Paul says US `slipping into a fascist system'

Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul warned the U.S. is "slipping into a fascist system" dominated by government and businesses as he held a fiery rally Saturday night upstaging established Republican Party banquets a short distance away.The Texas congressman drew a couple thousand standing and chanting people to Kansas City's Union Station ... (more)

[Your Ex]

"We've slipped away from a true Republic," Paul said. "Now we're slipping into a fascist system where it's a combination of government and big business and authoritarian rule and the suppression of the individual rights of each and every American citizen."
http://www.kansascity.com/2012/02/18/3437885/...

Can't really disagree with that......

[S-N-A-F-U]

It's an old story, those foolishly drawn in by such regimes think that there will be special reward (or benefits) given them by such fascist oligarchies -- it's called bait! Once the hook is set, they can watch their 'masters' bath in opulence while they waste away on the plantations....

"If you don't learn from history, your bound to repeat it."

[Door King]

If you've actually heard a Republican debate, Mr. Paul is like an old prophet predicting doom, practically begging his fellow Republicans not to follow the path they are on. It's war mongering, it's insane he cries, the military is bankrupting us, he cries, but no on listens. Well I'm listening Mr. Paul. (Hint, you don't have to suppress the vomit reflex so much if you listen on the radio.)

[discount coffin]

wanna see truth Paul!!! see

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Paul trailer and Paul is Alien ;-00000

[shaddap]

discount coffin wrote:

wanna see truth Paul!!! see
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
Paul trailer and Paul is Alien ;-00000

.
back to your nail salon go0k, let people with an IQ above your pointy cone hat discuss.

[Door King]

O.K., I actually read a bit about Paul. A lot of it makes sense, but a lot of it doesn't. What it is though, generally, is philosophically consistant. Can't have that. I'll vote for Obama.

[Door King]

I also remember the redneck gestapo that followed Rand around.

[frontporchreacti onary]

@Your EX, Why hasn't Ron Paul done much in the Congress to overturn the indefinite detentions provisions tacked on by Republicans in the NDAA bill? Why did not Ron Paul fight more to pass the Udall Amendments that would have struck the indefinite detention clauses from the NDAA bill?

[Sve]

Door King wrote:

O.K., I actually read a bit about Paul. A lot of it makes sense, but a lot of it doesn't. What it is though, generally, is philosophically consistant. Can't have that. I'll vote for Obama.

You know, Ron Paul is much better. He is really the best solution for USA and for the rest of the world. He will be much better than Obama. People want to help. Remember that Obama is not a wonder, he less evil than Romney, Santorum and Gingrich. And Ron Paul is the best solution and the best politician, who is worthy to be president. I have supported Obama too, but he is unfortunatatelly failed. I want to make my best to help you to find really good, sane, proper president, who will bring good changes. You will be happy nation, if you get normal, sane and resaonable preisdnt. Politics of Ron Paul is good, he has very good foreign politics, he has good domestic politics.
And what is politics of Obama: to continue everything, it means to lead to war with Iran, to continue old wars ( your criminal politicians have ruined this whole asiatic region ) and to give money for speculators, all foreign madness will come from your taxes, which are intended to be increased. And Obama has a few slogans for voters: anticonception, abortion, gay marriages and higher taxes to fullfill his foreign madness with hands of US nation and for taxes of US nation.
And Ron Paul: to fix all mess, to change foreign policy, to leave Iran in peace, to stop to unleash new wars, to end all wars, to make cuts, where it needed is. And to decrease taxes. It will be good. besides Ron Paul is really much normal, sane and much more tolerant than Obama.
Have you really another choice than Ron Paul? You have not.

[Your Ex]

frontporchreactionary wrote:

@Your EX, Why hasn't Ron Paul done much in the Congress to overturn the indefinite detentions provisions tacked on by Republicans in the NDAA bill? Why did not Ron Paul fight more to pass the Udall Amendments that would have struck the indefinite detention clauses from the NDAA bill?

To be honest, I've always thought RP a bit of a nut job & I realize he has NO chance at the nomination as he's pro business, but not toeing the corporate line enough.
I just think the quote I posted is the most honest & acurate assesment of the political situation in America I've seen to date.

[Just Sayin]

Ron Paul has more pledged delegates right now than any of the other candidates combined.

A poll in Iowa 2-15 says Ron Paul can easily beat Obama.

Ron Paul 49%
Obama 42%

[Sve]

Your Ex wrote:

"We've slipped away from a true Republic," Paul said. "Now we're slipping into a fascist system where it's a combination of government and big business and authoritarian rule and the suppression of the individual rights of each and every American citizen."
http://www.kansascity.com/2012/02/18/3437885/...
Can't really disagree with that......

It is the truth.

[Just Sayin]

frontporchreactionary wrote:

@Your EX, Why hasn't Ron Paul done much in the Congress to overturn the indefinite detentions provisions tacked on by Republicans in the NDAA bill? Why did not Ron Paul fight more to pass the Udall Amendments that would have struck the indefinite detention clauses from the NDAA bill?

Actually Ron Paul took time out from campaigning to submit legislation to repeal the NDAA bill.

My question to you is why did Obama sign it in the first place?

[Sve]

frontporchreactionary wrote:

@Your EX, Why hasn't Ron Paul done much in the Congress to overturn the indefinite detentions provisions tacked on by Republicans in the NDAA bill? Why did not Ron Paul fight more to pass the Udall Amendments that would have struck the indefinite detention clauses from the NDAA bill?

he has fought against it, but it is majority of criminal imbecyles there.
He was against wars, he would like to withdraw these troops from Iraq and Afghanistan. But it is Obama, who is president and who has bunch of criminal idiots behind him, just like the rest of this congress and senate is not good. You can find how people vote in USA and Ron Paul has voted properly, he has supported many good acts and was against many bad acts. www.issues2000.org
But Ron Paul is o.k. and he is the best presidential candidate.
he will have normal government and he can do more good things, if he will be president.

[Sve]

This republican party should understand that only normal, sane, intelligent candidate just like normal government are chance for saving republcian party, American, normal values, saving USA and the rest of the world.
And republicans have just the only, proper, sane, intelligent candidate- Ron Paul, who can do it.

[MO Apocalypse]

I'm sorry - is it just me - or does it feel like your looking into a bag of peanuts - trying to find the one the "least nuttiest" when you listen to politicians lately?

Republican - Democrat - anything but American is what I'm hearing.

[Just Sayin]

MO Apocalypse wrote:

I'm sorry - is it just me - or does it feel like your looking into a bag of peanuts - trying to find the one the "least nuttiest" when you listen to politicians lately?
Republican - Democrat - anything but American is what I'm hearing.

The only one who will bring America back to being America is Ron Paul.

Land of the free.

[Makes sense]

All the Democrats in Michigan plan to vote for Santorum just to piss-off Romney. LOL

RON PAUL 2012!

[Roy Propsner]

LEFT-RIGHT PARADIGM IS A HOAX
http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin6...
By Chuck Baldwin
February 16, 2012
NewsWithViews.com

Both, Liberals and Conservatives are Selling Out America
There may have been a time when the words "conservative" and "liberal" meant something, but that time is no more. Today, "conservatives" in government are doing as much to promote Big Government, as are "liberals." In fact, if one were to honestly evaluate the twelve years of the George Herbert Walker Bush and G.W. Bush administrations, one could say that "conservatives" even eclipse "liberals" in promoting Big Government. Under the two Bushes, the federal government expanded (and even exploded) to levels that for-real liberal Democrats could only dream about.

Herein lies the real problem: both "conservatives" and "liberals" expect Washington ,
D.C., to be the panacea for all the nation's ills. Oh, the left and right come to Washington expecting different solutions, but they both come to Washington , D.C., for the solution. Both "conservatives" and "liberals" expect the federal government to "fix" America . But, in this regard, Ronald Reagan spoke with great profundity when he said, "Government [especially the federal government] is not the solution to our problem; government [especially the federal government] IS the problem!"

Hear President Reagan's quote.
Both "conservatives" and "liberals" look to the federal government to establish and enforce their parochial agendas. "Liberals" look to Washington for the establishment of "social justice," while "conservatives" look to Washington for the establishment of "military justice." The net result is the federal government keeps getting bigger and bigger regardless of who controls the White House, Congress, or Supreme Court.

"Conservatives," whether Christian or not, are just as culpable in the expansion of Big Government as are "liberals." In fact, when it comes to the expansion of military adventurism, "conservatives" are the most culpable. And when it comes to the ever-burgeoning police state that is currently taking shape in the United States , "liberals" and "conservatives" are equally to blame. Let's face it: both "conservatives" and "liberals" are in the midst of an intense and illicit love affair with Washington , D.C.

The way many "conservatives" have embraced the candidacy of Rick Santorum is a prime example of how skewed their understanding of historic, constitutional principles really is. Santorum goes around talking about "pro-life" and "pro-family" issues, while his voting record in the US Senate demonstrates that he is just another conservative-talking, big-spending politician. He has voted for so many Big-Government bills and endorsed so many Big-Government toadies that it is incredible that anyone could refrain from laughing out loud when he calls himself a "conservative."
Check the factual record of Senator Rick Santorum.

By the same token, it is absolutely incredible that "conservatives," especially Christian "conservatives," could so quickly and firmly reject the candidacy of the man who most likely is going to go down in history as the greatest congressman to ever sit in the US House of Representatives, Congressman Ron Paul of Texas. Patrick Henry was probably the greatest governor that the United States has ever seen; and Daniel Webster was probably the greatest senator that the country has ever seen; and I am personally convinced that history will regard Congressman Ron Paul as our greatest US House member. For his entire political career, Congressman Paul has stood like a rock for the fundamental principles of liberty and constitutionalism, and, yet, many "conservatives" reject his Presidential candidacy. They would rather support Big-Government toadies like Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, or Mitt Romney. Egad!

[Roy Propsner]

Two Party Political System (send a copy to your Letter to the Editor)

Flag Day ! President Barack Obama is expected to withdraw roughly 10,000 U.S. troops from Afghanistan this year. I am confused. During our effort to win victory in the Pacific and Europe, did we stop mid-stream to withdraw troops?

Will the withdrawal BEFORE victory in Afghanistan/Pakistan put the remaining troops at greater risk and greater loss?

Will a Republican or democrat party politician (McCain included) have compassion for the families that have lost soldiers over these last TEN years? Say, how many years till victory in Europe and the Pacific?

What is the difference today and then? Korea ~ Viet Nam ~ Somalia ~ Libya and on and on ad nauseam. We have a president(s) that send our soldiers, airmen and sailors into battles with no intention of achieving victory. Their interest must be monetary. For they simply replace body bags with fresh live soldiers. Flag Day! No victories.

What is the difference today and then? During the 1940s would our president(s) disregard the Geneva Convention or Uniform Code of Military Justice and shoot captives, unarmed prisoners of war? And now the president can order and murder an American citizen sans trial by jury.
What about osama? Today Hillary Clinton claims ghadaffi was treated unfairly, suggesting a possible crime.

I am confused? American citizens are asked to sacrifice (life and finance) to pay more taxes and to take greater cuts in social programs. Neither the Republican party or candidates or the democrats direct any cuts whatsoever of monies our government and citizens send to foreigners and many foreign governments that are actually our enemies, i.e. Palestinians (annual aid to the Palestinian Authority, which runs to some $450 million), Pakistanis, now Egyptians (islamists).

I am confused? There is no organization or party (including the Tea Party) that appear to address these important issues. Am I confused by the two party system? The parties have only interest in issues as election arguments and not issues that actually solve international and internal problems. No party, while in office (or out) pursues issues that impact upon the citizens. The only issue of importance is an issue that they may use to campaign for the next election.

Question: Is there truly any difference when we vote for one party over the other?

proud, God fearing, patriotic, Republican, Lincoln County Tea Member, old fashioned American, hoping for a revival of American patriotism