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.


Ron Paul CPAC 02-27-09

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 02:20 AM
reply to post by Hx3_1963

The amount of Ron Paul posts in the last month that have been spot on makes me think we are idiots for not giving this man a real chance at president.

We had our saviour, we blew it and we deserve what we get.

Its a shame......

posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 02:43 AM
We should probably move this thread!

But before we do, I'd like to state that I often referred to Ron Paul as the UFO candidate. I may have even said it here.

But he was marginalized by the MSM, and so were his supporters. His name evoked a certain reaction, body language, keywords. It happened on talk shows, news reports. The same reaction as if you were talking about the spaceship that landed in your backyard last night!

I even know a reporter that was proud to have captured an image of Paul with a Brothel owner in Nevada. Remember that photo?

posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 06:19 AM
As much as i love Ron Pauls approach to fighting for all our freedom etc etc, he must realise no matter if we get rid of this money system/corporatocracy and implement a gold standard as such the tendacy for another bunch of global elites is still gonna be present in a monetary based system, we need to move away from all forms of money systems where there is a dollar it will still lead to the corrupt and divisional behaviour. Communism along with capitalism, fascism, and socialism, will ultimately go down in history as failed social experiments. Bring on a resource-based economy!!! THE VENUS PROJECT FTW!!!!.....

posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 06:58 AM
Hate to say it, because I agree with some of what Dr. Paul says, but in the final analysis, he's just another pro-religion (by invoking "God" as though the concept is scientifically sound enough), anti-abortion rights, uptight old windbag. I agree that the right of individual liberty is always the overriding one, but disagree with the way Paul delivers it in 2 ways:

1. He should have made clear that specialized group rights like gay rights are UNDERSTOOD to be INCLUDED in the greater concept of individual liberty, but no, he had to come off as the typical right wing jerk by coldly dismissing the concept of group rights altogether.

2. He should have said the rights of the individual are given by "God" OR NATURE, for those of us not religiously-inclined.

Kucinich would have been the best President (IMO), though I'm not sure by how big of a margin.

posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 06:59 AM
Since Ron Paul is a parrhesiast you may want to read this excellent treatise on parrhesia by M. Foucault

[edit on 1-3-2009 by DangerDeath]

posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 07:01 AM
THe reason that they so often cut off Ron Paul is that for those who are not totally brainwashed by the standard issue rhetoric passing for excellence today.....these people might actually begain thinking for themselves and realize that there is a flaw in most of the news media, public education, and the body politic.

This is very dangerous to the status quo on which someone wants the public to be be stuck like a bug on flypaper.

I too have seen Fox cut Ron Paul off as well as many talk show formats on the AM Radio. I may not have agreed with Ron Paul on everything but I wanted to hear what he had to say.

What Fox News did and particularly Sean Hannity caused me to stop watching Fox for my primary news source. By thier actions here I realized that Fox news was and is part of a set up in a dual...dialectical system to keep people off guard. Part of a Hegelian Dialectic with the souls of the public caught in between. I began to realize that Fair and Balanced did not mean the Truth.


[edit on 1-3-2009 by orangetom1999]

posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 07:12 AM
reply to post by Lightworth

I've watched a large number of his videos, and if nothing else he is a Constitutionalist.

If we followed the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution then gay rights wouldn't be an issue, as they would fall under "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness".

posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 10:36 AM
reply to post by Autonomous

Jeezus, dang crickets started chirpin' here! If anyone has been waiting for a reply from me, I guess I can say that I've never heard Dr. Paul say anything to the effect of desiring Disclosure (or certainly Contact) or anything against the basic foundation of official secrecy in general, but I admit I haven't read/researched much on him.

posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 10:57 AM
Just wondering if anyone else found the two guys in part 3 at 3:32-3:35, a little odd? Never seen suits like that before, there a little Star Trekie to Maybe there Nordac
All jokes aside, about time someone spoke of the truth. I'm not religous but "Amen Ron Paul"

Star and Flagged

posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 11:04 AM
I consider myself an independent and in truth I am more conservative at my core than progressive/liberal. I voted for Obama. Why? Because at the root of it all, the definition of conservative vs. liberal all comes down to the size of government. True conservatives believe in the smallest government possible and true liberals believe in the largest government possible.

At both extremes, a true conservative president would reduce taxes to maybe 5% but then we would have to pay for EVERYTHING - tolls on all roads, no health insurance, so social security, no public school, etc. Even at a tax rate of 5%, most American families would go broke under this system (the cost of public school itself would be a major expense for most families). A true liberal would have taxes at 50% but then almost everything would be paid for - not one penny for a visit to the doctor, not one penny for tolls, not one penny for education - even higher education.

I voted for Obama because next to Bush, Obama is a conservative. Bush was the most liberal spending president in American history. He doubled our debt to 11T from 5.5T - it took the history of the United States to accumulate 5.5T and Bush spends just that much in 8 short years. On social policy, Bush was just as liberal - wanting a big government influence in most of our lives. McCain voted 90% with Bush and I just couldn't vote for another ultra-liberal president. Obama is a big spender, but he has a LONG way to go to catch up to Bush. He has 4.5T to go. Remember, the true definition of conservative and liberal comes down to the size of government.

I would vote for Mr. Ron Paul in a heartbeat. He is the only true conservative at CPAC. He wants to minimize the size and influence of government. One small example: getting rid of the lost war on drugs, which is a big waste of money and by definition, a liberal government policy. Ron is an economic patriot and the only true conservative in the GOP. The others are just pretenders. They cherry-pick where they want to be conservative, but then turn around and promote liberal policy on other issues.

If the GOP wants a TRUE conservative, since they are looking for their magical candidate for 2012, then they should pick Ron.

Go Ron!!!

posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 12:10 PM
A year ago, I didn't even know who Ron Paul was. Eight months ago, I thought he was a nut. Today, I would vote for him for President. He seems to be one of the few who really has the best interests of the people at heart.

posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 02:16 PM
I like Ron Paul's chutzpah. I like his dedication and (seemingly) honest voice in a sea of greedy party people. I agree with standing up for the constitution (although if his CPAC audience were really heart-felt defenders of it, they would have been standing up loooooonnnnggg before this!).

However, I don't agree that we don't need departments concerned with the greater good. How could I have afforded education without the subsidized public education system??? It's idealized to think that everyone can homeschool. No offense to those who do (I have two cousins home-schooled by an uncle of mine) but not everybody has the time (or the education themselves) to be an educator.

My opinion is that if there is something that EVERYONE uses, then it should be provided by the government through taxes: healthcare, education, infrastructure. These things can't just be existing in the ether, only available to the wealthy. That's ridiculous. I can't afford to only drive on toll roads, only go to high-priced surgeons and only get educated at private institutions. The way the corporate system is set up, that will be a far cry from anything our oft-mentioned "fore fathers" dreamed up.

Seriously, conservatives are always so afraid of the evil demon of communism. Well, what is communism? A type of government / economic system centered on state control of all means of production and services, if you boil it down, right?

Well, these people who laud the greatness of unrestrained greed (I'm sorry, I mean unfettered, laissez-faire economics) fail to connect how the end result is a form of corporate communism.

No regulation by the government; no punishment for unethical practices (yeah, Monsanto, Coors, BofA [formerly w/ MBNA], Haliburton, Blackwater, Lockheed, Pfizer, AstraZenica, Walmart, Yum Foods, et al.); unfettered lobbying...what does this all lead to? Straight to monopolies...So, you have a scenario where your town only has that one Walmart where you can get that one fan and that one dresser, and that one duvet cover and 16pc. frozen chicken tenders and those are your only option (and it ain't as cheap as when they were coming up, destroying the competition). Well, now keeping up with the Jones' means more or less having exactly the same restricted options to chose from so that you and the Jones' can be EXACTLY the same, right down to the lazy-susan and the DIY assembled foyer counter with artificial stain and the matching faux-victorian lamp.

Gimme a go to any extreme and it sucks. You want the same grey jump suits that are government issued, or the same grey jump suits that are Walmart, Inc. issued???

I say neither.

posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 02:53 PM

posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 02:53 PM
Each individual has the freedom choice, which no one has the right to supersede--even God does not! This is what Ron Paul wanted to say but could not. The Constitution protects this right. But where is it now? Trampled underneath the feet of the elite.

Ron Paul mayb have lost his best chance to be president this last election. Have you seen how Obama, since he has entered office is trying to set himself up for the next 4 years? constantly using NLP in his interviews to do so.

posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 03:16 PM
I think that Ron Paul should have ran as a Democrat, instead of as a Republican. You can't win a Republican primary if you don't take a hard stance against abortion, drugs, and Muslims.

Ron Paul talks the talk of a Libertarian, and Libertarians are (to some extent) in agreement with Republicans on economic issues, and Democrats on social issues; yet, they generally vote/join Republicans.

Ron Paul, as a Democrat, would have appealed to voters on social issues, and his economic thoughts would have been fairly well-received, in my opinion. Health-care would be the major issue for a Libertarian-turned-Democrat, but Paul is a Doctor, so he would have been able to own everybody else just by using the old "appeal to authority" stance.

Other people have had the same idea lately, and a growing number of libertarians are trying to figure out how to infiltrate the Democratic party.

For what it's worth, the betting-markets were adamant that Paul was the only Republican with the slightest chance of beating the Democratic nominee. The Republicans need to take note of this, and accept the fact that their neo-conservative "base" is politically useless, and that's why they've lost the popular vote in four out of the last five Presidential elections.

[edit on 1-3-2009 by theWCH]

posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 05:54 PM
the problem with not allowing abortion is say, what if a teen gets raped and gets pregnant from it? what would she do, kill herself because she wouldn't want to become a mother of a child she was forced to conceive? if they illegalized abortion then they would have to be much stricter about using condoms and birth control.

posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 06:54 PM
For me, The fact that everyone wants to half stand up and do something now will only soften the blow, granted its better than nothing.
its too late for what political views people stand for, we have already been robbed, they have already got every weapon they would ever need if they wanted to kick anything off and we have paid for it then given it to them, our planet is surrounded by satellite based weaponry, its already over. And wot do we have? guns, a weapon thats basic mechanism hasnt changed for hundreds of years, whats going to happen when all the ammo is gone? you think regular civilian ammo is made in the U.S.A? only government forces ammo are.
People will not fully stand up until they have lost everything. the only thing that will save us is 'divine intervention' if you think it even exists.
I bloody hope it does boys, for all of us.

[edit on 1-3-2009 by SASAlbertino]

posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 08:26 PM
I like Ron Paul until he is talking about personal rights. What does he mean that the federal government shouldn't determine if there is to be gay marriage, abortion, etc.? I don't believe states should determine that and I definitely don't believe the voters should decide that as many voters are very ignorant and stupid.

posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 09:04 PM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 09:16 PM
Does Ron paul believe that 9/11 was an inside job?

Ron paul is smart, but he isn't that impressive, he is just impressive in general view because he doesn't speak WAFFLE like most polticians are scripted to say.

I wish he was a little more agressive. He just looks like he would get a fright if a chicken jumped at him. Seriously!

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in