Ron Paul Campaign Updates

http://www.intheory.tv/?p=173

Around the 8 minute mark. He's not in a wheelchair on the stage, and it's only a couple seconds of the video.

 

Grandpa Paul quit his pathetic campaign for the Presidency today.

Now I only wish that he would quit his campaign against Liberty.

Paul is fighting against the rights of freedom of association, freedom of travel, freedom to do business, and against all freedom for the oppressed.

In fact, the only freedom he has supported is the freedom of politicians to spend taxpayer dollars on earnings bribes from special interests.

Worse, he has convinced many young and impressionable people that oppression is liberty and liberty is oppression. George Orwell himself would be impressed.

Here's a toast to Grandpa Paul's Doublespeak!

See y'all soon in your Probama threads!

 

Sorry to break my pretty much avoidance of cussing, but what you just said is total and utter blathering bullshit.

 

the only thing he is fighting against is the royalty that you keep voting for every year, THE NEOCONS, and they are the ones who are oppressing people, not Ron Paul, but dont you worry, he will still be working behind the scenes to make sure pro Ron paul politicians start to get elected.
As much as you would like it to go away Will, the Ron Paul Revolution is here to stay and will only get stronger as your puppets insane mccain or obama lead us yet into another bad 4 years.

I predict Will Spencer will join the revolution in 4 to 8 years as of course a bandwagoner when it becomes the popular thing to do
Welcome to the revolution Will(4 to 8 years before u join of courselol)

 

What are you smoking

Where can I get some

And, of course, how much does it cost?

 

Grandpa Paul would beat your @ss into shape son.

 

Will runs the neoconservative Fort Liberty web site. It's pro-state, pro-war and thus, decidedly not liberty or libertarian oriented.

I'm darn proud of Ron Paul. And like so many others here I'm happy that he ran.

 

I checked that site out for a second, about as much as I can stomach on it every time I've been there.

I started to watch the video from

Black and White on Grey Matters: War

Oh my god this guy is a blabbering idiot.

Tries to compare soldiers/war with wife/marriage.

This guy does get it's more like supporting a friend to get our of their crappy marriage, 'soldier' to get out the crappy war then the way he tried to twist it into your own marriage.

Yet people eat that type of crap up.

--
Wow the more I listen the more this guy is a fucking idiot, how anyone with any intelligence could believe pretty much anything this raving lunatic states is simply amazing.
He goes directly from trying to compare the US accidentally hitting civilian targets in IRAQ, to a guy in a grocery store holding a baby while slapping you, then taking your wallet, etc, then going after your family 'so you have to go after him even if you hurt the baby' he then says 'extreme' not any more 'extreme' than flying planes into our buildings!

Yeah but these idiots don't try to connect 9/11 with Iraq.

Got a bridge to sell me as well? Maybe something in the golden gate?

 

Message from Ron Paul
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

And the new RP site
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/

WOW. 14,000 some signed up this morning around 7:30, already over 18,000 signed up at 9:30.

I've got a good article to post on this from the Future of Freedom Foundation Conference last week.

And yeah, these people are apologists for the regime and murder. It's disgusting, and there are a lot of people brainwashed to believe that war is not only necessary, but it is good to kill and destroy.

 

GRim i have allready debated with gtech about how we were lied to to get us into that BS of a war. Now that will spencers and gtechs of this world have no facts to stand on they will try to put out a feel good story about why our soldiers need to be in Iraq. Im pretty sure that at christmas time they will write an article about how Santa Claus was spotted in Bagdad and this is a sign that our soldiers should be there another 50 years.
I dont know how some people can sleep soundfully at night supporting this war.

 

Almost 31,000. Wow. How many Republican candidates can get 31,000 people signed up for an ideological action committee in less than one day?

Freedom is popular!


Here is Ron Paul's first video (a statement) for Campaign for Liberty
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlqXq8YxQFQ

Paul, Barr throw each other bouquets
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/06/paul_barr_throw.html


---

 

Wow, that was fast, let me make it 31,001

 

Nice job Ping, you must have brought along 5,000 or so friends.

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/

36,429 right now.

I hope people appreciate what an enormous impact 100,000 volunteer enthusiast activist can have. Enough to save the country? You betcha.


~~


Ron Paul Announces Phase 2
by Gary North
http://www.garynorth.com/public/3617.cfm

PAUL: People frustrated with our political system often wonder what they can do. I have founded this organization to answer that question, to give people the opportunity to do something that really makes a difference in the fight for freedom. Please join me by becoming a member of the Campaign for Liberty. Our goal is 100,000 members by September. Can we reach it?

GARY NORTH: If he can, then he really is going to inflict pain on the enemy.​

 

For liberty. I'm in.

 

42,635

If everyone who has signed up could email some friends....

 

You have made a statement, not an argument.

Seriously, I know you can do better than that.

What do you need explained to you?

I've been involved in pro-liberty causes longer than just about anyone here.

Most of the people in this thread have been duped into believing that preventing citizens from creating corporations, preventing citizens from belonging to private organizations, preventing people from free travel, and earmarking taxpayer dollars for special interests are all pro-liberty stances.

I am not stupid enough to buy into this "trendy" faux-liberterianism.

You must be completely illiterate. FortLiberty is about as anti-state as one can reasonably get.

You call FortLiberty pro-war; I say that liberty is worth defending. I am saddened that you do not agree.

 

Not much to show for it hunh?

False arguments, endless strawmen.

1. Corporations are created by the state, by legal fiat, not by men.
2. No one wants to prevent anyone from joining a private organization.
3. Free travel? Another strawman.
4. Earmarks? The great BS libertarian issue. Discretionary spending. Trillions for war and empire, but heaven forbid anyone return tax payer money to the small special interests via earmarks, the ones who cannot afford any lobbyist but their member of congress.

I've pointed out many times, libertarianism is predicated on non-aggression. You are all about aggression, murder and war. You cannot be a libertarian, if you think you have a right to tell others how to live, absolutely not if you think you have that right via violence.

War is the health of the state. Fort Liberty is an imperialist neocon hideout, it is total and utter trash (not to mention, it's just a bad website aesthetically).

You have argued here many times for global governance, and now claim you are an American patriot and are anti-state?

Self-defense is totally different than empire and murder. You endorse violence as a means of social change. That is not liberty. That is authoritarianism.

 

Ummm dude... "the state" is "men." Put down that pipe.

Not true. Ron Paul, for example, wants to make it illegal for private citizens to join international organizations such as The Bilderberg Group.

Ron Paul supporters routinely promote closed borders to keep brown people out of the country. This radically limits their liberty.

Earmarks exist to support special interests. Ron Paul is one of the worst offenders in the Republican Party when it comes to pandering to special interests.

James Madison said "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents...."

I guess Ron Paul found what James Madison could not find.

Your idea of "non-agression" is faulty, as I have explained to you many times.

Attacking a rapist is not prohibited by any proper form of libertarianism.

Similarly, if our Afghan brothers and sisters are being oppressed, terrorized, and murderered -- it is not prohibited to defend them by attacking their assailants.

I am amazed that you have failed to understand this simple point.

It doesn't matter whether government is national, or global. That is a primitive and racist notion and you really need to get it out of your head.

What matters is the principles by which the government operates.

I don't like the U.S. government. I don't like them quite a bit.

But, in context, the U.S. government is far preferable to the alternatives available to many of our brothers and sisters across the globe.

If the U.S. government becomes the global government, it will represent a major improvement for most of mankind.

If an Islamic caliphate becomes the global government, it will represent a major step backwards.

Your lack of understanding here reminds me of something Bill Buckley wrote in one of his memoirs:

"I said to Johnny Carson that to say that the CIA and the KGB engage in similar practices is the equivalent of saying that the man who pushes an old lady into the path of a hurtling bus is not to be distinguished from the man who pushes an old lady out of the path of a hurtling bus: on the grounds that, after all, in both cases someone is pushing old ladies around."
​

You really need to learn to keep multiple concepts in your head at one time. Your simplistic logic is leading you to the wrong conclusions.

 

Both of these arguments are false. One, the state is not men. It is law.
Two, Ron Paul doesn't have a problem with people being in Bilderberg, please source such if you can prove your point.

That said, like many of your hypocritical points, you fail. You say people should be able to form corporations and join Bilderberg, but you won't support the rights of Vietnamese farmers to seek land reform through communism. Pretty hypocritical, isn't it?

Ron Paul supporters are not Ron Paul. Not anymore than chickenhawks like yourself are soldiers fighting under this country's flag.

Another series of lies.

Earmarks are part of the appropriations process, and are not only legal, they are desirable. They create a ZERO spending increase, and they return tax money back to communities. Now there are bad earmarks, but not all of them are bad. As a congressman, Paul is obligated to present the earmark requests of his constituents. If he did not, he would not be serving the people who elect him. He does however vote against the earmarks he submits. Paul has never voted for an unbalanced budget in over 20 years.

Earmarks are a neocon canard. The money is not saved if earmarks are not appropriated, and earmarks themselves only account for a fraction of total spending. The whole notion of fighting earmarks is made to be bigger and more noble than it is. Earmarks are typically between 1~2% of the Federal budget. This is NOT where the waste is.

Actually, it is correct. I did some more research on the philosophy of a non-aggression principle.

You'll have to define "proper" libertarianism. The NAP is pretty clear.

Even if you could intervene on the behalf of the victim, using bombs and other weapons of mass destruction, creating innocent casualties on the side of the people you claim to be helping (like murdering 1 million Vietnamese to liberate them against their will) is immoral under any standard.

Actually it does matter.

1. Because global government means there is less differentiation or variance in governmental styles. People should be able to choose to live as communists, anarchists, in democracies etc. There is no one form of government which accomplishes the needs and wants of all people. Global government moves the decision making process further from the individual.

While you hate nationalism (and then parrot "Pax Americana" ), national or regional government is much more responsive to the needs of it's people, and allows an individual vote to carry more weight. It also distributes power, and allows for different forms of governance which leads to an opportunity for choice, which is IMO the true definition of liberty. CHOICE.

That's your opinion. I might find neither preferable. Living under a Christian empire could be just as undesirable as living under an Islamic one.

You do however love the government Will. They are the ones who carry out the war games, where they blow up your brothers and sisters. You're not going to put down your beercan and travel overseas to fight for someone. A government forces someone else to spill their blood for your ideological passions.

Bill Buckley was a piece of trash. People who knew him, knew a man who was totally enamored with the state, and with his social standing within the circles of power.

Like Jefferson, he may have wrote some great stuff, but how he lived his life failed the quality of his prose.

 

Maybe the pingpong effect is in play lol.
Im gonna get some more friends to sign up.
maybe get it on yahoo answers.