It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Does Ron Paul know something we don't?

page: 2
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by josephus maximus
I consider him a"whacko" because he wants to get rid of CIA, FBI and probably Homeland security. He also wants to minimize our military presence throughout the world. That is totally whacked out. How can we be a superpower if he does that?


Why do we even need to BE a superpower? Why does our government need to be in a race with other governments? Do we get a blue ribbon or something if we win?

I think that any government's job is to provide a place in which the citizens of that government can live their lives with the most or highest "quality" possible. To provide the most amount of "happy" and the least amount of "grief".

Are our citizens able to freely exercise their rights?

Are we safe from invasion?

Instead of "living to work" how can we allow our citizens to have more "free time" while maintaining their standard of living?

Are our citizens fit and in good health? If not then what is cause and how can we fix it?

Sometimes the best answer to one of these questions will be a massive government program. Sometimes the answer is to do nothing at all. You have to find the best answer to each question on its own. You can't lump the answers into one-size-fits-all packages like Democrat, Republican, or Libertarian and expect them to be the best fit.

There are plenty of countries with a higher standard of living and happier citizens than the U.S. Yet they do not have to be the "most powerful" to achieve it.

Is the government looking out for the best interests of the citizens or has it become it's own entity which is looking out for it's own best interests at the expense of the citizens?




posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Snap
 

wow...I can't believe you actually believe that? no offense but it sounds like maybe Finland is a place better suited for you?



[edit on 21-9-2007 by josephus maximus]



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 06:33 PM
link   
Ron Paul seems like he got tired of all the corruption and lies in DC and decided to run. I think he can fix quite a bit. Getting rid of the IRS and CIA will do quite a bit to clean up this country.

If I thought my vote counted I'd give it to him, but since it doesn't I'll just keep supporting and hoping he wins.

I don't think he "Knows" anything, just smart enough to run after Bush. After him Paris Hilton sounds like a good choice.



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by josephus maximus
Did I hear someone say that someone is a REAGAN DEMOCRAT???? WTF??? is that some kind of insult?


You must be young.

Part of what Ronald Reagan was able to do was draw a large group of traditional mostly conservative Democrats to his side because of the message he communicated. In political studies this group of voters are referred to as Reagan Democrats because they do not have an underlying loyalty to the GOP.

Welcome to your history.



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by josephus maximus
Did I hear someone say that someone is a REAGAN DEMOCRAT???? WTF??? is that some kind of insult?


From what I remember Reagan was one of the greatest Presidents of the 20th century, if not all time. He was also a big part of helping end the Cold War and getting the hostages in Iran released.



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by josephus maximus
I consider him a"whacko" because he wants to get rid of CIA, FBI and probably Homeland security. He also wants to minimize our military presence throughout the world. That is totally whacked out. How can we be a superpower if he does that?


The dream of the USA was to be a Constitutional Republic free of kings, potentates, oligarchs, and royal elites. Being a "superpower" was never the vision for the USA by the founders of the United States.

Were Ron Paul able to eliminate the CIA, FBI and all of Homeland Security, then he would be one of the greatest heroes in history. Those US governmental agencies and departments are the epitome of corruption and abuse. Anyone who loves the free Constiutional Republic created in the USA will, after study, come to recognise that the USA's greatest enemies are within -- and specifically within DHS, the NSA, the FBI and most especially the CIA.


KTK

posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 07:38 PM
link   
Just a question from an Australian.


On the odd chance he does become president and abolish the FBI and the CIA will he just fire them and so be it?


Does this mean you will have renegade evil folk with no legal governing body let loose on America and the world?

Lets put it this way ASIO the Australian spy agency is the bastard child of the CIA. The CIA have operations and interests in every country in the world.

He is esentially giving these people the go ahead to do what the hell they want without being accountable to the American people and government. This has been our only protection.

I shudder to think how the world will be if this happens. That renegade arm is your NWO in waiting.


Maybe he just hasnt thought the idea through enough. Although I cant help but think this man has trojan horse qualities about him.



edit to add


Where is his funding coming from????????




[edit on 21-9-2007 by KTK]



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 07:40 PM
link   
Why would he need to get rid of CIA and FBI, I don't get it.....or is it a just a made up statement?



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 07:45 PM
link   
reply to post by TheoOne
 

it is not made up, he said it at the last debate.



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by KTK
On the odd chance he does become president and abolish the FBI and the CIA will he just fire them and so be it?


The US President doesn't have that kind of authority, so one presumes a battle royal would take place that would result in a streamlined intelligence gathering service.

Most of Ron Paul's funding comes from people who do not support the Republican Party or the Democratic Party. He is doing especially well from online donations from small first time donors. The establishment fund raisers cannot abide him.



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Pellevoisin
 


Ok I keep hearing "conservative democrats" I didn't know they still existed, I thought they went the way of the dodo bird.

and yes i am too young to remember Ronald Regan's landslide win, i was too busy with girls and hot rods around that time. but this "conservative democrat" thing is laughable! is Hillary one of them? Obama? Oh wait, you must be thinking of John McCain!!! sorry hun I think he is still a Repub but heavens only knows why...



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 07:59 PM
link   
reply to post by josephus maximus
 


The Deep South of the USA used to be solidly conservative Democrats. The South rejejcted the Republican Party because it was the Party of Reconstruction after the Civil War. Their shift toward the Republican Party was due largely to Reagan and to an ever increasing hard left position on social issues in the Democratic Party. Some analysts still regard the US South as ambivalent in loyalties to either party. In part that hinges on the direction of the Evangelical conservative voting block.

[edit on 21/9/07 by Pellevoisin]



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by josephus maximus
is Hillary one of them? Obama? Oh wait, you must be thinking of John McCain!!! sorry hun I think he is still a Repub but heavens only knows why...


From my vantage point with the exception of Ron Paul, all of the Republican candidates and the Democratic Candidates are just 2 sides of the same Big Government anti-Constitutional coin. I believe each one of them is dangerous for the USA's future, and that means dangerous for Canada as well.

John McCain was an Episcopalian and is now a Baptist, so who knows what is in the future of that particularly angry individual?

[edit on 21/9/07 by Pellevoisin]



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by josephus maximus
I consider him a"whacko" because he wants to get rid of CIA, FBI and probably Homeland security. He also wants to minimize our military presence throughout the world. That is totally whacked out. How can we be a superpower if he does that?

The only thing I have heard him say that I agree wth is he wants to abolish the IRS.

How does he feel about the fair tax? if he is for it that is 2 good things on his side.
Did I hear someone say that someone is a REAGAN DEMOCRAT???? WTF??? is that some kind of insult?
[edit on 21-9-2007 by josephus maximus]


I don't have a problem trimming the federal government some, the CIA and FBI were not helpful in preventing 9/11, I agree that is not a reason to get rid of them. To me its a constitutional thing, are the FBI,CIA, IRS constitutional, the Central/federal government was Never intended to be so powerfull, they need to be checked IMHO, as for the military check this Who Believes the United States Should be the Worlds Policeman?? thread out.

Ron Paul is our best hope to continue as a free republic. Our Constitution is the only thing that ever made us Good. Act now before its too late!!!

The only bumper stickers for 08 that I have seen so far is for Ron Paul.



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 08:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Pellevoisin
 


"Were Ron Paul able to eliminate the CIA, FBI and all of Homeland Security, then he would be one of the greatest heroes in history. Those US governmental agencies and departments are the epitome of corruption and abuse. Anyone who loves the free Constiutional Republic created in the USA will, after study, come to recognise that the USA's greatest enemies are within -- and specifically within DHS, the NSA, the FBI and most especially the CIA."


Hey right on with that! I've wondered as well about RP's dis-dain for the IRS and the fedreal reserve system and what he may actually be able to do about it. I think it would be cool if he said Hey I don't think these "private" banks should get anymore money. So I decree that they are closed
Enjoy your house it's yours. Talk about a boost to the economy. I read somewhere on ATS that the Rothschilds may be worth something like 300 to 600 trillion dollars . They could survive imho if we cut thier supply line off for a couple weeks on that stash. ........ by the way .... i know i'm talking out of my ass. But..Bush declares whacked out stuff everyday so why not Ron but ...go the opposite direction and just straight hook the middle class up instead of his daddy and his effigy worshipping banking elite buddies. Screw them for a change.

[edit on 21-9-2007 by DrPaulisENKI]



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 08:22 PM
link   
Good posts Pellevoisin, I appreciate your feedback



The underlying problem is that since WWII and the creation of all these agencies, we have grown accustomed to them and vice versa. Through the decades these tumor-like agencies have rooted themselves to America and continue to do so today. What we need to realize is that America did just fine before the creation of all these agencies and that almost nothing good has come out of them. For every good they have done they have done evil tenfolds. All they have done is create instabilities around to world to promote wars, invade personal privacy, and further non-beneficial agendas for the nation (*cough* private interests).

And let's not get started with the IRS fraud or the Federal Reserve scam...

oh and for those bringing up the argument " OMG if Ron gets rid of the FBI and the CIA how will the nation conduct spying operation" think of this: America doesn't need a dozen agencies to do their spying, one (or two) should be sufficient and I'm positive the US had this before WWII when most of these agencies started sprouting.



posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 03:47 PM
link   
I was researching about Ron Paul and found this in wikipedia:

Unlike many political candidates, Paul receives the overwhelming majority of his campaign contributions from individuals.[85] In 2005–2006, individuals contributed 96.8% of the funds he raised.

That answers the question others and I had about who was funding Ron Paul for him to have the 3rd most funds among Republican candidates.
I must say that is quite a feat!



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by josephus maximus
Ron Paul doesn't have a fat lady in a donut factory chance of winning the Republican nomination. He is better of running as a lib which is what he really is, his beliefs are not conservative enough for a Repub...and he is kinda whacko.

(I apologize to any whackos out there that might be offended by my comment)


Yea...He's Kinda wacko sorta like those people who sit around listening to Rush Limbaugh and can't pull an original thought from there collective head without sliding under their desk to grab a quick talking point from Ronald Reagans conservatives 101 hand book for the independantly challenged. So if you want to toss Pauly boy in with that crowd then yes I guess he is a "wacko".....



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 08:58 PM
link   
Ron Paul is saying all the right things, but he's gotta know that he can't win with controlled elections (rigged)

Stop for a mintue and think about all the other Republican Candidates. None seem to pan out as bright and honest candidates.

Now if Ron Paul is not the Republican Nominee and he has millions of followers, who do you think Ron Paul is going to endorse for President?

Mitt Romney, Rudy???? Can you imagine all the people that Love Ron Paul (me included, I love his message) But the minute he does not win the candidacy, he might come out and say

"I support Mitt Romney for President" Then think of the millions of people that support Ron Paul..... Now support the Republican candidate.

Same thing with Fred Thompson, think of all the southern Blue Collar workers who love him and he is creating a stir in some areas. We all know that he does not have a chance in hell, but all the People that support him will vote on who he says the he supports.

It's a way the Republicans round up support in different regions of the country. that's all.

When it's all said and done, they will have who they want in place.

It's almost like seeing a movie or music star supporting Pepsi or Coke. Say P-Diddy drinks Pepsi, all the people who love P-Diddy will buy Pepsi.

That's my two cents.



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 10:39 PM
link   
reply to post by TheInfamousOne
 


That's an idea I never thought about: Ron Paul losing the candidacy and showing his support for another republican (or democrat?). In all honesty though, would Ron really do that given the dirt on Mitt, Rudolf, Hilary, and Obama that he and (with the help of the media) we know? I think Ron Paul supporters are too much "out" from the rest of the mainstream candidate followers to just transfer their vote to whoever Mr. Paul gives his approval to.

You never know though...



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join