Ron Paul: "Prepare For Revolutionary Changes"

Microdizzey

Microdizzey

Well-Known Member
[youtube]2IU3iE8nC2M[/youtube]

Dr. Paul warning the masses about the not too distant future. No news for many of us. We've been keeping an eye and it's been fairly tragic to see. For those who have been living in a fantasy world for the past 10 or so years, I hope this helps you understand the current situation of our country.
 
Ron Paul believes in peace, fiscal sanity, personal liberty and is a believer in the constitution...all traits that disqualify him to be President.
 
Microdizzey said:
[youtube]2IU3iE8nC2M[/youtube]

Dr. Paul warning the masses about the not too distant future. No news for many of us. We've been keeping an eye and it's been fairly tragic to see. For those who have been living in a fantasy world for the past 10 or so years, I hope this helps you understand the current situation of our country.
Click to expand...

Great find, just wish it was less true.

Of course those that are ignorant of the past (and all of the details) are doomed to repeat it.

You are now leaving the Freedom Era and entering the Tyrannical Era, welcome to America...
 
Ron Paul has some definent good points, no doubt. I also see this country as he described it with some notable differences. first, the welfare that is provided is necessary to ensure that everyone gets fed. Without foodstamps, millions of people would be starving. Without medicare, sick old people would be living in pain and misery waiting to die. Without welfare, millions more would be homeless. Now if Dr. Paul has a solution that would include all these helpless and hopeless people and would make their life better, just not the rich and upper class, then I would welcome him with open arms. From what I can gather from his "agenda", there are no social provisions, it's a dog eat dog world. Way to many viscious dogs out there already.
 
I believe Ron Paul if elected President didn't intend to cut entitlement programs cold turkey or leave the elderly stranded. I'm not positive but I heard when he was practicing medicine delivering babies he did a lot of work pro bono or on a reduced scale for poor clients. He has a heart, but realizes to maintain freedom charity must be derived by consent not force.

He is a rare man in Congress, in that he doesn't have much (anything?) to do with lobbyists which makes him a bit of pariah with those in Congress that do. I was impressed when I first heard him speak in person. He said "I'm running for President and I don''t want to run your life, I don't know how and don't believe I should". Generally I'm suspicious of any politicians with the rare exception of R.P. , we could use more like him.
 
Rob Roy said:
I believe Ron Paul if elected President didn't intend to cut entitlement programs cold turkey or leave the elderly stranded. I'm not positive but I heard when he was practicing medicine delivering babies he did a lot of work pro bono or on a reduced scale for poor clients. He has a heart, but realizes to maintain freedom charity must be derived by consent not force.

He is a rare man in Congress, in that he doesn't have much (anything?) to do with lobbyists which makes him a bit of pariah with those in Congress that do. I was impressed when I first heard him speak in person. He said "I'm running for President and I don''t want to run your life, I don't know how and don't believe I should". Generally I'm suspicious of any politicians with the rare exception of R.P. , we could use more like him.
Click to expand...

That would require finding people like him that are self-made and understand that man should be free.

And actually, I am sure that if he was elected he would come up with something better than just tossing the old out into the cold.

Perhaps reimbursing them for what they contributed into SS with interest, and then reimbursing what all the other workers have paid into it with interest of varying amounts.

Abolishing SS does not necessarily mean tossing the old out into the cold.
 
Ron Paul would not have cut social programs, until the economy picked up the slack.
and even then would have gone real slow he knows people depend on those programs.
He would have started with about a $500 billion cut to foreign spending and the military.
He would have followed that with cuts to corprate welfare.
Giving money to big Agrobuisness for example would stop.
Dept. of Education, Transportation, Homeland Security and Agroculture
amoungst others would all be getting a good looking at.
He would have vetoed any budget that was not balaced.

Social security he was going to allow young people to opt out.
Basicly put they SS withholdings into some sort of savings. (A real, personal SS lock box)
But people on Social security would still have gotten it.
IMO, he believes SS is a contract that government made with the people.
He would have figured out a way to cover them. (Libertarians are real big on contracts)

He said he wanted the budget cut to about what it was in 2000.
That would have ended the IRS and income taxes.
Money would have flowed into the economy big time creating jobs.

He was of the oppinion that people have been trained to think the government was going to hook them up.
He was not going to just cut everything and let them hang in the wind.
He was going to start weening people off the system,
To ween people off the government dole he was going to
encourage the market to provide jobs and servaces the government currently provides.
To get people off welfare you must provide jobs, to provide jobs you must free buisnesses to make jobs.
If for whatever reason the Market didn't provide jobs the programs would still have been there.
He was looking at a transitional period from the system we have now to a more libertarian system.

I trust him a hell of a lot more on medical matters then I trust Obama, He is a doctor. (A baby Doctor)
He never accepted government insurance at his practice (if I remember correctly)
But the Dems and Republicans could never rout him out of that district.
The Dems said it was because of the women voters.
He had delivered half the babys in the main town there and
the other half were delivered by his partner.
So he must have been doing something right.

So Med, Let me sum this up. He didn't believe in social programs as they are now.
But he would not have just cut the people off.
He would have looked for better ways to ween them off the system.
Let the system die a natural death instead of perpetual government.
He was about transition not just letting people hang out to dry.

The longer this system of debt based economics is allowed to go on
the harder the inevitable transition will be.
If this spending continues at this rate it will mean the end of all
social programs as the whole damn system falls apart.

Now I'm not a Ron Paul expert but I think this about sums up the thing.
 
ilkhan said:
Ron Paul would not have cut social programs, until the economy picked up the slack.
and even then would have gone real slow he knows people depend on those programs.
He would have started with about a $500 billion cut to foreign spending and the military.
He would have followed that with cuts to corprate welfare.
Giving money to big Agrobuisness for example would stop.
Dept. of Education, Transportation, Homeland Security and Agroculture
amoungst others would all be getting a good looking at.
He would have vetoed any budget that was not balaced.

Social security he was going to allow young people to opt out.
Basicly put they SS withholdings into some sort of savings. (A real, personal SS lock box)
But people on Social security would still have gotten it.
IMO, he believes SS is a contract that government made with the people.
He would have figured out a way to cover them. (Libertarians are real big on contracts)

He said he wanted the budget cut to about what it was in 2000.
That would have ended the IRS and income taxes.
Money would have flowed into the economy big time creating jobs.

He was of the oppinion that people have been trained to think the government was going to hook them up.
He was not going to just cut everything and let them hang in the wind.
He was going to start weening people off the system,
To ween people off the government dole he was going to
encourage the market to provide jobs and servaces the government currently provides.
To get people off welfare you must provide jobs, to provide jobs you must free buisnesses to make jobs.
If for whatever reason the Market didn't provide jobs the programs would still have been there.
He was looking at a transitional period from the system we have now to a more libertarian system.

I trust him a hell of a lot more on medical matters then I trust Obama, He is a doctor. (A baby Doctor)
He never accepted government insurance at his practice (if I remember correctly)
But the Dems and Republicans could never rout him out of that district.
The Dems said it was because of the women voters.
He had delivered half the babys in the main town there and
the other half were delivered by his partner.
So he must have been doing something right.

So Med, Let me sum this up. He didn't believe in social programs as they are now.
But he would not have just cut the people off.
He would have looked for better ways to ween them off the system.
Let the system die a natural death instead of perpetual government.
He was about transition not just letting people hang out to dry.

The longer this system of debt based economics is allowed to go on
the harder the inevitable transition will be.
If this spending continues at this rate it will mean the end of all
social programs as the whole damn system falls apart.

Now I'm not a Ron Paul expert but I think this about sums up the thing.
Click to expand...

Well said, ilkhan. + rep :joint:
 
mr. paul gets it an should have everyone in the u.s. backing him we NEED him ,he is on our side ,we need tostop our gov. from destroying our country we must act soon ,get your hands on the most powerful documentary well ever see its called AMERICA freedom to fascism by aaron russo ITS A MUST SEE cant stress ENOUGH you need to see whats really going on , if everyone in u.s. saw this movie at 3 o"clock on a friday we would have a revolt by 530 only that long cuz movie is 2hrs. ......the u.s. is a constitutional repubic , not democracy,check the constitution itself , show your support for ron paul hes all we got (BLESS THIS MAN WITH A LONG LIFE FOR OUR SAKE)
 
Its sad, we have only one really great statesmen in this whole damn country.
Only Person I can think of that comes close is Gary Johnson former NM governor.
But as good as he is he is just a shadow of RP.
Mark Sanford is OK, but he just went to builderberg, so he might as well be a pod person.
I'm praying Ron Paul has one more race left in him.
Because IMO he's the only Republican that has the credability to debate Obama.
Any other Republican will be Lauphed off the stage,
By his own party base at this point.

Until the Republicans stop the warfare state they got shit.

You don't see any other canidates grass roots getting their guy a damn BLIMP.
We did that on a dare, they made fun of us and we fucking did it. We organized it and payed for it Ron Paul had nothing to do with it. Ron Paul= best grass roots support ever!

BLIMP and money bombs Ron Paul people own!
 
i just dont understand how these politicians (dems and reps) can somehow believe that by building deficits unseen by past generations, and devaluing the currency at a fantastic rate, is somehow going to save us LOL

think about this.. the bailouts have cost taxpayers now over 14 trillion dollars...

this is enough to pay off every credit card in america, 14 times over
its enough to pay off every single mortgage, credit card, and consumer debt in america 1.5 times..

exactly how many bad debts do these fucking banks have? gimmie a break
 
It's not about saving banks and the economy. It's about gaining control on the levers of the private sector. It's about sinking us so deep into socialism that we will have no choice but to forge ahead towards a slow economic oblivion.

Obama hasn't a clue. That is the kindest I can put it. If he does have a clue, then he is an enemy of the country.
 
someone as educated as him, does have a clue.. he knows exactly what is happening and what this will do, but he is getting paid too much, and enough kick backs, not to give a fuck
 
FLoJo said:
someone as educated as him, does have a clue.. he knows exactly what is happening and what this will do, but he is getting paid too much, and enough kick backs, not to give a fuck
Click to expand...
Maybe it's just your perception. Maybe he is doing what the country needs. I disagree with the bailouts, should have let them all fail, but most of the bailout money was decided before Obama. The money Obama has control of needs to be distributed like he said, to homeowners not bankers and wall street, the same people that caused this depression. Here's my take on it. The religious right, which I believe most of the people in charge believe in, Jesus coming back etc. are just taking one last stab at the money, God bless em. They've sealed their spot in hell.
 
Obama may be educated as a lawyer, but he's no economist, and it shows. Massive debt spending is no way to turn an economy around. It is a way to enslave a population to the govt. however.
 
medicineman said:
Ron Paul has some definent good points, no doubt. I also see this country as he described it with some notable differences. first, the welfare that is provided is necessary to ensure that everyone gets fed. Without foodstamps, millions of people would be starving. Without medicare, sick old people would be living in pain and misery waiting to die. Without welfare, millions more would be homeless. Now if Dr. Paul has a solution that would include all these helpless and hopeless people and would make their life better, just not the rich and upper class, then I would welcome him with open arms. From what I can gather from his "agenda", there are no social provisions, it's a dog eat dog world. Way to many viscious dogs out there already.
Click to expand...
welfare as it stands now is a joke. the system is for illegals and lifers. ya now the familys that raise kids to live off walfare. The system was made to help people get back on their feet ont spend there life living off it. You can blame most all failed social programs on the democrats. Oh please help those that don't want to work or lets spend tax money that our grand kids will have to pay back the rest of their lifes. But on the bright side when the goverment take full control they will give us enough to live on and tell when to go to bed, when to take a shit, life will be so good then.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top