The Ron Paul Thread

[steve74baywin]

Neat Mark Larsen interview with Mitt Romney that leads Mark to decide to vote for Ron Paul.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lAFfLy0 ... ation.com/

At the end Mark says they won't get rid of the IRS because it is about control...

[upnorthman]

bump

Revolution Revived! Ron Paul Survives Challenge
White House Contender Raised Millions, Sparked Debate, but Nearly Lost Day Job
Ron Paul will live to fight another day.

The fiery Republican with a libertarian bent survived a strong challenge to his day job in Congress on Tuesday, besting a well-funded challenger.

Paul, the Texas congressman who distinguished himself as the only Republican presidential candidate opposing the Iraq war, gained a devoted following, harnessing the power of the Internet to raise more cash than more mainstream rivals.

But that same anti-war, libertarian bent that gave Paul national recognition nearly came back to bite him at home.

Paul, who ran for the White House as a libertarian in 1988 but gained more of a following this year as a Republican, did not suspend his presidential campaign, but was forced to scale back his national operation to focus on the race for his Congressional seat in Texas.

"I do think the presidential race has exposed some of his values and principles that are not in line with his district, and that exposure has done him harm at home," Republican primary challenger Chris Peden said of Paul.

But in the end, Peden fell short, allowing Paul to resume his presidential campaign, although Senator John McCain, R-Ariz., wrapped up the nomination with a sweep of wins in Ohio, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Paul's native Texas.

How strong will the revolution be in four years?

[Adventurewagen]

Nice article. I hope the revolution will be even stronger. Heck, I'd like to see Paul push this thing to the end and pull off some votes anyway.

[steve74baywin]

Nice article. I hope the revolution will be even stronger. Heck, I'd like to see Paul push this thing to the end and pull off some votes anyway.

I have come to the conclusion that it is probably going to take the awakening of tons more minds before we could see a Ron Paul in office. I see way too much thinking that is limited still to the limited information that has been fed to the people for 50+ years.
www.freedomforceinternational.org

[upnorthman]

It looks like he is going to finally back down. I really liked this statement!

"We must remember, elections are short-term efforts," Paul said. "Revolutions are long-term projects."

From:http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/07/ ... index.html

[Velokid1]

The Emerging Surveillance State
by Ron Paul
April 7, 2008.

Last month, the House amended the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to expand the government’s ability to monitor our private communications. This measure, if it becomes law, will result in more warrantless government surveillance of innocent American citizens.

Though some opponents claimed that the only controversial part of this legislation was its grant of immunity to telecommunications companies, there is much more to be wary of in the bill. In the House version, Title II, Section 801, extends immunity from prosecution of civil legal action to people and companies including any provider of an electronic communication service, any provider of a remote computing service, "any other communication service provider who has access to wire or electronic communications," any "parent, subsidiary, affiliate, successor, or assignee" of such company, any "officer, employee, or agent" of any such company, and any "landlord, custodian, or other person who may be authorized or required to furnish assistance." The Senate version goes even further by granting retroactive immunity to such entities that may have broken the law in the past.

The new FISA bill allows the federal government to compel many more types of companies and individuals to grant the government access to our communications without a warrant. The provisions in the legislation designed to protect Americans from warrantless surveillance are full of loopholes and ambiguities. There is no blanket prohibition against listening in on all American citizens without a warrant.

We have been told that this power to listen in on communications is legal and only targets terrorists. But if what these companies are being compelled to do is legal, why is it necessary to grant them immunity? If what they did in the past was legal and proper, why is it necessary to grant them retroactive immunity?

In communist East Germany , one in every 100 citizens was an informer for the dreaded secret police, the Stasi. They either volunteered or were compelled by their government to spy on their customers, their neighbors, their families, and their friends. When we think of the evil of totalitarianism, such networks of state spies are usually what comes to mind. Yet, with modern technology, what once took tens of thousands of informants can now be achieved by a few companies being coerced by the government to allow it to listen in to our communications. This surveillance is un-American.

We should remember that former New York governor Eliot Spitzer was brought down by a provision of the PATRIOT Act that required enhanced bank monitoring of certain types of financial transactions. Yet we were told that the PATRIOT Act was needed to catch terrorists, not philanderers. The extraordinary power the government has granted itself to look into our private lives can be used for many purposes unrelated to fighting terrorism. We can even see how expanded federal government surveillance power might be used to do away with political rivals.

The Fourth Amendment to our Constitution requires the government to have a warrant when it wishes to look into the private affairs of individuals. If we are to remain a free society we must defend our rights against any governmental attempt to undermine or bypass the Constitution.

[steve74baywin]

The Emerging Surveillance State
by Ron Paul
April 7, 2008.

Last month, the House amended the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to expand the government’s ability to monitor our private communications. This measure, if it becomes law, will result in more warrantless government surveillance of innocent American citizens.

Though some opponents claimed that the only controversial part of this legislation was its grant of immunity to telecommunications companies, there is much more to be wary of in the bill. In the House version, Title II, Section 801, extends immunity from prosecution of civil legal action to people and companies including any provider of an electronic communication service, any provider of a remote computing service, "any other communication service provider who has access to wire or electronic communications," any "parent, subsidiary, affiliate, successor, or assignee" of such company, any "officer, employee, or agent" of any such company, and any "landlord, custodian, or other person who may be authorized or required to furnish assistance." The Senate version goes even further by granting retroactive immunity to such entities that may have broken the law in the past.

The new FISA bill allows the federal government to compel many more types of companies and individuals to grant the government access to our communications without a warrant. The provisions in the legislation designed to protect Americans from warrantless surveillance are full of loopholes and ambiguities. There is no blanket prohibition against listening in on all American citizens without a warrant.

We have been told that this power to listen in on communications is legal and only targets terrorists. But if what these companies are being compelled to do is legal, why is it necessary to grant them immunity? If what they did in the past was legal and proper, why is it necessary to grant them retroactive immunity?

In communist East Germany , one in every 100 citizens was an informer for the dreaded secret police, the Stasi. They either volunteered or were compelled by their government to spy on their customers, their neighbors, their families, and their friends. When we think of the evil of totalitarianism, such networks of state spies are usually what comes to mind. Yet, with modern technology, what once took tens of thousands of informants can now be achieved by a few companies being coerced by the government to allow it to listen in to our communications. This surveillance is un-American.

We should remember that former New York governor Eliot Spitzer was brought down by a provision of the PATRIOT Act that required enhanced bank monitoring of certain types of financial transactions. Yet we were told that the PATRIOT Act was needed to catch terrorists, not philanderers. The extraordinary power the government has granted itself to look into our private lives can be used for many purposes unrelated to fighting terrorism. We can even see how expanded federal government surveillance power might be used to do away with political rivals.

The Fourth Amendment to our Constitution requires the government to have a warrant when it wishes to look into the private affairs of individuals. If we are to remain a free society we must defend our rights against any governmental attempt to undermine or bypass the Constitution.

Well, when this is a prison planet, I suppose many people will be happy that we have UHC.

Edited to add more...
The main concern in this country is things like the Ron Paul article says...THESE BASIC FREEDOM PRINCIPLES THAT MADE THIS COUNTRY, THAT WAS ESTABLISHED IN THE BEGINNING SO WE THE PEOPLE COULD FOR ONCE IN A 1000 YEARS BE FREE HAVE BEEN ABOLISHED, ALL THESE OTHER CANDIDATES RUNNING THAT AREN'T TALKING ABOUT THIS ARE NOTHING MORE THAN A PIECE OF SHIT.
I am sorry, but some on here think I come on too strong and radical, but I think I haven't been strong and radical enough....Wake the F up, what on earth do I have to do to some of you, bang your dam non functioning brain against a block wall a dozens times....I'm starting to think some of you maybe don't really deserve to be free. Now, forgive and let's not fight...

[Velokid1]

Diabetes is a huge problem worldwide and you haven't talked about it at all the past few months, Steve. I'm not insulting you specifically... but anyone who isn't talking about this serious problem, choosing instead to talk about other problems, is a PIECE OF SHIT!!



edited to add...

FUCK!!

[steve74baywin]

Diabetes is a huge problem worldwide and you haven't talked about it at all the past few months, Steve. I'm not insulting you specifically... but anyone who isn't talking about this serious problem, choosing instead to talk about other problems, is a PIECE OF SHIT!!



edited to add...

FUCK!!

Point understood, but we are talking about candidates running for the office of the President of the United States and what they are talking about as an issue for this country.
........... Not that everyone at all times must talk of all concerns. This is different.......I am not running for health pres of IRC saying the main thing we need is cheap chocolate and some other BS....
However, I have helped a few people this year stop eating junk food, sugar crap and soda!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Velokid1]

I hear ya. I'm just disputing the fact that there is some issue out there that is The Issue that must be addressed before any other. In this case, I think there are smaller issues that deserve our attention before we unseat the New World Order.

Our energies are more effectively focused on things we can actually change now, just as my vote is more effectively cast for someone that's in the race than it is not being cast at all.

And the other thing is, I don't consider you a piece of shit for disagreeing with me.

[Spezialist]

Ok first of all I want to apologize for drumming so hard earlier on Velo about RP, because he looks like a shining star compared to the other corporate monsters, that being said. I will save the rest for another thread maybe.

[steve74baywin]

I hear ya. I'm just disputing the fact that there is some issue out there that is The Issue that must be addressed before any other. In this case, I think there are smaller issues that deserve our attention before we unseat the New World Order.

Our energies are more effectively focused on things we can actually change now, just as my vote is more effectively cast for someone that's in the race than it is not being cast at all.

Once again your logic makes sense, the logic of working on smaller issues that we can work on while we plan to unseat the NWO.....
Of course though, I see the talks of UHC in this election as a tool of the NWO. So that makes it even worse for me, I see Obama as not only a CFR member who isn't talking about getting us back to a free country, but also one enslaving us further by forcing more of my labor to go for something I don't want that they will now offer for me, making more of the people in this country dependent on them.

I hear ya. I'm just disputing the fact that there is some issue out there that is The Issue that must be addressed before any other. In this case, I think there are smaller issues that deserve our attention before we unseat the New World Order.

Our energies are more effectively focused on things we can actually change now, just as my vote is more effectively cast for someone that's in the race than it is not being cast at all.

And the other thing is, I don't consider you a piece of shit for disagreeing with me.

I didn't think you did.....BTW, my comment was to candidates running for office, and I do think any of them that aren't trying to get us back to a free country is a piece of shit, they ought to know what we are all about.

[Amskeptic]

Once again your logic makes sense, the logic of working on smaller issues that we can work on while we plan to unseat the NWO.....
I see Obama as not only a CFR member who isn't talking about getting us back to a free country, but also one enslaving us further by forcing more of my labor to go for something I don't want that they will now offer for me, making more of the people in this country dependent on them.

Steve, you hear not only what you want to hear, but from whom you want to hear it.
I wrote you a pretty little essay weeks ago about the Supertanker of U.S. policy, and how someone can be perfectly correct about the iceberg coming at us, but if he is screaming and frothing and stuttering and flailing, people who need to hear his message may just ignore it because they want to ignore him. So Nader has been correct! So has Dennis Kucinich! Ron Paul has many good points within his narrow view. But I was saying, the ship of state will only turn slowly, do not hate us for incremential change. It is how it works.
You may foam at the mouth all you like about how Obama is a tool of They. You'd be wrong. His bland campaign is because he has to tread more gently than most, because he charting new waters. But his view vision and values, I defy YOU to read him clearly and honestly with your selective hearing and strident rigidity. The Republic is not going to wake up in jack boots with swastikas because this hideous Patriot Act is still around. You think people aren't upset about in the halls of Congress, because you don't want to hear that there are committed principled people in the halls of Congress who are waiting because they have to wait to get rid of this current administration and cronies in Congress. You selectively fall deaf to the fact that the Democrats would have rolled back the Patriot Act, but they cannot muster the 2/3rds majority needed to over ride the newly veto-happy Bush. You are a conclusion in search of a table of contents. This makes for a tedious read.
Colin

[steve74baywin]

Once again your logic makes sense, the logic of working on smaller issues that we can work on while we plan to unseat the NWO.....
I see Obama as not only a CFR member who isn't talking about getting us back to a free country, but also one enslaving us further by forcing more of my labor to go for something I don't want that they will now offer for me, making more of the people in this country dependent on them.

Steve, you hear not only what you want to hear, but from whom you want to hear it.
I wrote you a pretty little essay weeks ago about the Supertanker of U.S. policy, and how someone can be perfectly correct about the iceberg coming at us, but if he is screaming and frothing and stuttering and flailing, people who need to hear his message may just ignore it because they want to ignore him. So Nader has been correct! So has Dennis Kucinich! Ron Paul has many good points within his narrow view. But I was saying, the ship of state will only turn slowly, do not hate us for incremential change. It is how it works.
You may foam at the mouth all you like about how Obama is a tool of They. You'd be wrong. His bland campaign is because he has to tread more gently than most, because he charting new waters. But his view vision and values, I defy YOU to read him clearly and honestly with your selective hearing and strident rigidity. The Republic is not going to wake up in jack boots with swastikas because this hideous Patriot Act is still around. You think people aren't upset about in the halls of Congress, because you don't want to hear that there are committed principled people in the halls of Congress who are waiting because they have to wait to get rid of this current administration and cronies in Congress. You selectively fall deaf to the fact that the Democrats would have rolled back the Patriot Act, but they cannot muster the 2/3rds majority needed to over ride the newly veto-happy Bush. You are a conclusion in search of a table of contents. This makes for a tedious read.
Colin

Colin, whether they would get two thirds or not is no excuse for him to not vote to get rid of it. Also, no excuse for him to not speak of it more either.
I will listen to him a bit more, but be aware that I will probably come back and tell the science behind his speech that is causing so many to like him. I know a bit about those things ya know...(I suppose you could say I wouldn't be listening with an open mind)
And mostly, since when do we listen to the crap they say when giving speeches for an election instead of looking at how they have voted and using intelligence to see if what they propose is good?

[steve74baywin]

Good vid on the media lying about Ron Paul

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7iW5kOB1pmg