Ron Paul simple did not get elected because the elite did not want him .deal with it.

this is why the establishemtn feared ron paul and went to great lengths to sabotoge his campaine.He tells it like it is about BOTH Obama and Bushwacker.that they went in with their arrogance that they could make wars anywhere they please anytime.


http://www.presstv.ir/usdetail/310687.html

 

although your bad grammar and insulting nicknames are cute, they detract from the overall message of 'Let's complain about the government and not do anything about it'. Maybe english is your third or fourth language and you are not eligible to vote. In that case, I apologize. But seriously, just copy and paste into word and auto-correct everything.

 

Oh, haven't you heard? The Toeffler disciple, Agenda 21 supporting, globalist member of the CFR, good ol' Newt is a conservative!

- - - Updated - - -

He must like only what the government will allow him to have.

 

There are things about Rand I disagree with, and I don't like him as much as I like Ron, but overall, I do like Rand. I like Rand a whole lot more than I do Gary Johnson.

 

Certainly. But like all things, they are not limitless, and things won't work if that's the absolute ideal we choose to chase after. I'm not so concerned with those values that I will give up everything else just to have them, especially when I still have them as it is.

Ron Paul basically stands for strict constitutional interpretation. I consider the document outdated, one created for the time it existed in, which is NOT the time we live in now. It was a great start, a miraculous start even. But that's what it was, a start. A beginning. Not an end. The document needs to evolve just like the government and people do.

So if you're asking if I want to burn down the house because I don't like the kitchen, the answer is no.

 

You could save yourself the time by just replying with one line that says "Yada yada yada the usual sensationalist poodoo" and I will know exactly what you were going to say each time.

 

Why must I be brainwashed or some kind of paid stooge in order to not believe what Ron Paul does? The man is not inherently right just because he wants strict constitutional interpretation.

There are quite a few things the government does that I don't approve of. Does that mean I have to want Ron Paul to destroy it or can it also mean that I think the system needs fixed, not demolished?

Why is supporting Ron Paul the only way the a person is not a sheep? I'm a sheep because I don't support Ron Paul and think the government can be fixed. Well, why aren't the Ron Paul supporters sheep for believing anything that has an air of anti-establishment?

Being counter to the establishment does not automatically make a person correct, and someone who doesn't want to watch a foolish man tear down the country he loves is not automatically brainwashed.

 

I am not saying support for Ron Paul needs to be a litmus test for not being brainwashed or being a sheep. It goes beyond Ron Paul. I admire the guy, and he is one of the few to stay on the message of liberty consistently, but again, it is not about Ron Paul, but about the message.

Our rights are inherent and fundamental. They do not come from government, man, or paper. They are preserved and protected by the Constitution. Strict interpretation of the Constitution is the best way to preserve these rights. You say government doesn't need to be demolished, only fixed. Well, why does the Constitution need to be demolished or fixed for that matter? We don't need a new one or to rewrite it, or to reinterpret it, or for a few judges to in essence change the meaning with their interpretation. Strict interpretation is the way to preserve rights, but you believe strict interpretation will somehow destroy the government.

If you believe the Constitution needs to change with the times, do you believe the type of our country should change with the times? Is being a republic outdated? Should we be an empire, a quasi-democracy, or a dictatorship in order to preserve government and stay with the times?

 

Well, in truth, I wasn't accusing you specifically of saying those things, but it's a common theme among Ron Paul supporters. 9/11 guy here brings that point home.

And again, I too admire Ron Paul's character, and I wish we had more like him, just without his ideology. It's not his virtues that I have a problem with, it's what he uses them to promote.

I don't want the Constitution demolished at all. It's a great foundation, one that we would never have come so far without. It's been an inspiration to people across the world since it was created.

But I do think it's outdated. It was created during a time when technology did not allow instant communication and fast travel. That was a time when state's had to handle things on their own simply because of the time involved in handling things from D.C. The country was smaller, the world was bigger, and the technology of the era was nothing compared to what it is today.

I don't want people trying to run things with outdated political theories anymore than I want them doing medical science with outdated medical theories.

No, I do not believe the concept of a republic is outdated. Other than a direct democracy, which presents problems of it's own, there aren't any other political structures that allow the people control over their own country. I also don't want a dictatorship, and I don't feel we currently have one. I don't want the federal government strong and in control because I believe government knows best and people are stupid. I want it strong because, based on what I've learned and experienced in my life, I see that as the best most logical way of succeeding in the modern world where every other country worth living in(and even the ones that aren't) also have strong central governments. Coordination and organization are key factors, and while I'm not going to pretend that the government always gets those things right, or that the size of government presents it's own challenges to making those things work, I see the alternative as much much worse.

No system is perfect or ever will be, because the common denominator in all political systems are human beings. I want my country to succeed and I just don't see fracturing it as the way of achieving that.

 

It was more than just travel time for the founders to be supporters of states' rights. A decentralized federal government with the states governing themselves could be more of a representative democracy in which the people could govern themselves and liberty could be maintained. The opposite, a centralized government, had and has a greater chance to become a dictatorship and has way too much power. What happens when a government so powerful becomes corrupt?

 

How is it outdated, then? When did the police state and the welfare state become necessary?

 

We don't live in a police state.

Welfare is a mixed bag. It's certainly led to problems, but it was also necessary to combat the inherent unfairness of capitalism and wealth concentration. I still believe welfare is necessary and a good thing, but the problem is, there's not enough regulation. There's not enough making sure the people using it actually need it. That's what has led to the problems we have. Not everyone on welfare fits the stereotype that's emerged around it.

 

That's a problem that was going to need to be dealt with at state levels too. Each state does not have an equal amount of power.

But more than that, it requires the attention and action of the people, like all representative governments do. No government, big or small, works when the people being governed pay limited amounts of attention to it. That's the problem we have today. People just elect whomever has an R or a D next to their name and then go on to issues that are more pressing to their daily lives. People have to be involved, and willing to fight for democracy and just government. You can't just elect people to power and expect them to regulate themselves, the people have to take a direct involvement in it.

So the problems we face aren't grounded in systemic flaws with centralized government, they are grounded in systemic apathy by the governed.

 

Welfare encourages the worst in people. It's also wrong in principle to take people's earnings from them to hand to others against their will..

 

Why? The country they live in helped provide them the ability to make that money in the first place. Taxes are just the user fees. Nothing is free, even freedom and liberty.

And welfare doesn't inherently encourage the worst in people. That only happens when it's not regulated and people are allowed to get away with fraud. If those people were being caught and prosecuted, you'd see far less of the abuse than you do.

 

comedy gold,I would say someone here needs to stop smoking this.

hee hee.He is so much in denial he should start a comedy club.priceless.

yeah we dont live in a police state,thats why all those cops beat blacks over the head with a billy club,sprayed them with firehoses and sent attacks dogs on them in the 60's when they were doing what the constitution says they have the right to do,free speech protesting racism that was going on back then.

we dont live in a police state,thats why chicago police beat up women in their peaceful protest they had about 6 months ago and Obama priased the police for their efforts instead of firing them all like he should have.this guy kills me.doesnt he ever get tired of humiliating himself?

 

Which was wrong back then and if this happened today, the lawsuits would fly before the people were dry.

Hmm, how about all the police officers across the country, which includes the vast majority of them, that aren't doing things like this? They don't matter?

 

Dude how can you POSSIBLY endorce Rand over Johnson? Rand betrayed not only his father but the american people endorcing Romney who as you well know,is no different than Obama.I trust Rand about as far as I can spit.

Im done voting since we dont put these people in office and they find new ways to sabatoge the campaine of someone who believes in the constituion,but I would ROOT for him only if he was the only candidate of the last group to have a chance to get in.

If he becomes a CFR member,we'll then you'll know he has gone over to the dark side which I feel he already has done selling out americans like he did endorcing romney.

 

okay im done with you.as always,evade,evade,evade and constantly playing dodgeball.

congrats showing everybody how you have no debating skills and run off when cornered.

well you did SEVERAL pages back actually in every post.

 

as always you show your clueless,read the part of what happened in chicago 6 months ago and how Obama PRAISED them and got off scott free.sounds pretty much the same to me as back then.

got news for you,90% of police are corrupt.If they were good citizens,they would arrest Obama and those police officers that did that.

oh and you wont believe this im sure and I dont give a rats ass but i know some former police officers who got out of the police force because of all the coruption they saw going on with the majority of the police and they wanted no part of it.

 

Dude, if I am doing what you accuse me of, it is dwarfed by your inability to accept reality. Instead your entire position relies upon specific directed interpretation of multiple events while ignoring crucial factors that make everything you say a fantasy.

You've created quite the homespun land of denial to live in, and I guess I just don't quite understand why.

- - - Updated - - -

And how does that make us a police state when the vast majority of police officers don't behave that way?

 

apparently he doesnt like candidates who believe in liberty,free speech, freedom,no wars and the constitution like Ron Paul,Gary Johnson,or Ralph Nader.


He somehow has the warped logic because they believe in all that and serving us instead of wall street,they are kooks.comedy gold.

 

And that's why the militarised police locked down entire neighborhoods in California and the entire city of Boston over a couple of armed, wanted men - Dorner and the Tsarnaevs. When they were "rescuing" people at gunpoint That's the reality today - citizens cowering in fear while the heavily armed and armored police approach them like a platoon of US troops approaching a home in Iraq to search their homes with no warrant or anything.

 

Just as I thought,Junkie Turtle knows he is cornered here and has no evidence to counter these facts and the cat has got his tongue.

well time to move on to someone else.positive proof that he only sees what he WANTS to see which is why he wont watch those videos me and rightwing have posted throughout this entire thread.lol.

 

hypocrisy as always from you dude.congrats.the ONLY one on this thread who makes posts and everything they say is a fantasy and cant accept REALITY is YOU.

you NEVER have addressed ONE SINGLE ITEM I brought up,you just evade,evade and evade played dodgeball.

oh and hate to break your heart but you havent noticed i have at least two others here that have said the same thing about you.

so in your OWN words,grow up and stop being afraid of the truth only seeing what you WANT to see. this goes on ALL THE TIME CHARLIE,you just dont want to face it.


have fun talking with yourself,your obviously scared of the truth and in denial and AGAIN,i am not the only one on this thread that has noticed that.

others have thanked me for those posts of me saying that,you just ignore that like you ignore ALL my posts. BYE,see you on another thread to watch you evade there as well.