Ron Paul (2010-2011)

[Unified Serenity]

Posted by jackovesk (here)

Posted by modwiz (here)
Obama is supposed to win. Republicans want no part of a country that is falling apart.

Here is Ali on being president:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=GVfAi7PNaeE

To true Modwiz To true...

Yes, and prophetic even. I once had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Ali when he visited my 8th grade class in Jeddah Saudi Arabia with some PLO people. He was not as quick as he was there, but he was kind. Ali hit the nail on the head there.

[risveglio]

Posted by Unified Serenity (here)
If there were a third party, it would be much easier to monkey with the vote totals and thus they'd rig it for Obama to win, and explain the loss of RP being due to the split conservative vote. My point is, that the very people who for decades have said how bad third party candidates are because they split the vote will be behind a third party candidate if RP wins. I would hope the American people would see through it, but they can easily be played, and again, it's easier to rig the diebold machines then where having RP vs Obama would be much harder to rig.

This is making the assumption that elections are rigged, which they very well might be, but if that is the case I have a better chance of becoming president than Ron Paul.

[Unified Serenity]

Posted by risveglio (here)

Posted by Unified Serenity (here)
If there were a third party, it would be much easier to monkey with the vote totals and thus they'd rig it for Obama to win, and explain the loss of RP being due to the split conservative vote. My point is, that the very people who for decades have said how bad third party candidates are because they split the vote will be behind a third party candidate if RP wins. I would hope the American people would see through it, but they can easily be played, and again, it's easier to rig the diebold machines then where having RP vs Obama would be much harder to rig.

This is making the assumption that elections are rigged, which they very well might be, but if that is the case I have a better chance of becoming president than Ron Paul.

Vote fraud is proven here in America, it's long past being a theory. Just google vote fraud, diebold etc.. The issue is that RP is grossly outdoing the other candidates. He is out raising them, he has vast military support (they seem to like his foreign policy), the online polls are NOT rigged in favor of RP supporters and he thrashes the opposition. It's a clear signal that the American people are very much aware, and it's going to be very hard to just rick roll him like they have in the past. He has a legitimate chance to win. Thus the third party option and play the numbers game in that because they could explain that away. It really would be great if we could verify votes like we used to, but we cannot.

[jackovesk]

Posted by risveglio (here)

Posted by Unified Serenity (here)
If there were a third party, it would be much easier to monkey with the vote totals and thus they'd rig it for Obama to win, and explain the loss of RP being due to the split conservative vote. My point is, that the very people who for decades have said how bad third party candidates are because they split the vote will be behind a third party candidate if RP wins. I would hope the American people would see through it, but they can easily be played, and again, it's easier to rig the diebold machines then where having RP vs Obama would be much harder to rig.

This is making the assumption that elections are rigged, which they very well might be, but if that is the case I have a better chance of becoming president than Ron Paul.

I've heard they can only get away with Rigging the Diebold Voting Machines when the Vote is tight i.e. 1 to 2% like (GW Bush got away with in 2004).

Its impossible to Rig them with a large Voting Swing over 4%+, be rest assured RP Campaign Team are on top of all that, and will be watching for any Fraudulent activity in 2012...

[Unified Serenity]

Posted by jackovesk (here)

Posted by risveglio (here)

Posted by Unified Serenity (here)
If there were a third party, it would be much easier to monkey with the vote totals and thus they'd rig it for Obama to win, and explain the loss of RP being due to the split conservative vote. My point is, that the very people who for decades have said how bad third party candidates are because they split the vote will be behind a third party candidate if RP wins. I would hope the American people would see through it, but they can easily be played, and again, it's easier to rig the diebold machines then where having RP vs Obama would be much harder to rig.

This is making the assumption that elections are rigged, which they very well might be, but if that is the case I have a better chance of becoming president than Ron Paul.

I've heard they can only get away with Rigging the Diebold Voting Machines when the Vote is tight i.e. 1 to 2% like (GW Bush got away with in 2004).

Its impossible to Rig them with a large Voting Swing over 4%+, be rest assured RP Campaign Team are on top of all that, and will be watching for any Fraudulent activity in 2012...

Once it's between three people, it would be a very close race between RP and the third party stooge, and thus why I say they would rig the election and have an excuse as to why Obama won.

[jackovesk]

Posted by Unified Serenity (here)

Posted by jackovesk (here)

Posted by risveglio (here)

Posted by Unified Serenity (here)
If there were a third party, it would be much easier to monkey with the vote totals and thus they'd rig it for Obama to win, and explain the loss of RP being due to the split conservative vote. My point is, that the very people who for decades have said how bad third party candidates are because they split the vote will be behind a third party candidate if RP wins. I would hope the American people would see through it, but they can easily be played, and again, it's easier to rig the diebold machines then where having RP vs Obama would be much harder to rig.

This is making the assumption that elections are rigged, which they very well might be, but if that is the case I have a better chance of becoming president than Ron Paul.

I've heard they can only get away with Rigging the Diebold Voting Machines when the Vote is tight i.e. 1 to 2% like (GW Bush got away with in 2004).

Its impossible to Rig them with a large Voting Swing over 4%+, be rest assured RP Campaign Team are on top of all that, and will be watching for any Fraudulent activity in 2012...

Once it's between three people, it would be a very close race between RP and the third party stooge, and thus why I say they would rig the election and have an excuse as to why Obama won.

We both know, it would be an absolute DISASTER for both the American people & the World if Obama got re-elected...

Shudder to think, if that were to happen...

[AlternativeInfoJunkie]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...%2812-16-11%29

[T Smith]

Posted by NancyV (here)
Ron Paul, in my opinion, is right in what he says in many way and the What If video is inspiring, but:

What if he is a visionary, ahead of his time?
What if he is ignoring human nature and the almost certain probability that human nature will not change?
What if the US becomes more isolationist, who will step into that void? China or Russia most likely.
What if the world then comes under the domination of China or Russia when the US becomes a lesser power?
What if their human rights violations are even worse than the human rights violations of the US?

I consider Ron Paul's foreign policy ideas to be dangerous. In an ideal world we could all just get along, but that is not going to happen any time soon. Reality often sucks and in the case of world politics, wars, etc. it sucks big time. Radical Islam has been engaged in wars of conquest for a couple of thousand years. Communism has been engaged in conquest and oppression for not quite 200 years. Fascism is equally dangerous. We ignore these realities at our peril. Anyone who thinks these dangers don't exist or can be ignored and avoided needs to study history.

Our aspirations towards peace and love will only work on an individual level. We can attempt to influence others, BUT we will not change human nature. Humans (mostly men) are a warlike species who have engaged in wars of conquest and subjugation of others as far back as we have records of history.

Self determination as a species vs. captivity and subjugation to social engineering and bondage. Recorded history is a story drawn from the latter. And yes, you have described how our species responds to its condition where even the most insightful and brilliant among us have difficulty grasping what be our captors. I question, however, whether you may be confusing the storyline here with what it means to be human. What is human nature? Are we destined to lay down to the controlling power? When are we going to transcend our fear of Iran, of China, and specifically of the dark side of who and what we are and transcend this captivity?

I for one am not afraid of Iran, of China, of the Khalifat, or of the serial killer lurking somewhere in my very own city. I don't need Statist overlords to protect me from a geopolitical vacuum. I am more afraid of how simple it is to render humans en masse to mere Pavlov subjects in utter fear, inducing the desired behavior of the human animal. I submit to you, for consideration: we are more than this.

I want to be free. I just want to be free.

[T Smith]

Posted by alienHunter (here)

The most valuable skill we have is to be able to read between the lines.

Any good magician will tell you it is also one of the most easiest ways to manipulate.

[T Smith]

Posted by alienHunter (here)

I agree, but that's not my real problem. My problem is that Paul's vision applies only to those who are at the same spiritual, emotional, physical, and philosophical level as he. He is a very, very ugly human being.

This is an interesting perspective. Can you elaborate?

¤=[Post Update]=¤

Posted by alienHunter (here)
"There is absolutely no truth in this statement, but you still believe the left/right bull****."

Truthfully, I'm a quick study in some regards. I've considered everything that I've read and heard and arrived back at my original conclusion. But I will say this, my life would not change under a Paul regime...yours might and I highly suspect you would not like the result. I don't wish harm or unhappiness on anyone so all I would add is "Be Careful what you ask for!"

Another intriguing position. What are you afraid of?

[daledo]

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=VMUZIVYuluc

here it is... your link didn't work.

[Franny]

The top link works, just scroll down a bit...

[jackovesk]

Posted by AlternativeInfoJunkie (here)
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...%2812-16-11%29

Thanks AlternativeInfoJunkie,

Every 'Single Word' he said resonated...

He also recieved a Standing Ovation and Huge support from the audience...

Don't tell the MSM/PTW, but Jay Leno was in RP's corner aswell...

[Rantaak]

Posted by Nickolai (here)
Guys, Hello!

I like Mr Paul. He is nice! But keeping in mind he is still alive/free - nah!
Just several nights ago Mr Wilcock was crying. Same is my opinion here. Mr Paul would be obsolete if he was a serious trouble.
They do not follow the tactic games. Ron Paul would just disappear from the arena.
Please kindly keep in mind that I like what he says just I do not believe that he is the same as he wants to appear or they would like him him to appear.

That is sad,but serves the purpose of pollarization.

Wish all of you peace and love,


Nickolai

I'm right on point with you, friend. As much as I love the character and outward philosophy that Ron Paul has consistantly exhuded, I have also noticed that not a single president in history has actually had any real power due to puppeteers. The ones who tried to go against their masters got shot.

Also interesting to note is that Ron Paul calls himself a christian. If he's telling the truth about that, that would mean he's part of a delusional and murderous cult that has been trying to enslave the world since the dawn of its creation. Christianity is allegorical. God is an alien genetic scientist. They may have even been the ones to put religion here in the first place (upon destroying the goddess-worshipping shamanic orgy societies) to this end. I somehow feel Ron Paul is far too clever not to realize this.

Also interesting to note is that he delivered HELLA (meaning 5 or more in Californian) babies. This means he's witnessed thousands of souls entering and animating the human body as it takes its first breath. Verrrry interesting. At least it's not quite as creepy as being a mortician.

We'll see how it goes. If anything, he's at least spreading his wisdom to the blubbering masses. Still not sure if I will finally register to vote this time, but if I do it will be for Ron Paul.

[daledo]

Posted by latte (here)
The top link works, just scroll down a bit...

For some reason that website won't load for me... not even the main page.
Maybe some other people are having the same problem with that site.

[spiritguide]

Ron Paul speaks truth to the Constitution. "We the people" vs Obama's "Me the liar". IMHO

[vortex surfer]

I think Paul has some good points. But on an aside note it's curious that he mentions Grover Cleveland as his favorite president of all time:

*When Grover Cleveland, a Democrat, ran for President in 1884, the general impression in the country was that he opposed the power of monopolies and corporations, and that the Republican party, whose candidate was James Blaine, stood for the wealthy. But when Cleveland defeated Blaine, Jay Gould (leading American railroad developer and speculator) wired him: "I feel ... that the vast business interests of the country will be entirely safe in your hands." And he was right.

*One of Cleveland's chief advisers was William Whitney, a millionaire and corporation lawyer, who married into the Standard Oil fortune and was appointed Secretary of the Navy by Cleveland. He immediately set about to create a "steel navy," buying the steel at artificially high prices from Carnegie's plants. Cleveland himself assured industrialists that his election should not frighten them: "No harm shall come to any business interest as the result of administrative policy so long as I am President ... a transfer of executive control from one party to another does not mean any serious disturbance of existing conditions."

*In 1887, with a huge surplus in the treasury, Cleveland vetoed a bill appropriating $100,000 to give relief to Texas farmers to help them buy seed grain during a drought. He said: "Federal aid in such cases .. . encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character." But that same year, Cleveland used his gold surplus to pay off wealthy bondholders at $28 above the $100 value of each bond -a gift of $45 million."

(*Excerpts taken from A people's history of the United States of America, by Howard Zinn)

[percival tyro]

Hi jackovesk. Ali.. One of my all time favourite human beings. Wonder what he would like to say about Obama.

[alienHunter]

Posted by vortex surfer (here)
I think Paul has some good points. But on an aside note it's curious that he mentions Grover Cleveland as his favorite president of all time:

*When Grover Cleveland, a Democrat, ran for President in 1884, the general impression in the country was that he opposed the power of monopolies and corporations, and that the Republican party, whose candidate was James Blaine, stood for the wealthy. But when Cleveland defeated Blaine, Jay Gould (leading American railroad developer and speculator) wired him: "I feel ... that the vast business interests of the country will be entirely safe in your hands." And he was right.

*One of Cleveland's chief advisers was William Whitney, a millionaire and corporation lawyer, who married into the Standard Oil fortune and was appointed Secretary of the Navy by Cleveland. He immediately set about to create a "steel navy," buying the steel at artificially high prices from Carnegie's plants. Cleveland himself assured industrialists that his election should not frighten them: "No harm shall come to any business interest as the result of administrative policy so long as I am President ... a transfer of executive control from one party to another does not mean any serious disturbance of existing conditions."

*In 1887, with a huge surplus in the treasury, Cleveland vetoed a bill appropriating $100,000 to give relief to Texas farmers to help them buy seed grain during a drought. He said: "Federal aid in such cases .. . encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character." But that same year, Cleveland used his gold surplus to pay off wealthy bondholders at $28 above the $100 value of each bond -a gift of $45 million."

(*Excerpts taken from A people's history of the United States of America, by Howard Zinn)

Hi vortex,

That's part of our problem really...making historical comparisons. I think in fairness to Ron Paul, he should be allowed to stand on his own merits. In my opinion his merit is a very basic, very simple, very straightforward political message. Unfortunately, our real world life is not just basic or very straightforward and simple. Paul is compelling, though, I would love to be able to solve all my personal problems with a sweep of a principled hand.

[alienHunter]

Posted by Unified Serenity (here)

Posted by jackovesk (here)

Posted by modwiz (here)
Obama is supposed to win. Republicans want no part of a country that is falling apart.

Here is Ali on being president:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=GVfAi7PNaeE

To true Modwiz To true...

Yes, and prophetic even. I once had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Ali when he visited my 8th grade class in Jeddah Saudi Arabia with some PLO people. He was not as quick as he was there, but he was kind. Ali hit the nail on the head there.

That's pretty funny...I take it you come from a family with a military background?