Ron Paul Backers Prepare Takeover

Originally posted by fourthmeal
My God my head hurts just trying to comprehend how you must see the world. Reality is not on your side, nor is history.

Unions are just fine, but if the free market doesn't want them (in other words if a company prefers to not use them), then so be it. That's the decision of the market.

Socialism and liberty cannot co-exist.

Live here if you want liberty, go live somewhere else like Cuba if you want socialism.

Go to Mexico if you want a country without taxation and where there are two classes, a ruling class and the rabble.

Originally posted by openminded2011

Originally posted by fourthmeal
My God my head hurts just trying to comprehend how you must see the world. Reality is not on your side, nor is history.

Unions are just fine, but if the free market doesn't want them (in other words if a company prefers to not use them), then so be it. That's the decision of the market.

Socialism and liberty cannot co-exist.

Live here if you want liberty, go live somewhere else like Cuba if you want socialism.

Go to Mexico if you want a country without taxation and where there are two classes, a ruling class and the rabble.

Yeah, like Romney and his friends are paying their fair share of taxes. What we need is cancelation of debt. Mortgage debt, college debt, credit card debt. Israel used to do it as part of the law of Moses. It was called Jubilee. Cancel all debts. Believe it or not, the Jubilee proclamation that Moses gave: "Proclaim liberty throughout the land to all the inhabitants thereof" is on the Liberty Bell in Philadelphia.

I'm a big Ron Paul supporter. I believe in liberty. But without cancellation of debt through Jubilee, nations will have periodic revolutions, coup d' etats and tyranny. Moses gave us the ten commandments, but he also gave us the principle of Jubilee. Unfortunately, socialism doesn't lead to liberty. It just empowers a big Kafka-like bureauocracy.

Uh, that's what the Elite want and have wanted since ever, except they'll keep taxation. That's the end goal of it all, the .1% and the rest of us, thinned out of course.

I don't want to go to Mexico, I want the US to go back to its roots and stand up for what our FF's fought for.

Originally posted by openminded2011

Originally posted by fourthmeal
My God my head hurts just trying to comprehend how you must see the world. Reality is not on your side, nor is history.

Unions are just fine, but if the free market doesn't want them (in other words if a company prefers to not use them), then so be it. That's the decision of the market.

Socialism and liberty cannot co-exist.

Live here if you want liberty, go live somewhere else like Cuba if you want socialism.

Go to Mexico if you want a country without taxation and where there are two classes, a ruling class and the rabble.

Looking back further to mid-April, Paul’s supporters also dominated conventions in Minnesota and made a strong showing in Colorado. Looking ahead, Paul’s supporters are poised to continue repeating their successful takeover strategy at the Nevada State GOP’s convention this weekend, and careful observers should look out for more possible surprises in the upcoming Texas and California processes, especially with the likelihood of Newt Gingrich’s withdrawal from the race, leaving Ron Paul as the only alternative to an electorate

RandPaulReview

Yea I understand its the Rand Paul review but its not claiming that there will be victory. This article seemed very neutral imo... and probably one of the only ones out there covering this angle on how Ron Paul's movement is taking over the GOP county by county, state by state...

EDIT: Actually no... this is a mirrored article on his site. the original is here.

IVN

MORE MAINSTREAM COVERAGE!

Comments Campaign 2012 Ron Paul’s stealth state convention takeover

Here’s the latest on Paul’s strength in state committees and conventions:

At Massachusetts’ state convention less than half of Romney’s 27 chosen delegates won tickets to Tampa. Paul supporters were chosen instead. While all of the state’s delegates are committed to vote for Romney, the delegates get to decide on the party chairman, platform, and VP nominee.

Paul backers in Alaska were elected as party chairman and co-chairman but failed to change the rules to give Paul the state’s 24 delegates. (He will get six.)

Paul supporters are a majority in the Iowa GOP’s State Central Committee, and he’s set to claim a majority of the state’s delegates despite finishing third in the caucuses.

They dominated the caucuses in Louisiana, carrying four out of six congressional districts with a tie in a fifth. That means 74 percent of the state’s convention delegates will be Paul backers.

In Minnesota, Paul won 20 of 24 delegates allocated at congressional district conventions, and he’s expected to take more at the statewide convention.

Paul supporters teamed up with backers of former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum in Colorado to get 13 delegates.

The candidate has also picked up small delegate gains in states where Romney won big — for example, five delegates in Pennsylvania and four in Rhode Island. 

Attempts to replicate these successes are taking place in other states across the country — for example, the upcoming state convention in Nevada.

“Taken together, these victories and those yet to happen forecast a prominent role for Ron Paul at the RNC,” Paul campaign manager John Tate said after the Colorado and Minnesota gains. “They also signal that the convention will feature a spirited discussion over whether conservatism will triumph over the status quo.”

Paul has only 80 delegates to Romney’s 847, according to an AP count. When all the various state conventions are over we’ll see how much support he’s gathered — and whether Romney should have paid more attention. 

WashingtonPost

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by openminded2011

The Koch Brothers, both multi-billionares with interests in mining and looser government regulations.

Sarah Palin and Ron Paul= Republican astroturfing

All you have to do is connect the dots. RP and the Koch brothers are joined at the hip ideologically.They both want to shrink the state. How do the poor and the middle class benefit from that? They don't, but the 1 percent will benefit tremendously. By making predatory capitalism safe from big government by eliminating it altogether under the guise of of "freedom" and "liberty". Ok here is a question, who will have the most freedom in that new America, a paycheck to paycheck worker, now without ANY protections previously afforded by things like social security and labor laws, or a multi millionaire?? Who does shrinking the government serve the most of those two people? Where will that paycheck to paycheck worker have ANY recourse? In the state courts? Doubtful as they will quickly be paid off. The endgame of free marketeers hiding behind this Trojan horse is that only those with money and power will be free, the rest of us will be their slaves (we are already 99 percent of the way there, but this will finish it). WAKE UP.

edit on 30-4-2012 by openminded2011 because: (no reason given)

I pretty much agree with your analysis. Anything from center-left to right= slavery!

Anyone that attacks unions, is pro free markets and rampant globalisation is my enemy.

Then they play the thatcher card to denigrate social welfare under the guise of taxation and national debt.

Socialism for the bottom feeders("elite") and capitalism for everyone else, does not socialism make.

I am still extremely pissed off at Obama and Bush for giving away so much tax money to the undeserving "too big to fail" companies. If we are going to have capitalism(which is based on social exploitation anyway) then at least PUNISH those that make wrong decisions.

9 trillion missing from the federal reserve and 2.3 trillion missing from the pentagon. WTF did it go, but yeah lets make a big deal about welfare and social services cause it is easy to pick on the little guy. What a bunch of sleezy hypocrites we have in washington dc.

The government and big business have become siamese twins, not from birth, but along the way cause everyone has been drinking the free market koolaid since the industrial revolution. Communism with all its faults could have evolved itself had it not been for the blockade from "the west". Look at cuba who could not even

I've seen this uninformed opinion spewed many a times on this site about Ron Paul. The elite would benefit greatly from him. It must be the reason they are spending billion of dollars to silence him and hand the election over to his competitors. Are you folk really this blind? Seriously?

It is a sad day to hear this non sense spewed. The elites do everything they can to prevent him from ever getting, including changing election rules at the caucuses, miscounting his votes and no MSM coverage, 82 seconds of air time, but secretly they are all rooting for him, because his policies would line their pockets, hahaha, how's the glue?

The rich want absolutely nothing to do with Ron Paul, because the underlying issue of money as debt is the number one tool used to steal the countries wealth, something only Ron Paul is willing to fight against. The fed needs to be abolished yesterday. nothing else matters until a sound monetary system is put in place, we will continue to see all of tax dollars used to pay off the debt without ever putting a dent into it. Wake up. They are all against him for a reason. It's not because he would help them immensely. Get a grip.

I've seen this uninformed opinion spewed many a times on this site about Ron Paul. The elite would benefit greatly from him. It must be the reason they are spending billion of dollars to silence him and hand the election over to his competitors. Are you folk really this blind? Seriously?

It is a sad day to hear this non sense spewed. The elites do everything they can to prevent him from ever getting, including changing election rules at the caucuses, miscounting his votes and no MSM coverage, 82 seconds of air time, but secretly they are all rooting for him, because his policies would line their pockets, hahaha, how's the glue?

The rich want absolutely nothing to do with Ron Paul, because the underlying issue of money as debt is the number one tool used to steal the countries wealth, something only Ron Paul is willing to fight against. The fed needs to be abolished yesterday. nothing else matters until a sound monetary system is put in place, we will continue to see all of tax dollars used to pay off the debt without ever putting a dent into it. Wake up. They are all against him for a reason. It's not because he would help them immensely. Get a grip.

Originally posted by All Seeing Eye
reply to post by oddnutz

 

I just have to tell ya, I love your Avatar

A little message to "that" Senator" You cant stop the people, the time is here, it is now!........................

I bet the 5 year old kids have no idea of what is going on at all.

Originally posted by manisobsolete

Communists make no bones about
socialism being their ideal,

Wrong. According to cm socialism is one step before communism, where communism is identical to anarchy or commune rule aka tribalism.

Communists promote class hatred and class conflict to
motivate the loyalty and blind obedience of their followers,

they promote what is in front of them. they are not inventing class hatred.

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.

but hitler hated socialism/communism to the point of attacking russia.

They are both the epitome of collectivism, and
yet we are told they are, supposedly, at opposite ends of the spectrum!

not opposites, just different. socialism/communism and capitalism are exact opposites.

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.

you might be suprised to find out there are more than two parties at each election period

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.

nothing collectivist about capitalism, especially the american version...other than social welfare systems, which are mild compared to europe.

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.

yes anarchy is far right and socialism is far left. Many versions exist in between somewhat rerpresented by each party. if people don't like one party then vote for another party. Voting for the same party and expecting different results is the defintion of insanity.

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.

nazism/fascism seem inclined to a mixed economy, where as socialism/communism is a public economy.

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.

so the people have total power? WHO is the government? why do conservatives have a mental block with government and left wingers have a mental block with corporations? do you see my point???

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.

it seems you are OVER-analysing politics and making unfounded conclusions based on your absolute hate of government. as a progressive i don't hate corporations as much as you hate government. the fear of government to such extremes is unbelievable paranoia! how many stalins and hitlers does history have and why did people let such monsters get to power in the first place? You see an ignorant populace is just as responsible for society problems as the tyrants who misuse their power. the people safeguard democracy, not the government.

Originally posted by hab22

Originally posted by openminded2011

Originally posted by fourthmeal
My God my head hurts just trying to comprehend how you must see the world. Reality is not on your side, nor is history.

Unions are just fine, but if the free market doesn't want them (in other words if a company prefers to not use them), then so be it. That's the decision of the market.

Socialism and liberty cannot co-exist.

Live here if you want liberty, go live somewhere else like Cuba if you want socialism.

Go to Mexico if you want a country without taxation and where there are two classes, a ruling class and the rabble.

Yeah, like Romney and his friends are paying their fair share of taxes. What we need is cancelation of debt. Mortgage debt, college debt, credit card debt. Israel used to do it as part of the law of Moses. It was called Jubilee. Cancel all debts. Believe it or not, the Jubilee proclamation that Moses gave: "Proclaim liberty throughout the land to all the inhabitants thereof" is on the Liberty Bell in Philadelphia.

I'm a big Ron Paul supporter. I believe in liberty. But without cancellation of debt through Jubilee, nations will have periodic revolutions, coup d' etats and tyranny. Moses gave us the ten commandments, but he also gave us the principle of Jubilee. Unfortunately, socialism doesn't lead to liberty. It just empowers a big Kafka-like bureauocracy.

If you lent someone $5,000 with 5% annual interest would you just write-off because you are so kind?

Commercial banking is not the problem. PRIVATE central banking is. The government on behalf of the peoples republic should issue the currency and then lend it to the commercial banks at an interest rate. That means the nation collects money FROM THE BANKS rather taxing the hell out of the citizens and commercial banks making the private federal reserve super-rich and thus super-influential.

Then impose tariffs on all imports, especially american products/services made overseas. Take away the initiative from them and then find a way to close down many(preferrably all) offshore tax heavens. Corporations should exist, but they should also play fair. The wall street investor is not a king, he is just another citizen.

Rampant and lop-sided globalisation will cause a domino cascade failure of all the international markets because the american market is the biggest and most influential of all. what happens in america affects all! The bottom feeders are planning for this cascade failure to finalise the digital world currency and their plans are going pretty well.

Originally posted by macaronicaesar
I've seen this uninformed opinion spewed many a times on this site about Ron Paul. The elite would benefit greatly from him. It must be the reason they are spending billion of dollars to silence him and hand the election over to his competitors. Are you folk really this blind? Seriously?

It is a sad day to hear this non sense spewed. The elites do everything they can to prevent him from ever getting, including changing election rules at the caucuses, miscounting his votes and no MSM coverage, 82 seconds of air time, but secretly they are all rooting for him, because his policies would line their pockets, hahaha, how's the glue?

The rich want absolutely nothing to do with Ron Paul, because the underlying issue of money as debt is the number one tool used to steal the countries wealth, something only Ron Paul is willing to fight against. The fed needs to be abolished yesterday. nothing else matters until a sound monetary system is put in place, we will continue to see all of tax dollars used to pay off the debt without ever putting a dent into it. Wake up. They are all against him for a reason. It's not because he would help them immensely. Get a grip.

The mainstream media did a real number on a lot of people.

As with anything in today's world, follow the money. Big oil spent almost a billion dollars pushing gloal warming, while publicly spending a few million on weak research to make it look like they were against carbon trading.

Big pharma spent billions crafting ObamaCare, then weakly protested in the press as though they somehow got the bad deal.

It's the same thing with elections, but this time is going to be different. They've been hiding the true numbers of Ron paul's supporters, but they are running out of reasons to ignore him now. The truth is coming out, and the smart members of the media will be turning soon, they want in on the changes that are coming.

It's the digital age, can't stop the signal Mal.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Wrong. According to cm socialism is one step before communism, where communism is identical to anarchy or commune rule aka tribalism.

they promote what is in front of them. they are not inventing class hatred.

but hitler hated socialism/communism to the point of attacking russia.

not opposites, just different. socialism/communism and capitalism are exact opposites.

you might be suprised to find out there are more than two parties at each election period

nothing collectivist about capitalism, especially the american version...other than social welfare systems, which are mild compared to europe.

yes anarchy is far right and socialism is far left. Many versions exist in between somewhat rerpresented by each party. if people don't like one party then vote for another party. Voting for the same party and expecting different results is the defintion of insanity.

nazism/fascism seem inclined to a mixed economy, where as socialism/communism is a public economy.

so the people have total power? WHO is the government? why do conservatives have a mental block with government and left wingers have a mental block with corporations? do you see my point???


it seems you are OVER-analysing politics and making unfounded conclusions based on your absolute hate of government. as a progressive i don't hate corporations as much as you hate government. the fear of government to such extremes is unbelievable paranoia! how many stalins and hitlers does history have and why did people let such monsters get to power in the first place? You see an ignorant populace is just as responsible for society problems as the tyrants who misuse their power.

I guess i'll start at the top and work my way down through your points.

Its not wrong. It may well be one step before communism but you're missing the point of the article. its the mentality that the group is more important than the individual. So on the scale of things although the tenets may be different, in practice it is very much the same. Read the PDF.

They are perpetuating and inflaming class hatred and the coercive/collective mentality as opposed to encouraging prosperity and responsibility for your own state of affairs(individualism).

BAHAHAHAHAHAA! Hitler's political party was called The National Socialist German Workers' Party. read the PDF.

agreed that socialism and capitalism are opposites. not agreed that in practice socialism and communism are any different. in theory they are but not in practice

No need to be condescending, i'm well aware that there are more than 2 parties. The reality is that only those 2 big ones have the funding and general public backing to be elected, so for all intents and purposes its a 2 party system and those 2 parties represent the same interests which is clear by now to anyone paying attention.

The supposedly capitalist system that you are against (the one in america today) isn't capitalism at all, its fascim, the marriage of government and corporate interests. the american version which the founding fathers layed out is what i'm referencing. This will always happen UNLESS we take an individualist stance on issues. read the PDF.

voting for left or right and expecting different results isn't the result of insanity but is the result of being woefully misinformed. read the PDF.

You still haven't shown that you can grasp the basic ideology that i'm trying to explain... nazism/fascism socialism/communism... they differ in their supposed implementation of the economy but it doesn't change the fact its a planned economy controlled by very few people. So in practice, they produce the same economic problems. read the PDF.

Still not getting it. total government is a certain group of people forcing another group of people to their will. read the PDF.

I don't hate government absolutely, and it seems that you didn't even read the bit you quoted... it clearly states that you need Limited government. I welcome a government that protects my liberties and allows me my pursuit of happiness and prosperity however i choose to go about it. the fact is that your collectivist ideology will not let me do that, even if i choose not to be a part of it i will be coerced into it and if i dont' agree i will go to jail...
a recent example of this stupidity is the raw milk fiasco in the US. I really think you would benefit in reading the PDF i posted as ALL of the points you brought up are addressed succintly within it.

Finally, i agree that the problem lies with the people letting the government run rampant and become corrupt, where i disagree is that it would be any different to how it is now if we don't change the ideology that the people think government is based on.

Originally posted by manisobsolete

Its not wrong. It may well be one step before communism but you're missing the point of the article. its the mentality that the group is more important than the individual. So on the scale of things although the tenets may be different, in practice it is very much the same. Read the PDF.

The communist manifesto says socialism is one step from communism, but communism is defined as "commune rule" which resembles tribalism which resembles anarchy...no nation and/or central government!

The group and individual each play their role. I don't think either is more important than the other.

They are perpetuating and inflaming class hatred and the coercive/collective mentality as opposed to encouraging prosperity and responsibility for your own state of affairs(individualism).

And you are making the mistake that individualism is more important than collectivism. It is NOT!

The right emphasis is individualism and the left emphasis is collectivism.

BAHAHAHAHAHAA! Hitler's political party was called The National Socialist German Workers' Party. read the PDF.

Yeah. No kidding! Maybe it was close to what it said? You clearly have no idea what caused world war 2. just some big, bad boogie man called hitler on one side, a big bad butcher called stalin from russia, a cigar smoking hero called churchill and a crippled but resolvant man called roosevalt.

The winner writes history and the loser accepts it. Maybe YOU should travel to germany, japan, italy to get a clue what the locals where going through BEFORE you label people with what your teacher told you to believe.

agreed that socialism and capitalism are opposites. not agreed that in practice socialism and communism are any different. in theory they are but not in practice

please go talk to russians, cubans, north koreans and get first hand knowledge rather than spreading your misconceived opinions.

No need to be condescending, i'm well aware that there are more than 2 parties. The reality is that only those 2 big ones have the funding and general public backing to be elected, so for all intents and purposes its a 2 party system and those 2 parties represent the same interests which is clear by now to anyone paying attention.

so instead of making a big deal ABOUT THIS you just cry about big government this and big government that...all generalisations....no examples...no substance.

The supposedly capitalist system that you are against (the one in america today) isn't capitalism at all, its fascim, the marriage of government and corporate interests. the american version which the founding fathers layed out is what i'm referencing. This will always happen UNLESS we take an individualist stance on issues. read the PDF.

no need to read the pdf. fascism/nazism was a mixed economy with heavy racism/nationalism involved. The reason both got a bad reputation is because of the holocaust, and because zionism has a way of making jews seem important in history when they are not.

voting for left or right and expecting different results isn't the result of insanity but is the result of being woefully misinformed. read the PDF.

you are clearly misinformed, rich or have an agenda to push right wing views.

You still haven't shown that you can grasp the basic ideology that i'm trying to explain... nazism/fascism socialism/communism... they differ in their supposed implementation of the economy but it doesn't change the fact its a planned economy controlled by very few people. So in practice, they produce the same economic problems. read the PDF.

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Do you make up stuff as you go along?

Originally posted by manisobsolete

I don't hate government absolutely, and it seems that you didn't even read the bit you quoted... it clearly states that you need Limited government. I welcome a government that protects my liberties and allows me my pursuit of happiness and prosperity however i choose to go about it. the fact is that your collectivist ideology will not let me do that, even if i choose not to be a part of it i will be coerced into it and if i dont' agree i will go to jail...
a recent example of this stupidity is the raw milk fiasco in the US. I really think you would benefit in reading the PDF i posted as ALL of the points you brought up are addressed succintly within it.

Because I don't want criminal billionares and trillionares with their corrupt companies bossing around the government like they own it and me being THEIR SLAVE! Do you get that much?

Someone always get the upper hand. I would rather be a slave to a peoples republic than be a slave to bp, monsato, tepco, microsoft, working 60 hours a week to raise a humble family. No union protection, no respect, no voice, nothing, nada.

Finally, i agree that the problem lies with the people letting the government run rampant and become corrupt, where i disagree is that it would be any different to how it is now if we don't change the ideology that the people think government is based on.

edit on 2-5-2012 by manisobsolete because: Fixed sentence

edit on 2-5-2012 by manisobsolete because: clarified closing sentence

the government is what the people make of it. if they want corporate slavery under the illusion that capitalism equals freedom then the perverse system will continue. if they want something else then they might get if they fight hard enough for it.

I support annonymous and occupy and yes I want a mixed economy. That simple! feel free to disagree.......

I wish we could have a friendly discussion with more details and examples but I don't have the time and we are too different it seems.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
The communist manifesto says socialism is one step from communism, but communism is defined as "commune rule" which resembles tribalism which resembles anarchy...no nation and/or central government!

But how does it work in practice? certainly not like that. Its not possible to work like that without an individualist ideology... please read that PDF.

s
The group and individual each play their role. I don't think either is more important than the other.
And you are making the mistake that individualism is more important than collectivism. It is NOT!
The right emphasis is individualism and the left emphasis is collectivism.

Ok, we're getting somewhere now... your definition of right wing is individualism. i'll address this in the post after this one.

Yeah. No kidding!

Maybe it was close to what it said? You clearly have no idea what caused world war 2. just some big, bad boogie man called hitler on one side, a big bad butcher called stalin from russia, a cigar smoking hero called churchill and a crippled but resolvant man called roosevalt.

Could it perhaps have been caused by the weimar republic? a so called "republic" that was in fact a representative democracy? perhaps the fact that the german government were forced to pay reparations and thanks to the model of collectivism (centralized power) had the ability to debase the currency so much that a wheelbarrow full of money would only get you a loaf of bread? Was that the discontent that allowed the collectivists to run amok? No, it can't have been that, democracies and controlled economies are great.

The winner writes history and the loser accepts it. Maybe YOU should travel to germany, japan, italy to get a clue what the locals where going through BEFORE you label people with what your teacher told you to believe.

Please don't put words into my mouth, i'm not labelling people as a government. i'm well aware what people were going through, i'm also well aware that it was in no possible way caused by a decentralized power structure, it was massive debasement of the respective currencies by the collectivist governments of the time.

please go talk to russians, cubans, north koreans and get first hand knowledge rather than spreading your misconceived opinions.

North Korea has closed the gap between rich and poor brilliantly: there is no 1% – everyone lives well below acceptable Western standards. (Kim Jong Il granted himself a waiver, however, and became one of the world’s largest consumers of fine western cognac and other luxury goods smuggled into the impoverished country). Yet another fine example of how collectivist government works... You're saying that russia has closed the gap too?
Cuba actually is doing ok, while we're on this subject, so was Libya until NATO bombed the # out of it, that was largely because of the good things that ghadaffi did... so its not always bad, i'll concede that sometimes it works if the people in power are well meaning.

so instead of making a big deal ABOUT THIS you just cry about big government this and big government that...all generalisations....no examples...no substance.

This is Pivotal to the issue at hand! Can't you see that the inherant problems with this 2 party system have been brought about by the Collectivist mindset that you're set on?! Without fixing the system even if you put the right people in power with the right idea you always run the risk of bad people ruining it next election cycle and it will just continue how it has for the last 100 years. If you limit the powers of government like the constitution outlines and teach people to have an individualist mindset then you avoid this risk altogether!

no need to read the pdf. fascism/nazism was a mixed economy with heavy racism/nationalism involved. The reason both got a bad reputation is because of the holocaust, and because zionism has a way of making jews seem important in history when they are not.

The reason they got a bad rap in the first place is because that kind of # CAN and DOES happen because the government can fund its own agendas with money printed from nothing.

you are clearly misinformed, rich or have an agenda to push right wing views.

Not rich at all, quite the opposite in fact... by your definition, yes. i'm pushing an individualist viewpoint.

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Do you make up stuff as you go along?

Please post evidence to the contrary. i have posted evidence in the form of that PDF which you decline to read.

GROUP SUPREMACY
This is the second concept that divides collectivism from individualism. Collectivism
is based on the belief that the group is more important than the individual. According to this
view, the group is an entity of its own and it has rights of its own. Furthermore, those rights
are more important than individual rights. Therefore, it is acceptable to sacrifice individuals
if necessary for “the greater good of the greater number.” How many times have we heard
that? Who can object to the loss of liberty if it is justified as necessary for the greater good
of society? The ultimate group, of course, is the state. Therefore, the state is more important
than individual citizens, and it is acceptable to sacrifice individuals, if necessary, for the
benefit of the state. This concept is at the heart of all modern totalitarian systems built on the
model of collectivism.
Individualists on the other hand say, “Wait a minute. Group? What is group? That’s
just a word. You can’t touch a group. You can’t see a group. All you can touch and see are
individuals. The word group is an abstraction and doesn’t exist as a tangible reality. It’s like
the abstraction called forest. Forest doesn’t exist. Only trees exist. Forest is the concept of
many trees. Likewise, the word group merely describes the abstract concept of many
individuals. Only individuals are real and, therefore, there is no such thing as group rights.
Only individuals have rights.
Just because there are many individuals in one group and only a few in another does
not give a higher priority to the individuals in the larger group – even if you call it the state.
A majority of voters do not have more rights than the minority. Rights are not derived from
the power of numbers. They do not come from the group. They are intrinsic with each
human being.
When someone argues that individuals must be sacrificed for the greater good of
society, what they really are saying is that some individuals will be sacrificed for the greater
good of other individuals. The morality of collectivism is based on numbers. Anything may
be done so long as the number of people benefiting supposedly is greater than the number of
people being sacrificed. I say supposedly because, in the real world, those who decide who
is to be sacrificed don’t count fairly. Dictators always claim they represent the greater good
of the greater number but, in reality, they and their support organizations usually comprise
less than one percent of the population. The theory is that someone has to speak for the
masses and represent their best interest, because they are too dumb to figure it out for
themselves. So collectivist leaders, wise and virtuous as they are, make the decisions for
them. In this way, it is possible to explain any atrocity or injustice as a necessary measure
for the greater good of society.
In subsequent chapters, we will examine how American leaders have used this
rationale to justify U.S. entry into World War I, World War II, and The War on Terrorism.
However, these examples are so large in scope and involve so many peripheral issues, they
tend to obscure the underlying mindset. To better illustrate the point, here is a more finite
example. In the 1960’s, an FDA agent who had testified in court against a Kansas City
businessman admitted under cross-examination that he had lied under oath twenty-eight
times. When asked if he regretted what he had done, he replied: “No, I don’t have any
regrets. I wouldn’t hesitate to tell a lie if it would help the American consumer.”1

Ah, yes. The greater good for the greater number. Modern totalitarians always
present themselves as humanitarians.
Because individualists do not accept group supremacy, collectivists often portray
them as being selfish and insensitive to the needs of others. That theme is common in
schools today. If a child is not willing to go along with the group, he is criticized as being
socially disruptive and not a good “team player” or a good citizen. Those nice folks at the
tax-exempt foundations had a lot to do with that. But individualism is not based on ego. It is
based on principle. If you accept the premise that individuals may be sacrificed for the
group, you have made a huge mistake on two counts. First, individuals are the essence of the
group, which means the group is being sacrificed anyway, piece by piece. Secondly, the
underlying principle is deadly. Today, the individual being sacrificed may be unknown to
you or even someone you dislike. Tomorrow, it could be you. It takes but a moment’s
reflection to realize that the greater good for the greater number is not achieved by
sacrificing individuals but by protecting individuals. In reality, the greater good for the
greater number is best served by individualism, not collectivism.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Because I don't want criminal billionares and trillionares with their corrupt companies bossing around the government like they own it and me being THEIR SLAVE! Do you get that much?

Someone always get the upper hand. I would rather be a slave to a peoples republic than be a slave to bp, monsato, tepco, microsoft, working 60 hours a week to raise a humble family. No union protection, no respect, no voice, nothing, nada.

I get it. I think where we differ is that i would rather be a slave to no one. Especially my not my fellow man, which when you get right down to it, is what we're talking about here. its just a small group of people enslaving the rest whether its corporations or government, unless the government's powers are limited to what i myself have a right to do to my fellow man without impinging on his intrinsic right to life and liberty this will always happen... i don't know why this concept seems so alien to you...

the government is what the people make of it. if they want corporate slavery under the illusion that capitalism equals freedom then the perverse system will continue. if they want something else then they might get if they fight hard enough for it.
I support annonymous and occupy and yes I want a mixed economy. That simple! feel free to disagree.......
I wish we could have a friendly discussion with more details and examples but I don't have the time and we are too different it seems.

If you read that PDF you'll realise that there is a mountain of evidence that shows people have been indoctrinated to feel the way you do about government and authority figures and centralised power thanks to some very influential institutions and foundations, But it wasn't always the case, there were courageous men who fought against the enslavment of the banking elite. When they founded america they knew what they were up against and how to prevent it which is why they invented the system of government we know as a "republic". But people have forgotten these days. Ron Paul is probably the only politician who hasn't and stands for the constitution.

please take the 15 minutes and read the PDF i linked, i don't think we're really that different and i'm sure you'll get something from it.

Indeed.

Fighting indoctrination is a tough thing. They've done their job well!

Being free and having a free society also means being responsible for you, yours, and those you care for. While I agree there should be some form of help for those in need, there is a difference between help and dependence.

But look at it this way - if we're all not paying money to a thief like the IRS (which takes EVERY CENT of income tax and pays only INTEREST on our mountain of perceived debt), we all may be better off to start with and thus not need government help. Let's start there!

My view on RP? We haven't tried liberty and freedom in a while. Maybe it is time we give that a shot.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


Damn, you really love that Obama guy, don't you? What do you love so much about him? The fact that he is the same bulls*** than any of the 10 last presidents?

Don't you want things to change? I guess not, you seem to enjoy the status quo that these jacka**** are trying to keep as long as they can.

Instead of saying how much you hate RP, can you say what would make you vote for Obama?

** Is it because he really did what he told he would in his campaign? ** /sarcasm off

In fact, yeah, he made changes. But for the worst! Since he is in, you are losing your liberty little by little but surely, if you put that guy in office for another term, we can say "goodbye" to America.

And don't pull the "Bush did this, not Obama" . That is so wrong. Obama is the perfect continuation of Bush, its like they are brothers when it comes to do good : they simply don't.

Peace out.

Originally posted by NightGypsy
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

.

I can think of a rational explanation. He is able to think critically. Might appear fringe because its not something too many people are able to do any more, one of the reasons republicans have ruled for 30 years.