How should we define the Ron Paul Movement?

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

I haven't been able to narrow down the Ron Paul movement to a clear purpose. I know that the movement is an attempt to depart from the tyranny we live under so that we might return to the civil purpose of the Constitution but does his intentions also take on the characteristics of American transcendentalism where the civil purpose is to achieve collective happiness? Does Ron Paul hold our collective happiness as Americans over the legal argument that we should all live miserably responsible as insignificant members of the world because of an existential crisis being created by global warming?
While I've become a supporter of Ron Paul because of how he speaks responsibly in terms of "why do we do these things to ourselves?", at other times I get the impression that he blames our political problems on real flesh and blood tyrants rather than on a faceless tyranny made up of soulless principalities and powers.
Or do we just consider Ron Paul a political campaign?

[pcosmar]

I haven't been able to narrow down the Ron Paul movement to a clear purpose. I know that the movement is an attempt to depart from the tyranny we live under so that we might return to the civil purpose of the Constitution but does his intentions also take on the characteristics of American transcendentalism where the civil purpose is to achieve collective happiness? Does Ron Paul hold our collective happiness as Americans over the legal argument that we should all live miserably responsible as insignificant members of the world because of an existential crisis being created by global warming?
While I've become a supporter of Ron Paul because of how he speaks responsibly in terms of "why do we do these things to ourselves?", at other times I get the impression that he blames our political problems on real flesh and blood tyrants rather than on a faceless tyranny made up of soulless principalities and powers.
Or do we just consider Ron Paul a political campaign?

When I first started, It was just about getting an Honest man who believed in the Constitution elected.
That led me to educate myself.
The Message is one of both Personal Liberty and responsibility. One of Constitutional Limited Government.
The Movement is to educate and elect more Individuals and return this country to Constitutional principals, and defeat the Collectivists that have co-opted our Government.

Sounds simple, don't it.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

When I first started, It was just about getting an Honest man who believed in the Constitution elected.

Law makers and lawyers aren't honest? Are they the perpetrators of tyranny or are they victims also? In order to view the primary significance of the civil purpose in the Constitution over the secondary significance of the legal precedents necessary for its functioning, I do agree that we have to elect both unqualified judges and lawmakers into office. This seeming illogical tactic does not amount to anarchy. Rather, it amounts to electing civil purpose as the supreme interpretation of the Constitution over the interpretation of the legal precedent necessary for its secondary function.


That led me to educate myself.
The Message is one of both Personal Liberty and responsibility. One of Constitutional Limited Government.

Isn't the ultimate purpose of liberty and responsibility to acheive collective contentment as a nation? I will agree that the limiting of the Federal government by state rights during our nation's infancy helped bring us back to civil purpose from the brink of tyranny.


The Movement is to educate and elect more Individuals and return this country to Constitutional principals, and defeat the Collectivists that have co-opted our Government.

I agree. We shouldn't leave lawyers in charge of our welfare. We need new "forefathers" as our primary care takers. A lawyer should hold the title of forefather over that of his or her title as an attorney. Perhaps we could call this the "American Forefather" party.


Sounds simple, don't it.

Oh not at all. The process of implementing collective contentment as a civil purpose without it becoming lost in legal precedent was the burden of "The French Revolution," "The American Enlightenment" and every government that has ever been conceived.

[pcosmar]

We need new "forefathers" as our primary care takers.
NO WE DO NOT.

Isn't the ultimate purpose of liberty and responsibility to acheive collective contentment as a nation?
No it is not.

collective contentment
WTF?:confused:

Are you a Collectivist?
Do you have any concept of Individual Liberty?

Do You have a point?

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

NO WE DO NOT.

No it is not.

WTF?:confused:

Are you a Collectivist?
Do you have any concept of Individual Liberty?

Do You have a point?

Every government has the same civil purpose to dispense collective happiness to its citizens. Where each government differs are the legal precedents they implement to acheive that civil purpose.
I am an American transcendentalist and existentialist. This means I am an American. If the intent of the U.S. Constitution has a purpose other than the collective happiness of all Americans, throw it in the garbage.

[pcosmar]

Every government has the same civil purpose to dispense collective happiness to its citizens. Where each government differs are the legal precedents they implement to acheive that civil purpose.
I am an American transcendentalist and existentialist. This means I am an American. If the intent of the U.S. Constitution has a purpose other than the collective happiness of all Americans, throw it in the garbage.

You have no idea what you are talking about.
Have you ever read the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,


We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

There is much more, but this is a start.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

[QUOTE=pcosmar;1339747]You have no idea what you are talking about.
Have you ever read the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution?

Are you claiming that I don't know what I'm talking about in regards to the civil interpretation of the Constitution or the interpretation of it in regards to the implemented legal precedents necessary for its function?
While you think in terms of right and wrong; liberal and conservative; and, Democrat and Republican, I think in terms of legal chaos and civil purpose. When we get lost in the legal precedents of the Constitution rather than focus on the civil purpose of it, we lose our souls as Americans.

[pcosmar]

Are you claiming that I don't know what I'm talking about in regards to the civil interpretation of the Constitution or the interpretation of it in regards to the implemented legal precedents necessary for its function?
While you think in terms of right and wrong; liberal and conservative; and, Democrat and Republican, I think in terms of legal chaos and civil purpose. When we get lost in the legal precedents of the Constitution rather than focus on the civil purpose of it, we lose our souls as Americans.

The United States Has not followed the Constitution in a hundred years.
That is what we are trying to correct.
Collectivists have perverted the Laws and intent of the Founding principals this country.


LEFT VS. RIGHT: THE ILLUSION OF OPPOSITES
Analysis © 2007 - 2008 by G. Edward Griffin. Updated January 28

Would you rather be a Neoconservative or a Progressive? That is a trick question. The trick is in the fact that, although there may be differences between the rhetoric and short-term agendas of these groups, their long-term goals actually are the same. They may differ over how to fight a war in the Middle East but not over the right of the President to wage such a war empowered by the UN instead of Congress. They may differ over what kind of speech should be forbidden ("subversive" speech vs. "hate" speech, for example) but not over the right of the government to forbid it. They may differ over how fast to bankrupt the nation to provide benefits for its citizens but not over the assumption that providing benefits is what governments are supposed to do. They disagree over tactics, timing, and style, but not objectives. They fight for dominance within the New World Order, but they work together to build it. That is because both groups have embraced the underlying ideology of global collectivism.
http://www.freedomforceinternational.org/freedomcontent.cfm?fuseaction=left_right&refpage=issues

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

The United States Has not followed the Constitution in a hundred years.
That is what we are trying to correct.
Collectivists have perverted the Laws and intent of the Founding principals this country.

http://www.freedomforceinternational.org/freedomcontent.cfm?fuseaction=left_right&refpage=issues

There have been constant movements back and forth in American history between that of persecutions under legal tyranny and that of returns to civil purpose since the founding of our nation. The first involved the development of the 2 party system to bring our nation back from the brink of political tyranny. The idea of States Rights was another movement which ushered in Andrew Jackson as America's most popular President ever. American transcendentalism was another movement founded by Ralph Waldo Emerson which shined a light on the uniqueness of the U.S. citizen as defined by the Declaration of Independence. This movement used as a model the healthy and content livelihood of the Native American as an example of what our founding fathers intended for us.
The civil war was a painful but necessary movement of emancipation during which Lincoln reconsecrated the Declaration of Independence in his Gettisburg Address before setting out to use his presidential powers to save the Union. This movement was admired by Gandhi who likewise was trying to save the nation of India from splitting into Hindu and Islam populations.
Another movement was American existentialism which created the likes of expatriot Hemmingway. This movement helped establish Hemmingway as the most popular author in the world during his day.
Roosevelt's "New Deal" movement helped put an end to the evils of "Social Darwinism." Before this time the government didn't get involved in the economy because it was believed that the rich naturally survived while the poor perished.
As the civil war was necessary to free people from bondage, the civil rights movement was necessary to free people from being caste into perpetual poverty.
Notice how each of these movements worked as intended at first before they eroded into institutions of the legal tyranny.
Legal tyranny is the necessary evil required to establish legal precedents. These precedents are certain legal tweaks and add-ons needed from time to time to reestablish the dispensation of the civil purpose of collective contentment from the Government to its people.
This legal tyranny is an empty box. Open it and in it you won't find any happiness or anything worth dying for. What you will find is a judge, a lawyer, a prosecutor and a jury. Getting out of this box through the use of our Bill of Rights was our forefather's intentions. It wasn't their intentions to tell us who to sleep with, who to abort, who to marry, where we should sit . . . etc..

[pcosmar]

There have been constant movements back and forth in American history between that of persecutions under legal tyranny and that of returns to civil purpose since the founding of our nation. The first involved the development of the 2 party system to bring our nation back from the brink of political tyranny. The idea of States Rights was another movement which ushered in Andrew Jackson as America's most popular President ever. American transcendentalism was another movement founded by Ralph Waldo Emerson which shined a light on the uniqueness of the U.S. citizen as defined by the Declaration of Independence. This movement used as a model the healthy and content livelihood of the Native American as an example of what our founding fathers intended for us.
The civil war was a painful but necessary movement of emancipation during which Lincoln reconsecrated the Declaration of Independence in his Gettisburg Address before setting out to use his presidential powers to save the Union. This movement was admired by Gandhi who likewise was trying to save the nation of India from splitting into Hindu and Islam populations.
Another movement was American existentialism which created the likes of expatriot Hemmingway. This movement helped establish Hemmingway as the most popular author in the world during his day.
Roosevelt's "New Deal" movement helped put an end to the evils of "Social Darwinism." Before this time the government didn't get involved in the economy because it was believed that the rich naturally survived while the poor perished.
As the civil war was necessary to free people from bondage, the civil rights movement was necessary to free people from being caste into perpetual poverty.
Notice how each of these movements worked as intended at first before they eroded into institutions of the legal tyranny.
Legal tyranny is the necessary evil required to establish legal precedents. These precedents are certain legal tweaks and add-ons needed from time to time to reestablish the dispensation of the civil purpose of collective contentment from the Government to its people.
This legal tyranny is an empty box. Open it and in it you won't find any happiness or anything worth dying for. What you will find is a judge, a lawyer, a prosecutor and a jury. Getting out of this box through the use of our Bill of Rights was our forefather's intentions. It wasn't their intentions to tell us who to sleep with, who to abort, who to marry, where we should sit . . . etc..

You are sadly mistaken on several points.
You are confused about the Civil War and Lincoln. It had nothing to do with Slavery. That was an afterthought.
It had to do with Economic Control. The States attempted to assert their rights.
Lincoln destroyed States Rights, and set the precedent for the Central Government we have today.

civil purpose of collective contentment from the Government to its people.
I find this deeply OFFENSIVE.
The Purpose of Government is to serve the people and to protect the RIGHTS of citizens.
The Government has NO business telling anyone anything,The sole purpose of government is to protect Individual Rights.
You seem to be indoctrinated in Collectivism.
I would suggest this. The first is an Introduction.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJqSsrFDiSA
Watch the whole series, as it lays it out simply and clearly.
Also these.

1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bys8CLAFhUs
2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEVzPqc1j18
3. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5ubJKfhD7Q
4. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFP8hsWh8dA

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

You are sadly mistaken on several points.
You are confused about the Civil War and Lincoln. It had nothing to do with Slavery. That was an afterthought.

I didn't say slavery. Emancipation was a much more difficult process than simply freeing the slaves. The slave culture that the Africans brought with them when transported to the United States was at odds criminally speaking with the freemen culture of American citizens. This is why Thomas Jefferson couldn't free his slaves before the time of his death. He wanted to do so but he was in debt. In order to free the slaves he had to buy bonds to cover any criminal acts they might commit.
In order to pay for his debts after his birth, his slaves were sold to help cover them.


It had to do with Economic Control. The States attempted to assert their rights.
Lincoln destroyed States Rights, and set the precedent for the Central Government we have today.

How can you question the intentions of our refounding father? Without the actions of Abraham Lincoln, most of us wouldn't have learned about the history of our founding fathers.



I find this deeply OFFENSIVE.
The Purpose of Government is to serve the people and to protect the RIGHTS of citizens.

Why do you find deeply offensive the idea of holding the civil purpose of the Constitution over any legal precedent necessary for its functioning?

In order to empower the Holy Roman Empire over all of Europe, massive amounts of legal precedents were set up by the Vatican. One such precedent dictated that people couldn't read the bible in any language other than Latin. When people were caught translating it, they could be burned at the stake. Another precedent was that the bible could only be translated in Latin rather than in Greek.
All of these legal precedents worked to keep people ignorant of the true civil purpose in the bible. The legal precedents set up by the state Church paid better than the revealing of the civil purpose in the bible.
Eventually Martin Luther stumbled across a bible in a library and when reading it he noticed the subtle differences between the massive amounts of legal precedents set up by the Vatican and the true civil purpose written in the bible. He ultimately challenged the Church legally about these differences by nailing a protest to the door and the Protestant movement was born.
Eventually the legal language of Latin was thrown out and they could read the Greek interpretation.


The Government has NO business telling anyone anything,The sole purpose of government is to protect Individual Rights.
You seem to be indoctrinated in Collectivism.

Like the vast majority of the incompetents in this nation in regards to legal precedents, I really don't need any help understanding the civil purpose our forefathers designed into the U.S. Constitution.
The purpose of our Bill of Rights is to keep us from living under the shadow of a legal tyranny. Your fears are unfounded in that you seem to think socialism is voted in. Today we have a single party state made up of not only the 2 parties but also of the national media sleeping with them. Single party states naturally have a socialist, collectivist agenda. I'm not a collectivist.

We have had other instances in our nation's history when our 2 party system has eroded down to a Soviet Union like single party.

[pcosmar]

I think I see the misunderstanding.
You are talking religion and I am looking at history.

Transcendentalism was a group of new ideas in literature, religion, culture, and philosophy that emerged in New England in the early to middle 19th century. It is sometimes called American Transcendentalism to distinguish it from other uses of the word transcendental.

Transcendentalism began as a protest against the general state of culture and society at the time, and in particular, the state of intellectualism at Harvard and the doctrine of the Unitarian church taught at Harvard Divinity School. Among Transcendentalists' core beliefs was an ideal spiritual state that 'transcends' the physical and empirical and is only realized through the individual's intuition, rather than through the doctrines of established religions.
http://www.wsu.edu/~campbelld/amlit/amtrans.htm

American transcendentalism was an important movement in philosophy and literature that flourished during the early to middle years of the nineteenth century (about 1836-1860). It began as a reform movement in the Unitarian church, extending the views of William Ellery Channing on an indwelling God and the significance of intuitive thought. It was based on "a monism holding to the unity of the world and God, and the immanence of God in the world" (Oxford Companion to American Literature 770). For the transcendentalists, the soul of each individual is identical with the soul of the world and contains what the world contains.

Though you are welcome to your religion, that is your right.
It does not necessarily have anything to do with this movement or Ron Paul's Message.

I do question some of your statements.

As the civil war was necessary to free people from bondage,
False, It was fought for Economic Control, and Central Government Control.
Freeing the slaves was a by-product, and Lincoln was opposed to it.

Roosevelt's "New Deal" movement helped put an end to the evils of "Social Darwinism.
The" new deal" ushered in the Welfare State.
As to Lincoln.

How can you question the intentions of our refounding father?
Ron Paul explained quite well that the War could have been avoided and the Slaves freed without a War and large central Government. The States had every Right to secede. Lincoln pushed the War on this nation.

If the intent of the U.S. Constitution has a purpose other than the collective happiness of all Americans, throw it in the garbage.
The Constitution is a strict limit and directive to the Government. Its purpose is to protect the rights of the Individual Citizens.

You started this with a question.

How should we define the Ron Paul Movement?
Ron Paul's message is that of a return to a Constitutionally Limited Government. the movement is a freedom movement. Less Government=More freedom.
It is a movement away from the socialist/ Big Government/ Intrusive Laws/Collectivist Global Government that we Have Now.
It is a Freedom Movement.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

I think I see the misunderstanding.
You are talking religion and I am looking at history.

http://www.wsu.edu/~campbelld/amlit/amtrans.htm


Though you are welcome to your religion, that is your right.
It does not necessarily have anything to do with this movement or Ron Paul's Message.
Political incompetents of all persuasions influence the legal precedents necessary to dispense collective contentment. When law makers and lawyers (lobbyists) influence legal precendent, we live under the rule of legal tyranny.


I do question some of your statements.

False, It was fought for Economic Control, and Central Government Control.
Freeing the slaves was a by-product, and Lincoln was opposed to it.

So, are you claiming that our Constitution didn't free the slaves?


The" new deal" ushered in the Welfare State.

All past' political movements like the "New Deal" worked wonderfully at first before eroding away into corruption. The hidious conditions that the economic policy of Social Darwinism created were the depressions; while, the condition the present economic policy creates are recessions.

As to Lincoln.

Ron Paul explained quite well that the War could have been avoided and the Slaves freed without a War and large central Government. The States had every Right to secede. Lincoln pushed the War on this nation.

I will agree that returning legal responsibility to the states is a good way to return civil purpose to the Constitution.


The Constitution is a strict limit and directive to the Government. Its purpose is to protect the rights of the Individual Citizens.

The Constitution is the civil purpose of "we the people," the government, and it is a directive to the tyranny who create the legal precedents necessary for its function.


You started this with a question.

Ron Paul's message is that of a return to a Constitutionally Limited Government. the movement is a freedom movement. Less Government=More freedom.
It is a movement away from the socialist/ Big Government/ Intrusive Laws/Collectivist Global Government that we Have Now.
It is a Freedom Movement.

But that still is not narrowed down enough. History should be able to define this movement with 1 or 2 words.

[pcosmar]

So, are you claiming that our Constitution didn't free the slaves?
An Amendment to the Constitution Freed the Slaves. Yes.
It was not in the original (though some wanted it) and it is a Good amendment.
Lincoln was opposed to it though.


The hidious conditions that the economic policy of Social Darwinism created were the depressions
No, the central banking and bad policy created the depression.


The Constitution is the civil purpose of "we the people," the government, and it is a directive to the tyranny who create the legal precedents necessary for its function.
:confused: ??? :confused:
What?

History should be able to define this movement with 1 or 2 words.
The History is not written yet.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

An Amendment to the Constitution Freed the Slaves. Yes.
It was not in the original (though some wanted it) and it is a Good amendment.
Lincoln was opposed to it though.

No, the central banking and bad policy created the depression.


:confused: ??? :confused:
What?

The History is not written yet.

It has to be written to have a purpose though. Right now the media thinks that only extremists support Ron Paul because of the lack of unity in the ranks. That rank is an impressive movement taking in liberals and conservatives alike.