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.

 

Please help me find dirt on Ron Paul

page: 1
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 3 2007 @ 10:30 PM
link   
Please help me find dirt on Ron Paul

Folks, I really need your help. We've got to find some
dirt on our candidate and find it fast. The primaries
are quickly approaching.

I’ve carefully searched Ron Paul’s personal
background. Can you believe this guy has been married
only once? And, that he’s been married to that same
woman for 50 years? Surely there must have been
numerous affairs during that time, but I’ve been
unable to find a single instance of it. I’ve listened
to quite a few interviews with his wife (hoping to
detect a chink in his armor) but all she does is
blather on and on about what a wonderful husband,
father, and grandfather he is. She fawns over his
impeccable integrity and how he would make such a
great president. Give me a break, Ms. Paul. What could
you possibly know about men?She should probably talk
to Rudy Guliani’s wife..er…mistress…er…whatever.

I checked Ron Paul’s professional background. We all
know that every politician has done at least one
illegal stock trade or colluded with someone at the
corporate level in some way, at least one time, if not
many times. But if Ron Paul has, he’s done a masterful
job of hiding it. Even in his private practice as an
OB/GYN, he has delivered over 4000 babies...and
performed several of them without the patient paying a
dime! No wonder they say he’s crazy. And no wonder
he’s not a multi-millionaire like John Edwards or Mitt
Romney. He should at least talk to Hillary Clinton
about investing in cattle futures.

I went on to Ron Paul’s political record. I just knew
that I’d find dozens of flip-flops on important
issues. After all, no politician can survive the
establishment without selling out his true principles.
It was only a few months ago that John “We must
protect our borders” McCain, was trying to push an
amnesty bill for illegal immigrants down our throat.
It's certainly no secret that Mike “I'm full of
one-liners” Huckabee raised more taxes than Bill
Clinton. And, Fred “I’ve always been a pro-life
conservative” Thompson admits to representing a
lobbyist organization that was pro-choice. But, alas,
much to my dismay, I found Ron Paul’s voting record in
2007 to look like a carbon copy of all his previous
voting records. No spin, no double-talk, nothing. He’s
not only refused to vote with the popular sentiment,
he has actually been the lone dissenting vote on
several occasions, even when it meant voting against
his own party! What’s up with this guy??

Don’t think I haven’t looked for a way to play the
race card, too. I had heard some rumors about Ron Paul
being a radical, white-robed, racist. Of course, his
own personal and political history provides an awful
lot of evidence that he supports equality for all
individuals and preferences for none. Well… so what?
Maybe his record does make that crystal clear. What
does that prove?

Ahh, and what about the religious issue? He’s a
protestant Christian, you know. Every student who ever
took a sociology class knows that the world is just
one huge crime scene and that every white protestant
male is a prime suspect. Barack Obama just doesn’t
realize how lucky he is to be running for the American
presidency with a Muslim background.

Well, out of total desperation to find
something—anything—that might blemish Ron Paul’s
character, I reviewed every single debate performance.
I listened intently for contradictions in his
statements. I found none. I watched carefully for
cheap shots at his opponents. Not even once. I looked
for instances of whining about his unfair treatment by
the moderators. Nadda. I couldn’t even find a single
occasion where he rudely kept talking long after he
was told that his time was up!
What are we supposed to do???

Every top tier presidential candidate either has a
scandal in their background, an inconsistent voting
record, or some disconcerting weakness in their
character. At this point, I seriously think we should
search the underbelly of America for a new nominee.
Given the current requirements.




posted on Dec, 3 2007 @ 10:56 PM
link   
reply to post by jimrat201
 

Excellent post jimrat.

I agree that we need to find another candidate as soon as possible. I can imagine what would happen if an honest man were elected president. Washington would be shaken at its very core.

The House and Senate would have a new set of rules to go by. Could even be several resignations in the first year of Mr. Pauls leadership. We don't need that. The same old dirty politics needs to stay in force.

Jimrat if you find a better candidate please let us all know.

Dizzie



posted on Dec, 3 2007 @ 11:14 PM
link   
I can’t find anything wrong with him either. I know most people are just going to read this thread and pass it off as an advertisement, but can someone who doesn’t like Ron Paul please post why? I’d really like to hear something that snaps me back into reality when it comes to politics, he’s just too perfect. The only bad things I’ve heard about him are various misperceptions and that he can’t win. I sincerely don’t understand why anyone who’s actually listened to him wouldn’t vote for him and I would like to know. I know everyone is entitled to their own opinions and has a right not to like him, but does anyone actually have a reason not to like him?

I think this thread would be a good opportunity for any haters to show us crazy Ron Paul supporters the light. I’m not one to deny the light once I see it either, so I’m not just trying to lure people into a stupid argument. I really want to know why I shouldn’t vote for Ron Paul.

Also,



Barack Obama just doesn’t
realize how lucky he is to be running for the American
presidency with a Muslim background.




I watched carefully for
cheap shots at his opponents. Not even once.


Maybe you should take a lesson from him. Deny Ignorance, don't support it.

[edit]
by the way, the only thing i disagreed with in your post was the part I sited, I didn’t mean to sound insulting.

[edit on 4-12-2007 by captainplanet]



posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 12:18 AM
link   
Not to double post but his running mates hate him and they can’t even muster up any real dirt. The best thing they can come up with is a Hitler comparison or to tell him he lives in a fantasy. Isn’t that unheard of? That his opposition can’t win a single argument with facts. It’s like they just try to avoid him and hope he doesn’t call them out. It’s scary to me that everyone isn’t behind him given his positions and consistency. Are they really brainwashed by the idiots or is there a reason?



posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 02:12 AM
link   
reply to post by captainplanet
 


i know one candidate that would easily beat ron paul in a debate... unfortunately, they will never debate because neither will get their party ticket and they're on opposite sides of the aisle so they won't have primary debates..

but, this candidate would take ron paul as a running mate
it's kucinich, the man that really deserves the job

strength through peace



posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 03:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by captainplanet
 


i know one candidate that would easily beat ron paul in a debate... unfortunately, they will never debate because neither will get their party ticket and they're on opposite sides of the aisle so they won't have primary debates..

but, this candidate would take ron paul as a running mate
it's kucinich, the man that really deserves the job

strength through peace


Just for the sake of argument and curiosity -- also seeing as I highly doubt anyone will actually 'dig dirt' on Ron Paul... How about we have a debate for Ron and Kucinich. You represent Kucinich using his beliefs, goals etc. And someone here whom is a Ron Paul supporter can represent on his behalf, doing the same. Obviously finding out the 'winner' is a bit difficult, as Ron clearly has more supporters here (and in general), but winning wouldn't be the point. I'm actually curious to see what this Kucinich guy is all about.

Whad'ya say?



posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Navieko
 


i'm not well versed enough to adequately represent dennis kucinich. he has a vast amount of knowledge that i cannot hope to match at the moment.

...hell, he's one of the few reps that actually reads the bills.



posted on Dec, 5 2007 @ 02:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
i'm not well versed enough to adequately represent dennis kucinich. he has a vast amount of knowledge that i cannot hope to match at the moment.


That is a shame because I would have been very interested in reading such a debate which would have been a worthwhile side effect of Ron Paul mania.

Cheers xpert11.



posted on Dec, 5 2007 @ 07:06 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


You change your affiliation, vote for Paul, and you might see your guy running as his VP. At least you don't have to waste a vote in hopes that you'll be 50% satisfied.




posted on Dec, 5 2007 @ 08:16 AM
link   
reply to post by DeadFlagBlues
 


...kucinich would make a better front man than paul, he has more charisma.
and mrs. kucinich would make a much better first lady, as we actually know that she's big in the charitable works department and has plenty of knowledge herself. on the other hand, mrs. paul has been...well...i saw her dancing with ron once and i know they're happily married...



posted on Dec, 5 2007 @ 08:37 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


You're voting for Kucinich because he has more "charisma?" That's why "they" voted for Bush the past two elections. How has that worked out for you, personally?

Or even better. "His wife is mildly attractive."

Even though Kucinich is a fellow Vegan, I honsetly give up all hope in American politics after reading this. # the popularity contest.


*throws in towel*


[edit on 5-12-2007 by DeadFlagBlues]



posted on Dec, 5 2007 @ 05:34 PM
link   
reply to post by DeadFlagBlues
 


...no, i'd put kucinich as pres on a ticket with paul because he has more charisma... and shares my views more

but in terms of integrity and hope for the future, it's a push between paul and kucinich

i also appreciate that kucinich is a vegan (though i am not)


edit to add one more thing: i didn't say anything about mrs. kucinich's appearance... i brought up her charitable work and how outspoken she is.
[edit on 12/5/07 by madnessinmysoul]

[edit on 12/5/07 by madnessinmysoul]



posted on Dec, 5 2007 @ 08:53 PM
link   
You left out one issue drug & alcohol abuse. I couldn't find anything.



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 08:07 PM
link   
Dennis Kucinich is a certified moonbat. Seriously. Google "Kucinich is a moonbat" and you'll get over 105,000 returns.



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 08:52 PM
link   
Might want to check into Ron Paul's appropriation of federal funding for his district. It would seem to fly square in the face of his abhorrence for public funding going to, well, anything.

1. $25,000 for the Brazoria County Sheriff to establish a “Children’s Identification and Location Database.”

2. $8 million for the marketing of wild American shrimp.

3. $2.3 million for shrimp fishing research.

4. $3 million to “secure the acquisition of the McGinnes tract, protecting its critical natural resources and helping consolidate refuge inholdings.”

5. $5 million to expand the cancer center at Brazosport Hospital.

6. $200,000 for the Matagorda Episcopal Health Outreach Program to fund a “National Health Service Corp Scholar.”

7. $4.5 million to study the effects of the health risks of vanadium.

8. $3 million to test imported shrimp for antibiotics. (Does anyone think there is a big shrimp industry in Paul’s district?)

9. $10 million to repair the Galveston railways causeway bridge.

10. $1.18 million for “Personalized Medicine in Asthma”

11. $100,000 for a “data-driven automated system for nursing students on the Texas Gulf Coast.”

12. $257,000 to “prepare graduates from the doctoral program at the University of Texas Medical Branch School of Nursing to assume faculty roles in schools for nursing with a deficient number of doctoral level faculty.”

13. $1.4 million to buy buses for the Golden Crescent Regional Commission.

14. $2 million to buy buses for Galveston.

15. $5 million for highway spending.

16. $2 million to replace facilities for Galveston bus service.

17. $3 million to replace facilities for the Golden Crescent Regional bus facility.

18. $2 million to repair the Galveston trolley.

19. $2.14 million to renovate the Edna Theater.

20. $13 million for I-69 highway project.

21. $30 million the Texas Maritime Academy to refurbish a ship.

22. $4.5 million to maintain Cedar Bayou. Plus another $9 million

23. $15 million for “construction at GIWW Matagorda Bay.” Plus another $5.8 million

24. $100,000 to maintain Chocolate Bayou.

25. $2.5 million to maintain Double Bayou.

...What? His district of Texas can't fund all that stuff by itself, like he expects all other states to do?



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 10:37 PM
link   
reply to post by The Walking Fox
 


Nice find. I'll try and give you a bit of insight.

The government is going to spend the same amount of money whether Ron Paul asks for money for his district or not. It makes sense for him to request appropriations for his district because he represents his district. I'll note that every one of those requests can be directly tied into something that is important (not a bridge to nowhere) to transportation, medicine, law enforcement and even food.

You did fail to mention that Paul consistently votes against these bills where his appropriation requests are. He votes against things based on whether or not the federal government should be deciding on it, but he also puts in requests for the many that do pass.

Obviously you can see a bit of having your cake and eating it too going on here. It also does make sense for him to put in these requests even if he votes against the bill though, since the money is being spent anyway, whether it benefits his district or not.

I'm sorry, Walking Fox, but this is not a bad thing.



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 03:21 PM
link   
I wish I could help you, but after 3 years of digging the only thing I could find is that he likes................ Chocolate chip cookies. But hey, I'm guilty of that too LOL LOL



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by The Cyfre
 


Oh, it's not a bad thing - I agree, this is what a congress members' job is. The trouble is, it conflicts with Ron Paul's own positions. Voting against his own bills is just passing the buck, and you know it. Claiming the money would be spent anyway is a cop-out.

In other words, he's saying that doing the same thing he rails against is okay because it'll happen anyway, and hey, he didn't vote for the appropriations he asked for, so even though he introduced it, it's all those other corrupt jerks' fault that so much pork is going to Paul's district.



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 04:41 PM
link   
reply to post by The Walking Fox
 


I definitely agree that his asking for appropriations does conflict with his positions. But asking for appropriations is part of his job. So does that mean he isn't compatible with the position of Congressman because he has a different political view? It sounds to me like that may be the case. That's kind of unfair, isn't it?



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Cyfre
reply to post by The Walking Fox
 


I definitely agree that his asking for appropriations does conflict with his positions. But asking for appropriations is part of his job. So does that mean he isn't compatible with the position of Congressman because he has a different political view? It sounds to me like that may be the case. That's kind of unfair, isn't it?



Actually it's his position on state's rights that make him incompatable with the position of congressman. He feels that the federal government should have no power over states... and he says so while making votes from inside the federal government that affect states other than Texas.

Basically, the man sells snake oil. Nothing new so far as politicians are concerned, but given that most politicians aren't claiming to be the second coming of the Founding Fathers, it's hardly a problem for them. Ron Paul, however, more or less claims perfection. To hear him tell it, he's the one and only politician who isn't a hypocrite, who doesn't agree with government spending, and who has read the constitution - all while selling out his own ideals, rolling in pork, and claiming parts of the constitution are unconstitutional.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join