The Secret Behind the Promise: A Libertarian Dictatorship

I don't think Ron Paul would be like a president we've had in a LONG time.

reply to post by BravoBull


Thank you sir for that great post. I agree with most of the positions you laid out of his except 10) Birthright citizenship. I am for it. We can discuss the ins and outs if desired.

What you disagree with I don't
1) Gold standard:I would like our currency to be commodity-based; is gold the answer, I don't know but I would prefer almost anything to "the full faith and credit"
2)Roe vs. Wade: I don't think it is any business of the fedgov messing in a womans rights. If the state will allow abortion or not maybe a state matter depending on how you feel about abortion; then move to that state
3)Taxes: An across the board, flat sales tax I agree with. I see it as the closest way to make it fair for all, or at least a start.
4)Immigration: I believe as you do.
5)Free market: I believe as you do

I am for getting rid of most of those departments and I do understand there would be some unemployment issues I believe but I do think its not altogether a fedgov issue, same for health care.

I would like some sort of opt out for social security also. Again my personal retirement i dont believe is a fedgov issue.
The jobs aspect is nearly a moot point as it seems for the most part we are losing them anyway. The only way the gov can create jobs is through some sort of bureaucracy and they dont seem very good at it to say the least.

I say do what he can if he can. Everything is so adulterated now what do we have to lose?

I love how the op posts threads attacking Ron Paul supporters then acts like a victim when they attack him back. Hes like the girl in school who talks trash about everyone then hears someone talking bad about her and has a mental breakdown. I don't care if you like Mitt good for you lets agree to disagree. Everybody is tired of of your lame tactic its old. The fact that you justify your attacks while condemning other peoples is very annoying and to boot your posts are made to get these results then you say "lets act civil" because you got all your shots in during the opening post.

You ignore the people who answer the questions you ask when they break down how Paul will do things. And you will most likely view this information as a personal attack which it isn't. Its just an observation on how you conduct your subject matter and dealings with responses. And personally I'm done looking into any of your post or answering them and ask that other ATS members do the same until you stop. The mods should ban you from the political section for trolling.

"Like the frightened baby chipmunk, you are scared by anything that is different." -Jean Girard

This is about as much of an answer you deserve for your OP.

reply to post by jjf3rd77


I think Ron Paul would be the first to admit that the President should not be able to make sole decisions about important issues. Ron Paul might be against the Fed and overseas military bases and whatnot, but he does seem to agree that the President should not be able to force decisions about those matters. But that is what happens at present.

The President (or those in power behind him) decides to go to war, and the whole country goes to war. The President decides to drop a trillion dollars into the pockets of bankers, and that's what happens. We are already living in that dictatorship you are so scared of.

Even if he won, Ron Paul might not have to power to change the minds of the whole of elected government. But what he does have is the heart and integrity to speak the truth to power. That's all anyone can really ask of him? It is up to the people to take it from there.

In this topic people don't really understand the the executive branch controls nearly all the things Ron Paul wants to cut.

In this topic people don't understand that there is a difference between an executive order that is within constitutional bounds and one that is not.

In this topic, when you answer questions, you better answer it in the form that the OP wants them answered in or expect to be told that you just didn't answer them.



There are no damn guarantees. The events didn't happen. Unless someone wants to pull out their crystal ball and tell for a fact how the future is going to unfold, there isn't really a case for your side or anyone else. The point is, Ron Paul, just like any other President before him, should he be elected, and should Congress be against him - will have more than adequate power under the Constitution to enact a good portion of his policies immediately. From there is will be up to the people to elect new members of Congress who can help in his more bold ones.

I swear, some people act like this has never happened before, when quite literally, this happens with nearly every single presidency in history - yet you single out Ron Paul as if he is going to accomplish nothing. I'm honestly done even debating the OP because I've already clearly answered the questions, but apparently they weren't "specific" enough - considering I can't see the future and know for sure. Well guess what, there is no SPECIFIC way Obama or Romney are going to implement their policies. They are going to do it the same exact way as Paul and hope for the best. That is the way the presidency works.

Freaking ridiculous.

Originally posted by jjf3rd77
While Conservative talking heads and television pundits are worried about whatever is going on inside crazy Obama's head, not one person in the MSM (as pointed out here on ATS) is worried about what is going on with the Young People here in America. Oh, of course the Democrats would say they have young people's best interests at heart, but really they just want to control them and gain their support. What really is going on with young people is that they are fed up with the right and the left and our seeking out other ways, to manipulate the government weather through anti-anything protests like OWS or libertarian king Ron Paul. People are pissed!

OWS is far left, there is nothing democratic or libertarian about it.

Here in Victoria we have a sierra club member named rob rao as a facilitator. We have "hands across the sand" renee lindstrom as well. And we have larry wartel an admitted communist, transition town member, he was tossed out of WAC VIC a while back because of his need to push his communism onto other people -- it's his way or the highway and it's such a shame anybody is giving this guy quarter. Let us not forget anushka nagji, from the law faculty, the same law faculty as micheal mcgonigle a professor from university of victoria whom chairs the sierra legal defense fund and co-founder of greenpeace, as well as chair (head communist) with polis, an academia circle hell bent on rolling out ecological governance. Then there's jenny mccartney whom is from the political science department of university of victoria and there are connections with academia between poly-sci and law faculty (almost intertwined). Non-violent communication provides free seminars! A-channel gives them space for movie screenings. They also mysteriously get buses for transportation that mustn't be cheap considering the money for these buses does not come out of their published finances.

All of these NGO's these people are associated with received money from the tides foundation of canada. All of them are part of organizations that receive government grants.

If our government declares martial law because of them, it'll be because our government wanted martial law and funded the uprising with shills. Greg renouf has exposed occupy Vancouver and Toronto on his blog, seems a similar situation at every occupy where these funded shills run the show and employ the training they got at these ngo's because surpise surpise, the facilitation and consensus system are one and the same. They have meeting minutes. They literally have the exact same structures and anybody that believes in liberty or freedom is a right wing extremist and is ostracized out of the group. humanity can do far better than a frog march into the elites final trap.

yeah the OP needs to be hushed. he is actually not contributing anything but hate and discord. Ron Paul is not the only answer, but to continuously attack...well it shows the fear in your heart....you know the Roboto Romney is not going to defeat Obama...but you are afraid of the only candidate that actually has real solutions.

If Ron paul does not win the nomination and does not run as a third party....we are screwed....Romney cannot and will not beat the POTUS....he is about assuredly giving us 4 more years of "more flexible" policy....and yes...it makes me afraid....

If the POTUS wins a second term....I might have to check out...I don't know that I want to be around to see the world when he is finished with it....maybe more should do the same....

Bush did nothing to help this country.

Obama did nothing to help this country.

And now you want to try to push the idea that Paul will do nothing to help this country in an attempt to bolster Obama's standing.

Whatever.

At least Ron Paul has a plan other than catchy cliches like "Hope" or "Change". I doubt Obama has any idea how monetary policy is ran. I'd LOVE to see Ron Paul go up against Obama in a debate.

Paul isn't the smoothest talker like Obama, but he'd roast him in an intellectual debate on fiscal policy and foreign relation.

Say what you will. It won't change the minds of his supporters. Once you "get it", you can't "un-get it". Those that support Ron Paul is ALWAYS support Ron Paul. Because it's bigger than Ron Paul. It's about this country we love. And a future for our children. One that we can't stand to pile any more debt onto under and Obama or Romney administration.

reply to post by jjf3rd77


The idea that you are driving at in your post suffers from one flaw in your understanding. The way that our government is set up, the only way that any one person could make any sweeping changes IS to become a dictator. This is why the notion of separation of powers exists in the framework of our government, ie: to keep presidents from becoming dictators. The staggering of elections between the members of government and their various terms ensures that one administration cannot sweep in and stack every seat in every branch with sympathetic voices, and the division of power in the process of drafting and approving legislation makes it explicitly and deliberately difficult for policies to change. Now, this is not to say that every President since Bill Clinton hasn't been trying to gain more power for the Presidency. Everything from executive orders, to signing statements, to line-item vetos, to military actions without explicit declarations of war have been pressed into service to this end. However, Congress is not blind to such antics, and it is ultimately up to the electorate who sits in the House and Senate. If Ron Paul became President, he would face the same machinery that has (thankfully, in my opinion) prevented Obama from fully implementing his policy plans. This is as it should be. We elect a President, not an Emperor. He's supposed to be stoppable.

reply to post by jjf3rd77


Which certain environmental issues are you referring too?

Allowing BP to poison the gulf and the people by using Corexit?

Allowing Monsanto to genitically engineer nature so that now we have a whole new set of issues that are popping up that are detrimental to our environment and the food we eat?

The more you talk, the more you keep digging yourself a big hole!

If you think our current government is doing a damn thing to protect our environment and our health, you really need to do some homework.....

reply to post by jjf3rd77


I can see where you are coming from. i can understand your point but the good thing about him is that he believes in what he says and he will not back down when the greedy rich put pressure on him. I think that's why he has so much support with the young people and the army. because we are the ones that are suffering because the bad policies that he has been warning people about for years. nobody really listened then but the young are now. after all they are the ones that are left with the task of getting us out of the mess. i think its a good thing his support is committed even if you don't agree with everything they do because that's what is needed to get rid of corruption there is . but its far from easy. (just my point) anyway well thought out post!

reply to post by jjf3rd77


Great post, but isn't your head hurting yet from banging it against the wall?

USA of Paul:

No medicare, medicaide, social security, food stamps, subsized housing.

No protection of the planet from corporations. No clean air or clean water laws.

No guarantee of any kind of medical care for anyone because federal grants to hospitals would be stopped.

No guarantee of safe and/or affordible birth control for our nation's women.

No one to make sure that your children are not taught that early man played with dinosaurs, or that the world was created in six 24 hour days.

The man is a nightmare in a suit.


And those are just the social issues.

reply to post by jjf3rd77


Sheep don't play chess. They don't understand how a single move or idea is always part of a greater strategy.

A true Libertarian is an individualist first, not a patriot. Their foremost concern is self. If Ron Paul could negotiate a deal to sell an entire state to China for personal profit or power, he would. The notion that a libertarian is going to "SAVE US" is a foolish one.

He is trying to weaken the federal government so that individuals, corporations, and foreign entities can be allowed to buy and run entire states without federal restrictions. He and his friends would like to own a state and return to the days of feudalism. The ultimate goal of all libertarians is endless power and control. They believe in exploiting anyone weaker than themselves and trying to conquer anyone who is more powerful.

The only thing I respect about libertarians is that they are honest about themselves so no one has to try and guess their true motives.

reply to post by jjf3rd77


This is a ridiculous notion. Ron Paul doesn't want to fundamentally transform America into something it isn't....

He wants to restore it to what it was founded as and what it's supposed to be, a democratic republic based on constitutional foundations.

You mention aside from his view on the constitution. THAT is what this country IS.... Our government IS the constitution. All actions taken by our representatives must follow the constitution.

Aside from some railroaded amendments, like the 16th, allowing socialist type taxation and setting the foundation for the socialist republic that we've become, the constitution of the U. S. is the best governmental document in the history of man.

It guarantees individual liberty and makes government oppression virtually impossible. That's why those in government who have wanted to enslave us for their personal benefit have chosen to ignore it.

We have to get back to it and STOP ignoring it or we risk an even further oppression imposed on us by government than what we have already witnessed.

Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate that is espousing this course of action and is therefore our only current hope, (short of physical revolution) of avoiding the complete forfeiture of our liberty to an oppressive, corrupt government.

Vote Ron Paul....

To quote Star Wars, 1977, "Help us Ron Paul, you're our only hope".

Jaden

P.S. I don't understand all the vitriol and angst from so many towards Ron Paul from the people who are being oppressed. I don't know if it's fear of true liberty, or just a desire to be ruled, but people need to either grow some sack or move to a country that is already oppressive, because I won't continue to let you corrupt mine and turn it into a socialist wasteland.

Originally posted by Duamutef9
reply to post by jjf3rd77

 

The idea that you are driving at in your post suffers from one flaw in your understanding. The way that our government is set up, the only way that any one person could make any sweeping changes IS to become a dictator. This is why the notion of separation of powers exists in the framework of our government, ie: to keep presidents from becoming dictators. The staggering of elections between the members of government and their various terms ensures that one administration cannot sweep in and stack every seat in every branch with sympathetic voices, and the division of power in the process of drafting and approving legislation makes it explicitly and deliberately difficult for policies to change. Now, this is not to say that every President since Bill Clinton hasn't been trying to gain more power for the Presidency. Everything from executive orders, to signing statements, to line-item vetos, to military actions without explicit declarations of war have been pressed into service to this end. However, Congress is not blind to such antics, and it is ultimately up to the electorate who sits in the House and Senate. If Ron Paul became President, he would face the same machinery that has (thankfully, in my opinion) prevented Obama from fully implementing his policy plans. This is as it should be. We elect a President, not an Emperor. He's supposed to be stoppable.

edit on 11-5-2012 by Duamutef9 because: correction of typographical error

He doesn't want to be a dictator of the USA. He wants to weaken the federal government enough to set up his own dictatorship at the state level. An individual or group of individuals could start with one state and slowly build up the capital and man power to expand into other states. Eventually, if you control all the states and its people or a majority of states, then you control the federal government too.

That's what he means when he talks about "States Rights".

reply to post by jjf3rd77

“I’m not just trying to win or get elected. I am trying to change the course of history.”

– Ron Paul 2012

This man sincerely wants peace in the world and economic security, a difficult task given the variables.
But I know he would try harder than any President in the last 40 years to do this.
Why else has he allowed himself to be laughed at and scorned for 30 years, just to be a traitor to his own ideology makers no sense.

Some people say it would just be like Obama, but Obama had no track record, we just hoped on his words, not his actions, I am very sad he turned out they way he has, hope and change turned into, same old same old. And don't think young people are so stupid that they don't know they got duped, because they do, and that's why they are turning in droves to Ron Paul in 2012.

reply to post by seeker1963


Yes BP was allowed to spill oil into the ocean

Hey do you use a car???? Do you eat food? If you answered YES to these questions you are part of the problem.. The Solution isn't pretty but we as humans are the problem to all of these talking points

Congratulations. This is the single most absurd thing I've ever seen said about RP.

Originally posted by MaryStillToe
reply to post by jjf3rd77

 

Their foremost concern is self. If Ron Paul could negotiate a deal to sell an entire state to China for personal profit or power, he would.

Let's put aside for a second the absolute ludicrousness of the idea of 'negotiating a deal to sell a state'...

He is trying to weaken the federal government so that individuals, corporations, and foreign entities can be allowed to buy and run entire states without federal restrictions.

But wait a minute, how is he going to sell Texas to China after he weakens the Federal government? And do tell, exactly, how does one go about 'owning' a state?

If you're talking about 'owning' in the sense that they 'run' the state through the use of bribed/purchased government officials, well you might want to look twice at our current federal government and take a look at who 'owns' that institution...

He and his friends would like to own a state and return to the days of feudalism. The ultimate goal of all libertarians is endless power and control. They believe in exploiting anyone weaker than themselves and trying to conquer anyone who is more powerful.

But wait, after he sells Texas to investors in Beijing, Pennsylvania to Taiwanese businessmen, South Dakota to German bankers, New York to the King of Saudi Arabia, etc., what state will be left to own?

And I would love to know how you obtain 'endless power and control' without the initiation of force - which is the core principle of Libertarianism?

He doesn't want to be a dictator of the USA. He wants to weaken the federal government enough to set up his own dictatorship at the state level. An individual or group of individuals could start with one state and slowly build up the capital and man power to expand into other states. Eventually, if you control all the states and its people or a majority of states, then you control the federal government too.

That's what he means when he talks about "States Rights".

edit on 11-5-2012 by MaryStillToe because: (no reason given)

Oh, thanks for clarifying that...

reply to post by MaryStillToe


That is pretty much nonsense. The 10th amendment clearly states (in a few more words) that if it isn't in the Constitution, it isn't any of the federal government's business. And if it isn't any of the federal governments business, then it is up to the states to decide. However, the states cannot make something legal that is prohibited by the Constitution, nor can they deny something that is guaranteed by the Constitution.

He does not want to set up dictatorships at the state level - that is just absurd. He wants the states to be allowed to make their own laws that are not granted to the federal government in the Constitution (education, gambling, drugs, marriage, healthcare and the list goes on and on). If you don't like the laws within a state, it is well within your right to move to a state that suits your desired way of life. I kind of feel like that is what he means by "states rights", but hey, I may be way out in left field.