Ron Paul is not the future of liberty in America, You are

Ron Paul is the Libertarian-scented bait that Republicans dangle in front of idealistic and sometimes desperate liberty-seekers to make sure their votes don't help Libertarians get the chance to be considered by the voting public. The Republican Party lets him campaign to distract liberty-loving people so they register to vote as Republicans and help maintain the Republican-Democrat stranglehold on ballot access and government control. They want him in the race, but they did not expect him to ever win. He’s valuable to their carefully engineered stranglehold on government. He unwittingly discourages liberty advocates from being active in organizations that actually support citizen liberty, such as the Libertarian Party. It’s his role. Do not be duped. That gang has spent millions to keep 3rd party candidates (LP, Constitution, Whig, Reform, Green, etc) candidates off the ballots nationwide, in carefully-orchestrated schemes that span many states. They are capable of using Ron Paul to their ends.

Ron Paul is a Republican congressman, and despite having had many opportunities to ally again with other parties as a candidate, he has chosen not to do so in well over a decade. He will die of old age before he’s elected to anything other than his Congressional district in Texas and he is a dead end for those who really want personal liberty in the United States. And the Republican Party is a dead end for citizen liberty and limited government in our nation.

Others may be satisfied with some vague, consciousness-lifting “liberty movement,” but the goal of the Libertarian Party is to promote LP principles in public policy. For that, we need Libertarians working as an alternative to the failed D and R clubs in all levels of government and citizen activism. Ron Paul activism does not advance any kind of personal liberty, it only furthers this cult like obsession with a man who will most likely be retiring to write some books that people on here will gobble up and be off on the speaking tour circuit.

If what appeals to you is Ron Paul saying libertarian things, then you should stop following the one Republican who talks that way and instead put all your effort into supporting the third-largest political party in the nation, in which almost EVERY member talks that way. Ron Paul is complicit in a system that he cannot change before he dies of old age. You may admire his words, but he’s a poor long-term investment in your resources. Support the Libertarian Party instead.

Ron Paul is not the future of liberty in America. YOU are.

reply to post by FSBlueApocalypse


Hence why The American People are the 4th branch of Government and it's time we exercise that power!

reply to post by FSBlueApocalypse


"But, since Ron Paul isn't the answer, I would like to present _________________ as the alternative."

You, along with 100% of the other Ron Paul haters, have failed to let us know who your candidate is in your long-winded-yet-full-of-the-same-nothing post. Or was this yet another "Ron Paul is unelectable" thread designed to wast electrons?

/TOA

Yep there are a lot of people who support Ron Paul and go around trash talking everyone else and support Paul and his views among them are:

Bachmann hates muslims
Santorum hates gays
OWS is good
Wikileaks Assange and Manning are heroes.

He and his supporters support destroying other people with attacks just so he gets the job and not a single one will every question anything he says they are the same kind of people who hang on Obama's every word and they do not question anything he says they hang on his every word.

That is the sad state of the 4th branch of "Government" the classic my guy is better than their guy neither Paul or Obama are good for America it's people or the future of this country.

A leader is needed but with Integrity,Character and Honor and neither of them have it or their supporters.

Liberty in America there isn't a single person who knows what the meaning of the word Obama,Paul,Romney,Bachmann.Santorum,Gingrich are all classic politicians saying whatever the hell they want doesn't matter what the truth is they all put their wants not needs ahead of doing the right thing.

None of them Deserve to be Potus.

reply to post by The Old American

Originally posted by The Old American
reply to post by FSBlueApocalypse

 

You, along with 100% of the other Ron Paul haters, have failed to let us know who your candidate is in your long-winded-yet-full-of-the-same-nothing post. Or was this yet another "Ron Paul is unelectable" thread designed to wast electrons?

Hold on just a cotton-pickin' minute there, Smokey!... Did you read the post or check his signature? It's pretty clear whom he supports.

Refreshing point of view, FSBlueApocalypse. Thanks for the info.

Didn't Ron Paul already try to run as a Libertarian?

So your arguing that you can't vote for a guy who initially ran for the party you support, because hes no longer affiliated with your preferred party?

Yes I know I know there's no such thing as voting.

Originally posted by RSF77
Didn't Ron Paul already try to run as a Libertarian?

So your arguing that you can't vote for a guy who initially ran for the party you support, because hes no longer affiliated with your preferred party?

Yes I know I know there's no such thing as voting.

edit on 2-1-2012 by RSF77 because: (no reason given)

Paul did run as a Libertarian in 1988.

I'm not voting for Paul because

A.) As much as he talked about Freedom and Liberty, he consistently talks about State's Rights as if he would support states having the ability to enforce continued bans on gay marriage, abortion, the drug war, and other subjects. States to not have rights, they have responsibilities to protect the rights of the citizens in their state that are already not covered by the federal government in the constitution.

B.) I am supporting R. Lee Wrights for the Libertarian Party nomination because he has best explained the Libertarian principles I look for in a presidential candidate. If Wrights were running for the Constitution, Green, Reform, Democrat, or Republican nomination I would still be supporting Wrights.

As far as the Libertarian Party in concerned, ultimately it has the best concentration of liberty minded people and is the best way to get back out freedoms.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Hold on just a cotton-pickin' minute there, Smokey!... Did you read the post or check his signature? It's pretty clear whom he supports.

It's nice to know the OP supports Wrights for president.

Unfortunately, Wrights is not really a contender. So the question remains....if not Paul.....WHO? And I mean "WHO" as in a candidate who actually has a snowball's chance in hell at being elected.

Any claim that Paul's pursuit of liberty for America is not authentic is ludicrous and, more importantly, deceptive.

If you believe Paul currently has a better than snowball's chance than you will be in for a long couple of months. Romney has New Hampshire sewn up, Paul is third is SouthCarolina behind Romney and Newt and is doing about 5% in Florida.
Ron Paul is a short term hail Mary pass to something that requires a long term solution.

Originally posted by FSBlueApocalypse
If you believe Paul currently has a better than snowball's chance than you will be in for a long couple of months. Romney has New Hampshire sewn up, Paul is third is SouthCarolina behind Romney and Newt and is doing about 5% in Florida.
Ron Paul is a short term hail Mary pass to something that requires a long term solution.

Blah..blah...blah........blah, blah.......blah.......blah, blah, blah, blah.....blah...................blah...

(****YAWN****)

reply to post by FSBlueApocalypse


You want to Fight For Liberty ? You Want More Freedom to be You ? You want the Federal and State Goverments Off your Back ? You want to Work and make a Decent Living for you and your Family ? Then either consider a Career in Politics and Start a Third Major Political Party that will Give you those Things , or Move to Another Country and Hope it will be Better there than it is here . That is the Choice we All have as Americans Right Now . Me , I want to Get Back the Freedoms I Remember I Once Had that my Children Will Never Have if something isn't Done Soon to Change the Course America is heading in Today . Over 300 Million People is a Mighy Big Crowd to Start with.........Organize ? Hell Yeah !

reply to post by TheImmaculateD1


I dont live in america, but cannot see ron paul winning either. If i were to take him at face value id think he could save the world ! but ive heard nearly every president in the past promise the earth, only to later deliver very little. And i now have a question, and its regarding the signing of the national defence agreement act..im wondering what future candidates are going to promise the people now that an act which could spell the end for freedom has been passed. I dont know ron paul personally ..he seems a nice guy, but if all that ron paul says about the existing power structure is true, then he must understand that by its very nature, the system is not set up for a man like him to win. In england there is major apathy on voting day, people here have little belief in the government anymore, and like you say , the future of america is not ron paul,, its the people, that is if they can wake up and do something.

reply to post by FSBlueApocalypse


I agree with what you say, except for the 'libertarian party' part.

They are yet just another flavour of what we already have, control of the economy by a small minority group of old billionaire capitalists. It is liberty for the capitalists, more slave labour for the rest of us.

Their 'libertarian options' sounds like it was written by someone who has never lived outside of a gated community, and works behind a desk. A fanciful utopian version of capitalism that completely ignores history and what capitalism really is. Having no regulations on banks is not really 'free-market', because it gives banks the power to control the market.

If we could all be bankers fine, but we can't, so it leaves a small minority of billionaire capitalists to run and control the economy. The very thing we are trying to get away from. Whoever controls the economy controls everything. The idea of all people free to exploit using their property leaves far more people exploited, because 'property owners' are a small minority, and always will be in a 'pyramid scheme' economy.

If only you would realise the origin of the term 'libertarian' and what it originally stood for, would be a better way for all people to control their own lives, by having more power over the economy.

Unfortunately, in the United States the term “libertarian” has become, since the 1970s, associated with the right-wing, i.e., supporters of “free-market” capitalism. That defenders of the hierarchy associated with private property seek to associate the term “libertarian” for their authoritarian system is both unfortunate and somewhat unbelievable to any genuine libertarian. Equally unfortunately, thanks to the power of money and the relative small size of the anarchist movement in America, this appropriation of the term has become, to a large extent, the default meaning there. Somewhat ironically, this results in some right-wing “libertarians” complaining that we genuine libertarians have “stolen” their name in order to associate our socialist ideas with it!

150 years of Libertarian

You've all been taught that private property equals freedom, but in reality it causes your wage slavery. It is simply the right for people to exploit those who do not own property. It all started when the laws were changed that allowed land owners, the nobility, to sell their land to others, and thus deny access to 'the commoners' to live and grow crops. The end of feudalism in Europe, and the start of 'capitalism'.

It took away the commoners autonomy, and gave the nobility the opportunity to exploit the commoners [to make money] by supplying 'jobs'. The system was not called 'capitalism' though until 1839, when the term was first used by a French socialist, J.J.C. Blanc in Organisation du Travail. The term simply meant the 'private ownership of the means of production'. In other words property used to hire/exploit labour, not your personal property. (Marx is often credited for the term, but he didn't use it until 1848, in the Communist Manifesto)

Much like the term 'libertarian', even 'socialism', the term 'capitalism' has been twisted to hide it's true meaning and history. The more capitalists hide the truth, the less the 'commoners' will revolt. These terms are still relevant in their original meanings, nothing has changed but peoples perceptions due to the lies of the capitalist state system. 'Private owners' still will not allow the commoners to use land to be self sufficient on, 'jobs' are still used to make money for the 'private owner'. 'Workers' still have to produce more than they are paid for in order for the 'private owner' to make profit.

www.archive.org...

Government is already too corrupted and controlled, by those who control the economy, for anyone to change it from the inside.