See other All is Vanity Articles
Title: Get Ready for a Major, Major Disappointment (Ron Paul's Built-In Loss)
Source:
Meself
URL Source: [None]
Published: Dec 24, 2007
Author: Me, Me, Me
Post Date: 2007-12-24 10:19:48 by a vast rightwing conspirator
Keywords: None
Views: 7744
Comments: 264
Merry Xmas everyone and may your grandest wishes come true, for as long as they don't come into conflict with my own :). I haven't done a vanity in a long, long, long time but I felt that it's important to discuss the reality of where RP is currently heading. Disclaimer: I stand for just about everything RP stands for. 'Just about' stands for his continuing membership in the stupid, evil, dangerous GOP party. Now, on the topic of Ron Paul. I just watched a clip of him on the Tim Russert show where RP re-stated in the most forceful way that he has no intention whatsoever to run for US Prez outside of the GOP reservation. The inescapable conclusion, therefore, is that RP is really running for the GOP nomination and, of course, he is NOT going to get it. He is not even going to be a close third or fourth. In the end, you will find RP trailing Huckabee, McCain, Thompson, Giuliani and just about everyone else who stands for Bush, War and the fat State way because this is what the GOP membership is standing for these days. I am fully aware of the 'hijacking' theory. Its exponents believe that, somehow, the RP activists are going to show up all 100% of them to vote in primaries and everyone else's supporters are going to stay home and we will see RP winning state after state after state. This is, of course, nonsense. Reality is coming on Jan 3, I believe, and Jan 2 will be the last time you are going to hear about the hijacking theory. Then, I heard someone here stating that 'the 2 parties' are nothing but tools for whomever is seeking the presidency to get the presidency. This, my friends, is as naive as it gets. The parties are Mafia-like organizations whose aim is to seek, get and exercise political power for the benefit of the inner circles who own them and they as much a 'free' tool for the people the parties put forward for the voters to vote on as the Mafia is a tool for the Mafia bosses. The inner circle has no use for RP, he does not support the type of 'leadership' they are paying for. Now, RP is going to lose. He took millions of dollars from supporters who refused to accept that he can NOT win the US presidency under the stinky and filthy flag of the GOP. He was asked repeatedly whether he would consider running as an independent, OPPOSING the 2 monstrous political Mafias and, every time he answered the question, the answer was a strong 'NO'. THE FUTURE: the next US Prez is going to be Hillary, O'Bama, Giuliani, Romney or, maybe, Huckabee. Ron Paul will win ZERO primaries/caucuses and, if he is true to his words, he will get back to delivering babies and representing his Texas district. I suspect that RP is going to be very much at peace with himself but, what are his supporters going to feel about it? What are they going to do? They supported a campaign for the US presidency that was built from the ground up to lose the race - and they refused to see it because they liked the excitement. Are they going to be sad? Angry? What would be the consequences of RP's campaign? The main consequence that I see is that of legitimizing the 2-party system. RP is a saint among politicians. He says and does all the right things and, yet, he insists in staying inside the GOP party and he retreats when the GOP, as predicted and as expected, deals him a humiliating defeat in his attempt to represent the political Cosa Nostra - because he is not a made made and he is not from the families. However, staying as an 'unmade' member of the organization, he adds credibility to it. It would be something close to Jesus joining the Pharisees and seeking Caiafa's job. I will be watching with interest how the RP fantasy gets itself crushed by the inevitable political reality. Just you all keep in mind that, while 'the media' and 'the corrupt politicians' can be blamed for RP's inability to win the GOP nomination, the main problem is RP's seeking the GOP nomination instead of running for the US presidency and seeking the support of the people, not the nod of the GOP party bosses.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-93) not displayed.
.
.
.
#94. To: richard9151 (#93)
George Washington's choice for secretary of the treasury was our first clue.
i can see the logic in that. i'm still hoping RP will make the decision to go independent if/when he doesn't get the GOP nomination.
They barely even try to hide it any more.
i do, richard. in fact, i started to write in my post to Deacon that it was purposeful. Lysander Spooner: The Constitution of No Authority The Constitution has no inherent authority or obligation. It has no authority or obligation at all, unless as a contract between man and man. And it does not so much as even purport to be a contract between persons now existing. It purports, at most, to be only a contract between persons living eighty years ago. And it can be supposed to have been a contract then only between persons who had already come to years of discretion, so as to be competent to make reasonable and obligatory contracts. Furthermore, we know, historically, that only a small portion even of the people then existing were consulted on the subject, or asked, or permitted to express either their consent or dissent in any formal manner. Those persons, if any, who did give their consent formally, are all dead now. Most of them have been dead forty, fifty, sixty, or seventy years. And the Constitution, so far as it was their contract, died with them. They had no natural power or right to make it obligatory upon their children. It is not only plainly impossible, in the nature of things, that they could bind their posterity, but they did not even attempt to bind them. That is to say, the instrument does not purport to be an agreement between any body but "the people" then existing; nor does it, either expressly or impliedly, assert any right, power, or disposition, on their part, to bind anybody but themselves. Let us see. Its language is: We, the people of the United States (that is, the people then existing in the United States), in order to form a more perfect union, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. It is plain, in the first place, that this language, as an agreement, purports to be only what it at most really was, viz., a contract between the people then existing; and, of necessity, binding, as a contract, only upon those then existing. In the second place, the language neither expresses nor implies that they had any intention or desire, nor that they imagined they had any right or power, to bind their "posterity" to live under it. It does not say that their "posterity" will, shall, or must live under it. It only says, in effect, that their hopes and motives in adopting it were that it might prove useful to their posterity, as well as to themselves, by promoting their union, safety, tranquility, liberty, etc. Suppose an agreement were entered into, in this form: We, the people of Boston, agree to maintain a fort on Governor's Island, to protect ourselves and our posterity against invasion. This agreement, as an agreement, would clearly bind nobody but the people then existing. Secondly, it would assert no right, power, or disposition, on their part, to compel their "posterity" to maintain such a fort. It would only indicate that the supposed welfare of their posterity was one of the motives that induced the original parties to enter into the agreement. When a man says he is building a house for himself and his posterity, he does not mean to be understood as saying that he has any thought of binding them, nor is it to be inferred that he is so foolish as to imagine that he has any right or power to bind them, to live in it. So far as they are concerned, he only means to be understood as saying that his hopes and motives, in building it, are that they, or at least some of them, may find it for their happiness to live in it. So when a man says he is planting a tree for himself and his posterity, he does not mean to be understood as saying that he has any thought of compelling them, nor is it to be inferred that he is such a simpleton as to imagine that he has any right or power to compel them, to eat the fruit. So far as they are concerned, he only means to say that his hopes and motives, in planting the tree, are that its fruit may be agreeable to them. So it was with those who originally adopted the Constitution. Whatever may have been their personal intentions, the legal meaning of their language, so far as their "posterity" was concerned, simply was, that their hopes and motives, in entering into the agreement, were that it might prove useful and acceptable to their posterity; that it might promote their union, safety, tranquility, and welfare; and that it might tend "to secure to them the blessings of liberty." The language does not assert nor at all imply, any right, power, or disposition, on the part of the original parties to the agreement, to compel their "posterity" to live under it. If they had intended to bind their posterity to live under it, they should have said that their object was, not "to secure to them the blessings of liberty," but to make slaves of them; for if their "posterity" are bound to live under it, they are nothing less than the slaves of their foolish, tyrannical, and dead grandfathers. It cannot be said that the Constitution formed "the people of the United States," for all time, into a corporation. It does not speak of "the people" as a corporation, but as individuals. A corporation does not describe itself as "we," nor as "people," nor as "ourselves." Nor does a corporation, in legal language, have any "posterity." It supposes itself to have, and speaks of itself as having, perpetual existence, as a single individuality. Moreover, no body of men, existing at any one time, have the power to create a perpetual corporation. A corporation can become practically perpetual only by the voluntary accession of new members, as the old ones die off. But for this voluntary accession of new members, the corporation necessarily dies with the death of those who originally composed it. Legally speaking, therefore, there is, in the Constitution, nothing that professes or attempts to bind the "posterity" of those who established it. If, then, those who established the Constitution, had no power to bind, and did not attempt to bind, their posterity, the question arises, whether their posterity have bound themselves. If they have done so, they can have done so in only one or both of these two ways, viz., by voting, and paying taxes. ---snip---
The Constitution spells out the limits on federal responsibilities well enough for me. Our problems lie not in the words of the Constitution but in the fact that it has become irrelevant. The "my bad" goes on the American sheeple, not the founders.
Republicans (Democrats for that matter) ....... HAD ENOUGH?
At first, I was very skeptical about his chances. I "bought some hope" (contributed) anyway and hoped for the best. Over the past few weeks, in the face of volley after volley from the MSM, I have seen Paul not discredited, but strengthened. They are inadverdently providing him with the exposure he was denied through normal channels. Sure the "scientific" polls show him to be trailing significantly, but these polls only "scientifically" measure what they are designed to measure. They aren't designed to show grassroots support. There is real excitement about this campaign and it is showing some real legs. I'm volunteering to hang door tags and I've never spent one second of my time for a political candidate. This can really happen.
LOL! Why would an agent of the Rochschilds make anyone think something smelly was going on?! I am still amazed at the countless numbers of people who believe that getting back to the Constitution will solve everything, when what we have in America is the fruit OF the Constitution! No one seems to be able/willing to deal with that.
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest.
Excellent, christine. Spooner is one of the few attorneys that ever lived who deserves real respect. The real point of what he said, however, is contracts. You enter into such by the actions mentioned above, and today, in many, many other ways as well. It is amazing to me, and well illustrates where we have gone, when opening a bank account is a contract to pay taxes! Oh well, we live and learn... well, some of us do anyway.
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest.
I doubt if many Americans share that opinion.
I can remember back to the days when I still thought getting back to the constitution would do the trick, so its kind of hard to fault people who haven't gotten over it yet. Of course that doesn't stop me from wanting to shake them until all the feel-good myths fall right out of their heads and they can finally see the tapeworm they've been harboring between their ears.
Really? How many Americans no longer vote? Perhaps the namber is much larger than you suspect, my friend. In the groups that I have corresponded with over the last 10 years, there are, litterally, tens of thousands who know where the problems come/came from, and the vast majority of them do not/have not voted in some time. At least, since the connections by and between the Clintons and Bushs became so obvious. And those are just the ones that I was involved with. Stands to reason I was aware of only a very small percentage of the total.
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest.
Very well said. I understand. Esp. the part about wanting to shake them so hard that.....!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Whew! Glad I got that out of my system today!
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest.
Same here. The MSM fails to realize that Paulites are real people, acting independently and with their local groups, un-paid by the campaign, with only the desire to return some Hope for America with Freedom, Peace, and Prosperity for all.
That's what Teddy Roosevelt did in 1912. And he came close to winning the election that year. The two major parties are in a lot more discredit now than they were then. So a third-party run is much more promising today.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
You are right about the millions of people who have given up voting, but it irritates the daylights out of me that so many of them don't understand the whole thing was a set-up right from the beginning and that they continue to blame all the "failures" of constitutional law on themselves. It is absolutely stunning to me that anyone could actually still believe that regular everyday Americans ever had any control over this country's insane policies.
A fatalistic approach to any situation will bring you just that. Extending your logic, as a result of our Constitution, we have two choices, a dictatorship or a revolution. Myself I prefer another revolution, others may make their own decisions.
Reading your comment, Cynicom, caused the following thought to cross my mind: How long has it been that there has only been one (l) third party (a socialist) elected to Congress (first to the House and now over to the Senate) or some other 'party'===we've had more queers elected than third party candidates.I am, of course, referring to Bernie Sanders, the Socialist, versus Barney Fwank, and Jim Kolbe, to name two. I will put a caveat here, "in our lifetime" when discussing this.
God wants spiritual fruits, not religious nuts!
The two major parties are in a lot more discredit now than they were then. So a third-party run is much more promising today. Let me see if I understand this correctly, please, and bear with me, cause I am slow to learn......... OK? Wilson, a little known teacher... OK, so he was president of a university.... told you I was slow... Is not electable. Most everyone agrees with that in 1911-12. Not a smowball's chance in hell of beating the incumbant. Who is popular. BUT...... along comes Roosevelt.. er, excuse me, Rosenvelt, whose cousin will one day be elected as a crat-part-of-the-Republicrats. Elected as president, I should add (see-- SLOW!) Starts a one-year-flash-in-the-pan party known as the Bull Moose. Incidently, using only BIG MONEY DONERS to finance his new 'party.' Umm, sounds just like a party.. of some kind or other. Splits the Republican party vote..... and presto chango!! The new president is..... (wiat for the drum roll!) ....... WILSON! Who was not electable. Course, Wilson had said something about supporting what the sitting president would not support... something about a Federal Reserve Act, or somthin...... Let me se.... how was it that Clinton got elected pres? And history repeatsrepeatsrepeatsrepeatsrepeatsrepeatsrepeatsrepeats endlessly and no one learns anything.
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest.
Don't do that. See number 111.
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest.
Your post is timely and important. The evidence is obvious in the response. Responses have come from several directions. And this will be my answer to them. First, the objection to RP running on the Plutocrat/Industrial Complex ticket. Dr. Paul may be politically unsophisticated, but he ain't stupid! How else would his message travel beyond the political junkies in cyberspace like ourselves? As to the "immorality" of it, that's just ridiculously purist to me. I'd liken it more to the "center fumble" or "hook-and-ladder" plays in football (we called it the "flea-flicker" in my day). Any "trick play" that takes advantage of a not-too-sharp opponent, short of rules violations is is fair and square. Second, the third party thing. There is plenty of time before that decision has to be made, the later the better as far as I'm concerned. Third party or no party my vote in Nov '08 is going to be for Dr. Paul. The sign in my front yard says "Hope for America". Actually, I like it better than the "Revolution" slogans which I believe are a little too sweeping in implication for a single election. The significance of RP's run is that a long delayed message is reaching the masses. The Boston Tea Party wasn't a huge sweeping turn back of British domination, but it certainly was a providential spark. If we can achieve just that then I will more elated than in any of my previous decades of political observation and participation. Finally, the defeatist undercurrent. Anyone who ever participated in competitive sport has experienced the role of underdog. Did any of you quit? Any not show up? I hope not, because if you did I must feel that you found the shame of surrender worse than the pain of defeat. Perhaps we just light the flame in the tower, then at least we will have opened the door to the possibility of our own jubilant Yorktown. So, fight the good fight, right up to and including election day '08 and beyond.
Republicans (Democrats for that matter) ....... HAD ENOUGH?
Your sayin that the 2-party order needs to be strictly enforced or the Nation suffers because of look what happened when there was a 'third party' run (Wilson, Clinton)? This is very interesting but it's not very clear what Wilson's 2-party rival would have done or what a GHWB2 presidency would have been like. Is there a knowledge that shows how better America would have been absent the Bull Moose or Perot? I am askin because, I remember that GHWB threatened the Yugos with war over Kosovo, then Clinton Made war over Kosovo. Then, Clinton bombed Iraq and the W bombed Iraq and more. Now, both Clinton and Giuliani are promise to do the responsible thing in Iraq and send more Americans to the death as they slaughter the locals. None of them has anything to say about reducing the Welfare state. Also: Bush one, Clinton one, Bush two, Clinton two, Giuliani one - all Globalists and 'free traders'. So, being as slow as I am, what is the harm that a 'third party' challenge does?
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
In the nineteenth century, America was the freest country in the world, with an extremely limited federal government. That was under the same Constitution we have today (minus a few amendments), at a time when there had been less time to subject it to misintrepretation that grows upon itself over time.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
As, I believe, I noted in the post that started this thread, it was prompted by Ron Paul going on the Russert show doing the equivalent of swearing on his mother's grave that he will NOT do an Indie run.
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
Ron Paul in that interview deliberately left himself wiggle room to eventually mount a third-party run. I believe Teddy Roosevelt did precisely the same thing while running in the Republican primaries in 1912.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
I do believe there will be cautious (at least it should be cautious) attacks on Ron. But the attackers should keep in mind that there are many of the Silicon Valley types that are supporting the man. They can't have us peons thinking that these IT folks, who 'run' the service sector of our economy that affects everyones lives, are dumb and stupid and willing to blindly follow some loose cannonball. These Silicon Valley types add further credibility to Ron helping to deflect all the stupid 'kook' crap that would otherwise be swirling all around. The old $500 donation from some white supremist seems to be about the worst that I've seen...........and that's been deflected by the man as its going to be used for good purposes. Kristol is a pitiful POS.
God wants spiritual fruits, not religious nuts!
The shame of participating in a game knowing the fix was in before you suited up would be a lot worse than walking off the field with an attitude. Look around the field, for crying out loud, there's barely anything left to surrender. And one man isn't going to recover your losses, even if the owners allowed him to coach the team for a few years. Which, of course, they won't.
since i read Votescam: The Stealing of America in 2k, i have advocated (and i still believe it would work)that everyone stay home on election day--refuse to participate. if we all did that, they couldn't fake the numbers and continue to perpetuate the FRAUD of legitimate elections in this country. of course, i know that would never happen as there are too many who benefit economically from the system that is. so, to repeat, my hope is that RP's candidacy is a step in the process to a huge awakening to this fact.
I did not say that it does harm. But if not for the Bull Moose party, we would not have had the Federal Reserve Act in 1912. Later perhaps, but not then, and that would have prevented WWI as well. There has been a lot written about WWI never happening without the Federal Reserve Act being in place to finance it, as all of Europe was broke then. Mostly, it is about ignorance. As in the ignorance that has permitted a two pàrty system to be established in the first place. Not to mention the silliness about having Senators subject to a popular election, contrary to the Constitution, and then having the same people who cry about the Constitution being unaware of this bit of non-sense........... Talk about ignorance! And I say, welcome to America.
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest.
I must agree with you Deacon. I know that it is physically impossible for Dr. Paul to visit with people one on one. That's a given............however, when I ran for office, given the size of the district I wanted to represent, and the fact that many people didn't want their space invaded by political wannabees or politicians, and trash bins were littered with mailing materials, I decided to try to call everyone on the phone. I worked out a short message which included an apology for taking up their time, a very brief who I was and l or two things I represented, asked if they had questions, and if not a question for just then, I said they could call me collect with any questions they had. The feedback from being contacted by a person was fantastic. And, I only lost the vote in the incumbent's home town by something like 40 votes! I'm not advocating that Ron do this, but his foot soldiers could. Everybody knows somebody. OR, go down to the county building and get a roster of voter registration in your area; look up the phone numbers, work out a 'message', and start calling. Tell the caller who you are, that you live on 14th Street, or whatever---that makes you 'one of them'. Asking if it is a convenient time for a very short comment, or apologizing for taking up their time is a very good idea as well because people don't like infringements on their time. This was a big deal when I worked phone banks for a statewide office election. We were to inquire if we could speak to them for a couple of minutes, or was it bad timing--whatever.
God wants spiritual fruits, not religious nuts!
That depended entirely on who you were at the time, as well as what you said and did that went against the conventional wisdom, not to mention the color of one's skin. Its not good to get too wrapped up in myths, however comforting they may sound.
Let's back this up a little. If you do not believe in legitimizing fraudulent election, by not participating in casting a vote, fine. Then why would you want to run an ad in a newspaper asking others to support RP (who apparently for some legitimizes the evil machine) and therefore going against your personal position on the value of voting in the first place? Is there time to cancel the ad? We certainly would not want to participate in promoting a complete fraud and sham. Edited to add: Doing such would violate MORALITY 101 set forth by vast.
The Federal Reserve Act of 1912 was a law voted in by the US Congress and signed by the Prez, not an Executive Order.
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
You may need to do some more reading, my friend. The Federal Reserve Act was passed AFTER Congress went home for the Xmas holydays in 1912. There is some evidence that, as I recall, as few as 12 Senators passed it in the Senate, BUT, because the vote was not done as a roll call vote, it was simply noted as 'passed.' There was absolutely no way that it could have been voted in over a presidential veto, which is exactly what 'the other candidate' had sworn to do. You would do well to also note that this was done BEFORE the popular election of Senators was force-fed to America.
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest.
That depended entirely on who you were at the time, as well as what you said and did that went against the conventional wisdom, not to mention the color of one's skin. Its not good to get too wrapped up in myths, however comforting they may sound. Very correct. It is also important to note here that, by the end of the noneteenth century, the Federal Zone that overlaid the states had been in effect for a hundred years, and America was just beginning to see the effect of that (outside of banking, that is.) The consolitadion of power was well underway, as shown by the robber barons of the late 1800s, and it would come to fruitation with the Federal Reserve Act of 1912, the popular election of Senators, and WWI. But the real exercise of this power was the Civil War and its aftermath. Would you care to discuss Reconstruction? Or, note perhaps, that Reconstruction has never been terminated? Not to mention that the Civil War has never been terminated, officially?
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest.
2)...their is increased awareness of the reality behind the 2-party democracy facade. The lack of choice is exposed and, to some extent, even discussed in the 'mainstream media'. There is increased talk of the need of 'a third party'. 3)...Maybe he could if he could get 34% of the votes and they were properly distributed....If he does not win, at least we have an election with a choice and the choice will be clearly not for 'one of the three' but it will be a "freedom vs. the establishment provided Faustian offering of 'safety'". ...Regardless of whether he wins or not, RP's message will be heard through November 2008 and, hopefully, beyond 2008, rather than stop being heard by the end of January, 2008. Regarding #1...imagine how it would be were he an independent: He would be getting virtually NO coverage at all. Debates? Do independents debate and does the MSM cover them? Does C-SPAN cover them? Besides.........MSM doesn't continue talking about 'losers'......where's all the Gilchrist comments? In a month I can ask about Tancredo comments the media covers. For that matter, how often does the MSM hang on every word uttered by Gary Hart? Michael Dukakis? Bob Dole? Regarding #2......they can talk about a third parpty til they're blue in the face........ask Perot, Harry Browne, Howard Phillips, Lyndon LaRouche, or any of the congresscowards on the Hill. Ain't gonna happen==would be an absolute fluke. BECAUSE it was demos and repukos that wrote the federal laws regarding campaigning and elections. You really do need to see some of the tapes of the committee hearings where the 'good ol boys' slap each other on the back and congratulate one another on the fine job they've done--as they are walking out of a meeting room where the table/cast of 3rd party advocates sit waiting for their turn to advise what needs to be changed. And finally, regarding #3.....Care to tell us how he could reach 34% of the voters? Since when do the 'presidential debates' which are Demo/Republo events, include the likes of him? If they're paying for the platform, they certainly wouldn't want to free ride anyone who could be a threat to the one-party system. Even the media would have excuses not to cover anything about him other than in passing. And if he doesn't win..........doncha just love feeling good, while the nation goes to hell in a handbasket? Again, how does his message get heard, if the medias don't cover him? Ron isn't dumb...........he's been in those sacred halls of Congress as they've voted in these damnable laws regarding elections. And if it isn't the feds laws, its the states laws---and they are generally guided/dictated by the two-headed one party system we have now. Crappy system, but you have to play with the cards that were dealt...to be considered viable. We can all sit and talk about eliminating the federal reserve, cleaning up and out the FBI and the CIA because we're up with it. Let the rank and file citizen hear that from someone running on an unknown 'ticket', with talking heads and media suggesting he's a kook, and see how much coffee you can buy from donations. Work to get the man elected. A vetoing president would be wonderful. Congress would either start cleaning up their act, or the national dais will show them to the collaborating crooks that they are.....maybe that is what it will take to get the rest of the sheeple to awaken from their rip vanwinkle slumber party.
God wants spiritual fruits, not religious nuts!
Pep, I still believe they're going to steal it from RP. I believe the PTB have already chosen their selection and I think that's Hillary. However, as I posted above to vast and as duckhunter, Paul Revere, and others posted, I think there's never been the grassroots support and awareness of the message of Liberty. For this reason, I have some hope that as the numbers grow (we need a critical mass ala V for Vendetta) if we-the-people are to have a chance of defeating the elites and taking our country back. This is our last hope and I don't want to sit on the sidelines and do nothing. I want to take part in the fight.
Well said. "The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
I've saved your little graphic. Too good not to.
Not to mention that the federal government owns all of the land the states occupy and always has. Outright. Take, for instance, the Louisiana Purchase, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and all the other usurpations. In none of the paperwork, including the CONstitution, is it ever said that the american people own or control one square inch of anything.
Vast is not one to let history get in his way of advancing an agenda.
Excellent point, which I overlooked. Where have you been by the way?! While I was getting 'nailed to the wall' in 4um for posting on the non-sense of the CONstitution?!!!!!????!!!!
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest.
Comments (135 - 264) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#95. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#86)
RP running as an independent: could he win if he ran against Hillary/Rudy and he ran the perfect campaign? Maybe he could if he could get 34% of the votes and they were properly distributed. Like I said, I give him about 10% odds to winning which, by the way, is way better than the 0% he has now. I also tend to agree that, if he won, his days in office might not be too many. It's important that he takes a freedom leaning VP running mate rather than do that stupid 'ticket balancing' thing and bring along a Cheney-like ogre. If he does not win, at least we have an election with a choice and the choice will be clearly not for 'one of the three' but it will be a "freedom vs. the establishment provided Faustian offering of 'safety'". If RP went indie, expect Bloomberg to jump in so that he can pose as 'the center' and give the impression that Hillary would be the 'legitimate left', Rudy playing 'the mainstream right' and RP could be painted as 'the extremist'. Regardless of whether he wins or not, RP's message will be heard through November 2008 and, hopefully, beyond 2008, rather than stop being heard by the end of January, 2008.
#96. To: Cynicom (#91)
It is very difficult for me to accept that in this day of readily available information that there are intelligent people that seem to believe there are two "moral" parties in this political system.
#97. To: richard9151 (#93)
Or, read the book, The CONstitution That Never Was, but, well, perhaps you get the picture.
#98. To: christine, DeaconBenjamin (#88)
The executive power is large because not defined in the Constitution.
#99. To: lodwick (#92)
To me, the power behind Dr.Paul's campaign is that he is giving us something to vote for, instead of something to be against.
#100. To: RidinShotgun (#94)
George Washington's choice for secretary of the treasury was our first clue.
#101. To: christine (#97)
only one or both of these two ways, viz., by voting, and paying taxes.
#102. To: richard9151 (#100)
I am still amazed at the countless numbers of people who believe that getting back to the Constitution will solve everything, when what we have in America is the fruit OF the Constitution! No one seems to be able/willing to deal with that.
#103. To: richard9151 (#100)
#104. To: Cynicom (#102)
I doubt if many Americans share that opinion.
#105. To: RidinShotgun (#103)
I can remember back to the days when I still thought getting back to the constitution would do the trick, so its kind of hard to fault people who haven't gotten over it yet. Of course that doesn't stop me from wanting to shake them until all the feel-good myths fall right out of their heads and they can finally see the tapeworm they've been harboring between their ears.
#106. To: duckhunter (#99)
There is real excitement about this campaign and it is showing some real legs. I'm volunteering to hang door tags and I've never spent one second of my time for a political candidate. This can really happen.
#107. To: christine (#95)
i can see the logic in that. i'm still hoping RP will make the decision to go independent if/when he doesn't get the GOP nomination.
#108. To: richard9151 (#105)
#109. To: richard9151 (#104)
Really? How many Americans no longer vote? Perhaps the namber is much larger than you suspect, my friend.
#110. To: Cynicom, robin, a vast right wing conspirator (#12)
Vast is living in his own make believe world where the two party system exists
#111. To: aristeides, christine (#107)
That's what Teddy Roosevelt did in 1912. And he came close to winning the election that year.
#112. To: rowdee, Cynicom, robin, a vast right wing conspirator (#110)
I will put a caveat here, "in our lifetime" when discussing this.
#113. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#0)
I haven't done a vanity in a long, long, long time but I felt that it's important to discuss the reality of where RP is currently heading.
#114. To: richard9151 (#111)
(Edited)
#115. To: RidinShotgun (#108)
#116. To: iconoclast (#113)
Second, the third party thing. There is plenty of time before that decision has to be made, the later the better as far as I'm concerned.
#117. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#116)
#118. To: Cynicom (#41)
#119. To: iconoclast (#113)
Finally, the defeatist undercurrent. Anyone who ever participated in competitive sport has experienced the role of underdog. Did any of you quit? Any not show up? I hope not, because if you did I must feel that you found the shame of surrender worse than the pain of defeat.
#120. To: richard9151, Cynicom, a vast rightwing conspiracy, lodwick, Jethro Tull, iconoclast, RidinShotgun, duckhunter, ALL (#104)
#121. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#114)
So, being as slow as I am, what is the harm that a 'third party' challenge does?
#122. To: DeaconBenjamin (#52)
but many more will have to be reached one-on-one. Discuss him with family, friends, co-workers, associates
#123. To: aristeides (#115)
In the nineteenth century, America was the freest country in the world, with an extremely limited federal government. That was under the same Constitution we have today (minus a few amendments), at a time when there had been less time to subject it to misintrepretation that grows upon itself over time.
#124. To: christine (#120)
(Edited)
i have advocated (and i still believe it would work)that everyone stay home on election day--refuse to participate. if we all did that, they couldn't fake the numbers and continue to perpetuate the FRAUD of legitimate elections in this country.
#125. To: richard9151 (#121)
But if not for the Bull Moose party, we would not have had the Federal Reserve Act in 1912.
#126. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#125)
The Federal Reserve Act of 1912 was a law voted in by the US Congress
#127. To: RidinShotgun, aristeides (#123)
In the nineteenth century, America was the freest country in the world, with an extremely limited federal government. That was under the same Constitution we have today (minus a few amendments), at a time when there had been less time to subject it to misintrepretation that grows upon itself over time.
#128. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#86)
1)... Once RP is defeated, nothing happens. The media is likely to stop talking about him shortly after the first 2-3 nomination contests.
#129. To: Peppa (#124)
#130. To: christine, peppa (#129)
#131. To: Original_Intent (#130)
My spelling is Wobbly. It's good spelling but it Wobbles, and the letters get in the wrong places. -- Winnie the Pooh
#132. To: richard9151 (#127)
#133. To: richard9151 (#126)
You may need to do some more reading, my friend.
#134. To: RidinShotgun (#132)
Not to mention that the federal government owns all of the land the states occupy and always has. Outright. Take, for instance, the Louisiana Purchase, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and all the other usurpations. In none of the paperwork, including the CONstitution, is it ever said that the american people own or control one square inch of anything.
.
.
.