The Ron Paul election fraud is now conspiracy fact.

Just saying, how can 2 youtube videos make it fact?

I'm not saying i don't think its fraud, but labeling it as fact is like me saying a youtube video of a frisbee is fact that aliens are invading.

Originally posted by jazzguy
im getting sick and tired of listening to people say stuff like, he will never win, the elites wont allow it.

dont you think we know that?
i would rather support a candidate that has no hope of winning if its the right message, and RP has that.

its not about getting behind a person that will win, rather a question of right and wrong.
true ron paul supporters will follow him no matter the outcome.

you guys that say he will never win are part of the problem

realists are a part of the problem?.
how very interesting.

The hilarious thing is that Paul supporters are either going to:

- Vote for the party that rigged these primaries, and the candidate that screwed their candidate of choice OR
- Vote for Obama OR
- Vote for no one (another vote for Obama)
- Write in Paul (another vote for Obama)

reply to post by FreedomXisntXFree


Look, the Bilderbergs and their little co-conspirator friends have been doing this sort of thing for centuries. I'm sure most all elections have been predetermined because, well, the world has been ruled by monarchs and emperors for most of human history! Its just how things are done, and no lousy government "of the People" will get in the way of the status quo. Ron and Rand Paul both pose an open threat to the established system of empires. I think it will only be a matter of time before they go the way of the Kennedys.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


Sane people? By whose definition surely not Our Founders or those that can think. I think we are coming to a head in America we will either get Camps and death and a police planet or we will remove the sitting form of government and go back to Constitutional Republic. Of course both will require someones blood, now the people have to decide is it their children's or the Traitors?

Originally posted by pirhanna
Like I said when all of you were saying Ron Paul could win...
There is no way in hell they let him be president.
It won't happen. They won't let it happen.
So I'm not even a little surprised.

He probably wouldn't have won anyhow, but they made sure he didn't even get a chance to gain the momentum of being a "real" candidate. Never know what happens after that. Then they'd have to add him to the list of Wellstone, JFK Jr., & Bono. Promising political figures that, perhaps, didn't tow the company line? Speculation of course. All one can say is that the incidents raised eyebrows.

Don't fool yourselves into thinking you have a real choice.

edit on 25-3-2012 by pirhanna because: (no reason given)

So, you refuse to do anything... that makes you a coward.

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
The hilarious thing is that Paul supporters are either going to:

- Vote for the party that rigged these primaries, and the candidate that screwed their candidate of choice OR
- Vote for Obama OR
- Vote for no one (another vote for Obama)
- Write in Paul (another vote for Obama)

So you are basically saying Obama has it in the bag because those of us who want a better America will Vote for the man willing to bring us back to Greatness? That is depressing Obama will only continue to run us into the ground Shoot

Originally posted by theindependentjournal
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

Sane people? By whose definition surely not Our Founders or those that can think. I think we are coming to a head in America we will either get Camps and death and a police planet or we will remove the sitting form of government and go back to Constitutional Republic. Of course both will require someones blood, now the people have to decide is it their children's or the Traitors?

I vote revolt! I am in when the # hits the fan... I will not go quietly.

reply to post by Mayflower1987


Sort of, though Paul is complicit. He stayed a republican during the Iraq war, the patriot act, and on and on. He'll stay during this fraud as well. It SHOULD make Paul fans think, but it doesn't, as they excuse everything he does

Really though, the GOP is responsible for the second Obama term, more so than Obama himself.

So.

reply to post by squidboy


For you and all the others that think the Declaration of Independence gives you the right to revolt...go ahead and try it.

The Constitution very clearly defines treason...but go ahead and try to use the Declaration of Independence as your shield after you get caught exercising your "right" to revolt.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


"Revolt"?

You must be under the impression the American people are to be working for the federal government and not the other way around. Last time I checked this is supposed to be some kind of democracy with elected representatives and all.

How are we going to "revolt" against the people who are supposed to be working for us? It sounds like your revolt is the other way around and it has already happened.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


Your job on ATS is just to try to make people look stupid isn't it? You can never politely correct someone can you?

What do you think the First and Second Amendment were for?

To enable the country to fight back with their voice first. If freedom of assembly gets violent then the country is armed to fight back against its oppressors. I think you need to go back and do a history lesson. Each Right in the Bill of Rights are given to US citizens to force the government into allowing people to be free. Each Right that is given to us a defensive wall against tyranny and oppression.

Go down the line. Imagine what would happen if you took a right away right down the line(unfortunately some of of our rights have already technically been taken away).

Alaxander Hamiliton wrote....
"a federally regulated militia will be more uniform and beneficial to the "public defense" of Americans. He argues that an excessively regulated militia can harm a nation's work force, as not everyone can leave their profession to go through military exercises. Thus, a smaller, but still well-regulated militia, is the answer. This force will be further complemented by the "people at large," who can "stand ready with arms to defend their rights and those of their fellow-citizens." In the end, Hamilton concludes that the militia, as it is constituted directly of the people and managed by the states, is not a danger to liberty when called upon by federal authority."

So technically it would be just "state militia's" that would "revolt". But since the country doesn't have a lot of active state militias is the reason we have "crazy right wing constitutional militias".

What other reason would you think the founders armed us for?

USC › Title 10 › Subtitle A › Part I › Chapter 13 › § 31

10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. "
-Thomas Jefferson

reply to post by FreedomXisntXFree


The founders didn't arm you.

On top of that, Ron Paul and his shenanigans are hardly worthy of an armed revolt.

reply to post by captainnotsoobvious


I didn't say that at all. Nor did I say I wanted to "revolt". I want a peaceful solution to the corruption running rampant through our government. Please read before commenting.

And yes. The founder's did arm me. If the Bill of Rights didn't exist do you really think we'd own guns? Look at the UK.

reply to post by FreedomXisntXFree


First, some people in the UK do own guns, mostly hunters.

In fact:

The estimated total number of guns held by civilians in England & Wales is 3,400,000

www.gunpolicy.org...

So I guess your entire theory is pretty weak.

As for the Founding fathers arming you. I lived for almost thirty years in the US and never once had a friend that owned a gun. So. They obviously didn't arm you. They gave you the right to own a gun, but that's not the same thing. You might as well say the liquor store made you drunk.

reply to post by captainnotsoobvious


Keep trying to twist my words so you are "right" I suppose. I'm not going to "debate" with people like that.
2

reply to post by FreedomXisntXFree


Simply re-stating your words is not twisting them. Words have meanings. If you want people to understand you than use words and language correctly.

At least don't say something silly, then deny you said it, then - when called on it - claim someone's twisting your words.

The language you use reflects your beliefs though; you see gun ownership as an important part of being American (and also as something unique about being an American). I do not.

reply to post by captainnotsoobvious


The problem here is semantics. You took my words and made them into something else to fit your "argument". I don't know what your goal was to begin with really. I posted that there are constitutional militias and some state militias in the United States that are protected by the Bill of Rights. Earlier posts had people saying that the Declaration of Independence gave them to right to "revolt" which is incorrect. IMO The founder's gave us a right to own weaponry for a reason. That was the only point I was trying to get across.

I didn't call for an "armed revolt" in the name of Ron Paul as you initially claimed. All I did was post some information about militia's and you twisted it into me saying, "I want to revolt and the founders gave me guns. I'm doing it for Ron Paul". Whether or not the founder's physically "armed me" is semantics. It was just my way of expressing the importance of our gun laws whether you agree or not.

I will say I am not well versed in UK gun laws. In that notion I appear to be misinformed. All I can do is assume you are correct about that at this time. It was just a misinformed example I suppose. Not the thesis statement of my entire stance and you seem to be trying to say.
Everything else.....you surely twisted and/or didn't read correctly. Please show me where I said, "I want to revolt in the name of Ron Paul".

reply to post by FreedomXisntXFree


First off, it's not just semantics. It's you being very casual with language. I called you on it and instead of clarifying your remarks you doubled down on them. Now you're trying to clarify. Fair enough, if a bit late.

As for your theories, I would disagree with bits and agree with other bits.