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.

 

Stupid Glenn Beck Calls Ron Paul A Terroist

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 05:55 PM
link   


Can you believe this guy?

First of all he's mostly talking about Ron Paul supporters more than Ron Paul himself!

This Beck character is a complete FRAUD!




posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 08:18 PM
link   
Hmm I like Ron Paul and Glen Beck, and I agree with both of them

...I guess I'm screwed





Look away no one liner here....



[edit on 14-11-2007 by Xtrozero]



posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 09:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


I feel the same way, Xtro. Ron Paul talks a lot like i imagine an average person thinks, and often times i enjoy his sense of stark realism as well as his dorky sense of humor.

It seems like conservative mouth-pieces are interpreting the "money bomb" date's significance more to Guy Fawkes and the fact (fact) that he committed a terrorist act. I think the intention of the date had more to do with the theme behind V for Vendetta. The date was meant to ultimately signify change, and that doesn't mean violent change.

Glenn is mainly against Paul because of his stance on Iraq and how he would (or would not) deal with Iran, Russia, China, etc. Beck, like many conservatives, have worried themselves right into a corner where military is the only option, that we're at the kill or be killed stage.

We're not. If we took half of the money we have been spending overseas and instead invested it within our own borders, the American people would have a lot less to complain about.

I think America, as a nation, has become so busy trying to achieve this lofty goal of savior and hero of the world that we've forgotten that we are also a nation that requires attention.



posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 10:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Cyfre
I think America, as a nation, has become so busy trying to achieve this lofty goal of savior and hero of the world that we've forgotten that we are also a nation that requires attention.


I agree and even though I was for the removal of Saddam I think we need to head in the direction that Ron Paul would like to go now. We do need attention at home and the world needs to do their own thing without America breathing down their necks, and this is for either good or bad. Let the UN be the UN or at least let the world see how the UN really doesn't do much of anything.



posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 01:17 PM
link   
I like Ron Paul and Glenn Beck. Frankly, I'm somewhat surprised Beck is so anti Ron Paul. It doesn't make any sense. They share nearly identical opinions.

I think Glenn's religious side is having a hard time accepting a candidate who doesn't push some kind of god-fearing social conservatism but that just a guess.

The same thing goes for this feud between Beck and Alex Jones. I listen to both of these guys daily and lately it seems like they're both reading the same program notes. The same topics of concern, the same anti-NWO and globalism themes...

I think they just hate each other because they think they're supposed to. The only thing they seem to differ on is whether or not 9/11 was an "inside job" but that aside their opinions are right in step with each other.

Sometimes I think this 9/11 truth stuff is doing more harm than good when it comes to saving our forefathers America. I mean, there are plenty of less "cooky" and more readily digested facts and figures and events that are far less "conspiracy theory" like than 9/11 like the NAU, the collapse of the dollar, the growing "police state" legislation and on and on all of which are visibly happening right now. If you take less focus off of 9/11 Truth you remove the "tin hat" stereotype that's used to discredit the other concerns written off as conspiracy theories.

It's like a bunch of these 9/11 groups are plants or disinfo or something. Why else would they try to use them to tear down everything else Ron Paul stands for even when everything he stands for/against is demonstrably happening?



posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 03:48 PM
link   
See, this is one of the reasons I don't support Ron Paul. His "followers" are maniacal.

If you aren't a fan of everything Ron Paul says you are immediately labeled an "idiot" or a "conformist sheep" or something similar.

They see no gray area or middle ground. Either you agree with him 100% or you're an idiot.

GO RON PAUL!



posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 06:19 PM
link   
I see someone forgot to tell David Horowitz what the topic of discussion was. Either that or he really lacks any material on those little flash cards he uses.

Ron Paul supporters, terrorists? That's funny as hell.

They want all the benefits of tax-funded programs, but don't want taxes
They want the prosperity of foreign trade, just not with foreigners
They want government out of society, except for where they DO want government in society
They want to return to the depression cycle because it'll be good for the economy
They want to do away with minority protection, except for white christian males (pretty much all Paulistas fit that category)
And on top of that they want cheap pot and cheaper hookers

In short, expecting Ron Paul supporters to actually, you know do stuff is just going to disappoint you. Hell, they can't even be bothered to vote for their own guy, what makes anyone think they can be expected to do something as hard as carrying out a terrorist attack?



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by nyk537
See, this is one of the reasons I don't support Ron Paul. His "followers" are maniacal.

If you aren't a fan of everything Ron Paul says you are immediately labeled an "idiot" or a "conformist sheep" or something similar.

They see no gray area or middle ground. Either you agree with him 100% or you're an idiot.

GO RON PAUL!


No kidding.

I agree with a lot of what Ron Paul says, particularly when it comes to his domestic agenda. Plus, he seems to be one of the few candidates on either side that has a clear agenda or the courage to actually voice a plan this point in the game.

But the behavior of his supporters is embarrassing, and borders on something usually found among the most rapid conspiracy theorists. They will insult your intelligence if you do not agree with him. They ignore the fact Paul is a dark horse candidate few people have heard of, and say his candidacy is being suppressed by evil corporations, special interests, or what-have-you. They also possess the same magical thinking that Democrats used in 2004, "If this guy is elected, all of our problems will go away." The tying of the "money bomb" to a line from a popular movie speaks of a supreme ignorance of history.



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 12:59 PM
link   
Glenn Beck is a complete tool of those who own the media. I used to think he was an independent voice, but now I've lost every ounce of respect for him that I once had, and it's not because he doesn't support Ron Paul.

In the first few seconds, he blows his argument up.

Talking about the military taking an oath to DEFENDING THE CONSTITUTION from all enemies foreign and domestic.

Please, Mr. Beck, point me in the direction of ANY candidate who is defending the constitution MORE than Ron Paul. I'd be interested to hear that argument. Who is? Can you even name one? No, no one can, because there isn't anyone.

That just shows what a puppet he is. He talks about defending the Constitution, then bashes Ron Paul.

Yes, let's forget that the executive branch has authorized force without the consent of Congress - against the Constitution. Let's forget about the PATRIOT Act - against the Constitution. Let's forget about the Military Commissions Act - against the Constitution. Let's forget about all those executive orders - against the Constitution.

Let's forget about EVERY un-Constitutional act this administration has done, and let's bash the ONLY Constitution supporter running for President, while also trying to base your argument on the military defending the Constitution. Makes perfect sense!

Guy Fawkes was a tool of the Vatican and the Pope. He attempted to blow up a Protestant Houses of Parliament because traditionally, Protestants and Catholics have not gotten along.

Guess what Ron Paul is? Ah, yes - Protestant

So of course it makes perfect sense that a Protestant would base his campaign around and admire a Catholic terrorist that attempted to kill Protestants...

...WHAT? What planet am I on? Does Glenn Beck know his history? Does he pay attention? Does he even check his facts before he spews this bull# from his face?

Then, Beck rounds it off with throwing the word "revolution" in there. Yeah, it can mean an overthrow of a government. But it really means change. That's what Ron Paul supporters want. Change.

If Ron Paul supporters wanted a violent overthrow of the government, they'd be grabbing their guns and marching on the White House rather than supporting the last hope this country has.

We want CHANGE. We want a different course for this country. We don't want national ID cards. We don't want a North American Union. We don't want to be tagged with RFID chips. We don't want to be at war. We don't want to be hated around the world. We don't want to live in a police state. We don't want our government acting on it's own behalf rather than ours.

We want a leader who advocates freedom, a stable economy, and world peace. THAT'S what we want. If we wanted ANYTHING else, we would have been going after that rather than supporting him.

Ron Paul is the last hope for this country, and if Glenn Beck, or any other media tool, truly wanted freedom and truly believed in the Constitution, they wouldn't be so hypocritical and butcher their own image and reputation by bashing Ron Paul.

If you don't support him, fine. If another candidate fits you more, fine. That's your choice.

But don't go out of your way to invent bad things about Ron Paul and distort his views and his intentions when you know damn well you've got nothing whatsoever to back up what you say.



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 01:10 PM
link   
Novus, I really need to ask.

Just how absolutely down the pipes do you believe this country to be that Ron Paul, of all people, is the "last hope" for it? Knowing what I do of the man's positions, I could see him being the "last hope" if we were, say... Somalia. Afghanistan, even - maybe. Afghanistan is iffy.

Yes, we've got some bad stuff going down. But we're currently in a good enough position that Ron Paul would just hasten the downward spiral. Every single policy he has amounts to social repression, evisceration of the middle class, and a neverending spiral of depression.

On the plus side, I don't think he understands this. I think he really wants to help, but doesn't realize that all of his ideas are, well... nice on paper but godawful in practice.



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Walking Fox
They want all the benefits of tax-funded programs, but don't want taxes


Wrong. We want no income taxes, because tax on labor is against the Constitution.

Sales tax, along with other taxes to pay for government services are fine. It's the income tax that's the problem.

Don't leave out so much information when trying to make a point.


Originally posted by The Walking Fox
They want the prosperity of foreign trade, just not with foreigners


And where did you get this? Because we want to abolish organizations which threaten our national sovereignty such as the WTO?

Sorry, but once again, you're incorrect. We want foreign trade with foreign nations, except we want it without big time global organizations that threaten sovereignty.


Originally posted by The Walking Fox
They want government out of society, except for where they DO want government in society


This point is far too general to even figure out what you're talking about.

We don't want government invading our privacy, raiding our homes, and suspending our liberties like a Nazi style government. That's what we don't want.

If government would serve our interests rather than their own like the Constitution demands they do, then we'd be fine with them being involved in society.

Once again, don't leave out so much information.


Originally posted by The Walking Fox
They want to return to the depression cycle because it'll be good for the economy


We want a return to pre-Federal Reserve days. Don't make such a stupid statement without realizing what you're saying.

Yeah, all of us Ron Paul supporters dream of living in depression and getting bowls of soup on the streets.


We want a return to the gold standard and don't want a private central bank controlling our economy and putting us further in to debt.

I guess you do since you mentioned this?


Originally posted by The Walking Fox
They want to do away with minority protection, except for white christian males (pretty much all Paulistas fit that category)


Once again you're leaving out far too much information as to exactly what you're talking about, and where you got such a thing.


Originally posted by The Walking Fox
And on top of that they want cheap pot and cheaper hookers


I don't smoke marijuana, but it's safer than cigarettes. So why are cigarettes legal and marijuana isn't?

Since I don't smoke it, I really don't care if it's legal or not. I just want to know why it's illegal when it's safer than cigarettes.

And prostitution - where did you get it that Ron Paul supports legal prostitution? I've never seen that. Not saying it's not true, I've just never seen it.

But I don't see why it matters. If someone wants to pick up some woman on a street corner and get AIDS, that's their call. People know the risks going in, so that's their call. I don't see how it's the federal government's responsibility.



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Walking Fox
Just how absolutely down the pipes do you believe this country to be that Ron Paul, of all people, is the "last hope" for it?


I think we're far down the pipes.

Our national debt continues to rise.

The federal government is gaining more and more power with little oversight.

Liberties continue to be suppressed further and further with each passing legislation, and are one attack away from being taken away for good.

We're going into a North American Union that violates our sovereignty.

We're heading for RFID tagging and national ID cards.

Our dollar is plummeting.

We're in two wars where we've spent over a trillion dollars.

We're less safe now due to the world having an extreme hate for us post 9-11.

Our social and cultural foundation is crumbling with everyone becoming more and more divided.

We can't even help out areas like New Orleans two years after devastation.

Diseases seem to be on the rise.

The housing market is plummeting.

You don't see anything wrong with this country? You don't see how we need change now? You don't see how we need someone not a part of an organization that has dirt on it's hands when it comes to the problems with America such as the CFR?

All of the major candidates except Kucinich and Paul are a part of the CFR. So if you think that we're even slightly heading down the drain in this country, and knowing the CFR is involved in this downward spiral, what sense does it make to put a CFR puppet in office?

Considering Kucinich and Paul are the only two not controlled by the CFR, and considering Kucinich is anti-second amendment, what candidate do you really expect someone like myself to support? Someone who FULLY supports the Constitution? Someone who truly thinks this country is falling and falling fast?

If you don't see those problems as severe and of needing assistance and change now, then I guess it's impossible for you to see that Ron Paul is our last hope. Maybe you're right and we're not in as bad a situation as someone like myself thinks. It's completely possible you're right and I'm not. I understand that.

But seeing as everything I've seen leads me to believe we're in serious trouble, then it should be easy to understand why I support Ron Paul so much and consider him our last hope.

Is he perfect? No, of course not. No one is. But I firmly believe he is the best candidate available, and the only one that will fix things close enough to the point our founding fathers wanted them.

If you don't see it that way, that's your opinion and your right. But I see it the opposite.



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by NovusOrdoMundi
Wrong. We want no income taxes, because tax on labor is against the Constitution.

Sales tax, along with other taxes to pay for government services are fine. It's the income tax that's the problem.

Don't leave out so much information when trying to make a point.


What constitution are you reading? You know that our amendments are actually part of the constitution and thus everything they enumerate is, in fact, constitutional, until such a point that another amendment is passed that cancels them out, right? This includes the 16th amendment.

Even without the 16th amendment, there is nothing in the constitution forbidding a taxation on wages earned. The only constitutional taboo regarding taxation is that congress is not permitted to levy unequal taxes between the states - all states must pay by the same systems, at least when paying the feds.


Originally posted by NovusOrdoMundi
And where did you get this? Because we want to abolish organizations which threaten our national sovereignty such as the WTO?

Sorry, but once again, you're incorrect. We want foreign trade with foreign nations, except we want it without big time global organizations that threaten sovereignty.


You want the benefit (trade) without the cost (foreign involvements). You really can't have it both ways, and there has been nothing from Paul about how to accomplish this mystical state of trade-without-treaty. You see, international trade is a very different beast from say, going down to McDonalds and buying a burger. Foreign trade is a diplomatic endeavor, rather than the barter system it poses as.

Nevermind that the "free market" policies are exactly what leads to organizations in the first place.


Originally posted by NovusOrdoMundi

This point is far too general to even figure out what you're talking about.

We don't want government invading our privacy, raiding our homes, and suspending our liberties like a Nazi style government. That's what we don't want.

If government would serve our interests rather than their own like the Constitution demands they do, then we'd be fine with them being involved in society.

Once again, don't leave out so much information.


I think you grossly overestimate Paul's stance on civil liberties. His position is totally that it should be "left to the states." His opposition isn't to the practices that you describe, but rather the fact that it's the feds doing it.
He believes that state governments deserve to have a say in what a woman does with her uterus.
He believes that states have the right to murder inmates.
Essentially this is his only solid position (he's shuffled a bit on trade and economic matters - one minute he's free market, the next he's against big business). He solidly maintains that only your state has a right to deny your rights.


Originally posted by NovusOrdoMundi
We want a return to pre-Federal Reserve days. Don't make such a stupid statement without realizing what you're saying.

Yeah, all of us Ron Paul supporters dream of living in depression and getting bowls of soup on the streets.


We want a return to the gold standard and don't want a private central bank controlling our economy and putting us further in to debt.

I guess you do since you mentioned this?


Oh right, you want the federal government in full control of the economy. Well so long as all your positions are consistent with each other...
I don't think you want to live in poverty - who does? I just don't think you actually realize the full effects of the total deregulation espoused by Ron Paul, or other "libertarians." Here's a hint - when people get misty-eyed for the days of child labor, labor executions, and slavery, you probably should not listen to their economic ideas. Just a thought, yeah?

I don't have enough space here to talk about the gold standard. For the moment I'll leave it at noting that the living standards of almost every nation around hte world sharply increased when their nations ditched gold.


Originally posted by NovusOrdoMundi
Once again you're leaving out far too much information as to exactly what you're talking about, and where you got such a thing.


I mean that there's a damned reason Ron Paul is the #1 pick for the people over on stormfront. Ron Paul advocates removing any protection for minorities in America, and has written numerous articles about how "oppressed" Christians are in this nation. Tack this on with his opinions of how 95% of black men are criminals and that only 5% of blacks hold "rational political thought" along with his use of race codewords (swap his use of "bankers" with the word "jews" and he becomes nearly indistinguishable from David Duke) and it becoems pretty damn obvious where this guy stands.


Originally posted by NovusOrdoMundi
I don't smoke marijuana, but it's safer than cigarettes. So why are cigarettes legal and marijuana isn't?

Since I don't smoke it, I really don't care if it's legal or not. I just want to know why it's illegal when it's safer than cigarettes.


It's actually one of the Ron Paul positions I agree with
Basically the argument is, "it's illegal because it's illegal." Honestly, that's all there is for it. You can find all sorts of takes on why it initially became illegal - my personal take is that it was an attempt to criminalize race; don't believe the stories about pulp companies shutting it down, hemp is a different plant than cannabis - but those reasons are largely irrelevant nowadays.


Originally posted by NovusOrdoMundi
And prostitution - where did you get it that Ron Paul supports legal prostitution? I've never seen that. Not saying it's not true, I've just never seen it.

But I don't see why it matters. If someone wants to pick up some woman on a street corner and get AIDS, that's their call. People know the risks going in, so that's their call. I don't see how it's the federal government's responsibility.


Paul: Well, I understand prostitution has been around for a few years. And they tried to legislate it out of existence and I don't think it's worked very well. I would essentially have no restrictions, certainly on the federal level.
blog.washingtonpost.com...


I was mostly making fun of his supporters, with that.



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Walking Fox
This includes the 16th amendment.


Which was not ratified by many states, was pushed through during holiday break, and does not specifically say that a tax on labor can occur.

In legal processes, it has to be clearly defined. Are we just supposed to assume that's what it means?

That's just forgetting how wrong it is to tax people's work.


Originally posted by The Walking Fox
You want the benefit (trade) without the cost (foreign involvements).


No, I want foreign trade without major organizations threatening national sovereignty and exporting jobs.


Originally posted by The Walking Fox
His position is totally that it should be "left to the states."


His position is constitutional. So what ever is in the Constitution, in it's original intent, he supports.

The states should have more power. It seems you've gotten so used to the federal government controlling everything that any other concept is wrong.


Originally posted by The Walking Fox
He believes that state governments deserve to have a say in what a woman does with her uterus.


And you think the federal government deserves to have a say in it. Currently, they do. I don't see you up in arms about that.

Clearly you're just digging at anything to bitch and moan about.


Originally posted by The Walking Fox
He believes that states have the right to murder inmates.


I assume you mean the death penalty?

I support the death penalty in cases where a person takes another's life or severely damages it permanently, so you won't get me to disagree with him.


Originally posted by The Walking Fox
I just don't think you actually realize the full effects of the total deregulation espoused by Ron Paul, or other "libertarians."


Since I don't actually realize it, why don't you educate me?


Originally posted by The Walking Fox
Here's a hint - when people get misty-eyed for the days of child labor, labor executions, and slavery, you probably should not listen to their economic ideas. Just a thought, yeah?


And what exactly are you talking about here?


Originally posted by The Walking Fox
For the moment I'll leave it at noting that the living standards of almost every nation around hte world sharply increased when their nations ditched gold.


Right...

Because printed worthless money with debt attached to it in the hands of a private bank driving up the national debt is far better than an actual valued metal...


Originally posted by The Walking Fox
Ron Paul advocates removing any protection for minorities in America,


I still don't understand what you're talking about with removing protection of minorities. Can you give an example?


Originally posted by The Walking Fox
Tack this on with his opinions of how 95% of black men are criminals and that only 5% of blacks hold "rational political thought" along with his use of race codewords


Can you direct me to where he said that?


Originally posted by The Walking Fox

Paul: Well, I understand prostitution has been around for a few years. And they tried to legislate it out of existence and I don't think it's worked very well. I would essentially have no restrictions, certainly on the federal level.
blog.washingtonpost.com...


No restrictions on the federal level, meaning the federal government doesn't need to be involved.

Let the states make their laws about prostitution.



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by NovusOrdoMundi
I think we're far down the pipes.

I personally think we're still just circling the bowl. I have been to Egypt. I've got friends in El Salvador. I have relatives in Pine Ridge. The united states (with hte exception of reservations like the aforementioned) has a LOOOOOOONG way to go before we start smelling the open sewers and rotten livestock of these lovely places.


Our national debt continues to rise.

And our politicians continue to blame social services and civil protections - including your hero, Ron Paul - rather than our bloated military.


The federal government is gaining more and more power with little oversight.

Let me put it this way - I would rather have a single corrupt, unanswerable,
bloated, overindulged government than FIFTY of them. Ron Paul wants the latter option.


Liberties continue to be suppressed further and further with each passing legislation, and are one attack away from being taken away for good.

Take a page from the Iraqis, when that happens


We're going into a North American Union that violates our sovereignty.

First, no we're not. Internet myth. Second, if we were, it'd only serve us right. What's good for the goose, after all.


We're heading for RFID tagging and national ID cards.

I doubt the RFID thing - Too much cost for too little return, and far to easy to subvert by the "subjects." Conspiracy theorists often underestimate the creative abilities of the "sheep." As for national ID cards, why is that a bad idea while state ID's are A-OK?


Our dollar is plummeting.

Due to the massacre of worker protections, deregulation of American business leading to worse products, and tax break after tax break rewarding the lowest bidders every single time. In other words - the same crap you're rooting for is what causes our dollar to plummet.


We're in two wars where we've spent over a trillion dollars.

And Ron Paul's reason for opposing both of those wars is solely because they were nit declared by congress.


We're less safe now due to the world having an extreme hate for us post 9-11.

No argument


Our social and cultural foundation is crumbling with everyone becoming more and more divided.

When I see people talking about "American culture" I always roll my eyes. Americans only have one "American" commonality - a desire for democracy. Other than that we are an eclectic mutant of a nation. Generally when people start talking about "American culture" they're picturing a Norman Rockwell painting - A nuclear family of well-off white people who worship a dead guy on a stick. I thus fail to take such a term or its purveyors that seriously.


We can't even help out areas like New Orleans two years after devastation.

Look up Ron Paul's opinion of New Orleans after Katrina. Seriously. Okay, allow me to paraphrase: "Let them grow gills." A Ron Paul presidency means that the next Katrina we have will probably end up with even less of a response.


Diseases seem to be on the rise.

Partly social (increased world travel), partially genetic (resistances to drugs) and partially economic. Deregulation and lack of labor protections leads to lower wages and stress. Stress adds to disease, lower wages to worse nutrition and less capable medical care. A for-profit medical system relies on people remaining ill without dying, while the private insurance companies only profit by denying claims.

mr. Paul would make this even better by 100% deregulating the medical field. I suppose he believes that after a few dozen pregnant women die of sepsis, the free market determines people will stop going to that hospital.



The housing market is plummeting.

Dumb investors, not much the government can do for or against this. Well, they can crank out more money, staving off a crash with inflation. or maybe causing one. Wacky, wacky economics. To think people try to call it a science. yeah, so is Astrology...

To regard the rest - yes, there's a lot wrong with our country. I do not believe Ron Paul is going to help it in the least. Oh, I believe he would try like I said. I fully believe his heart's in the right place. I just think he's dumb as a post and that his positions and policies would to more harm than good. On the other hand, I support Kucinich. 100%. Edwards is my distant second choice (if you can't tell, I'm the kind of guy who would rather go hungry than cross a picket line).

If Paul were to get a job in the Executive branch, I would put him in control of drawing the military budget. Or perhaps put him at the head of the DEA or ATF
But in the white house? No thanks. Not without a heavily liberal-majority congress. If, IF we had that, I would definitely go for Paul, just for the sake of balance. But since all we have in congress are psycho freaks and useless Dems, we're in need of a Kucinich-type.



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Walking Fox
rather than our bloated military.


You know little about him if you think he's never criticized our defense spending.


Originally posted by The Walking Fox
Let me put it this way - I would rather have a single corrupt, unanswerable,
bloated, overindulged government than FIFTY of them.


I'd rather have one federal government handle the foreign interests of the people and the fifty states handle the domestic interests of the people. So does Ron Paul.


Originally posted by The Walking Fox
First, no we're not. Internet myth.


Wow

That says it all in regards to you knowing what the hell you're talking about.

You really have not looked into this stuff at all.

Come back when you know what you're talking about.


Originally posted by The Walking Fox
I doubt the RFID thing - Too much cost for too little return


Same response as above


Originally posted by The Walking Fox
As for national ID cards, why is that a bad idea while state ID's are A-OK?


Drivers licenses don't have that much information and aren't required every place you go and don't have RFID chips in them.


Originally posted by The Walking Fox
In other words - the same crap you're rooting for is what causes our dollar to plummet.


You really haven't looked in to this stuff, have you?


Originally posted by The Walking Fox
And Ron Paul's reason for opposing both of those wars is solely because they were nit declared by congress.


He supported Afghanistan.

Again, it shows you don't know what you're talking about.

He was against Iraq for the same reason everyone should be - WE SHOULDN'T BE THERE


Originally posted by The Walking Fox
A Ron Paul presidency means that the next Katrina we have will probably end up with even less of a response.


No it means a better response and more resources available to the states without FEMA in existence.


Originally posted by The Walking Fox
Partly social (increased world travel), partially genetic (resistances to drugs) and partially economic.


And mostly due to corrupt health care services, which would be eliminated under Ron Paul.


Originally posted by The Walking Fox
Dumb investors, not much the government can do for or against this.


They can stop taxing people's labor and driving up the national debt is what they can do.


Originally posted by The Walking Fox
I do not believe Ron Paul is going to help it in the least. Oh, I believe he would try like I said. I fully believe his heart's in the right place. I just think he's dumb as a post and that his positions and policies would to more harm than good.


That shows how much you've researched anything about this country and how it really works.


Originally posted by The Walking Fox
On the other hand, I support Kucinich. 100%. Edwards is my distant second choice


That says it all. I was waiting for you to say you supported Kucinich. It was obvious.


Originally posted by The Walking Fox
we're in need of a Kucinich-type.


Yes, to take our guns away from us and eliminate the only chance at fighting a dictatorship.

Good plan



[edit on 11/16/07 by NovusOrdoMundi]



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 03:26 PM
link   
Fun as this is, I break for lunch after this



Originally posted by NovusOrdoMundi
Which was not ratified by many states, was pushed through during holiday break, and does not specifically say that a tax on labor can occur.

In legal processes, it has to be clearly defined. Are we just supposed to assume that's what it means?

That's just forgetting how wrong it is to tax people's work.


It was ratified by enough states to pass as an Amendment. There have been many initiatives to get a repeal on the ballots. Have any succeeded? The fact is, income tax, when applied correctly, brings far more benefit to Americans than harm.

Unfortunately tax policies of the Reagan-Bush-Clinton-Bush administrations have been directly designed to unbalance income tax into what it is now - strip taxation from the top moneymakers in the country, watch public infrastructure decay, then claim any attempts to replace those taxes would end up harming the middle classes (who are bearing more and more of the tax burden to fund the RBCB military).


No, I want foreign trade without major organizations threatening national sovereignty and exporting jobs.

So you actually want increased regulation and more oversight to protect our individual and national interests. Ron Paul's policies will get you the opposite.


His position is constitutional. So what ever is in the Constitution, in it's original intent, he supports.


Does he know (do YOU know?) that all those treaties he wants to ignore are, in fact, United States Law... due to the constitution you say he supports?


The states should have more power. It seems you've gotten so used to the federal government controlling everything that any other concept is wrong.


No. No they shouldn't. I don't think you or Paul understand - transferring federal power to the states simply makes fifty clones of all the problems we have currently. it worsens the situations that you think it'll fix in the first place. Especially given that the advocates of states rights all regard amendments to the US constitution to be optional. Jim Crow, returning to a State-sovereign near you!


And you think the federal government deserves to have a say in it. Currently, they do. I don't see you up in arms about that.

Clearly you're just digging at anything to bitch and moan about.


Because we are talking about the positions of Ron Paul, not my stance on abortion. Clearly you are having a different discussion than I am. But just to clarify, I believe government (at whatever level) should regard abortion as any other medical procedure. Enforce the regulations that keep a medical establishment clean and safe, cover it in any single-payer insurance that might pop up, and otherwise leave it alone.


I assume you mean the death penalty?

I support the death penalty in cases where a person takes another's life or severely damages it permanently, so you won't get me to disagree with him.


Many people do support the death penalty. This does not make it "right" and certainly doesn't make it effective. I further fail to see how granting a government body the ability to decide whether you live or die based on arbitrary decisions from an unelected official at all meshes with the rest of your positions.


Since I don't actually realize it, why don't you educate me?


First off, deregulation leads to some immediate things - unsafe working conditions, lower-quality products (you don't think E. coli popping up everywhere is because of the magical poop fairy making its rounds, do you?) and environmental degradation - which if nothing else, cuts into the resources needed for production. Hand-in-hand with deregulation is the removal of worker protections. If your job is allowed to let slime grow on its equipment, you can bet there'd be no problem with cutting your wages, undermining your contract, or just giving your job to Banhdi Ranajamput in Bangalore.


And what exactly are you talking about here?

There was a period in American history where there were no business regulations. Many conservatives and libertarians want to return to that period. I was simply pointing out that slavery, child labor, and murder of labor leaders were all singmarks of this period.


Right...

Because printed worthless money with debt attached to it in the hands of a private bank driving up the national debt is far better than an actual valued metal...


Like I said. Not much space. Maybe I'll make a full post on this after lunch


I still don't understand what you're talking about with removing protection of minorities. Can you give an example?

For starters, the removal of affirmative action. I can grant that it needs work, but that's a very different thing from scrapping it entirely. Moreover, Ron Paul has argued that the civil rights act of 1964 was unconstitutional. Obviously them uppity negros should have to wait until all-white legislatures in their states decide to overturn state-mandated bigotry...


Can you direct me to where he said that?

A newsletter of his - the Ron Political/Survival Report - from 1992. Apparently it only had 7,000 subscribers or so. While I would love to get a firsthand copy of it, I doubt it's likely. Further Ron Paul admits that these were in fact in his newsletter, but that they were ghostwritten. Sure, and Hillary is "At home in the kitchen"

Easy enough to find this stuff via google: www.libertypost.org... is just one article.



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 04:01 PM
link   
soon they'll be saying "he's reptilian!"



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Walking Fox
The fact is, income tax, when applied correctly, brings far more benefit to Americans than harm.


The corporate income tax is good. The tax on people's labor is not.


Originally posted by The Walking Fox
So you actually want increased regulation and more oversight to protect our individual and national interests.


What I want is for us to not engage in alliances and international organizations that threaten our sovereignty.


Originally posted by The Walking Fox
Does he know (do YOU know?) that all those treaties he wants to ignore are, in fact, United States Law... due to the constitution you say he supports?


Our founding fathers' message was to not engage in these alliances, organizations, and agreements.


Originally posted by The Walking Fox
No. No they shouldn't. I don't think you or Paul understand - transferring federal power to the states simply makes fifty clones of all the problems we have currently.


How? You don't give the states the opportunity to turn themselves in to a dictatorship (I highly doubt they would), but you give them the power to govern themselves. That's how our country is supposed to be set up. That's what was supposed to make us different. But over time, we've given all of our powers to the federal government.


Originally posted by The Walking Fox
Because we are talking about the positions of Ron Paul, not my stance on abortion.


But you have your opinion of Ron Paul's opinion because of your stance on it, so it's quite relevant.


Originally posted by The Walking Fox
Many people do support the death penalty. This does not make it "right" and certainly doesn't make it effective.


I never said it did.


Originally posted by The Walking Fox
I further fail to see how granting a government body the ability to decide whether you live or die based on arbitrary decisions from an unelected official at all meshes with the rest of your positions.


Meshing my positions would be along the same lines as choosing a party to favor. I look at each issue and decide what I believe independently. I don't favor traditional belief systems.

So given that, I support the death penalty because if you violate someone else's life, whose to say you get to live and they don't?

If an innocent can die, why not someone who's guilty?


Originally posted by The Walking Fox
First off, deregulation leads to some immediate things - unsafe working conditions, lower-quality products (....)


And you feel this would go on under the Paul administration?


Originally posted by The Walking Fox
I was simply pointing out that slavery, child labor, and murder of labor leaders were all singmarks of this period.


So you think that Ron Paul advocates slavery, child labor, and murder of labor leaders?


Originally posted by The Walking Fox
For starters, the removal of affirmative action.


The only thing that creates an illusion that minorities are treated unfairly is the existence of these types of things such as affirmative action.

Does racism exist still? Absolutely. But you can't name one law in this country that prohibits blacks from doing something that whites can.


Originally posted by The Walking Fox
Moreover, Ron Paul has argued that the civil rights act of 1964 was unconstitutional


I don't know much about this, but from the link you provided, Ron Paul says:


The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.


Obviously I don't know exactly what was going through his head, but just based on what he said, I don't see anything racist about that. I don't see how he's trying to suppress the blacks. I see it as him trying to protect the liberties of ALL Americans. Putting this much power in the federal government's hands does the exact opposite of protecting liberties.

I think you're looking at it in a black vs white context rather than what's best for the country.


Originally posted by The Walking Fox
Further Ron Paul admits that these were in fact in his newsletter, but that they were ghostwritten.


I think I know what you're referring to. I believe that writer was fired and condemned by Ron Paul, was he/she not?

If that's the reason you think Ron Paul is racist, that's quite weak.



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by NovusOrdoMundi
You know little about him if you think he's never criticized our defense spending.

Now that the war is an issue, he's talked about it. For his entire time in congress, he's been muttering about NASA and welfare, NOT the military.


I'd rather have one federal government handle the foreign interests of the people and the fifty states handle the domestic interests of the people. So does Ron Paul.


My point is, states will handle it exactly as well as a federal government does, which is to say, not that well. Further it will result in a great amount of disjunction - travel between states would come to resemble traveling between Central American nations. Same language, same people, crazy different laws.



Wow

That says it all in regards to you knowing what the hell you're talking about.

You really have not looked into this stuff at all.

Come back when you know what you're talking about.


No doubt you have backing for your assertion that this is a fact. And again, even IF it is true... I would tend to see it as comeuppance. Where is your outrage over our infringement of the sovereignty of so many other nations?


Same response as above


I don't think you understood my point, there. Getting the entire population chipped would be an ENORMOUS expense. More than even the evil faceless despotic government of Nazis that you forget you helped elect would be willing to spend. If this is done, it will be restricted to small groups - criminals, "terror suspects" etc. Note that I don't support that. However I do believe that people, being the ingenious lemurs we are, will find a way to "break the system" just like we have with the ID system. Just like we have with every attempt to control internet content.

Poeple are proactive. Government is reactive. People have the edge.


Drivers licenses don't have that much information and aren't required every place you go and don't have RFID chips in them.

Rather hinges on how thorough the information on the NID is, then, wouldn't you say?


You really haven't looked in to this stuff, have you?

Absolutely I have. The problem is, I look at real-life effects, rather than sticking to self-congratulating texts proclaiming hte existence of an "invisible hand" that will guide the world to a utopia if we just leave everything alone.


He supported Afghanistan.

Again, it shows you don't know what you're talking about.

He was against Iraq for the same reason everyone should be - WE SHOULDN'T BE THERE


Alright. I was under the mistaken assumption he opposed Afghanistan - since he's playing for the anti-war crowd now, one can easily get the impression. But alright. We shouldn't be there... but we should be in Afghanistan? Now it's been a while, and I'd bet a lot of Americans have forgotten, since Iraq started... but Afghanistan didn't attack us, either.


No it means a better response and more resources available to the states without FEMA in existence.


And no doubt with the money saved, everyone will be able to buy their very own unicorn!


And mostly due to corrupt health care services, which would be eliminated under Ron Paul.

Are we talking about the same Ron Paul? He's for total deregulation in the medical industry. Is up down?


They can stop taxing people's labor and driving up the national debt is what they can do.

This has what to do with the housing bubble? People invested in housing, the prices went up, more people invested hoping to catch some of those profits, on and on and on - and ended up with overpriced property that they would either have to sell at a tremendous loss, or not sell at all. It's extremely basic stuff, man. It was a fad investment - remember beanie babies? Paying outrageous prices for something not worth that much, in the hope somemone else with the same hope would pay an even more insane price.


That shows how much you've researched anything about this country and how it really works.


I am amazed by your rebuttal, sincerely. What next, shall you insult my mother, perhaps?


We've already seen what a wonderful effect deregulation and removal of labor protections have brought us. Ron Paul assures us that the only cure for the ills caused by this problem is... to increase the problem.


That says it all. I was waiting for you to say you supported Kucinich. It was obvious.


Reach for your dreams, baby.


Yes, to take our guns away from us and eliminate the only chance at fighting a dictatorship.

Good plan


Look folks, it's Patrick Swayze, starring as Jed Eckert! WOLVERIIIIINES!

Are you serious? No really... are you?



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join