He is not only the choice of the troops.Think Ron Paul is not americans favorite choice? better think again. 😆
these are the kinds of Crowds that Romney gets everywhere he goes and these are the kind of crowds Paul gets everywhere he goes. 😆
I guarantee you the establishment and the corporate media is scared and worried.
Oh and the black Romney,fellow puppet of the establishment and Romneys pal Obozo isnt doing any better as you can see below. 😆 😄
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/05/05/obama-empty-arena
Good thing not all americans are ignorant like so many posters here are and THEY understand Paul is our only chance to take america back from wall street and the jews.
they understand that both parties are corrupt and Paul is a RINO and that he is the only one that believes in the constitution and the government serving us instead of us serving them like we do now.
Thats why neither candidate has the turnouts that Paul does.They are awake and tired of this corrupt two party system of demopublicans and republicrats and not falling for the establishments game anymore.Thats why paul had a turnout at a college recently of over a 100,000 people. 💃
Originally posted by Darth Jello
I hope these protestors realize that to reenact the Business Plot, they actually have to have big business and fascists on their side. Unfortunately they're all siding with Obama and Romney.
You're connect this to the business plot of Granpa Bush's takeover by using military despite the fact that they're protesting for Pro constitutional policies? Wut
Yay crony capitalism
Originally posted by inimalist
if both parties are corrupt, why would you support someone who desires to be a part of them? wouldn't you support an independent or third party candidate?
Another main part of Paul's movement is to change the republican party from thier sway from what they use to stand for.
Originally posted by Mairuzu
YouTube videoAnother main part of Paul's movement is to change the republican party from thier sway from what they use to stand for.
Goldwater aside, in which era were Republicans ideological libertarians? Sure, you can probably point to individual and specific policies, but as an "ideology" they "stood for"... I don't see it. Like, you could point to Lincoln as a supporter of individual liberty, but iirc Paul opposed Lincoln because he violated the property rights or the white slave holders (and certainly the "free land" policy of the GOP of Lincoln's era would smack of the very colonialist ideals Paul professes to oppose; I can't see Paul as a supporter of Manifest Destiny).
Originally posted by Mairuzu
Lol the jews. Technically he's a little right but its like blaming a baby for drinking too much milk when its the mother feeding it.
so you are endorsing Jewish conspiracy theories, just saying they don't identify the real issue?
Originally posted by inimalist
Goldwater aside, in which era were Republicans ideological libertarians? Sure, you can probably point to individual and specific policies, but as an "ideology" they "stood for"... I don't see it. Like, you could point to Lincoln as a supporter of individual liberty, but iirc Paul opposed Lincoln because he violated the property rights or the white slave holders (and certainly the "free land" policy of the GOP of Lincoln's era would smack of the very colonialist ideals Paul professes to oppose; I can't see Paul as a supporter of Manifest Destiny).
First off, I don't see how we got here from your first question, which wasn't even a good question to begin with. Republicans use to be against the war, most are pro crony capitalism and war. They represent the constitution. Paul opposes quite a few repubs. I still don't see what you're trying to get out of your questions lol.
Originally posted by inimalist
so you are endorsing Jewish conspiracy theories, just saying they don't identify the real issue?
haermm All I am saying is that I'm sure there are a few jews on wall street in response to Omega/Parker
You alright?
Originally posted by Mairuzu
Lol the jews. Technically he's a little right but its like blaming a baby for drinking too much milk when its the mother feeding it.
Edit: On the Lincoln front, the guy was far from Libertarian, as shown by his suspending Habeus Corpus and instituting martial law in Maryland during the first few years of the war. Lincoln was a pragmatist, there's not much he did that wasn't the result of some cold calculations, and that includes freeing the slaves.
An example of this, back in 1860 Lincoln was prepared to offer Italian general Guiseppi Garibaldi a commission in the Union Army. Garibaldi, one of the world's finest generals and one of the few people who might have defeated Robert E Lee, said he would only accept a commission if Lincoln made him commander of the Union Armed forces and from the very start committed the Union to Abolition. Lincoln wasn't ready yet, so he declined the offer.
Originally posted by Mairuzu
First off, I don't see how we got here from your first question, which wasn't even a good question to begin with. Republicans use to be against the war, most are pro crony capitalism and war. They represent the constitution. Paul opposes quite a few repubs. I still don't see what you're trying to get out of your questions lol.
no, fair enough, this does cover a total of 4-5 posts, all on the same page, so it might be difficult to follow:
1. Mr. Parker said Paul is the superior choice, because he will oppose the corrupt Democrat and Republican parties.
2. I questioned the logic behind this, as Paul is a member of one of the corrupt organizations.
3. You claimed this is fine, because Paul wants to return the party to positions it once held. Implicit in this is the suggestion that, at some point in history, the GOP held policies that are similar to Paul's.
4. I contested the claim that there was ever a period where the GOP would have endorsed an entire ideology similar to what Paul does. I accept that there are certainly specific policies that can be interpreted that way, but when one of the GOP's options to end slavery (a libertarian position) was to give free land [native land which had just been "purged" of such people] to citizens for farming (not a libertarian position at all).
5. You then asked how we ended up talking about this, the reason for which appears to be your inability to defend the implied statement: "Paul's ideology was at some point the policy of the Republican party".
Now, sure, there is the question of why Paul stays with the party. I'm sure he has good reasons that aren't just the fact that he gets a massive increase in funding, media exposure, etc, so lets give him the benefit of the doubt and not call him an opportunist; we can ignore that caricature for the present. I'm far more struck by how insistent you are to paint him as the guy trying to bail out the Titanic instead.
If the Republican party were as poisonous, corrupt and damaging to America as people like you and Parker suggest, there could be no redemption. At the very least, it doesn't make you the slightest bit suspicious that you support someone who adamantly wants to belong to an organization you seem to present yourself in diametric opposition to?
So I'm sort of stuck... Is Paul the guy willing to make strange-bedfellows opposed to his views simply for exposure, or is he the guy so steadfastly devoted to being part of his favorite team that he is entirely ignorant of his own impotence against their machinations?
Originally posted by Mairuzu
All I am saying is that I'm sure there are a few jews on wall street in response to Omega/Parker
no, you said there was some truth to Mr. P's assertion that Jews control America. I'm sure you don't see the difference, but:
Originally posted by Omega Vision
I like how indifferent some Ron Paul supporters are to blatant antisemitism among their fellow Paulites.
extensively covers what my opinion on the matter would be.
Originally posted by Mairuzu
You alright?
lol, happy this week is over, to say the least
Originally posted by inimalist
no, fair enough, this does cover a total of 4-5 posts, all on the same page, so it might be difficult to follow:[b]1.
Mr. Parker said Paul is the superior choice, because he will oppose the corrupt Democrat and Republican parties. [/b]
Well he already opposes them as a congressman. Basically unabiding by the constitution is something he sees to impose. Mainly war and fiscal policies.
Originally posted by inimalist
[b]2. I questioned the logic behind this, as Paul is a member of one of the corrupt organizations. [/b]
The organization itself isnt corrupt because it takes people to make up that organization. You should know this. Not every republican is swaying from the constitutional background.
Originally posted by inimalist
[b]3. You claimed this is fine, because Paul wants to return the party to positions it once held. Implicit in this is the suggestion that, at some point in history, the GOP held policies that are similar to Paul's.
[/b]
Opposing the vietnam war for one and I feel a little lazy to gather up my information to make a pointless point.
Originally posted by inimalist[b]4.
I contested the claim that there was ever a period where the GOP would have endorsed an entire ideology similar to what Paul does. I accept that there are certainly specific policies that can be interpreted that way, but when one of the GOP's options to end slavery (a libertarian position) was to give free land [native land which had just been "purged" of such people] to citizens for farming (not a libertarian position at all).5. You then asked how we ended up talking about this, the reason for which appears to be your inability to defend the implied statement: "Paul's ideology was at some point the policy of the Republican party".
Now, sure, there is the question of why Paul stays with the party. I'm sure he has good reasons that aren't just the fact that he gets a massive increase in funding, media exposure, etc, so lets give him the benefit of the doubt and not call him an opportunist; we can ignore that caricature for the present. I'm far more struck by how insistent you are to paint him as the guy trying to bail out the Titanic instead.
If the Republican party were as poisonous, corrupt and damaging to America as people like you and Parker suggest, there could be no redemption. At the very least, it doesn't make you the slightest bit suspicious that you support someone who adamantly wants to belong to an organization you seem to present yourself in diametric opposition to?
So I'm sort of stuck... Is Paul the guy willing to make strange-bedfellows opposed to his views simply for exposure, or is he the guy so steadfastly devoted to being part of his favorite team that he is entirely ignorant of his own impotence against their machinations?
no, you said there was some truth to Mr. P's assertion that Jews control America. I'm sure you don't see the difference, but:
extensively covers what my opinion on the matter would be.
lol, happy this week is over, to say the least [/B]
Yeah, media exposure haermm
Massive increase in funding? Explain. Is massive even the right word? Lol
This is basically what you're saying.
"Theres bad republicans in the republican party who turn away from constitutional policies and this makes ALL republicans look bad so why the heck is Paul running as a republican? SO WEIRD"
Why not? What does that have to do with what he stands for and the constitutional policies he wants put in place?