rich guy or that rich guy represent you. Take your pick. And both parties are happy to tell you that they represent 'their party'. Not their constituents (unless it's PR time), not the Country... their intersests and those of their benefactors. The Republic, I'm sorry to say, died long ago.



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by kro32
reply to post by EagleTalonZ
 


I actually like Ron Paul but I would like people to focus on the reality of him instead of putting a halo over his head and think he does no wrong. I only focus on him so much because there are so many topics about him.

By the way eagle, the tag in your avatar is completely wrong. The Constitution was written to form a more perfect union of the States and the issue of people's rights was never brought up at the convention during the process. Only Jefferson wanted the Bill of rights added, as an afterthought, was it discussed and then only added so they could have enough votes to pass it.

Hamilton and his federalists didn't want the bill of rights added to the Constitution.

"We the People of the United States,
in Order to form a more perfect Union,

* establish Justice,
* insure domestic Tranquility,
* provide for the common defense,
* promote the general Welfare,
* and secure the Blessings of Liberty
* to ourselves and our Posterity,

do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."



The Preamble serves solely as an introduction, and does not assign powers to the federal government, nor does it provide specific limitations on government action.

Due to the Preamble's limited nature, no court has ever used it as a decisive factor in case adjudication, except as regards frivolous litigation.

Although revolutionary in some ways, the Constitution maintained many common law concepts (such as habeas corpus, trial by jury, and sovereign immunity), and courts deem that the Founders' perceptions of the legal system that the Constitution created (i.e., the interaction between what it changed and what it kept from the British legal system are uniquely important because of the authority "the People" invested them with to create it. en.wikipedia.org...


It is interesting and though I already knew this you made me look it up.
True, the Constitution was more of a mission statement or a proclamation of ideals rather than a document assigning specific rights to the people.

It promotes the general welfare and secures the BLESSINGS OF LIBERTY.

And it does greatly attest to the authority being invested in the people, not in their leaders, elected representatives or "rulers."

edit on 13-8-2011 by newcovenant because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by newcovenant
 


Yes you are correct. At the time under the Articles of Confederation the States maintained almost all the power with the Central government having almost none. This allowed the States to write their own rules, print their own money and basically be a government unto themselves with no sense of Nationality. The founders recognized that the few powers the Central government did have were worthless as they had no means to enforce them at all so it was decided a new document was needed and the founders held a convention to discuss how to change the system.

That was the reason for the Constitution.



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 10:56 AM
link   
Abe Lincoln was only successful because Russia sent its Atlantic and Pacific Naval Fleets into Union ports.


It was RUSSIA who wanted America to end slavery and pushed Lincoln to stop it.


It was Abe's alliance with Russia that ended the Free United States of America.

Ron Paul IS the last hope for not America.....but for the WORLD and our species. We've been getting killed off and our country/planet poisoned by evil people for their own profit/wealth.



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Pervius
 


You are kind of correct. Russia didn't care so much about slavery as they did wanted American support because there was a strong possiblility of Russia going to war with England at the time. A divided America would be less likely to support them in the event of conflict.



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 01:14 PM
link   
Okay;
First off I'd like to clarify that I am a Ron Paul supporter,
I'm a supporter of anyone who believes in individual liberties, individual responsibilities, local and state governments empowered by the community of its citizens and the states empowerment to a lean federal government.
I am a supporter of the people, the true governing body.
The consent of the governed.

I am not bashing Ron Paul, my barn, my truck, my car, my desk, have Ron Paul items on them.

Yes we ARE a republic, even if we have become the weakest republic we are still as of this moment a republic.
A mismanaged, hijacked, rotting from the inside out republic but still a republic.

My issue is the whinning sickening victim mentality that several hundred million flouridated, medicated, distracted, entertained into vegetable status people we share the land mass with cling to like a life raft or carnival ride, rather than GO TO A MEETING and GET PERSONALLY INVOLVED.
It's me, my neighbor, you and your neighbor that make the difference,
and then the children will see the adults, (the real adults close to them actually designing their living conditions and attempting to create a future full of good possibilities,
(sounds familiar, like something that happened in the late 1700's and early 1800's)

empowerment will never be 'offered' to us by those seeking to destroy our country,
it is already ours to act upon, it's in our founding documents.

Bottom line, sooner or later everyone will be personally involved,
just involved in what will be reactive basic survival, civil war, riots, starvation, an invasion OR proactive correction and design,
so that hopefully no one has to incur the former.

You wanna see your last hope?
Go look in the mirror, and if you dont feel that the person you see is powerful and someone you can trust that has your best interest at heart.........................then it cant get anymore pathetic

Is this the appropriate bumper sticker?
RON PAUL GOES TO MEETINGS AND GETS INVOLVED
SO I DONT HAVE TOO.
edit on 13-8-2011 by HappilyEverAfter because: to add



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join