Sheeple and Ron Paul

Yawn! I see we are attempting to bash Paul again. What is it they say, Oh yeah "There is no such thing as bad publicity" (carry on)

sheeple? um no.....thats the REST of the country who doesnt support Ron Paul.....there is no comparison to any other....Ron Paul is in a league of his own....a man that stands from the rest....its more than obvious....obviously your dumbass hasnt a clue in that brain of yours......Ron Paul has been the same man for the past 30/40 years....so what nonsense are you spewing.....the best candidate out there..



Moderator edit: Please discuss the issues and NOT the person.

Originally posted by Red Cloak
Then that means that people also have the right to healthcare.

No, it doesn't. The right to healthcare does not exist.

Am I talking here about what, in emotional terms, people want? No. Obviously I myself would *like* free healthcare. Who wouldn't? Whether or not we're talking about something that people want, isn't the same as whether we're talking about a right.

Am I also talking about whether or not free healthcare is something that can be viably achieved or provided? Again, no. If we radically changed our current way of doing things, it might be.

I'm simply saying, that claiming that universal health care is a right, is a product of Leftist emotionalism.

This is actually why, as I've written elsewhere, the entire concept of rights, more or less in general, is not only spurious, but actually undesirable. If you are given rights, that means that you are given a *minimal* list of guarantees, concerning the ability to secure your own wellbeing. Such therefore also, automatically implies that the power of the institution granting said rights, is limitless and absolute, and that said rights themselves merely exist as exceptions, to what is otherwise unlimited power.

When the Left speaks of wanting rights, it is again, as always, casting itself in the role of the victim. The state has absolute power, but the demand for rights, means the demand for a few, isolated exceptions from what otherwise remains as complete authority.

Rights also imply force; they imply that the institution, or individuals living underneath it, must be *forced* to guarantee said rights to each other, (as Richard originally was with the Magna Carta) because the presupposition is that the institution or individuals do not want to grant said rights by themselves. If this was not the case, and individuals had full willingness to grant said rights to each other, then there would be no need or reason for explicitly documenting said rights at all, let alone attempting to legally guarantee them.

I don't want to have "rights," personally. I want to go much, much further. I want to be the arbiter, myself, of what I am or am not permitted to do entirely, rather than have decrees of any form issued by the state.

In response to the inevitable response of whether or not I advocate amorality; I advocate refraining from denying any other individual, those things which I would consider necessary for my own survival.

That doesn't mean, as you will then likely assume, that I agree that universal health care is a "right." A right is an arbitrary guarantee which is declared by a particular institution. Whichever institution claims to be the arbiter or guarantor of rights, is also by definition, inescapably, inevitably, and utterly unavoidably claiming the implicit ability to also confiscate them.

The type of morality which I propose, is one in which the very concept of universal health care as a "right," would be largely incomprehensible; because individuals would see no difference between their own wellbeing and that of anyone else. So the maintenance of survival for every individual would occur entirely as a matter of course.

No one in there right mind
is saying RON PAUL
is the messiah...

The thing is though,
he is the best candidate
out of all the others now..

IS HE PERFECT?
NO

Is anyone>?
NO

Originally posted by kro32
This shows that Paul doesn not firmly believe in the Constitution but rather the Articles of Confederation where the States had this power.

Dr. Paul is Libertarian first and Constitutionalist next. Whenever there exists a conflict between the two he can be expected to take the Libertarian position rather than a Constitutionalist position.

From a Libertarian point of view all government is evil and a bigger and more distant government a bigger evil. So I would agree that his position would be closer to a Conferderate position than a Constitutionalist position would be simply because the Confederate position gives more powers to institutions closer home, the state, than the federal. So I suspect that he reads all the restrictions placed by the US Constitution on the 'United States' as being placed on the Federal Institutions rather than over all public institutions within the USA and giving power to the Federal Institutions, including the Federal Supreme Court, to enforce them on all public institutions at all levels.

The bill that you brought up is pretty damning and it appears that he believes while the US Constitution prohibits the Congress making any law respecting the establishment of any religion, it places no such restrictions on state legislatures, unless the state constitutions, where they exist, prohibit such. The bill was intended to make explicit his understanding of the US Constitution.

The fact that he authored this bill in 2009 means he was actually attempting to make a point, that will be hopefully brought up when he makes a bid for Presidency in 2012. So while it was a good find, I expect him to be fully prepared when someone tries to embarass him by asking about it. It would be very interesting to see what Dr. Paul's response will be.

Originally posted by davewr25


I am not an anarchist as I've stated earlier. I just wish to see reform. The only problem is I don't see how reform is possible in our current feudal empire. I'd like to see this game of chess played when all the pawns quit. Not much of an exciting game then is it?

Well,Ron Paul wants that reform too. In fact he sees the same failures as you do,and has expressed if it doesnt change,for 30 years,mind you,its all going to crumble. Its funny that you and him are probably more in line,then you want to think. I cant predict hes not a shill,or bought and paid for,or is the Antichrist. I do know hes different then EVERY OTHER candidate out there. No one has dirt on him,that I know of. He hasnt flip flopped on issues. Thats more then I can say for EVERY OTHER career politician. Would love to see your pros and cons,not just the cons in your rant.

Fact is that the sheeple voted for Obama after he started running for President after only 18 months as a Senator, and with very little previous political experience.

He wasn't aware of the shark tank that is Washington DC.

Dr Paul has been in Washington for nearly 50 years, is very aware of how things work, and has a very solid voting record based on truly Conservative principles. The principles that Dr Paul vote on are the same as those on which the Tea Party was originally founded, not on those principles that the Tea Party has now since being hijacked by the far right.

I am a Conservative, but not an American. If I was living in the USA I would actually vote Democrat because I believe the Republican party are so far to the right of true Conservative principles it's laughable.

However, if Dr Paul were to run for President, and I were an American, I would definitely vote for him, based on almost 50 years of his voting record.

However, you're also entitled to your opinion.

reply to post by davewr25


THIS IS JUST WRONG....

i WOULD ELABORATE...BUT...WHAT GOOD WOULD THAT DO....THOSE WHO AGREE WITH YOU...IF THERE IS ANYONE...COULD NOT BE SWAYED...
...AND THOSE WHO KNOW THIS IS HOGWASH....DON'T NEED TELLING....


CURIOUS TO KNOW WHO YOU THINK IS THE 'RIGHT PERSON' FOR THE JOB????

Mod Edit: All Caps – Please Review This Link.

First: People still use the word sheeple? Really?

Second: In a political system where the process (as corrupt, controlled, and broken as it is) is to have nominees and vote for said nominees (or write someone in) things like this happen. The lesser of all evils to me is probably the person they are trying hardest to keep out. The looser canon. The most "uncontrollable" and "beholden." Something we may need, and at the moment, Ron Paul fits that bill for me and many others more than anyone else with ideas that represent me, with a relatively strong voice, and with support enough to do it. But as with Obama and his idealism, he too might be as controlled or face ridicule and worse...even if he were to be the will of the people. But also as with Obama, it's worth a shot, and what's your better alternative?

So, all this being said, given our current broken system with its strong corporate political machines, who would you write in, OP?

reply to post by davewr25


All I can is, if Ron Paul LOSES then hes the real deal. But if he wins, then hes just like what you say, another puppet.

As long as Americans have to deal with this "voting" shenanigan, might as well just vote for Ron


But then again, look what happened to JFK. He went against the elites and got himself assassinated. So Ron Paul can win and get assassinated the next day.

You can follow RP's whole political history for the last 30 years, his ideas haven't changed much in his whole career..... What I don't like is these politicians that seem to come from thin air like Obama did, I never knew of the guy before he ran and if I tried to dig up any kind of information on the guy it's almost non existent..... Well I'm not a RP fanatic but who else are you going to put your vote out for? Kind of a no brainer....

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
First: People still use the word sheeple? Really?

Second: In a political system where the process (as corrupt, controlled, and broken as it is) is to have nominees and vote for said nominees (or write someone in) things like this happen. The lesser of all evils to me is probably the person they are trying hardest to keep out. The looser canon. The most "uncontrollable" and "beholden." Something we may need, and at the moment, Ron Paul fits that bill for me and many others more than anyone else with ideas that represent me, with a relatively strong voice, and with support enough to do it. But as with Obama and his idealism, he too might be as controlled or face ridicule and worse...even if he were to be the will of the people. But also as with Obama, it's worth a shot, and what's your better alternative?

So, all this being said, given our current broken system with its strong corporate political machines, who would you write in, OP?

edit on 8/20/2011 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)

It's not about who I would write in at all. I understand that this IS the system and we are forced to comply. Or are we? That is kinda what I am getting at. By giving everyone a side, by forcing everyone to choose between a handful of people, your options are limited and truthfully non-existent. I have stated earlier about chess that I would like to see how the game is played without the pawns, and that was more of a metaphor for the real life fiasco we witness on a day to day basis. In the system we are currently in, we are forced to comply with something that just isn't a good fit anymore because of the corporate backing, and even in political campaigns, if you dont have a fat wallet to feed your campaign, you have no voice. I can truthfully admit that I don't have all the answers, and I never claimed to have them. As another poster said, nobody is perfect and I fully agree with him. I am not an anarchist persay, I simply wish for a less controlled situation than the one we are in now. When the voices of the masses are confined to the representation of few, things become a little hazy at the top.


The general population of humanity has long been controlled and manipulated through advanced systems of slavery and fearful propaganda, dating all the way back to the beginning of civilized structure. As far back as we can go into written history, there is bountiful evidence of horrifying atrocities committed by men against men, and countless examples of enslaved masses treated like livestock. We may look back in time and say that humanity has learned from these mistakes, when in reality, that could not be farther from the truth. From ancient Egypt all the way to modern day, advanced systems of control and manipulation have been put in place to keep you from breaking the bonds that subdue your mind, and along the way, allow ravenous beings to consume you for everything that you are worth.
Every time a system is recognized for what it is, a revolution takes place, and the slaves are seemingly set free, only to be blindly swallowed by another system that treats them as a commodity rather than a human being. History seemingly repeats itself time after time, and we are no different today.

One of the more complex slave systems ever formulated besides our own modern day capitalist monetary structure, was the feudal empire of the middle ages. Through the idea of feudalism, the wealthy landowners were able to take total control of the far more common peasants by allowing the peasants to live on their land for free, in return for slave labor and accepting the belief that they are of lesser importance to the world.

Any form of insubordination or rejection of this system, including calling their landowner anything other than Lord, could result in death. Such an offense would be punished instantaneously, without even the appearance of fair trial that we have today, and the rest of the commoners would openly participate in the atrocities simply not to anger their Lord. The Lords understood this societal structure in such a way that they learned to use societal outcast to their favor by provoking the people to outcast those who opposed the men in power, through fear of treason, or even promise of increased social status. Social manipulation and out casting of those who opposed the system were absolutely key to controlling the population.

These practices are considered to be obsolete in modern times, but I beg to differ. Personally, there are many reasons why I believe there is a shade pulled over the common man’s eyes even today, and we are very much enthralled in a similar system as I speak. Ask yourself at this very moment who owns your house. If you are through paying your mortgage, you may believe that you are the sole owner of your property, when in fact, you are entirely wrong. The land you live on, the land of the free, is really the land of the American government, and through the appearance of ownership, you are lead to believe it is your own. Feudalism is dead right?

While the penalties for breaking the rules are not as steep, and the some of the rules have changed, we are still playing the same game to this day.
I am not a frequent user of the word sheeple by the way. lol.

This thread should be in the 'Rants' forum. It's nothing but a subjective diatribe with nothing of substance to support it.

MODS. Please move this to the 'rants' forum.

Originally posted by balon0
reply to post by davewr25

 

All I can is, if Ron Paul LOSES then hes the real deal. But if he wins, then hes just like what you say, another puppet.

As long as Americans have to deal with this "voting" shenanigan, might as well just vote for Ron

But then again, look what happened to JFK. He went against the elites and got himself assassinated. So Ron Paul can win and get assassinated the next day.

edit on 20-8-2011 by balon0 because: (no reason given)

This is one of the best posts I've read in this thread. Thank you for understanding the shenanigan I speak of. Star for you.

Ron Paul may in fact be the best choice, and I would tend to agree with that. As someone said earlier in the thread, my beliefs are probably more in line with his than anybody. What he is running for however, is a position that is set for him to fail. Not because of Ron Paul, but because of the system that he is throwing himself into.

For the final time in this thread, I am stating that I never had any intention to bash Ron Paul, although I can see how that would be ones interpretation of all this. I don't care about his credentials and he may very well be the guy that you all say he is. What I've been trying to say the whole time is that if he is elected president, that will very likely change. Again, not because he is a liar or a fake, (though that may be possible), but because presidency and current structure of government is a joke.

Originally posted by wcitizen
This thread should be in the 'Rants' forum. It's nothing but a subjective diatribe with nothing of substance to support it.

MODS. Please move this to the 'rants' forum.

Said the same thing,a few pages back.......

Originally posted by wcitizen
This thread should be in the 'Rants' forum. It's nothing but a subjective diatribe with nothing of substance to support it.

MODS. Please move this to the 'rants' forum.

To be honest, I also agree. If someone read more than one post in the thread, I pointed out my OWN mistake and stated it in an earlier post. I was not aware that there is a rant forum, as I usually dont delve into this sort of thing. I apologize for upsetting you and placing my thread in the wrong place. Sorry my opinion has no substance.

People like OP make me sick. Just giving up on your government is the surest sign of weakness and ignorance. You need to get involved and vote for change and help spread the word for real change. And I'm not talking about the "change" of media darling politicians, but rather the change of small party politicians that no one hears about because people like you stay home in fear and complain, never doing anything to help the cause of liberty.

"The penalty good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." -- Plato

Interesting thread. Personally, I never jumped on the Ron Paul bandwagon. There are a few basic facts that tell me he is just a distraction;

1) Republicans and Democrats are one in the same insofar as they are both leading the lambs to the slaughter, visa vi a One World Government, dissolution of US sovereignty, corruption and control.

2) A "third party" doesn't stand a chance in any presidential race. Period. There just aren't enough votes and if there were, they would find a way to "fix" the election.

3) US elections are a sham to begin with. Tell me this; if YOU were elected president, do you think you could honestly serve the best interest of the homeless? Do you think you could serve the best interest of the ultra-wealthy? Of course not! You have to be homeless to truly understand what it is like and how to best serve them. The same for ultra-wealthy; if you've never been there, you don't have a clue how to best serve them.

How then can these millionaires truly serve the American people? They have no clue what it is like to struggle, to not have health insurance, to not have a job, to live on the streets. They are so far removed from middle America, there is no way they can act in our best interest. I see these guys in their $500 suits, $100 haircuts living in their multi-million dollar homes and they only thing that comes to mind is that they are nothing like me and don't have a clue what my needs or political desires are.

Obama started breaking promises his first day in office. He filled his cabinet with lobbyists and immediately started back-slapping the unions and other special interests. And at the same time, he managed to fill his cabinet with a bunch of nobody's. Who the hell is Van Jones? NOBODY! Who is Valerie Jared (the Mao lover)? NOBODY! Obama turned the White House into his personal playground, giving his buddies jobs, giving pay-back, acting with total disregard to what is in the best interest of the country and you and I.

I've already said it; Mitt Romney is the pre-picked candidate for the Republican party. I said it 6 months ago. It's a done deal. He has been chosen just like Bush, Bush, Clinton, Kerry, Gore, etc.

Do you think you have a choice in this next election? Consider this; the Democrat candidate has already been decided (Obama). That leaves the Republican candidate. There are estimates that Obama could raise $1B on this election. He has people like George Soros behind him. Who can compete with that? Virtually nobody. But I'll humor you and argue that Mitt Romney could. So, as a Republican, I have one real choice. Just estimating, there are perhaps 25 million people in the US qualified to run for president, (Natural born citizens over the age of 35). And I get one choice. And that choice has been made for me.

Nope, all of the campaigning and posturing by the media leading up to the election is nothing but theater and show. The end results are orchestrated long before hand. And even if our votes did somehow matter, the president is a figurehead who follows orders and a set agenda. Otherwise, we'd be out of Iraq, Afghanistan and we wouldn't have gone into Libya and gotten involved in other wars.

reply to post by Pawel420nj
@ the moderator --- the person IS the issue !

How about this.. you vote for who you want to. And I will vote for who I want to.

Its funny to me how many anti-Paul posts I see on ATS. It's becoming an almost daily occurrence. Yet where are all of the anti-Perry posts? Where are the anti-Bachmann posts????

It seems to me that the people who don't agree with Ron Paul, or who are against him are just viciously attempting to sway others opinion of the man. "He's gonna do this, and he voted against that". We've been through this scenario so many times. And every time it is always cleared up. You know why? Because the man has been rock steady in his policies and viewpoints for over 30 years. I like what he says and I like what he stands for. Do I agree with every single one of his ideas? Of course not.

That being said, he is the better choice (for me) over every single other person running. Let's face it. The country is looking to put a Republican into office. Anyone who would vote for Obama again needs their head examined. So its going to come down to the best Republican candidate. And right now that field is filled with a dim-witted Religious nut case, a porn obsessed Governor, and a bunch of other people who have a snowballs chance in hell of running. And then you have Dr. Paul.

So for all of you out there, who seem to loath Ron Paul. Those of you who absolutely hate him, are against everything he stands for, or simply just don't like him. Please... tell me, out of the current candidates, who would you choose over Ron Paul? Who do you feel is better qualified? Who has better views? Because I've examined pretty much all of the people running.... and I just see more of the same... or worse.. So please, enlighten me.