Ron Paul Backers Prepare Takeover

First off, I'm a RP fan, but if you walk away from the internet for more than a week, you will see that Ron Paul is not even thought of by a majority of the general public. We here on ATS are not the general public. Sorry, and hope I am wrong, but he's not going to win. (I'm still voting for him in the primaries and still let people know about him, so don't think I'm giving up, just honest.)

The whole process is corrupt and even rigged. I recently was speaking to a client here in Los Angeles and she is part of the Tea Party movement. Her local group is trying very hard to infiltrate the current local GOP party to change out the face of a very long standing congressman in her area. The things she told me shocked me, and I'm not easily shocked.

Lets just say, dirty politics is standard play. I am talking dirty from the incumbent's side. He's had a long time to master his deviant ways and is stopping at nothing to not be derailed by them.

The winner of this presidential race shall be whomever "they" decide it will be, we are just part of the game.

Originally posted by SunnyDee
First off, I'm a RP fan, but if you walk away from the internet for more than a week, you will see that Ron Paul is not even thought of by a majority of the general public. We here on ATS are not the general public. Sorry, and hope I am wrong, but he's not going to win. (I'm still voting for him in the primaries and still let people know about him, so don't think I'm giving up, just honest.)

The whole process is corrupt and even rigged. I recently was speaking to a client here in Los Angeles and she is part of the Tea Party movement. Her local group is trying very hard to infiltrate the current local GOP party to change out the face of a very long standing congressman in her area. The things she told me shocked me, and I'm not easily shocked.

Lets just say, dirty politics is standard play. I am talking dirty from the incumbent's side. He's had a long time to master his deviant ways and is stopping at nothing to not be derailed by them.

The winner of this presidential race shall be whomever "they" decide it will be, we are just part of the game.

Not if we play by their rigged rules. That's the plan. Infiltrate and play the game, and if everything pans out, come out winning by round 2.

Yeah, the British imperialists were dirty cheats, an evil brood of snakes. George Washington and Lafayette figured out a way to beat those scumbags. There's no room for naysayers in this revolution. Fight for liberty. This could be our last chance. Liva la revolution!

reply to post by fourthmeal


If he broke away from the GOP, why is he currently in the running for the GOP nominee then?

I don't buy it.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
This I certainly agree with, but you must remember "the elite" have been using america to spread capitalism since after world war 2, because of the illusion of freedom/liberty. There was never really any freedom/liberty for the working class to begin with. I am not totally against business since I am a small busines owner myself, but the critical infrastructure should be nationalised.

Just had to pipe up here, the "elite" have been pushing collectivism since the American republic was founded... brush up on your history and i'm sure you'll see quite an interesting picture emerge. Collectivist societies have always failed, simply due to the fact that everyone can be corrupted. The only way to limit corruption and to ensure government is "really for the people" is to limit its power to a couple of basic tenets, which just happen to be laid out in the constitution as the bill of rights.

here is a great place to start and gives profound insight into the differences between individualism and collectivism Its incredibly well referenced and only scratches the surface of what actually is going on. If it takes your fancy grab a copy of "the creature of jekyll island" i highly recommend it

www.freedomforceinternational.org...

reply to post by fourthmeal


Hope you are right and it works, just don't think we are there yet. Hope I'm wrong, so I'll shut up now!

Originally posted by fourthmeal
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

So much here, I'll just point out a few things and get back to work.

First, we agree on more than you think. Second, no I'm not citing Nazi Germany or Stalin's Russia in example. I'm going much further back than that, but again maybe we'll save history time for later. Third, I haven't "bought" anything, except that a change is needed and soon. What I will say about that comment is that you are best off not to confuse Capitalism with Corporatism. Right now, we do not have a true Capitalist environment. We have a Corporatist one. The very concept of government associated directly with the corporations (venn diagrams, anybody?) makes a free market fail. It isn't free!

Wrong. Corporatism is the main branch of capitalism. Without corporatism you cannot have global trade anywhere near the level of the last 100 years. That is the problem with romantic conservatives such as yourself. You live in the wrong era....

Truth be told, corruption ruins ALL approaches. HOWEVER, and again history is on my side here... corruption cannot exist unchecked in a free society. Socialistic societies by their very nature cannot sustain without corruption, and the corruption goes unchecked.

Anything can be corrupted and socialism is not exception. But capitalism being compared to freedom is a planted ilusion by the ptb. They want people to continously believe this nonsense. Yeah you are free to work two jobs at minimum wage to raise a family and spend like there is no tomorrow.

In theory and practice, indeed everything can be corrupt and bought, as you said. That's why, in a free society, the "We the People" check, armed per 2nd amendment, can stop it. And that brings us to the very near future, my fellow human friend.

It the american military can sack saddam hussein armed with tanks, helicopters, 1 million strong army, etc...what makes you think a few americans with non-automatic weapons really stand ANY CHANCE at defeating the american government. The only way the bloodshed would end is IF the military choose to side with the people and this is A BIG IF.

Socialism is not the answer. It never has been, the human spirit will not accept it by default. Collectivism is a perfectly sane idea but it must be by choice not by socialistic decree.

Socialism is not the best answer but neither is capitalism. What we need is a mixed economy, where critical industry is nationalised and everything else is in private hands for profit. I don't want to be a slave to society, as you don't either, but at the same time each BP and TEPCO disaster is bringing this planet closer to its end.

I refuse to have a conversation with someone about luciferianism and masonry when we're talking about a subject not in line with those discussions. While all things are inexorably connected, it is not the place of a discussion about the ideologies and suggestions of RP.

edit on 1-5-2012 by fourthmeal because: misspelled ruins

I don't refuse to talk about anything because I don't have any skeletons in my closet to hide.

Ideally a political debate should be about EVERYTHING because that is what politics is ALL ABOUT! The fact some things are a taboo or can't be discussed under national security issues is kind of a cop-out that cheapens the whole process and makes it repetitive and boring.

There is a reason many people never vote. They don't expect change and thus they never get it!

Originally posted by manisobsolete

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
This I certainly agree with, but you must remember "the elite" have been using america to spread capitalism since after world war 2, because of the illusion of freedom/liberty. There was never really any freedom/liberty for the working class to begin with. I am not totally against business since I am a small busines owner myself, but the critical infrastructure should be nationalised.

Just had to pipe up here, the "elite" have been pushing collectivism since the American republic was founded... brush up on your history and i'm sure you'll see quite an interesting picture emerge. Collectivist societies have always failed, simply due to the fact that everyone can be corrupted. The only way to limit corruption and to ensure government is "really for the people" is to limit its power to a couple of basic tenets, which just happen to be laid out in the constitution as the bill of rights.

here is a great place to start and gives profound insight into the differences between individualism and collectivism

Its incredibly well referenced and only scratches the surface of what actually is going on. If it takes your fancy grab a copy of "the creature of jekyll island" i highly recommend it

www.freedomforceinternational.org...

edit on 1-5-2012 by manisobsolete because: Spelling mistakes

I have been talking about the Federal Reserve, masonry and its relation to lucierianism, corporatism being the main branch of capitalism......don't you think I know all about that book? seriously........

The problem with the FED is that is PRIVATE just like the ECB. Under socialism and communism there is no such thing as private property.

It is kind of silly to patronise someone who knows more than you.

reply to post by manisobsolete




This video explains everything.

And last time I heard they control the republican party, while the rockefellers who are maybe 1/10 as wealthy control the democrat family. No wonder everyone wants to be a conservative and they always come up with the best astroturfing solutions.

Originally posted by The Sword
reply to post by fourthmeal

 

If he broke away from the GOP, why is he currently in the running for the GOP nominee then?

I don't buy it.

Maybe because he is a hypocrite.

Hypocrites tend to do hypocritical things.



But don't bother pointing this out because you will be labeled anti-american and an evil commie. the witchhunt of the mcarthy era NEVER DIES!

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


The only time I ever see you on ATS is in the Ron Paul threads. You spend an incredible amount of time trying to quash any optimism by Ron Paul supporters, and claim over and over and over again that there's no way Ron Paul can win against your buddy Barry until the thread eventually fades out.

"Methinks the lady doth protest too much."

reply to post by The Sword


Why should he have to break away from the party that is rightfully his?

In a study that ranked the political leanings of all congressmen who served between 1937 and 2002, Professors Howard Rosenthal and Keith Poole listed what they believe to be the the 10 “most conservative.” While there are some lesser known and scandal-ridden elected representatives, Texas Congressman Ron Paul tops the list. His presence as the “most conservative” Congressman in a hundred years is not only a reminder of why he is the true practical and philosophical alternative to President Obama, but also what the definition of conservatism really is.
www.policymic.com...

reply to post by 27jd


If Ron Paul can't decide between libertarianism and republicanism, then how can others decide for him?

In any case I don't dislike the guy on a personal level, I simply think he is full of hot air and old age might have something to do with that.

Enough said. I don't want to be known as ron paul basher. I would rather be known as a republican basher. The second is more fun. Yuuuummmy

reply to post by EarthCitizen07

I don't want to be known as ron paul basher. I would rather be known as a republican basher. The second is more fun. Yuuuummmy

Hopefully you will learn that your folly in bi-partisan bickering has ultimately made you part of the problem with this country.

Click here for more information.

reply to post by AntiNWO

The only time I ever see you on ATS is in the Ron Paul threads. You spend an incredible amount of time trying to quash any optimism by Ron Paul supporters, and claim over and over and over again that there's no way Ron Paul can win against your buddy Barry until the thread eventually fades out.

That's because OutKast prefers a president with a track record of using the U.S. Constitution as toilet paper.

There is no other logical explanation for this phenomenon.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
I have been talking about the Federal Reserve, masonry and its relation to lucierianism, corporatism being the main branch of capitalism......don't you think I know all about that book? seriously........

The problem with the FED is that is PRIVATE just like the ECB. Under socialism and communism there is no such thing as private property.

It is kind of silly to patronise someone who knows more than you.

edit on 5/1/2012 by EarthCitizen07 because: add sentence

I wasn't trying to be patronizing, sorry if i came across that way. I thought you may not have read it. I still don't think you grasped the point of view it puts forward, did you read the link i attached?

Basically what you're saying is that if 1 small group of people is in control of our resources as opposed to another small group of people it'll be completely different.

My opinion (the individualist take on it) is that the problem is not that its private, its the centralization of power. It doesn't matter whether the people in control are private or public figures, whether or not its supposedly for the people or not, the people in control are still people and they still act like people. I'm talking about the kind of people who aspire to gain power over others without scruples, or who's ego's are so trumped up that they think they know better than the rest and can carve their own utopia out of society. They are the ones who end up in prominent positions of government/corporations, it seems to be an unfortunate fact of life from what i can see thoughout history.

Now if it worked in favour of the people generally throughout history but we have corrupt people at the helm now then i wouldn't be so adverse to the idea... But can you show me an example of a collectivist society that has worked well for the individual in history?

I'd really love you to read that PDF i posted and get back to me with your opinions on the difference in ideology as you seem to be quite capable of doing so

This interesting little tidbit is at the end of that PDF to whet your appetite....

THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM
We hear a lot today about right-wingers versus left-wingers, but what do those terms
really mean? For example, we are told that communists and socialists are at the extreme
left, and the Nazis and Fascists are on the extreme right. Here we have the image of two
powerful ideological adversaries pitted against each other, and the impression is that,
somehow, they are opposites. But, what is the difference? They are not opposites at all.
They are the same. The insignias may be different, but when you analyze communism and
Nazism, they both embody the principles of socialism. Communists make no bones about
socialism being their ideal, and the Nazi movement in Germany was actually called the
National Socialist Party. Communists believe in international socialism, whereas Nazis
advocate national socialism. Communists promote class hatred and class conflict to
motivate the loyalty and blind obedience of their followers, whereas the Nazis use race
conflict and race hatred to accomplish the same objective. Other than that, there is no
difference between communism and Nazism. They are both the epitome of collectivism, and
yet we are told they are, supposedly, at opposite ends of the spectrum!
In the United States and most European countries there is a mirage of two political
parties supposedly opposing each other, one on the Right and the other on the Left. Yet,
when we get past the party slogans and rhetoric, we find that the leaders of both parties
support all the principles of collectivism that we have outlined. Indeed, they represent a
right wing and a left wing, but they are two wings of the same ugly bird called collectivism.
A true choice for freedom will not be found with either of them.
There’s only one thing that makes sense in constructing a political spectrum and that
is to put zero government at one end of the line and 100% at the other. Now we have
something we can comprehend. Those who believe in zero government are the anarchists,
and those who believe in total government are the totalitarians. With that definition, we find
that communism and Nazism are together at the same end. They are both totalitarian. Why?
Because they are both based on the model of collectivism. Communism, Nazism, Fascism
and socialism all gravitate toward bigger and bigger government, because that is the logical
extension of their common ideology. Under collectivism, all problems are the responsibility
of the state and must be solved by the state. The more problems there are, the more powerful
the state must become. Once you get on that slippery slope, there is no place to stop until
you reach all the way to the end of the scale, which is total government. Regardless of what
name you give it, regardless of how you re-label it to make it seem new or different,
collectivism is totalitarianism.
Actually, the straight-line concept of a political spectrum is somewhat misleading. It is
really a circle. You can take that straight line with 100% government at one end and zero at
the other, bend it around, and touch the ends at the top. Now it’s a circle because, under
anarchy, where there is no government, you have absolute rule by those with the biggest
fists and the most powerful weapons. So, you jump from zero government to totalitarianism
in a flash. They meet at the top. We are really dealing with a circle, and the only logical
place for us to be is somewhere in the middle of the extremes. We need social and political
organization, of course, but it must be built on individualism, an ideology with an affinity to
that part of the spectrum with the least amount of government possible instead of
collectivism with an affinity to the other end of the spectrum with the most amount of
government possible. That government is best which governs least.

reply to post by AntiNWO


Your point is?

Stick to the topic and stay away from the personal attacks.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

If Ron Paul can't decide between libertarianism and republicanism, then how can others decide for him?

In any case I don't dislike the guy on a personal level, I simply think he is full of hot air and old age might have something to do with that.

Enough said. I don't want to be known as ron paul basher. I would rather be known as a republican basher. The second is more fun. Yuuuummmy

I will use a little humor to address this statement. Chris Rock is smart enough to figure it out.....you should be to.

NSFW in case you don't know Chris Rock...