PDA

View Full Version : Will We Have A Chance Again in 2012?




Luft97
03-08-2008, 01:59 AM
I am curious to see what the feelings are at this point with the rest of the grassroots. If we are not able to pull this off by a miracle and get Ron elected, Do you think we will have a chance again in 2012 by running Ron Paul or another like minded individual? Or will the US be to far gone into the police state by that point?

smartguy911
03-08-2008, 02:02 AM
he will be 76 something...maybe with Murray Sabrin :-)

jbuttell
03-08-2008, 02:26 AM
I think Ron is in good shape and could run just fine in 2012.

jrich4rpaul
03-08-2008, 03:59 AM
Since the Dems will take it this year, I'd say 2012 will be a good year for Ron Paul, or at least another similar Republican. Ron Paul's problem this year was 8 years of Bush before him.

After 4 years of Democrats, people will want "change" again.

Shink
03-08-2008, 04:16 AM
Since the Dems will take it this year, I'd say 2012 will be a good year for Ron Paul, or at least another similar Republican. Ron Paul's problem this year was 8 years of Bush before him.

After 4 years of Democrats, people will want "change" again.

I think there's some all of the above involved in the poll's correct answer. I don't know, but I'm sure there will be some sort of martial law/one world government crackdown or push by 2012 under the 'protective maternal wings' of Billary, which would make a libertarian-style message the thing that would be music to the people's ears. That said, we still won't control the vote counting by then, unless some certain campaigns grow some balls and take this shit to the Supreme Court.

chelu
03-08-2008, 04:38 AM
Hope so because this is the last chance we will have to elect someone with first-hand experience of the WW2 days, the days before managed health-care, someone who was actually drafted, clearly remembers the Vietnam War, and was fully conscious when Nixon ended the last link to the gold-standard. Ron Paul is truly one-of-a-kind and once-in-a-lifetime. It will take another generation for the next liberty lover to establish the credentials that Dr. Paul has set. A very high standard has been set by Ron Paul, and it will be a great feat just to come close to that level.

Give me liberty
03-08-2008, 04:51 AM
I think 2012 is a good for freedom, maybe thats when will there be riots against the north American union? i hope.

remember kiddies there goal is to bring NAU by 2013 or 2010 err or something in between. like that.

Bossobass
03-08-2008, 05:10 AM
I doubt Ron will want to be President of the North American Union.

Bosso

IPSecure
03-08-2008, 05:18 AM
Will We Have A Chance Again in 2012?

For Re-Election: Yes!

sophocles07
03-08-2008, 05:50 AM
It seems to me that until things get extremely bad--I don't mean high gas prices, etc.--economically and socially for the middle class, that they will be comforted enough to merely flip flop between Clinton-bots and McCain/Bush-bots after so many years. That's the genius of American fascism: they keep enough people at luke-warm ease/stress where it doesn't tip over into, say, the conditions of Haiti, where people actually have to DO SOMETHING to change their country. And if you are one of the many that are being fucked over that badly, you are probably too misinformed to actually know how to DO ANYTHING correctly to fix it. This system, from an objective eye, would seem to have been born fully-formed from the too-full head of Paul Wolfowitz.

joemiller
03-08-2008, 07:09 AM
If we start laying the foundation now by taking over the GOP at the precinct committee level, we will strengthen Dr. Paul's message within the party. Once Dr. Paul's message has been strengthed within the GOP, his message will be heard by the people next time around. This is how a R3volution is continued in a Constitutional Republic.

joe

pcosmar
03-08-2008, 08:47 AM
I don't know.
I have serious doubts about any possibility of a vote in 2012.

Maybe.:(

Luft97
03-08-2008, 12:28 PM
I don't know.
I have serious doubts about any possibility of a vote in 2012.

Maybe.:(

I'm with you on this one, I hope that nothing will change and we will be able to have a fair shot, but as far as we have come down this road up to this point I don't see why they would "put on the brakes" now. :(

qh4dotcom
03-08-2008, 12:35 PM
he will be 76 something...maybe with Murray Sabrin :-)

Paul will turn 73 later this year...so that means he'd be 77 in November 2012.

Murray Sabrin can't run for president. He was born in Germany

WV Freedom Fighter
03-08-2008, 12:45 PM
We don't even have a fair shot now, 4 more years will be worse than it is now.

Signzit
03-08-2008, 12:51 PM
by 2012 you'll be voting with your gun.

Only those with guns will have a say in their own lives. Those people without guns will be safe and secure inside the FEMA camps, slowly starving.

Then, over time, the camps housing your loved ones will just fade away.

get ready,

move out of the city, become a farmer. load your own shots, buy water treatment equipment. Buy dry goods to stow away.

beachmaster
03-08-2008, 01:00 PM
I don't know.
I have serious doubts about any possibility of a vote in 2012.

Maybe.:(

lol, I still have my doubts about 2008!

nate895
03-08-2008, 01:08 PM
If there is martial law, etc., I hope we'd all be resisting and electing our own President.

beachmaster
03-08-2008, 01:25 PM
If there is martial law, etc., I hope we'd all be resisting and electing our own President.

We are already under a mild form of martial law. See youtube for plenty of evidence.

I expect we could see an appointed president (more blatant than 2000). They could 9/11 one of the conventions, meaning that one candidate might go unopposed in the general election. Calls could go out to suspend the election for a year or two with an interim president being named by congress or the supreme court. A lot of scenarios could happen, and with all of the shenanigans of this election cycle so far, I don't think anything would surprise me.


What's that? Don't have your tin foil hat yet? Better go get you one before they sell out! ;)

nate895
03-08-2008, 01:29 PM
We are already under a mild form of martial law. See youtube for plenty of evidence.

I expect we could see an appointed president (more blatant than 2000). They could 9/11 one of the conventions, meaning that one candidate might go unopposed in the general election. Calls could go out to suspend the election for a year or two with an interim president being named by congress or the supreme court. A lot of scenarios could happen, and with all of the shenanigans of this election cycle so far, I don't think anything would surprise me.


What's that? Don't have your tin foil hat yet? Better go get you one before they sell out! ;)

If that happens, lets meet in Montana, or in Canada so we can have the protection of a "border."

beachmaster
03-08-2008, 01:38 PM
If that happens, lets meet in Montana, or in Canada so we can have the protection of a "border."

Border? lol

nate895
03-08-2008, 01:40 PM
Border? lol

That is why it is quotations, just flee to the nearest mountain range with your meetup and anyone else who is willing if the US and Canada combine. BTW, I expect help from a large portion of conservatives who support the war if this happens (namely people who listen to the Savage Nation).

Signzit
03-08-2008, 01:44 PM
If that happens, lets meet in Montana, or in Canada so we can have the protection of a "border."

Ha! that's so funny! Come on Kids, "let's try and keep up"

PREMEDITATED MERGER
North American Army created without OK by Congress
U.S., Canada military ink deal to fight domestic emergencies
Posted: February 24, 2008
1:45 pm Eastern

By Jerome R. Corsi
2008 WorldNetDaily (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=57228)

In a ceremony that received virtually no attention in the American media, the United States and Canada signed a military agreement Feb. 14 allowing the armed forces from one nation to support the armed forces of the other nation during a domestic civil emergency, even one that does not involve a cross-border crisis.

The agreement, defined as a Civil Assistance Plan, was not submitted to Congress for approval, nor did Congress pass any law or treaty specifically authorizing this military agreement to combine the operations of the armed forces of the United States and Canada in the event of a wide range of domestic civil disturbances ranging from violent storms, to health epidemics, to civil riots or terrorist attacks.

In Canada, the agreement paving the way for the militaries of the U.S. and Canada to cross each other's borders to fight domestic emergencies was not announced either by the Harper government or the Canadian military, prompting sharp protest.

"It's kind of a trend when it comes to issues of Canada-U.S. relations and contentious issues like military integration," Stuart Trew, a researcher with the Council of Canadians told the Canwest News Service. "We see that this government is reluctant to disclose information to Canadians that is readily available on American and Mexican websites."

The military Civil Assistance Plan can be seen as a further incremental step being taken toward creating a North American armed forces available to be deployed in domestic North American emergency situations.

The agreement was signed at U.S. Army North headquarters, Fort Sam Houston, Texas, by U.S. Air Force Gen. Gene Renuart, commander of NORAD and U.S. Northern Command, or USNORTHCOM, and by Canadian Air Force Lt. Gen. Marc Dumais, commander of Canada Command.

"This document is a unique, bilateral military plan to align our respective national military plans to respond quickly to the other nation's requests for military support of civil authorities," Renuart said in a statement published on the USNORTHCOM website.

"In discussing the new bilateral Civil Assistance Plan established by USNORTHCOM and Canada Command, Renuart stressed, "Unity of effort during bilateral support for civil support operations such as floods, forest fires, hurricanes, earthquakes and effects of a terrorist attack, in order to save lives, prevent human suffering an mitigate damage to property, is of the highest importance, and we need to be able to have forces that are flexible and adaptive to support rapid decision-making in a collaborative environment."

Lt. Gen. Dumais seconded Renuart's sentiments, stating, "The signing of this plan is an important symbol of the already strong working relationship between Canada Command and U.S. Northern Command."

"Our commands were created by our respective governments to respond to the defense and security challenges of the twenty-first century," he stressed, "and we both realize that these and other challenges are best met through cooperation between friends."

The statement on the USNORTHCOM website emphasized the plan recognizes the role of each nation's lead federal agency for emergency preparedness, which in the United States is the Department of Homeland Security and in Canada is Public Safety Canada.

The statement then noted the newly signed plan was designed to facilitate the military-to-military support of civil authorities once government authorities have agreed on an appropriate response.

As WND has previously reported, U.S. Northern Command was established on Oct. 1, 2002, as a military command tasked with anticipating and conducting homeland defense and civil support operations where U.S. armed forces are used in domestic emergencies.

Similarly, Canada Command was established on Feb. 1, 2006, to focus on domestic operations and offer a single point of contact for all domestic and continental defense and securities partners.

In Nov. 2007, WND published a six-part exclusive series, detailing WND's on-site presence during the NORAD-USNORTHCOM Vigilant Shield 2008, an exercise which involved Canada Command as a participant.

In an exclusive interview with WND during Vigilant Shield 2008, Gen. Renuart affirmed USNORTHCOM would deploy U.S. troops on U.S. soil should the president declare a domestic emergency in which the Department of Defense ordered USNORTHCOM involvement.

In May 2007, WND reported President Bush, on his own authority, signed National Security Presidential Directive 51, also known as Homeland Security Presidential Directive 20, authorizing the president to declare a national emergency and take over all functions of federal, state, local, territorial and tribal governments, without necessarily obtaining the approval of Congress to do so.

beachmaster
03-08-2008, 01:47 PM
That is why it is quotations, just flee to the nearest mountain range with your meetup and anyone else who is willing if the US and Canada combine. BTW, I expect help from a large portion of conservatives who support the war if this happens (namely people who listen to the Savage Nation).

I think Montana would be a good place for that. Damn shame it's so far from most of us (and so damn cold in the winter!). But just between you and me, I've already considered making the move there. Not exactly feasible for me at the time though.

I don't know about the war supporters though. They are all in for the "war on terror", and of course the MSM will paint resisters as terrorists as dangerous as Al Qaida... and they'll most likely stage another OKC bombing if they have to, just to prove the point. Don't count on Savage and his listeners for the most part. Savage is just "controlled opposition", like Lou Dobbs.

Ain't life grand?

beachmaster
03-08-2008, 01:53 PM
Ha! that's so funny! Come on Kids, "let's try and keep up"

PREMEDITATED MERGER
North American Army created without OK by Congress
U.S., Canada military ink deal to fight domestic emergencies

Just another reason it would be nice to end the wars overseas so our troops would be home. I think a good portion of them wouldn't stand for this shit and would blow away any Canadian who dare cross our border for US "domestic emergencies" regardless of what the commander in chief signs or commands. There I go dreaming and wishfully thinking again!

RSLudlum
03-08-2008, 01:54 PM
We have 4 years to get people in other offices. If we keep it up there will be a good chance for a candidate like Ron Paul for office, if Dr. Paul isn't up for it then the first that comes to mind is Governor Mark Sanford, which is a good llibertarian leaning conservative Republican. He's constantly fighting our state legislature esp. over fiscal concerns and he's brought alot of transparency into our state government's operations. He always gets right to the point and doesn't dance around issues at hand.

But remember it's not over yet, and it is entirely up to us to bring the change....hopefully we'll have more than change in our pocket by that time! ;)

nate895
03-08-2008, 02:01 PM
I think Montana would be a good place for that. Damn shame it's so far from most of us (and so damn cold in the winter!). But just between you and me, I've already considered making the move there. Not exactly feasible for me at the time though.

I don't know about the war supporters though. They are all in for the "war on terror", and of course the MSM will paint resisters as terrorists as dangerous as Al Qaida... and they'll most likely stage another OKC bombing if they have to, just to prove the point. Don't count on Savage and his listeners for the most part. Savage is just "controlled opposition", like Lou Dobbs.

Ain't life grand?

The reason why is that they sometimes talked about this possibility when the Bush Administration signed contracts to build concentration camps, and they actually believed it might happen, and most were talking about what they might do, no commitments of course. I know back when I was a conservative supporter of the war, this was one of the things that really set me against the Bushies, and probably made it possible to convert to this point of view.

snpage
03-08-2008, 02:01 PM
For Re-Election: Yes!


+1776!

beachmaster
03-08-2008, 02:16 PM
The reason why is that they sometimes talked about this possibility when the Bush Administration signed contracts to build concentration camps, and they actually believed it might happen, and most were talking about what they might do, no commitments of course. I know back when I was a conservative supporter of the war, this was one of the things that really set me against the Bushies, and probably made it possible to convert to this point of view.

I am glad you saw the light, and I hope you are right that many more will follow.

Luft97
03-08-2008, 03:05 PM
We have 4 years to get people in other offices. If we keep it up there will be a good chance for a candidate like Ron Paul for office, if Dr. Paul isn't up for it then the first that comes to mind is Governor Mark Sanford, which is a good llibertarian leaning conservative Republican. He's constantly fighting our state legislature esp. over fiscal concerns and he's brought alot of transparency into our state government's operations. He always gets right to the point and doesn't dance around issues at hand.

But remember it's not over yet, and it is entirely up to us to bring the change....hopefully we'll have more than change in our pocket by that time! ;)

I am glad that many of you are optimistic about it. Personaly I am not, after watching what has happened to this country after 1 major terrorist / false flag attack I don't even want to think what could or would happen from a second. I hope my feelings are wrong and we can continue our peaceful return to our constitutional republic.

damon04
03-08-2008, 03:11 PM
Think of how much our movement will grow in the next 4 years if EVERYONE keeps fighting for our Constitutional principles and love for liberty.. Plus economically, the next President is not F.ed right? I think the movement will catch fire once again once Ron Paul endorses the next Pro-Freedom Candidate, the next Ron Paul Republican.. Heck, it could be Ron Paul, maybe.. He seems to be in very good health for and older fella ;) God Bless this movement!

Nicketas
03-08-2008, 03:11 PM
....

RSLudlum
03-08-2008, 03:23 PM
Don't be a naysayer.

Invest time in learning a little something called


MARKETING

That, and reboot congress. Win the crowd.

YES, we can do this in 2012.

We can do this NOW.

ditto, and if we want to fund anybody in 2012 we all need to invest in 'things' to preserve our that funding power ;)

1836
03-08-2008, 03:26 PM
We could always run to the isle of Elba and make Ron Paul permanent ruler. Not that it's ever happened before.

:p

nate895
03-08-2008, 03:42 PM
ditto, and if we want to fund anybody in 2012 we all need to invest in 'things' to preserve our that funding power ;)

I say save up $20 a month from now until they announce (which I hope would be in November if we lose), and then just drop it all in at once.

Akus
03-08-2008, 04:12 PM
I am curious to see what the feelings are at this point with the rest of the grassroots. If we are not able to pull this off by a miracle and get Ron elected, Do you think we will have a chance again in 2012 by running Ron Paul or another like minded individual? Or will the US be to far gone into the police state by that point?
If you are less then hopeful about our success so far, I can assure you that we are kicking asses and taking names, even if the MSM is not reporting this.

Down here in Texas, we have gotten an incredibly big amount of delegates. I hope I am reading too much into what you're saying but Ron Paul's GOP nomination is a very real possibility. It isn't a guarantee, but it is, again, a very possible, realistic, bet, all emotions and all the hoopla aside.

What I am about to say concerns you, Luft97, in particular and every single active Ron Paul supporter in general.

We are still here.
Ron Paul did not quit. His strategy to win merely morphed into something else. Tell this to everyone you know who supports and actively bust his/her rear that we are winning,we are taking over and if there ever was a time for you to leave and stop helping, now would be the time.

Stop listening to the media. Start listening to the whoever your seasoned political activists are. I have a couple in my neck of the woods who are very well versed in this process. I do hope and pray that so do you, reader of this.

kigol
03-08-2008, 04:30 PM
who knows

Leslie Webb
03-08-2008, 04:32 PM
Go into the campaign with $20-30 million ready before Iowa.

Kludge
03-08-2008, 04:34 PM
Hopefully, we won't run Dr. Paul again (nothing against him), but we'll definitely still have a "chance" to get someone "elected" with Dr. Paul's views.

nate895
03-08-2008, 04:50 PM
Go into the campaign with $20-30 million ready before Iowa.

If 100,000 donate $20 every month from now until January 2011, there would be $66,000,000, then we can donate a lot more. Hopefully we'd have raised 200M, that is enough to kick ass in any election. We could have two Superbowl commercials.

Steve_New_Jersey
03-08-2008, 05:19 PM
No offence to the Sabrin camp but.. He is great and all but he is no Ron Paul. He has to many skeletons on the closet. Unless he comes out and burries them publicly he would get slaughtered by the media if he went for president. I have to be honest I still see Sabrin as someone jumping on the RP revolution to get into politics.

Luft97
03-08-2008, 06:57 PM
No offence to the Sabrin camp but.. He is great and all but he is no Ron Paul. He has to many skeletons on the closet. Unless he comes out and burries them publicly he would get slaughtered by the media if he went for president. I have to be honest I still see Sabrin as someone jumping on the RP revolution to get into politics.

That is annother problem, I can't think of anyone off the top of my head that is as good of a man as RP. Maybe G Edward Griffin. But would he run? :(

beachmaster
03-08-2008, 09:12 PM
If 100,000 donate $20 every month from now until January 2011, there would be $66,000,000, then we can donate a lot more. Hopefully we'd have raised 200M, that is enough to kick ass in any election. We could have two Superbowl commercials.

The way things are looking, $200M in 2011 will be worth about as much as $20M of today's money. If you are going to save money for a future campaign, your savings better damn well be in the form of gold and silver!

beachmaster
03-08-2008, 09:16 PM
That is annother problem, I can't think of anyone off the top of my head that is as good of a man as RP. Maybe G Edward Griffin. But would he run? :(
A few others come to mind, like Napolitano (who sounds real good, but then again, he worked for FOX), and Bob Barr.

Whoever it would be better step to the plate soon as an indy or there may be no more chances for us down the road in 2011/12. We could very well be merged, purged and assimilated well before then.

nate895
03-08-2008, 09:18 PM
A few others come to mind, like Napolitano (who sounds real good, but then again, he worked for FOX), and Bob Barr.

Whoever it would be better step to the plate soon as an indy or there may be no more chances for us down the road in 2011/12. We could very well be merged, purged and assimilated well before then.

That is why we start the next Presidential campaign as soon as this one is over. We need a leader in order to keep us together. I like Napolitano, and he fights against Fox's agenda almost every step of the way on the programs he is on, so much so he isn't brought in much anymore.

abe447
03-08-2008, 09:27 PM
First of all, the people voting saying that America will be a police state are very naive and are severely overreacting. Secondly, we will have a chance in 2012 but only if we get rid of the dead weight. We can't have truthers and white supremacists bringing us down. We also can't get hostile with people and shout in other supporters faces. It doesn't work and it just turns people off. It's a shame that these people are so selfish that they don't realize how much harm they're doing to the movement.

Third, someone with a little bit more moderate views is needed. And preferably someone who can speak and debate better than Ron Paul. You're not going to win a national election with a platform of abolishing the federal reserve, the irs, social security, medicare, repealing the civil rights act, the voting rights act, and withdrawaling our troops from all over the world. Realistic solutions are needed and hopefully the 2012 candidate has them.

nate895
03-08-2008, 09:29 PM
First of all, the people voting saying that America will be a police state are very naive and are severely overreacting. Secondly, we will have a chance in 2012 but only if we get rid of the dead weight. We can't have truthers and white supremacists bringing us down. We also can't get hostile with people and shout in other supporters faces. It doesn't work and it just turns people off. It's a shame that these people are so selfish that they don't realize how much harm they're doing to the movement.

Third, someone with a little bit more moderate views is needed. And preferably someone who can speak and debate better than Ron Paul. You're not going to win a national election with a platform of abolishing the federal reserve, the irs, social security, medicare, repealing the civil rights act, the voting rights act, and withdrawaling our troops from all over the world. Realistic solutions are needed and hopefully the 2012 candidate has them.

Those are the reasons I am supporting Ron Paul, I will not support anyone who isn't behind my position on many of those issues.

abe447
03-08-2008, 09:33 PM
Those are the reasons I am supporting Ron Paul, I will not support anyone who isn't behind my position on many of those issues.

Nate, the minute you say "abolish social security" you've lost one of the biggest voting blocks in the whole country! Bringing home our troops from all over the world is easily spun as isolationism and we found that out. Times have changed since 1913 and the U.S. has taken a greater role around the world, some for better and some for worse. Ron Paul's solutions for a lot of things was just to do the opposite of what we've been doing the past 70-80 years where America has thrived. Someone with libertarian leanings, but with more realistic views of the world like Gary Johnson, former governor of New Mexico, is desperately needed if we are to have a chance in 2012.

nate895
03-08-2008, 09:37 PM
Nate, the minute you say "abolish social security" you've lost one of the biggest voting blocks in the whole country! Bringing home our troops from all over the world is easily spun as isolationism and we found that out. Times have changed since 1913 and the U.S. has taken a greater role around the world, some for better and some for worse. Ron Paul's solutions for a lot of things was just to do the opposite of what we've been doing the past 70-80 years where America has thrived. Someone with libertarian leanings, but with more realistic views of the world like Gary Johnson, former governor of New Mexico is desperately needed.

What you don't understand is that the momentum is on our side, mainly because young people are growing more and more conservative as time goes on. If we can merely get the borders cosed and immigration slowed, this country could well be ours from top to bottom, and we can take it soon if we merely introduce our views slowly. Like this, I liked Ron Paul enough before I knew his war stance, I then didn't like him, but I slowly grew to realize he was right on that issue. Almost everyone in America agrees with him on a major issue, and if we can pound that issue, they may come to accept the other ones, as did I.

pcosmar
03-08-2008, 09:42 PM
Times have changed since 1913 and the U.S. has taken a greater role around the world,

http://bkmarcus.com/blog/images/flags/FabianShield.gif

beachmaster
03-08-2008, 09:55 PM
First of all, the people voting saying that America will be a police state are very naive and are severely overreacting.
Well if they say that, they are naive. We ARE in a police state. Didn't you notice?


Secondly, we will have a chance in 2012 but only if we get rid of the dead weight. We can't have truthers and white supremacists bringing us down. It's socialist/collectivists and their lackeys that want to bring us down. I wouldn't worry so much about the "truthers" and the "white supremacists" personally. False boogie-men. Oh but I'm sure sooner or later we'll have a "domestic terrorist" event that will turn all the dumbed down flocks against the whole liberty movement before too long. The "perpetraitors" will no doubt be carrying Ron Paul literature along with Stormfront literature and the dragnet will be cast. Say bye bye freedom if that happens.



We also can't get hostile with people and shout in other supporters faces. It doesn't work and it just turns people off. It's a shame that these people are so selfish that they don't realize how much harm they're doing to the movement.Agree.


Third, someone with a little bit more moderate views is needed. "Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue". - Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater at the Republican convention, 1964



And preferably someone who can speak and debate better than Ron Paul.Yes to that. He did ok in the debates, but we need a polished communicator to really bring in the votes. And I hate polished.


You're not going to win a national election with a platform of abolishing the federal reserve, the irs, social security, medicare, repealing the civil rights act, the voting rights act, and withdrawaling our troops from all over the world. Realistic solutions are needed and hopefully the 2012 candidate has them.If you take all of that away, you don't need Ron Paul. John McCain should do just fine. But he could have done a better job of explaining the issues and cover a lot more of the solutions than he did. Ron Paul's 2008 message with Barry Goldwater's 1964 charisma would have won the nomination hands down, the media be damned.

Peace&Freedom
03-08-2008, 10:20 PM
we will have a chance in 2012 but only if we get rid of the dead weight. We can't have truthers and white supremacists bringing us down. We also can't get hostile with people and shout in other supporters faces. It doesn't work and it just turns people off. It's a shame that these people are so selfish that they don't realize how much harm they're doing to the movement.

It's the anti-9/11 truth bashers who are the dead weight, who have unproductively divided the movement base for months with their constant put downs and false associations of them with supremacists, as above. The shouting (at least We Are Change style) is not about 'working' to gain votes, but 'working' in actually impacting the political and media figures who finally get confronted. The movement is about getting back to constitutional rights, freedoms and procedures, and so transcends particular candidacies, or even elections. This is a Revolution, we're going to have to offend somebody!

Luft97
03-09-2008, 01:56 AM
First of all, the people voting saying that America will be a police state are very naive and are severely overreacting. Secondly, we will have a chance in 2012 but only if we get rid of the dead weight. We can't have truthers and white supremacists bringing us down. We also can't get hostile with people and shout in other supporters faces. It doesn't work and it just turns people off. It's a shame that these people are so selfish that they don't realize how much harm they're doing to the movement.


I would not go so far as to call anyone in the movement "dead weight". I will agree somewhat that the media harped on the fact that there were some/alot 9/11 truth supporters and White Nationalist supporters. I may not agree with their viewpoints but if they are Ron Paul supporters as long as they are not hurting anyone and are freedom loving individuals I have no problems with them personaly. What I do have a problem with is preaching their doctrines using Ron's name or associating their causes with Ron.

leglock
03-09-2008, 03:09 AM
Police state?
MARTIAL law?


Lolololololololol

ValidusCustodiae
03-09-2008, 03:18 AM
We're going to be much better able to answer this question when we are closer to 2012. Human consciousness is accelerating at an exponential rate.

Fields
03-09-2008, 04:56 AM
blah.

Conza88
03-09-2008, 05:41 AM
We're taking it THIS TIME!, asshole.

This defeatist bullshit is lame & unpatriotic.

Did the Sons of Liberty, go - oh well, "next time aye!"

STFU OR GET THE F--K OUT OF THE WAY.

We're taking over the GOP.

Luft97
03-09-2008, 06:00 AM
We're taking it THIS TIME!, asshole.

This defeatist bullshit is lame & unpatriotic.

Did the Sons of Liberty, go - oh well, "next time aye!"

STFU OR GET THE F--K OUT OF THE WAY.

We're taking over the GOP.

Wow, that's great... Read the full post, I said IF he does not win. I am glad you have alot of enthusiasm. Sure there is a chance of having all the delegates at the national convention vote for Ron. Sure McCain could die or even be abducted by aliens. But that would fall under the miracle catagory I spoke of before.

jointhefightforfreedom
03-09-2008, 06:57 AM
Will We Have A Chance Again in 2012?

WE CAN WIN NOW 2008 !!!!!!!!!
IT"S CALLED DELEGATES!!!!

Signzit
03-09-2008, 11:31 AM
My point was, and I know many feel the same way, we can win THIS TIME, but we need something drastic to happen to pull all Delegates over to Dr. Paul like the dollar CRASHING.

Oh, the US Dollar is going to crash and in a very big way, very soon. This will be the catalyst, for the Ron Paul Delegate sweep but I am afraid of Bush and his COMING police state. Bush knows, the political partys both know and wall street knows a great depression/crash like 1929 is not far off.

You people are talking 2012! By then there will be rumors about different FEMA Camps allowing a vote for hot showers on either Friday or Sunday but not both!

Move out cities, stop using your bank, and buy small denominations of gold and silver as no one will have change for a 2,000 ounce gold piece.

Remember there is a huge amount of people that are looking to government for answers NOW, What do you think they will be like after this fiscal crash? They will look to HLS/FEMA for help while pointing the finger at you saying you're a terrorist cuz you grow your own food and load you're own shots! You "pie in the sky people need to wake the fuck up! Praying and hope will not help.

raiha
03-09-2008, 12:43 PM
I'm on the last chapter of "The Creature of Jekyll Island" and although it was first written in 1994, the second to last chapter called "The Pessimistic Scenario."
Griffin MADE UP the scenario and his words are now eerily coming to pass vis a vis your economy (at least some aspects.) Dust off your copy and have a read.
I must say i feel the environmental plot sounds pretty ridiculous to me. But well its a ridiculous world.

Paul4Prez
03-09-2008, 01:54 PM
I'm afraid that Ron Paul will be too old in 2012 to be considered a credible candidate, even if he could be convinced to run again. I'm not sure what other pro-freedom candidate would have the qualifications and the reputation to even approach Ron Paul's, either, but we (the grassroots) will be much better prepared, if we can find the right candidate.

nate895
03-09-2008, 03:08 PM
I'm afraid that Ron Paul will be too old in 2012 to be considered a credible candidate, even if he could be convinced to run again. I'm not sure what other pro-freedom candidate would have the qualifications and the reputation to even approach Ron Paul's, either, but we (the grassroots) will be much better prepared, if we can find the right candidate.

I think it will really depend on the situation, I think we should either pick Andrew Napolitano or one of the future Congressmen, whichever one is best and delivers the best speech at what I hope will be a future meeting of Ron Paul Republicans.

Mayflower
03-09-2008, 04:33 PM
You can see by the poll that nearly 60% of us believe that we do not have that much time (2012) or they do not know. Working groups in US, Mexico and Canada are working very hard to complete the North American Union by 2010. The dollar is delibertly being devalued to usher in the Amero. We are now confined to free speech zones for any protest or rally. Our freedoms are dwindling. The information is out there if you look for it. Government websites, think tanks such as the Hudson Institute and books, "The Late Great USA" by Dr. Jerome Corsi " and "The End of America" by Naomi Wolf will reveal the truth. Those of us that are well informed do not deserve to be called alarmist and unpatriotic.

Signzit
03-09-2008, 06:09 PM
You can see by the poll that nearly 60% of us believe that we do not have that much time (2012) or they do not know. Working groups in US, Mexico and Canada are working very hard to complete the North American Union by 2010. The dollar is delibertly being devalued to usher in the Amero. We are now confined to free speech zones for any protest or rally. Our freedoms are dwindling. The information is out there if you look for it. Government websites, think tanks such as the Hudson Institute and books, "The Late Great USA" by Dr. Jerome Corsi " and "The End of America" by Naomi Wolf will reveal the truth. Those of us that are well informed do not deserve to be called alarmist and unpatriotic.

QTF Bro! :cool:

notcarljung
03-10-2008, 07:03 AM
If we can find someone who can effectively overcome the "I'm not Ron Paul" factor, we'll definitely have a chance.

Our economy's going down the tubes. And when President Barack Obama puts the last nail in the coffin by raising taxes, many will realize big government put us in this predicament. That or everyone'll just elect another neocon and stupidly expect a different result.

On another note, why wait until 2012? There are plenty of state and national seats up for grabs before then. ;)

Signzit
03-10-2008, 10:57 AM
If we can find someone who can effectively overcome the "I'm not Ron Paul" factor, we'll definitely have a chance.

Our economy's going down the tubes. And when President Barack Obama puts the last nail in the coffin by raising taxes, many will realize big government put us in this predicament. That or everyone'll just elect another neocon and stupidly expect a different result.

On another note, why wait until 2012? There are plenty of state and national seats up for grabs before then. ;)

What about Rand I know he was/is campaigning for his dad but he's great. check him http://youtube.com/watch?v=rx-3X8gGASw