It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Tell the world why we shouldn't vote for Ron Paul

page: 1
<<   2  3 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 01:41 AM
Post here if you don't like what Ron Paul stands for. This can be the central gathering point for all anti-Ron posters. Stop derailing other peoples threads and keep it here.

This way, you can get your points across and other people can actually still have a thread about whatever they want, without being harassed by you.

Good luck and have at'em. Sadly though, I know that the true intention is to derail the threads, not actually have any kind of serious discussion, so this is pointless.

posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 02:18 AM
reply to post by Karlhungis

Great Idea!!!! I hope it works, everyone should have the freedom to speak their minds. This could be a great debate in a proper thread.
Thank you Karl!

posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 04:58 AM
Thanks, but of course there is nothing but crickets in here. Oh, well... can't say we didn't try to be civil.

posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 05:01 AM
He's a republican, and I swore to God after Bush's "compassionate conservatism" that I would never, never vote for another republican.
I mean, who would of thought that "compassionate conservative" would mean torture, starting wars with countries under false pretenses, ect. Kind of gave me the idea that well, it doesn't matter what these guys say, since they are gonna do the direct opposite when they get into office. Of course, this could also be said of those fine democrats also....
Tell ya what, you convince me that Ron Paul will do as little damage to the country as my favorite candidate.....MICKEY MOUSE....and I'll consider it.
and well, the primary's coming up, and I am more than willing to vote in that one just to get that other "compassionate conservative" out of the, well....
why should I support Ron Paul, what guarentee is there that he won't just continue enriching the rich at the expense of the middle class, if he's in office, can I be assured that my son will be allowed to leave the service when his time is up, and not be held indefinately and sent overseas to be blown up by a bunch of people who don't appreciate his presence, I've glanced at his website, and well, am pretty confident that he won't inflate the gov't debt anymore than it is so I don't need to ask that one. But, how does he plan on paying it down, or will he just leave it for my kids and their kids to do it for us?

[edit on 18-12-2007 by dawnstar]

posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 05:26 AM
reply to post by dawnstar

I've tried to do a little digging for you and here are a few quotes from interviews with RP.

Aliquippa, Pa.: Dr. Paul, how soon would you withdraw U.S. forces, and to what extent, from countries like Germany and South Korea? And how much money do you estimate the U.S. taxpayers will save annually once such a move is complete?

Rep. Ron Paul: Since I did not do a full study of that I don't have an exact number, but I'd bring home those troops as quickly as feasible (and also from the middle east as well). But I think if you brought all those troops home, you might save $400 billion a year. We're spending $1 trillion a year on the military overseas. This money would reduce the deficit and of course make the dollar more secure, so the sooner we can do that the better.

Honestly, I am not sure how good of a candidate Mickey Mouse would be. My daughter is quite fond of him and I am sure that she would probably prefer that I vote for Mickey if he were to run. Honestly though, I can't say. In my own opinion, RP is not cut from the same cloth as most of the other candidates. He doesn't seem to be in anyones pocket and genuinely is concerned about the country, the people and the constitution. Watch an interview with him, you may like what you see.

Here is a link to where I pulled that transcript from. It gives a good insight into what he stands for.

posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 09:09 AM
Then please tell me what the exact reason is to post it here...

It is as unneccessary to try telling people why the elite stands above any law or constitution, or president.

It will be more convincing for the people to experience themselves but that will be too late.

What I over and over tell though is that you get the hell out of your DREAM STATE and stop getting trapped over and over again by joining the mass mind.

Money is not your friend, constitution is not your friend, GUNS are not your friend. Forget what Alex Jones TEACHES you.

That's all.

posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 09:15 AM
reply to post by dawnstar

Thanks for that one, I thought he was an independent, but I am with you, the same way that Bush came into power with false pretenses and under an umbrella of born again Christan it seems that he has turn into this monster that is killing our nation.

How do I know that Ron Paul is all for show and just another lier.

Now I will acknowledge that he is not been supported by corporate America with agendas like Bush was.

posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 09:18 AM
reply to post by Karlhungis

OK I am surprised that a candidate that knows that the Iraqi war is one of the most important issues on America right now has not done a study of how to stop this war madness that is draining our economy and decimating another nation inhabitants?

That sound weak.

posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 09:38 AM
ok here is my first two reasons for deciding i cannot vote for RP.


I know from hanging around here that many disagree on this issue (at least with me) but I think it is long past time that we created a system of health care in this country that covers every single citizen.


I also find his idea about doing away with the IRS slightly disturbing. I have to take the interstate to school, and I know that without federal money there is no way that i-25 would hold up. This is only one example of how federal tax money helps.

posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 11:19 PM
reply to post by marg6043

If you are referring to the quote I provided above, he said he hasn't done the study to see his exact plan for a global troop withdrawl from countries such as S. Korea, Germany... etc. That is a pretty big task and a drastic change in global policy. He was simply stating his intent on brining more troops home on a global scale, not just Iraq.

Here is the only qoute I could find in that link that even refrences Iraq, and it is only refrencing it to exclude it from the topic.

McLean, Va.: Given your staunch opposition to U.S. intervention in the affairs of foreign countries, how would your administration actually implement such a vision vis a vis countries other than Iraq? Would you advocate ending foreign military aid to countries like Pakistan and Colombia? Would you end foreign aid to major recipients, such as Israel and Egypt? Would you stop sending money to Mexico to combat their drug gangs?

Rep. Ron Paul: Yes, those would be the goals. Most of that you could do as a president. My position would be no, stop all of that, treat everyone equally, be friendly with everyone, trade with everyone, no sanctions for anyone unless mandated by Congress. We need to be friendly with everyone -- when we opened up to China there were tremendous benefits. So yes, I would end the funding to all those countries -- I think the billions going down to Columbia is very detrimental -- and we should treat everyone equally.

posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 11:30 PM
reply to post by Animal

My understanding on the IRS, federal income tax issue is that none of your federal income tax goes to pay for infrastructure. It goes to pay interest to the federal reserve. Most of the money for road repair comes from Gas taxes.

I don't think that Ron Paul would be promoting an issue that would cripple the nations infrastructure. I know there are a lot of doom and gloomers out there that are painting worst case scenarios for the policies that he is promoting, but personally I don't think they will come about.

I would rather have someone in office that is looking to end the corruption and change the way we do business for the better of the country, not just for the betterment of his cronies that got him into office. It may be a bumpy ride, but again.. I would rather see our nation struggle as it is trying to correct itself, rather than struggle as it is sinking the way that it is now.

It is the business as usual of the other candidates that worries me the most. I fear that if the leading candidates of either party get into office... which I think they probably will (lets be honest), that it will be more and more of the same.

I am not trying to be a Ron Paul commando here. I feel that everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I just hope for some change and I think that he and maybe Kucinich would at least try to bring about some change for the better. Not sell out to the corporate interests that currently rule this country.

posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 12:19 AM
Vote(for Ron Paul) or die!

I, unfortunately, can't vote for him in my state for the primaries(didn't realize there was a deadline to switch party affiliations) but I will be voting him in for the presidency, and he will win.

If not, I'll be leaving this abysmal country called amerika next year.

posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 02:17 PM
here's why i won't vote for ron paul:

1: health care
2: the "fairtax" system (though i do admit that they really did do the marketing to come up with the name) and abolishment of the IRS
3: he's still a conservative, regardless of his separation from the crowd of traditional conservatism

posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 03:12 PM
The two major sticking points for me voting for R.P. are:

1) His religious views. He's not for a strict separation of church and state, I am.

2) His stance on abortion. I'm pro-choice, he's not.

I'll admit these aren't super deal breakers, but this is why I've always had trouble voting. Even when I only disagree with a candidate on a few issues, I feel like I'd be voting for those issues I disagree with instead of the ones I do agree with.

Can't we start voting on single issues instead of "package deal" candidates that only share some of our beliefs?

posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 03:26 PM
reply to post by Karlhungis

Karl thanks for the response. I see where you are coming from and you do make convincing points, but I am still apprehensive. Maybe I am a doom and gloomer, i don't know, but I just feel uncomfortable with RP.

One thing you said that would lead me to vote for him is a ticket with Kucinich's name on it. He has my full hearted support and if he and RP were to make a go at it together I would happily contribute. I think that they both want the same things, with their own particular 'flavors' and i could see the two balancing each other out nicely.

posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 04:23 AM

Originally posted by DiabolusFireDragon
The two major sticking points for me voting for R.P. are:

1) His religious views. He's not for a strict separation of church and state, I am.

2) His stance on abortion. I'm pro-choice, he's not.


Can't we start voting on single issues instead of "package deal" candidates that only share some of our beliefs?

I'm going to offer a small bit of information. Take it as you will.

HE isn't "pro-choice", and that is HIS decision; however, he doesn't let his decision get in the way of the constitution and the individual state's right to settle the legality of abortion... and it shouldn't matter if Dr. Paul likes to eat roasted turkey liver smotherd with chocolate icecream on Sunday night, should it?

He see's Rowe vs. Wade as unconstitutional based upon this constitutional clause: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people.”

Rowe vs. Wade does not reserve those powers to the state so that the people can decide their state's stance on abortion. It effectively creates a package deal that all states must follow. Again, Pauls aim is for the states (people) to decide the law in their own particular state.

The same goes for the separation of church and state: the constitution does not mention it - it will be left up to the the people. Remeber, not everyone shares your, my, or that little bird's views on religion - so lets have a vote, for this other "single issue," what do you say?

An example of this is the "We the People Act" introduced by Paul in 2005 that if became law, would allow state, county, and local governments to decide whether to allow displays of religious text and imagery at government/school/public places.

The type of "modular" government you are looking for is the type of government that the constitution provides, and the type of government that Dr. Paul is trying to get back to. He does not agree with the "package deal" that big government brings.

posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 05:21 AM
reply to post by Karlhungis

Ron Paul is on the dirty payroll more than likely and could be a willing or unwilling participant. I believe the ones in real power have been rolling out Ron Paul to toy with the "take back america" crowd ie: Alex Jones and others. I think its designed to crush the "take back america" groups hope towards the end of the election race. A sort of Mind Game of Cruelty if you will geared at the good hearted.

Just a theory or a hunch I have.

[edit on 20-12-2007 by fastwalker23]

posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 06:13 AM
reply to post by benign.psychosis

the constitution does mention the separation of church and state, though not explicit it is quite implied.

no laws concerning religion = no church and state

posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 06:17 AM
reply to post by Karlhungis

For me its because he's just not that funny...
I mean think of it this way, if Huckabee becomes Pres then we got four years of new joke material!

posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 06:39 AM
Honestly, have any of you actually read

Dr. Paul isn't part of the bilderbergs, or the masons, or the bankers, or lawyer elite. He's in nobody's pocket but the people.

The best response I've ever heard about someone taking the money from a White Supremacist was what he said. He took his money because that person believed in Dr. Paul's ideals, not the other way around. That's $500 less for racism.

He's the only doctor in the race and the only person that has a past we can easily find. He hasn't made up BS to make himself "look better," like Romney did claiming his father marched with MLK just to get the black vote.

When the man wants to make sure YOU have more money in YOUR pocket to buy the health care you want, stop bitching that the government isn't there to bail you out. Go and buy a plan that suits you with the money you aren't having to give to the IRS!

new topics

top topics

<<   2  3 >>

log in