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.
Originally posted by hoochymama
To the point of duplicate threads...from my understanding duplicate threads in different portions of this web site are OK. There could be a thread in "Breaking News", "Current Events", "Below Top Secret.com", "Above Politics.com" that covers the same topic and it would be OK as far as I know.
Originally posted by NGC2736
Because there are a lot of threads on him is due to the fact that he is not only the best "outside" candidate around, but there is an active drive to keep him from mainstream attention. Most of us would follow much more silently if there did not seem to be such a vocal anti-Paul movement. Even here on ATS.
Originally posted by WolfofWar
Originally posted by jsobecky
Wow, that's a lot of attention to a rather mundane topic. But it brings up the question: is ATS breaking with tradition, and supporting a particular candidate? The sheer number of what could arguably be called duplicate threads would lead one to believe so..
just wanted to know how having two national records broken (most donations to a presidential candidate in one day, and having the most individual donatees in one day,) having shown the potential legitimacy in numbers when it comes to the internet ,proving the mainstream media wrong, and ofcourse validating the potential (in solid numbers) of the legitimacy of what was thought to be a no-chance-in-hell candidate, is a mundane topic.
Because it isn't, it's pretty serious business. And if you don't realize that, to rehash an already far too overused catchpharse, your not denying ignorance.
Originally posted by Navieko
With all due respect, comparing the American Presidential Campaign to your son's "bubble blowing", is for lack of a better word... silly.
Originally posted by Navieko
I honestly can't see how you're slightly slanted point of view towards Ron Paul is not what caused you to make this thread.
Originally posted by Navieko
So tell me... who are you thinking of voting for? I don't see how keeping with the status quo is better than a great change in direction, even if it may be a little risky.
Originally posted by Navieko
And most importantly, listen to how he actually plans to tackle the issues... don't just assume it's impossible -- or it won't work. That'd be making the assumption that you're smarter then Ron Paul.
[edit on 7/11/07 by Navieko]
Originally posted by Raoul Duke
Ron Paul voted for:
1)Putting Attorney General Gonzales in charge of domestic electronic spying.
Originally posted by Raoul Duke
2)Eliminating the Estate Tax, a tax that applies to the 0.27% wealthiest of U.S. citizens.
Originally posted by Raoul Duke
3)Making Bush's tax cuts for the rich permanent.
Originally posted by Raoul Duke
4)Banning gay adoptions in D.C.
Originally posted by Raoul Duke
5)Eliminating affirmative action in college admissions.
Originally posted by Raoul Duke
6)The bankruptcy bill pushed by the credit card companies.
Originally posted by Raoul Duke
7)Drilling in ANWR.
Originally posted by Raoul Duke
He voted against:
1)Raising the minimum wage to a level comparable to that of the 1980s.
Originally posted by Raoul Duke
2)Statehood for D.C. whose residents have no voting representation in Congress.
Originally posted by Raoul Duke
3)Allowing stockholders to approve executive pay.
Originally posted by Raoul Duke
4)Strengthening the Social Security lockbox.
Originally posted by Raoul Duke
5)Restricting employer influence in union organizing.
Originally posted by Raoul Duke
6)OSHA's ergonomics rules, which protect workers against things like carpal tunnel syndrome.
Originally posted by Raoul Duke
7)Requiring lobbyists to disclose bundled donations.
Originally posted by Raoul Duke
8)Banning soft money political contributions.
Originally posted by Raoul Duke
9)Raising CAFE standards.
Originally posted by Raoul Duke
Paul was given a 37% rating by The League of Conservation Voters, compare that to Dennis Kucinich who received 100%.
Originally posted by NovusOrdoMundi
Look at it this way - if no one is in charge of it, then there's no oversight. If there's no oversight, who do we blame when something screws up?
Please tell me how this matters at all to getting our freedoms back and becoming the America our founding fathers wanted.
Ron Paul wants income tax gone for EVERYONE!
Blah blah blah, gay marriage, gay adoptions, abortion, more issues that have no bearing on the state of this country and only blur the situation.
Let's stick to things that truly matter to our security, freedoms, and future.
Here's a thought: WE'RE ALL EQUAL! Why do we have to set up these bs programs when performance and education already speak for itself?
Are black people not allowed to attend college? Are they not open to the same education opportunities as whites? Are they not open to job offers? Name one thing whites can do that blacks can't.
More information?
He wants to eliminate our dependency on foreign oil. I don't know if I'd drill in ANWR, but that's hardly a reason to not vote for the guy.
Ok?
Again...ok?
Do you see how these are really pathetic issues that have no affect on the hardcore issues in this country? You probably don't because you're looking for anything to bash him over.
D.C. was set up the way it was for a reason. Each STATE gets voting representation. D.C. isn't a state, nor should it be. Our nation's capital shouldn't be in any state.
Jesus, dude...
More information?
More information?
And he probably voted to give this power to the states. Am I wrong, or are you leaving this information out?
The point is to take away all of these non-essential federal government powers. WHY does something like that need to be involved with the federal government? In this country, we're fortunate enough to have states who can govern themselves. These states can handle the domestic local issues like that, and the federal government can handle the international business. That's how it should be.
Again, you're just looking for anything to bash him over.
7)Requiring lobbyists to disclose bundled donations.
Originally posted by Raoul Duke
Ron Paul thinks the wealthiest should be taxed the same as the working poor.
Originally posted by Raoul Duke
The income tax is based upon progressive taxation principles. The wealthy and corporations have too many loopholes, that is the problem.
Originally posted by Raoul Duke
Why does Ron Paul? Is he beholden to the religious right?
Originally posted by Raoul Duke
I fully agree we're all equal, but historically we have not all been treated as such.
Originally posted by Raoul Duke
Just that that IMO the credit card companies want everyone to be deeply in debted to them.
Originally posted by Raoul Duke
It is for me, the amount of oil there is negligible for the amount of environmental destruction that would take place in a pristine area.
Originally posted by Raoul Duke
I can't tell what issues you're concerned with, you don't seem concerned with taxation, the environment, human rights, and other concerns...
Originally posted by Raoul Duke
Well, the minimum wage was actually intended to originally to be enough to live off of. Nothing important there, people not being able to get by in the richest country on Earth and Ron Paul wants to make it worse.
Originally posted by Raoul Duke
You're saying DC residents don't deserve to have a congress person or Senator representing them?
Originally posted by Raoul Duke
Well I don't know where do you stand on unions vs. big business. Do you know it's no walk in the park to organize a union in your workplace in the U.S.?
Originally posted by Raoul Duke
Just at the federal level and Ron Paul chose to stand against workers' safety.
Originally posted by Raoul Duke
we just don't agree that this stuff shows Ron Paul to be wrong for America.