Ron Paul Backers Prepare Takeover

reply to post by openminded2011


Well if that were true than I guess Ron Paul would be the front runner right now.
epic fail dude!

Ugie! great video above......fantasitic!!!!!!!!!!!!!

reply to post by Res Ipsa


Thanks

Just found it before. Instead of making a thread for it... I waited to get to the top of the next page to post it here since it relates to the thread as a whole.

People talk about him being lame-duck, consider that while right now he may have a lot of bought-out politicians underneath him if President, he would also have EO power and the rest of the powers granted by the Constitution to the Executive branch, including control over the armed forces (AKA bring 'em back.) Here's a couple points to consider:

The renewal for the charter of the FED central banking system is I believe up next year, 2013. He could do just as Andrew Jackson did, which is NOT renew it. DONE.

Consider that all EO's that were previously written into law can possibly be reversed. A lot of our freedoms have been destroyed via EO for the research I've done.

Finally, consider that the RP movement is not just this guy. It is a movement to retake the political landscape with non-corrupt members if possible. In two years time, re-elections for the Legislative branch may turn the tide, only 1/2 way through the first term of Presidency.

It could be a BIG change, just like we had with Andrew Jackson. I liked that guy from what I've read of him.


Finally, consider that, as a whole, it needs to happen either now or it may happen via bloody revolution. Consider that ultimate authoritarianism pretty much goes counter to everything we hold dear, democrat or republican. Really, it shouldn't be about who's right and left, it should be about voting for the guy who remains non-corrupt.


One more note, for the folks who are saying that putting him in office will give corporations ultimate control. The facts simply do not point this way. RP wants regulations put in the hands of the private sector, not federal control. He also wants states to pick up the slack, like environment regs. But we do know they are corruptible. If I recall from one of his speeches on the topic, he would like to see the free market create a form of regulation that suits itself, one that, not being tied to the whims of big corporations (which are tied to the politicians), is fair for big business or small. Most people, when they complain about business taxes and regulations, tend to forget that thanks to the corruption of federal government and the direct ties within, big corporations walk right through built-in loopholes and these regulations and taxes are bypassed. That leaves the small business and private sector to take the hit, and it is quite a wallop. When the regulations are out of the hands of the Elite via federal control and in the hands of free market, a sustainable system should result.

Actually the same could be said for all forms of organization. Education, healthcare, etc etc. You see, competition is his tool to make this work. And healthy competition, without federal loopholes built in for the BIG guys, puts everyone on equal footing or at least as equal as you're going to get in a free society. Example, big pharma makes a drug, little company makes a drug, and no federal regulation saying little company has to do x,y, and z before selling drug. Big pharma co always loopholed around x,y, and z anyway. Free market regulation has established a set of companies that will test all drugs before a drug enters market, because that's what people want. It must pass a, b, and c instead, which are independent tests with full public transparency as they go through the tests. Once passed and approved, drug enters market. Difference is that because the free market is not regulated with loopholes like we have now, big company and small company are now competing on equal footing. Same can be for cars, education, pencils, metal working, WHAT EVER.

"Regulation" also has to do with repercussions in judicial. Free market also means everyone can litigate. No loopholes for big companies here, either. And THIS is the check and balance that RP wants.

When you really investigate it and get past the stigma that we need big government, I believe we ALL want this. All except the big corporations, of course.

Hollar back if you get it.

reply to post by ugie1028


Good. Ron Paul isn't perfect by any means. But he is the best choice for change. Mit is a huge joke who will do nothing but star in the limelight and abuse power.

Originally posted by ugie1028

Ben Swan's numbers are not that far off from the delegate count I reported in my thread. And he is a big Ron Paul fanboy.

Romney still only needs 474 more delegates using Ben Swan's numbers...420 using thegreenpapers numbers...it's not a big difference.

It is over for Ron Paul.

reply to post by fourthmeal


What you say sounds like a whole bunch of sophistry to prop-up the free market. You are pretty much advocating for libertarianism and Ron Paul even admitted to being a reagan fan in the past. Ronald Reagan was notorious for deregulation of the markets and leveraged buyouts. Then came George Bush Sr. and George Bush Jr. to repeal the glass steagel act, which means banking and investment has been merged to a big degree.

Yes there are lots and lots of loopholes enabled by the private federal reserve. Just going back to the greenbacks would solve most of the problem, but then the bottom feeders would use propaganda to turn the world against america.

The anti-trust laws have been increasingly bypassed because some people are just too damm wealthy. How they earned that money or if they stole their way to the top is a different matter. The bottom line is free markets have never worked well. You might as well prop-up anarchy and instead of having a few dozen big polluters and exploiters have hundreds or thousands of polluters and exploiters.

Socialism is the only sollution in my modest opinion. The workers need to take over the means of production once and for all. A mixed economy can also work, and big industry NEEDS to be nationalised such as nuclear power and oil and gas exploration. Profit cannot come first when it comes to critical infrastructure because it is too dang dangerous. We need to SHARE resources on this planet because it belongs to everyone. I hate to use the term "elite" BECAUSE IT IS GIVING CREDIT WHERE CREDIT IS NOT DUE!

Let me first deal with the Reagan argument. Discernment of WHEN he was a "fan" and when he fully renounced the Republican party is important.

Facts - Paul supported Reagan in 1976, and one year into it he grew disturbed by what the party had become. By 1987, he fully broke away from the GOP. Basically what I'm saying here is that before Reagan could actually show how corrupt he was (and he WAS), Paul supported him. AFTER all hell broke loose and Reagan tranced nearly everyone with some form of neo-Conservatism, Paul stood out and not only renounced his support of Reagan, but openly criticized the man and his beliefs time and time again.

"n 1987, Paul broke ranks with the GOP, writing to the Republican National Committee: “I have gradually and steadily grown weary of the Republican Party’s efforts to reduce the size of the federal government.” He added: “Ronald Reagan and the Republican Party have given us skyrocketing deficits, and astoundingly doubled national debt.”

Paul mentioned Reagan 14 more times as he accused the party of violating the conservative principles of free enterprise, limited government and balanced budgets. He knocked the former president for supporting anti-communist guerrillas, for increasing deficit spending, for expanding the federal payroll and for giving the Internal Revenue Service more power. He even reached back in time to criticize Reagan for his sparse use of the line-item veto as governor of California — which makes us wonder why he endorsed him in 1976. "

source - www.washingtonpost.com...

It is pretty simple. As soon as Paul realized that Reagan was bought and paid for, he turned on him. I could say I did the same with Obama. He talked good talk, but he didn't walk the walk.

Same with most other Presidents before, and ALL after so far. This much we can agree on.

Socialism, like Fascism, Corporatism, and most forms of authoritarian control cannot work without some form of ponzi lie as their structure. They are self-defeating, in the long-term. Look at history, and you will know this to be true. That is because absolute power corrupts absolutely, it is just a matter of time. The only way in history we have proven to defeat tyranny is to have a free society.

The trick to a free society to function? Transparency and checks and balances against corruption. And to do that? You need a "fast exit" process for those IN corruption. in the private sector (without federal loopholes), this "fast exit" is either in the form of litigation, whistleblowing (or stand-up witnessing I like to call it), or could also come in the form of customer choice. If a customer knows this company is corrupt, they simply don't buy from that company.

Look, it only works if ALL forms of subsidy, loopholes, and regulation leave the federal hands.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
reply to post by fourthmeal

 

What you say sounds like a whole bunch of sophistry to prop-up the free market. You are pretty much advocating for libertarianism and Ron Paul even admitted to being a reagan fan in the past. Ronald Reagan was notorious for deregulation of the markets and leveraged buyouts. Then came George Bush Sr. and George Bush Jr. to repeal the glass steagel act, which means banking and investment has been merged to a big degree.

Yes there are lots and lots of loopholes enabled by the private federal reserve. Just going back to the greenbacks would solve most of the problem, but then the bottom feeders would use propaganda to turn the world against america.

The anti-trust laws have been increasingly bypassed because some people are just too damm wealthy. How they earned that money or if they stole their way to the top is a different matter. The bottom line is free markets have never worked well. You might as well prop-up anarchy and instead of having a few dozen big polluters and exploiters have hundreds or thousands of polluters and exploiters.

Socialism is the only sollution in my modest opinion. The workers need to take over the means of production once and for all. A mixed economy can also work, and big industry NEEDS to be nationalised such as nuclear power and oil and gas exploration. Profit cannot come first when it comes to critical infrastructure because it is too dang dangerous. We need to SHARE resources on this planet because it belongs to everyone. I hate to use the term "elite" BECAUSE IT IS GIVING CREDIT WHERE CREDIT IS NOT DUE!

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 export cigars till recently.

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.

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.

You are basically saying EVERYTHING is up to the markets. The markets can pollute all they want, the markets can pay any wages/salaries they want to their employees, the markets can decide who shall run for government, the markets can decide who owns the media, the markets can decide who shall have credit and who shall not, the markets should decide who pays taxes and who does not......

No thanks man! I would rather have the workers decide that. "A government by the people and for the people" Corporations are FICTIONAL ENTITIES while people are blood and flesh beings. Big difference!

And people wonder why everyone dislikes america so much. Maybe you should travel more frequently to see for yourself.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

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.

You are basically saying EVERYTHING is up to the markets. The markets can pollute all they want, the markets can pay any wages/salaries they want to their employees, the markets can decide who shall run for government, the markets can decide who owns the media, the markets can decide who shall have credit and who shall not, the markets should decide who pays taxes and who does not......

No thanks man! I would rather have the workers decide that. "A government by the people and for the people" Corporations are FICTIONAL ENTITIES while people are blood and flesh beings. Big difference!

And people wonder why everyone dislikes america so much. Maybe you should travel more frequently to see for yourself.

No, you are completely off track here, and I'm not sure if my corrective posts are going to help here, I think you need to break out your history books and read, read, read.

Everything is up to the market. Including regulation! Companies pop up all the time that suit the market in the world of quality control, customer education, etc. Example, JD Powers, Consumer Reports, etc. A company that has a bad reputation is not going to get customers, if the gov't isn't subsidizing them in some way. Free Market does not mean injustice. We do not need government to tell the market what is right, wrong, or legal, illegal. Common law and respect that goes with abiding by that will do this on its own. Litigation, vote with your money (in other words, don't buy that), and free speech remain as the Check and Balance of this system. As it should!

Pollution. Transparency, truth in journalism (another market), and again internal regulation of one's business will prevent this from happening without checks. It isn't anarchy in the free market, you cannot just do harm to one another and get away with it. That violates the common law principle in action. What violates can be litigated, solved, and dealt with in the judicial. Again, IF government didn't have sticky paws in this stuff already, I'd be able to show you an example!

People dislike America because we meddle. We act as world police, we take over democracies and install dictatorships, we throw elections in other countries, we grow drugs in foreign lands and make a big deal about the War on Drugs at the same time. We tried to impose a universal tax for CARBON. It goes on. Nobody hates us because our heritage had us free at one point.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


its not over until the convention in august. would you stop saying its over for Ron Paul when it clearly isn't? its intellectually irresponsible to say so an you know it!

Originally posted by fourthmeal

No, you are completely off track here, and I'm not sure if my corrective posts are going to help here, I think you need to break out your history books and read, read, read.

I hope you are not hinting to nazi germany or stalin russia to make false claims of how only capitalism can work and that every other system equates to tyranny. The government does not have to be the devil. It only becomes the devil when billionares or trillionares infiltrate it to such a perverse level. It is like having a bribed referee in a basketball game calling fouls on the away team and overlooking fouls on the home team. EXACT SAME ANALOGY!

Everything is up to the market. Including regulation! Companies pop up all the time that suit the market in the world of quality control, customer education, etc. Example, JD Powers, Consumer Reports, etc. A company that has a bad reputation is not going to get customers, if the gov't isn't subsidizing them in some way. Free Market does not mean injustice. We do not need government to tell the market what is right, wrong, or legal, illegal. Common law and respect that goes with abiding by that will do this on its own. Litigation, vote with your money (in other words, don't buy that), and free speech remain as the Check and Balance of this system. As it should!

You, among many billions, have bought the capitalist propaganda hook, line and sinker.

Companies only compete when they have to and the wealthiest will always find a way to gain favor within local and national government. It is the rule of nature, survival of the fitest mentality. As soon as a company gets big enough there stops being any competition and private monopolies like microsoft develop. A system without a wealth cap ensures some families will continue ammassing wealth till they can do anything they want anywhere they want. Look at BP in america and TEPCO in japan bossing the government as though they own both countries.

You cannot say litigation solves problems when LITIGATION ITSELF has been infiltrated and corrupted.

Pollution. Transparency, truth in journalism (another market), and again internal regulation of one's business will prevent this from happening without checks. It isn't anarchy in the free market, you cannot just do harm to one another and get away with it. That violates the common law principle in action. What violates can be litigated, solved, and dealt with in the judicial. Again, IF government didn't have sticky paws in this stuff already, I'd be able to show you an example!

In theory everyone and everything can be BOUGHT! That is why nationalised industry is important. The government needs to be cleaned out and replaced by "we the people" as intended in the constitution.

In practice the inner circle of masonry is "free market" to the core and luciferian. A tiny minority of super-influential people get together to plan takeovers and mergers throughout the world that will eventually lead to the new world disorder. It is called the bilderberger group.

People dislike America because we meddle. We act as world police, we take over democracies and install dictatorships, we throw elections in other countries, we grow drugs in foreign lands and make a big deal about the War on Drugs at the same time. We tried to impose a universal tax for CARBON. It goes on. Nobody hates us because our heritage had us free at one point.

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.

Originally posted by ugie1028
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

its not over until the convention in august. would you stop saying its over for Ron Paul when it clearly isn't? its intellectually irresponsible to say so an you know it!

edit on 5/1/2012 by ugie1028 because: (no reason given)

So is it over for Santorum?

How about Palin?

They both have the exact same chance as Ron Paul does.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


this is where you're wrong. they have shut down their campaigns. even gingrich suspended his campaign today.

But come the convention, they could stir something up... but that is unlikely. its Ron Paul vs Mitt now.

it will be over by august and you know this. stop being irresponsible claiming something that has not happened yet.

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!

Common law and the adherence to it is paramount to a free society, free market, etc. Litigation also must be free. Not free as in the sense of no cost, but the other kind. The kind we don't have right now.

One part we agree on is that corruption ruins the effect.

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.

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.

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.

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.

reply to post by ugie1028


Ron Paul , " I Am The Destroyer of Mittens in His Home State " ...............


www.businessinsider.com...

reply to post by Zanti Misfit


I know this... yet he has no chance? he keeps stealing delegates from romney left and right. Just wait for the other state to finalize their delegate counts for the real number... instead of the propped up numbers the MSM has been spoon feeding everyone.