Se7enet: Obama Supporter Challenge: Ron Paul Fan... CHANGE?

You are not logged in. [Log In] Se7enet » Forums » Public Discussion » Discussion » Obama Supporter Challenge: Ron Paul Fan... CHANGE?

Page 1 of 3

Topic Options

Rate This Topic

#16635 - 02/14/08 02:34 AM

Obama Supporter Challenge: Ron Paul Fan... CHANGE?

Junglist
Frosted Flakes

Registered: 12/25/02
Posts: 643
Loc: Illadel, PA

Offline

Obama Supporter Challenge: Ron Paul Supporter willing to "Change" Allegiance if You Can Change my Mind.

I love listening to Obama speak. The man is charismatic beyond belief. I think he would do an incredible job at doing what Americans have somehow come to believe a President is supposed to do.

Obama has incredible presence and captivating charm. He is incredible at conveying his vision. But in my opinion, if he wins the Presidency it won't be because of these gifts. Nor will it be because he awakened the passions of young voters. And it won't be because he united America; It will be for one reason and one reason only: Americans have no idea what a President is supposed to do. And if you actually listen to the words he so eloquently speaks, neither does he.

But this is just my opinion, and I could be wrong. If I am, and you help me see the error of my ways; I will vote for your candidate this November. My request is outlined below.

If you support Barack Obama, or any other candidate for that matter I have a question first and then your opportunity to win a vote for your candidate.

The question is this:

What do you think the President's Job is and what illustrates your candidate has the best ability to do this job? Comment below or email me if you're shy.

Here's the Opportunity:

If you can click and read the actual Job Description for President of The United States, and convince me that the "best of your candidate's ablity" (you'll understand why that's in quotes when you read the link) is greater than Ron Paul's I will publicly pledge my vote to your candidate and post a picture of my voting for said candidate on this website on or before November 5th, 2008.

Winning a vote should never be easier if your candidate really is the best one for the job. If you can rise to the challenge, I have a feeling that you wouldn't just get my vote but that of many other Ron Paul supporters as well. Most of us already agree with Obama's stated position on the war (or at least the fact that we shouldn't have started it to begin with), so if you do your best, enlist your friends in this effort, and "change" my mind, I and others like me may help you elect your candidate of "change."

Your Fellow American,

.....

P.S. Below is the text from another article about the importance of keeping this Oath of Office and Protecting the Constitution since the one thing that truly "Unites" Americans is our Freedom, and the Constitution protects it. I welcome any comments on this as well.

As always, unlike the NFL, the author gives you express permission to give accounts of rebroadcast, retransmit, or do anything else you'd like with it to promote the Restoration of our Republic.

subjugate@thoughtbombing.com

How often have you heard someone say, "I don't really pay attention to politics" and then follow it up with a meager "but I probably should"? The reason often given for not knowing more is that it is just "too complicated." And there is a reason it is complicated:

People vote based on their personal beliefs.

If you believe in the right of a woman to choose, you vote Democrat.

If you believe in the right of an unborn child to live, you vote Republican.

If you believe that the government should provide universal healthcare, you vote Democrat.

If you believe that spreading democracy is the best way to protect us from terrorists, you vote Republican.

If you believe that gay people and minorities have collective rights, you vote Democrat.

If you believe that Christians have collective rights, you vote Republican.

How often have you heard that as an educated voter you should study the issues and then vote for the candidate who most closely shares your beliefs as you on those issues? How many people have told you that they voted for someone because that candidate believes in what the person talking to you believes in?

The paradigm shift that must occur for our country to be what it was intended to be is to stop asking this ridiculous question and start voting on the one and only issue that should matter: which candidate has the best ability to do what they are sworn in to do? I have asked about 50 people over the last week if they knew what it was that an elected federal government official was supposed to do--what they swear they will do--and not surprisingly not a single one so far has known.

Why? Because the discussion for so long has been based on voting based on what you believe, and there are so many different beliefs, that the whole thing has become "complicated." Do you know what these officials are supposed to do? If you do, congratulations, you are probably already voting for the one candidate who stands out above all the rest because of this candidate's proven ability to do it. If you don't, read on, and if you are intelligent you will come to the same decision other people already have.

The reason voting for your beliefs is the wrong way to go about voting is that your candidate's actually following through on his/her campaign commitments may ultimately lead to a future where your beliefs may not matter at all. Huh? Let me explain.

Despite popular belief, the Constitution does not grant us our freedom or rights as American citizens. These "self-evident truths" are part of (depending on your personal beliefs) derived either from your Creator or from natural law. A person born in a place where no government existed would indeed be free, but his freedom would not be protected against another's freedom. It was with this concept in mind that our nation's founders drafted the Constitution. It wasn't to give us freedom, which would necessarily imply that we aren't free unless the government allows us to be; it was to create a government that not only allowed a person to keep his natural state of freedom, so long as it didn't interfere with another's; this by turn protected his freedom against the use of theirs to deprive him of his. Therefore, the government as established by the Constitution was created for one reason: to protect the freedom with which we are all born.

Because the people who created this document had just placed their "lives, fortunes, and sacred honor" on the line in order to regain this freedom from an oppressive government, they made sure when they wrote it that if we followed the guidelines, no such government could ever exist in our country. It's not that these men were infallible demigods (although they were pretty dang smart), it was that they understood how much freedom cost and how much it was worth. They wanted to make sure that their sacrifice didn't go to waste.

Just as a successful progenitor will create specific rules for the trust he leaves his family, which if followed will ensure their wealth; our founders created a trust for our freedom. And much like the heirs who have little appreciation for the sacrifice of the person who created this wealth for them take what they have for granted and sometimes squander it all by not following the rules; we the people do the same thing when we ignore the rules of the trust fund of freedom left for us by the people who paid for it and set up the rules of that trust.

It is this freedom that allows you as an individual to believe what you choose to believe, to freely express your beliefs as long as doing so does not interfere with other individual's rights to believe what they choose to believe. The founders were also intelligent enough to realize that times and situations would change. That is why the document came complete with easy to read instruction included on how to change it should times demand it. This process is called amending the Constitution, and the change is called, duh, an Amendment. And while changing the Constitution is not complicated, it is not easy.

That is by design. The founders knew from personal experience that the greatest threat to freedom was the government which is why the power of the government is incredibly limited in the Constitution. They realized that every law passed, regardless of how good the intention, could potentially damage the freedom of the individual since the enforcement of that law would require a sacrifice by the people (either in money or personal liberty).

Yet they also knew that there could be an idea or philosophy that came along which would gain the support of enough citizens that they would decide to allow the government to adopt and enforce it as law. This is why free speech is so important. It allows a way for these ideas to be heard and possibly adopted. If enough people think it's a good idea, then the Constitution can be amended. But unless the people decide to allow the government to make such laws by amending the Constitution, the last line of Article 1, Section 8 clearly states that the federal government has no power to do so, and the 10th Amendment further solidifies this.

Unfortunately, most people hated history class. And the Constitution is something they learned about there. Each time the government decides to do something that is a "good idea" based on some "belief of philosophy" in order to solve some problem that pops up, the power of the government increases, and the freedom and rights of the individual decrease. Because most people slept through history class and don't realize how important the Constitution is the government has become incredibly powerful by creating laws in order to solve problems that they have absolutely no right to create to begin with.

What most Americans don't realize is that the Constitution isn't an archaic document that was written for "back then"; it is a Contract between we the people and our government. And we the people dictated the terms of that Contract to give the government its rights--not vice versa. Every time the government decides it wants to do something in the best interest of the people that it isn't allowed to do, it violates that contract.

Think of it like this: If you had a contract with someone to build a house for you, for a set price you would expect to receive exactly what you agreed to for exactly the price agreed upon. If the builder knew that you hadn't read the contract he could give you less; he could also charge you more, and you would never know. This would benefit the builder but it would harm you. Similarly, if the builder just decided that your house would look better with brick instead of vinyl and decided to build it that way although you didn't ask for it, you would be outraged when you were expected to pay for the additions he made without authorization. If the builder decided that you should have a brick house, and explained that to you, and you agreed; you could then make that change--by changing the contract. If you wanted something else added that was important enough to you to give up something for it, you could then go to the builder and ask him to do it (he would likely oblige since he would receive more money) and once again, you would change the contract. But anything done without changing the contract would without question be detrimental to the party giving up something and be exploited by the party that gains something, regardless of the intent. Which brings us back to voting based on your beliefs.

When you vote based on your beliefs instead of voting based on who is most capable of doing the job they swear they will do, you are essentially saying, "I'm okay with having my contract violated as long as the government thinks it's a good idea; since the person I voted for claims to believe what I believe, it probably will be a good idea."

But what happens when your candidate doesn't win? Well then, you blame the other people who voted based on their beliefs for ruining your country. If you are a Republican, you blame FDR's "good idea" called the New Deal for creating the welfare state. If you are a Democrat, you blame the Republican's "good idea" of democratizing the Middle East for the war in Iraq. The thing both of these "good ideas" have in common is that there is absolutely nothing in the Contract that allows them to begin with, but that matters little if the people haven't read it. If we had felt that these problems had been serious enough to deal with and that the federal government was the best way to deal with them, we could have added it into the Contract.

Of course, neither party points this out because if the people actually understood that their Contract was being violated when the party out of power got their turn to be in power again, they wouldn't be able to exploit the Contract themselves. That's why winning elections by getting you to vote your beliefs is more important than getting you to vote on the one thing that should matter: the person with the best ability to do the job they were sworn in to do. Still wondering what it is they swear to do?

It's the last sentence of Article 2, Section 1 of that Contract. If you still don't see why it's important for you to read it, I'll just put that sentence here for you:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Pretty simple, huh?

There's only one candidate who can say that he has done this without fail for 20 years. Congressman Ron Paul. Of course, both parties want you to think he's crazy because if he were elected the people would see how simple this government thing really is, start paying attention, and regain their freedom and power (which would take it from the politicians) because he would honor the people's end of the Contract.

If you watch every debate, he has never criticized the Democrats for America's problems and sometimes seems to blame Republicans. And despite what Republicans would have you believe, it isn't because he's a pacifist liberal in disguise. It's because he knows it's not the Democrats who are the problem. It's both parties. And it's because they violate the Contract between We the People and our government. And we seem to tacitly endorse this because we voted based on our beliefs instead of voting for candidates who would ensure we had the right to hold those beliefs.

If Barack Obama really wanted to do something about the special interests he claims to detest, he'd make government smaller so it wouldn't be worth millions to them to send their lobbyists since the government wouldn't have anything to do with the interests for which they are lobbying. The bigger the government is, and the more they intervene in areas which they have absolutely no right under their Contract in which to be involved the more lobbyists and special interests have a reason to come to D.C. By doing things "for the people" that the "people believe in" the more power is taken from the people and put into the hands of special interest groups.

If you are a Republican/Democrat first, Conservative/Liberal second, and an American third vote your beliefs. If you are an American first, vote for someone who will defend the very thing that protects your right to be what an American is supposed to be: Free. That choice is as simple as government was supposed to be before politics got in the way. Don't sacrifice what you want most (freedom) for what you want at the moment (someone to solve your problems).

_________________________
Cheap HOSTING
Visit my Record Label.
Visit my FORUM.

Se7enet

Forum Search

Who's Online

Newest Members

Forum Stats