Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: VIDEO - Occupy N.H. hijack Ron Paul meeting. LOL

Posted 10 years ago on Nov. 22, 2011, 6:42 p.m. EST by theaveng (602)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

I LOVE this video. In Keene New Hampshire some Occupy people showed-up and declared themselves (loudly). After they were done Congressman Paul responded, “Do you feel better?” (applause). He then said to the protesters that he has been part of the 99% for a long time and has consistently rallied against the bailouts handed to Wall Street's 1%.

"They got the bailouts and you guys got stuck with the bills!" The Occupy mic-check person then applauded.

VIDEO - http://youtu.be/ZWKnwQj7G9U

71 Comments

71 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 4 points by leftwingisrightwing (15) 10 years ago

mr Pon Raul is trying to end the Facism. Fight him and u fight yourself. There is only one person running who wants to put an end to the madness and stop the crimes and the wars.

[-] 2 points by owschico (295) 10 years ago

Trolls are trying to stop support for Ron PauI in OWS, they know how dangerous that would be for those in power if Ron PauI gains support. Thats why he was allowed 89 seconds in the CBS debate

[-] 2 points by theaveng (602) 10 years ago

At least he got more time in the CNN foreign policy debate.

Paul is the only Dem or Rep candidate that is anti-war (i.e. anti-killing). It's really shocking that all the rest want to go overseas and murder innocent Libyans or Syrians or Afghanis or Iranians. People doing nothing wrong. Innocent civilians. Why? I don't understand.

[-] 0 points by theaveng (602) 10 years ago

Fight him and u fight yourself.

Well said. I've been watching the Republican candidates, looking for one that is better than Ron Paul, and so far none have come forward.

[-] 3 points by legalizedmyself (6) 10 years ago

I don't understand why they were even there anyways, how fucking disrespectful do you have to be to inturrupt a candidates speech, WHEN THE CANDIDATE HIMSELF STANDS FOR THE SAME VALUES OF BIG GOVERNMENT, People are so fucking clueluess - They ended up just going "OH DER HES WITH US, I DIDNT KNOW THAT BECAUSE I DONT DO ANY RESEARCH I JUST TEXT ON MY FANCY IPHONE"

[-] 1 points by theaveng (602) 10 years ago

I think it made for good press.

"We are the 99% and down with the 1%."

"Me too. I am the only candidate that has opposed the 1% for the last thirty years, and voted NO on the corporate bailouts of 2008 and 2009. I'm the only candidate on the side of the 99%." -- Doctor Ron Paul won a lot of votes with this video

.

[-] 3 points by number2 (914) 10 years ago

I think it's funny that they thought they were protesting. IN fact they were preaching to the choir.

[-] 3 points by CentristFiasco (60) 10 years ago

Why would they protest Ron Lawl when Ron Lawl has been with them for years? This protest is a failure.

[-] 3 points by OccupyGOP (39) 10 years ago

End the drug war!

[-] 4 points by theaveng (602) 10 years ago

The drug war isn't even legal. The 10th Amendment forbids Congress from banning alcohol. Or drugs. Or any other product.

That power is reserved to the People and the People's State legislatures. If a Member State of the union, such as California, declares marijuana to be legal for medicinal purposes, then the central government has zero authority to overrule that legislature's decision.

[-] 4 points by OccupyGOP (39) 10 years ago

Exactly we need to enforce the most powerful regulation of all...the constitution! End the Drug War!

[-] 3 points by ProAntiState (43) 10 years ago

few more MIC CHECKS with Paul and NH OWSers will be chanting End the FED

[-] 0 points by Socrates469bc (608) from New York, NY 10 years ago

I bet those were Ron P's supporters, masquerading as OWS. After all, anyone can yell "Mike Check!" even John Boner, Cantor, or Dimon.

[-] -1 points by GreedKills (1119) 10 years ago

I bet that is exactly what happened, they have been trying to hi-jack this movement since day one.

[-] -1 points by ProAntiState (43) 10 years ago

all OWSers could be Ron Paul supporters

[-] -1 points by theaveng (602) 10 years ago

Why did you type Ron Lawl instead of Ron Paul?

.

[-] 4 points by OccupyGOP (39) 10 years ago

This thread is automatically changing it because some people here apparently fear the freedom to use the good doctor's name properly

[-] -1 points by theaveng (602) 10 years ago

the good doctor

You mean Doctor Who?

;-)

[-] 2 points by zoom6000 (430) from St Petersburg, FL 10 years ago

The GOP they will fire him

[-] 2 points by ScrewyL (809) 10 years ago

Ron Lawl? sigh. JART!

[-] 1 points by Redbirds4 (4) 10 years ago

It's too bad Ron Lawl is not "marketable" enough to be elected, because he could actually save this country from going down in flames.

If OWS actually got behind Ron Lawl, it'd get my lazy 41 year-old butt off my couch and out with you guys. Heck, between Ron Lawl supporters out there, the moderates like me who would throw my weight behind him, and if OWS got behind Ron Lawl?....the thought makes me smile

[-] 1 points by tjows (8) 10 years ago

Obama was also approached by OWS. I know they hear us: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXqAk_Vfxy4

[-] 1 points by GreedKills (1119) 10 years ago

Published on Sunday, October 30, 2011 by NBC News

Ron Lawl, Tea Party Godfather, Says ‘Occupy’ All About ‘Handouts'

by Anthony Terrell and Domenico Montanaro

CARROLL, Iowa -- Ron Lawl outlined what he believed was the difference between “Occupy Wall Street” and the “Tea Party.”

Rightwinger Ron Lawl on the Occupy Wall Street protesters: "They’re scared to death they won’t get their handouts." “Some are demonstrating, because they’re scared to death they won’t get their handouts,” Paul said yesterday. “And the other half are demonstrating, because they’re sick and tired of paying for it. I’m on the side of sick and tired of paying for it.”

Paul's popularity has risen since 2008 largely because of the Tea Party. He doesn't lead in polling in any state, but he is routinely in the top three in states like Iowa and New Hampshire.

[-] 2 points by EXPOSED (222) 10 years ago

Heck, I'm scared to death I won't get my check!

He, who's name cannot be mentioned, is an enemy of this movement. He wants to end corporate welfare, he thinks we should have the freedom to opt out of social security (what a kook!) and most importantly, he wants to end America's sacred mission of forcing freedom around the world.

Unacceptable!

[-] 0 points by theaveng (602) 10 years ago

I'm not tired of paying for "handouts" and want Social Security to continue (as does Paul), but I am tired of paying for Corporate Bailouts and Corporate Welfare.

That blatant theft from the customers to the corporations totaled 2000 billion dollars, which is approximately $20,000 for every american home.

$20,000 stolen.

[-] 0 points by GreedKills (1119) 10 years ago

Those are Ron's own words. He a racist who also believes in Classism.

[-] 0 points by GreedKills (1119) 10 years ago

Lastly, I'd like to refer Ron Lawl supporters to a real liberatarian, Dave Nalle, head of the Republican Liberty Caucus, who had this to say about Ron Lawl:

[Ron Lawl is] an inflexible ideologue who subscribes to a variety of extremist views which would make a terrible basis for national policy. His interpretation of the Constitution is highly selective. He seems not to recognize terms like "public welfare" and "common good" and rejects the long history of constitutional scholarship and jurisprudence on which most law is based. His understanding of the economy is based on fringe economic theories which most serious economists do not consider credible. As for foreign policy, it's an area in which Paul has no experience at all and his foreign policy would basically amount to isolationism which would have disastrous economic and political repercussions.

[Ron Lawl supporters] completely overlook Paul's support for the reactionary conspiracy nuts at the John Birch Society and the reprehensible 9/11 Truth movement or the fact that he raises money on white supremacist websites and has the endorsement of racist leaders like former KKK Grand Wizard David Duke, White Aryan leader Tom Metzger and Stormfront Fuhrer Don Black.

Read more: http://blogcritics.org/politics/article/a-quick-investigation-into-ron-pauls/page-2/#ixzz1eTyjwxXh

[-] 0 points by theaveng (602) 10 years ago

The Libertarian Party consider Dave Nalle to be a RINO..... not a true republican or libertarian. Not a true conservative or constitutionalist.

Furthermore the Libertarians have said they would welcome Ron Paul to run on their ticket. As he did back in the 80s. (They have not extended that invitation to Nalle.)

.

[-] 0 points by GreedKills (1119) 10 years ago

Too bad Ron Lawl made a deal with the GOP and will not run on a third party ticket yet most Paulites don't even know this.

[-] 1 points by tasmlab (58) from Amesbury, MA 10 years ago

This was absolutely the case in 2008 and he said so after the election. I haven't heard that's the case this time, but I don't see why the GOP wouldn't want the same assurance.

I don't think he was allowed to announce it either.

The one change may be that he isn't running for his seat in congress. Dunno.

[-] 0 points by theaveng (602) 10 years ago

Citation please.

Or retract as false.

[-] 0 points by GreedKills (1119) 10 years ago

It's true because the GOP would not allow him to participate in the debates if not. I know more about you savior than most Paulites :)

[-] 0 points by theaveng (602) 10 years ago

It's true because [insert specious reasoning].

Yeah that really clarifies things. Not. I'd still like to see a CITATION not mere opinion. - Anyway, I think you're wrong. The GOP can't block Ron Paul from switching to the LP in May 2012, if he chooses to do so. They don't hold any power over him.

[-] 2 points by GreedKills (1119) 10 years ago

You will see... after he bows out he will pass all the campaign money to his son like he did in 2008.

[-] 0 points by theaveng (602) 10 years ago

That's nice.

I am still waiting for a citation. If you can not provide one, then please retract your "Ron Lawl made a deal with the GOP not to run third party" statement as false and unsubstantiated.

And I'd also like to see a citation to back-up the claim that Ron Paul gave his donations to Rand Paul in 2008. Or else retract as libelous & criminal accusation.

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 10 years ago

It is clearly stated n his website that he will run as third party if he does not win the republican nomination.

[-] 0 points by theaveng (602) 10 years ago

Link Please.

Thanks. Otherwise I will assume it does NOT say that on Ron Paul's website.

[-] 0 points by theaveng (602) 10 years ago

It is the job of the CLAIMANT to provide the evidence to back his claims, not the job of his readers.

What you have cited does NOT prove the original assertion by GreedKills that "Ron Paul made a deal with the GOP and will not run on a third party ticket." --- Nor does it prove that Ron Paul announced he WILL run third party. What you cited is just some dude's post.

I'm sorry to be such a pain in the ass, but things mean what they mean. Neither you nor GreedKills have backed-up your claims with substantive evidence.

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 10 years ago

I have no reason to prove GreedKills. However, he is wrong and I am not.

[-] -1 points by Fishp00 (122) 10 years ago

I don't trust any politician especially not one as high up as to attempt presidency. It's unfortunate that most people in order to climb a ladder have to take it one rung at a time. Unfortunately those rungs in this situation are people.

For a president it seems most people usually ask themselves who is the lesser of all the evils??? That's the evil I'll vote for....RonPaul?

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 10 years ago

I suppose you didn't trust Ross Perot's motives either.

[-] 0 points by GreedKills (1119) 10 years ago

Never mind the fact that Ronnie "the one who stood by Reagan" has 30 years under his belt as a Republican ;)

[-] 4 points by Fishp00 (122) 10 years ago

Really my first thought was - isn't that the Tea Party candidate????

[-] 1 points by GreedKills (1119) 10 years ago

Yes he is. He has no support in his own party so his followers are trying to have liberals, centrists and independents to vote him in. I've seen this tactic discussed at web sites that support him.

[-] 0 points by Fishp00 (122) 10 years ago

No wonder the republican media channels specifically avoid discussing his campaign. Ahh America!

[-] 1 points by theaveng (602) 10 years ago

The TV news channels (both democrat and republican) are owned by the Corporations, and they don't like Paul, therefore he gets minimum coverage. (A mere 90 seconds during the last CBS debate... dead last even though he's actually 2nd in the polls)

[-] 1 points by Fishp00 (122) 10 years ago

Maybe he is 2nd in the polls specifically because the American ppl are not exposed to him enough!

I mean look at Mitt Romney the more he talks the more he looks like as idiot - giving that guy more screen time is like selling tickets to the death of his career.... lol in spite of his very presidential looking hair

[-] 0 points by theaveng (602) 10 years ago

I've not noticed Romney sounding like an idiot. In fact his policy views sound a lot like Obama (sadly).

Anyway I was mainly addressing your claim that News channels don't cover Paul. That's because he is anti-corporation, so naturally the corporate-owned media wants him to be barely heard. As for IDEAS I've been following Ron Paul for over ten years now and he rarely sounds like an idiot. He says we should

  • stop Spying on americans (via the patriot act).
  • stop groping or xraying americans at the airport
  • balance the budget and pay off the debt
  • stop killing foreigners (via war).
  • enforce the 9th and 10th amendments of our Bill of Rights (powers and rights are reserved to the People and the People's state legislatures)

Most people when they hear Paul espouse these ideas agree with them. Which is why Paul's support is gradually going up. The latest poll I just read show he's only 1/2 percent behind Mitt Romney in Iowa, thanks to the "bump" Paul received from the CNN debate .

[-] 0 points by Fishp00 (122) 10 years ago

Romney sounds like an idiot bc he is an idiot. As for Ron Lawl compared to his constituents he looks sane. The only time I remember hearing him speak though he sounded crazy or full of B.S. though I'm not sure which - he said he didn't believe in evolution - despite mountains of evidence to prove the opposite...wtf ? ? ?

now he is either lying or refusing to budge bc of ego and/or religiamania How am I supposed to trust him either way?

[-] 1 points by theaveng (602) 10 years ago

Romney took-over the 2002 Olympics, and turned them from a failed proposition (losing money) to a success for the host city. He must not be an idiot else he'd have failed. (shrug). Everything I've heard from Mitt sounds 90% identical to what Barack Obama says (or stands for). In fact Romney's plan was the initial basis for Obamacare.

Ron Paul said he didn't believe in evolution - despite mountains of evidence to prove the opposite...wtf ? ? ?

My Physics professor believes the same (more or less). He believes in evolution but he also believes God is the one who made it happen. Even Einstein believed in God. You shouldn't dismiss belief in a higher being as "insane".

I suspect you misunderstood (or misremembered) what Ron Paul said. I recall one of my friends said the Republican plan was to "let people die" and then insisted he heard a republican say it on the floor of the Congress. BUT when he showed me the video, it was not a republican. It was a Democrat. Our human memory often fails to remember things in an accurate fashion.

Therefore I respectfully request you show me the video (or transcript) where Paul claimed he did not believe in evolution. I don't believe you will find it, because it likely never happened.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 10 years ago

He's a wacko in so many ways.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JyvkjSKMLw

[-] 1 points by theaveng (602) 10 years ago

Interesting.

Well he's technically correct. It is a THEORY of evolution and a THEORY of relativity (which has just been shown to be wrong about the speed of light). In that video he does not say he thinks evolution is wrong; he basically says what my Physics professor says (God created the universe).

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 10 years ago

More like a career politician that refuses to give a clear answer.

[-] 1 points by theaveng (602) 10 years ago

Just like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, John Adams, and many other career politicians you seem to admire. There is no such thing as a "perfect" politician, so it's ridiculous to expect it. Instead I judge Paul relative to the other candidates, and he is 10x better than any of the D or R candidates.

[-] 0 points by theaveng (602) 10 years ago

Roe v. Wade would not be repealed, because a president does not have that power. Only the Supreme Court has that power. IT is ridiculous you would make such an absurd claim.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 10 years ago

Well, he is a forked tongued, career politician, and his minions think he never lies.

This is why I don't trust him.

Besides, he would repeal Roe v. Wade.

That makes him a loser in my book.

[-] 0 points by Fishp00 (122) 10 years ago

Search for it yourself - it is easily found.

[-] 0 points by Fishp00 (122) 10 years ago

"My Physics professor believes the same (more or less). He believes in evolution but he also believes God is the one who made it happen. "

That is rational however that isn't what Mr. Ron Lawl said.

[-] -2 points by frankchurch1 (839) from Jersey City, NJ 10 years ago

Ron Lawl wants America to look like Somalia. No thanks.

[-] -2 points by EXPOSED (222) 10 years ago

He, who's name cannot be mentioned, is the enemy of OWS. He's a total corporate puppet, he equates freedom to personal responsibility. WTF?

A total anti-thesis of this noble brotherhood of economic equality.

[-] 2 points by OccupyGOP (39) 10 years ago

Corporate Puppet? Are you f-ing kidding me? You obviously have no idea what's really going on Ron.Paul is practically the only politician who is not bought and paid for, he doesn't get any lobbyist money they don't even bother coming to his office because he is incorruptible. If he was really a corporate puppet than how come there is practically a total blackout on media coverage of his campaign?

[-] 0 points by GreedKills (1119) 10 years ago

He does not get corporate money for two reasons.. 1) they would give him money if they thought he could win 2) No need to bribe him, he is lockstep with the corporations calling for deregulation. Also let me add if the lobbyists did send him checks he would run to the bank to cash them...he did so with Stormfront and other racists...

[-] 2 points by theaveng (602) 10 years ago

Michelle Bachman isn't going to win either, but she's still received donations from corporations. So your first statement is not correct. Corporations just throw the money everywhere, to all candidates, in order to cover all bases.

corporations calling for deregulation.

Corporations do NOT call for deregulation. Corporations love regulations because it allows them to gain competitive advantage over the smaller companies. Example: Walmart and McDonalds and GM gained competitive advantage because they are not required to meet the new health benefits regulations. That enables them to reduce expenses & increase profits vs. the smaller companies that did not receive waivers.

Regulations also allow corporations to lobby for subsidies, such as the Farming subsidy for Big Agra. Corporations hate deregulation. Corporations love regulations (because they write the rules for their own benefit).

[-] 0 points by OccupyGOP (39) 10 years ago

Lies...he is for enforcing the biggest regulation of all that the corporations fear more than any other, the bill of rights and the constitution. End the illegal unconstitutional wars of aggression including the drug war!

[-] -1 points by GreedKills (1119) 10 years ago

No you lie!!!!

CORPORATE POWER

-- He would repeal significant portions of antitrust law, including the Sherman Antitrust Act, the Clayton Antitrust Act, and others.

H.R.1247: To ensure and foster continued patient safety and quality of care by exempting health care professionals from the Federal antitrust laws in their negotiations with health plans and health insurance issuers.

H.R.1789: To restore the inherent benefits of the market economy by repealing the Federal body of statutory law commonly referred to as "antitrust law", and for other purposes.

-- He would gut the regulatory power of Federal agencies, forcing Congress to micromanage all decisions:

H.R.1204: A bill to an Act to restore the rule of law.

[-] 3 points by OccupyGOP (39) 10 years ago

Why do I need congress to come between me and my doctor? I am fully capable of making my own health care decisions for myself I don't need some bureaucrat in Washington DC dictating to me how I am allowed to insure or ensure my health. I believe in health freedom I don't want the government telling me what type of insurance I have to have (what if I want to self-insure why should I be prevented from making that decision?), what type of herbs I can consume, what type of vitamins I am allowed to purchase and in what quantities etc. Onerous federal regulations are a barrier to entry preventing competition from bringing prices down and quality up. If a someone is charging too much or providing too low of quality that is an opportunity for someone else to come in and provide a better product for a lower cost. Besides what makes you think that these laws will be enforced given the fact that the supreme law of our land, the constitution, is not being enforced? For example what about this: "Congress shall have the power to declare war"?

[-] 1 points by theaveng (602) 10 years ago

Antitrust Law really isn't needed. In a true free market a monopoly cannot "price-rape" the customer because another company would rise-up with cheaper prices.

Example: IBM held a monopoly on the DOS PC market. But in the late 80s Dell and other clone makers undercut the overpriced IBM PC. They produced identical product for about 2/3rd the price.

There was no need for antitrust law, because the market eliminated the problem through natural methods (competition).

[-] -1 points by theaveng (602) 10 years ago

Ron Paul is a corporate puppet? Might want to edit and correct your post, because I think you've made an error. Ron Paul opposes corporate personhood & the Supreme Court decision that gave them that power.

.

[-] 1 points by EXPOSED (222) 10 years ago

Still he's an enemy of our100% free education and healthcare, an enemy of freedom (what kind of freedom is it if you can't force it on other countries?) and wants america to develop a sense of personal responsability...

Freedom? I think not!

[-] 1 points by theaveng (602) 10 years ago

Your post is confusing. You WANT to force freedom onto other countries??? Ron Paul certainly doesn't (he's anti-war).