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.

 

Ron Paul 2012: "I Can Beat Warmongering Obama"

page: 1
8

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 12:36 PM
link   
During an appearance on MSNBC's Morning Joe, Congressman Ron Paul dropped perhaps the biggest hint yet that he is preparing to announce his campaign for the presidency, affirming he has the ability to unite Republicans, independents and progressive to defeat the warmongering Barack Obama.
.



www.prisonplanet.com...
edit on 15-2-2011 by CanadianDream420 because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-2-2011 by CanadianDream420 because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by CanadianDream420
 


"You pay 10% of your income, but you take care of yourself, don't ask the government for anything"

Right, so he wants to get rid of food stamps, or social services as a whole? It sounds like he wants to steal my milk and bread - what about the military industrial complex spending trillions?

Could someone clarify this for me?

Apologies, didn't watch the whole video until now - glad he at least mentioned the MIC, but nonetheless "entitlement spending" = social services = the little man feeding his family. Many things would need to change for the better, before one could just simply throw out a

62 billion dollar cut on food stamps = Rand Paul wants. (Since they referred to him on this video)

Though JP Morgan is making a killing because of food stamps, it does not change the fact that there are not enough jobs for people who want to work, who survive on this 200 dollars a month. And I am referring to the "young people" Ron Paul is aiming his words at.


edit on 15-2-2011 by ThinkingCap because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by ThinkingCap
 


Now thinking cap, you are thinking too much.

I like Ron Paul's stance on war and such. However, I don't think most people think about the impact of his rheoric if it went in to action. Ron Paul is a complete libertarian. He wants the free market to run everything. The EPA would disappear, food stamps would be gone, the FDA would be a thing of the past. If too many people die from a drug doctors will discontinue prescribing it. The free market will win out.

That is his stance on nearly everything. Can you imagine how quickly thing could turn real nasty?

I am for small government, but the little man can not stand up to the money of the corporation. That was proven through out America when the rivers started catching fire because of pollution.

His supporters tend to ignore the true impact of his ideals.
edit on 15-2-2011 by MikeNice81 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 04:04 PM
link   



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by MikeNice81
 


Thankfully for Ron Paul, most of the people who love him get a glazed look when it comes to economics. But then, most Americans do. Slush in a lot of "freedoms" and "libertys" while you're talking about violently ripping out the bottom three rungs of the economic ladder, and even the people on those rungs will just nod encouragingly



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by ThinkingCap
 


No, wrong.... He said IF you want to opt out..;

If you wish to depend on food stamps and whatever else, then obviously you wouldn't "opt out"


The 10% tax is for those that want to opt out because they don't want or need any entitlements...

batteries in that thinking cap running low maybe?,, it happens :



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 06:13 PM
link   
If Ron Paul is still against NAFTA...go Ron Paul!

This self serving Canuckistanian would love to see price restrictions removed from the resource industry
.

Ron Paul is great on paper, but be warned, he will not give you the America you think you want.



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 07:57 PM
link   
I'm pretty sure that any candidate with a chance at election will be bought and sold long before they get into office.

When was the last time the country, as a whole, was happy with the political scheme?



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 08:02 PM
link   
Reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


A Doctor who knows economics inside and out, vs some random person on the interwebs.

Yeah, I will side with the Doc.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 08:03 PM
link   
Reply to post by MikeNice81
 


What is wrong with a free market?

It is government interference that screws things up.




 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 08:43 PM
link   
Hes right, He CAN beat Obama. Hell, Obama is doing enough to beat himself right now, I dont think it would take much to steal the Presidency away from that "War Monger"(which he is). America is in BAD shape right now, and the only way to get out is by putting someone in that at least has experiencein fiscal responsibility. America can no longer continue on the path we are heading, there is just no way. Government has gotten to the point where people are depending on it rather than depending on themselves to provide a stable future.
The only way we can get back in buisness, is to start bringing these jobs we are shipping overseas back home and giving these jobs to people who really need them(the people collecting monies from govt) cause they "cant find a job". Not to mention all of the money we would save on foreign aid that doesnt aid anyone but the rich in those corrupt and powerful in said nations. We would be able to put that money to better use like investing it in our national debt, and getting providing opportunities for people in THIS COUNTRY to make a living for themselves once again. Sometimes you have to make some sacrafices in order to provide yourself with a better future, and instead of dancing around the problems, we can actually fix them by taking responsibility as individuals for once. I am more than confident he can beat anybody with his policies, but its up to the masses
to stop swallowing the bs they are continously fed by all those corrupt smiling faces.



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 10:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh
 


The free market gave us rivers that were so polluted they could catch fire.

After deregulation and auctioning of electricity in California, Texas gas suppliers started cutting off naturual gas during peak hours. It lead to wildly increasing electrical bills and rolling black outs. Certain companies gamed the system by pledging to supply more power per hour than the transmission lines. They ended up winning contracts for power because they artificially lowered their price per unit of power.

There is a place and time for the government to intervene and a time for them to stay away. I am a limited government guy. Ron Paul on the other hand claims to be a no government guy. I don't think it meshes with his record though.

Ron Paul insists that through tort laws regarding private property, polluters could be stopped. Tell me who has the money to take Exon, Koch Oil, Dupont, or some other company that large to court?

In 2005 Ron Paul introduced a bill that would have allowed cities to ban atheist from holding office. The bill states that seperation of church and state does not extend to cover states and cities.

In 2007 he said that if the Civil Rights Act came up again he would vote against it.

In 1999 he suported a bill that denies gay couples in DC the right to adopt a child.

He talks about ending entitlements. Yet in 2004 he voted to replace taxes breaks labelled as illegal trade subisidies by the WTO with $140 billion in new tax breaks. The bill ensured that the government kept subsidizing big business. The bill also included buy outs for Tobacco farmers. It had a $9.6 billion allowance for encouraging tobacco farmers to change crops. A bit of social engineering meant to lower the amount of tobacco in supply and increase prices.

He voted against vouchers for DC public schools. However, he voted for a tax write off if you send your kid to private school. In other words if you can afford $10,000+ for your kid to attend private school you deserve a $3,000 tax credit. If you can't, tough. He doesn't want to truly bring free markets to schools. Vouchers would ensure that a student could use the money government spends on them to shop for a better education. They could take that money to any school and offset the cost of a better education. Heck private schools could open and compete to run a better school for the same price as public schools. That idea of the free market doesn't work for Ron when it comes to public education. In fact at one time he ran on abolishing public education.

He voted no on tax incentives to create green energy. Yet he voted to supply billions in subsidies for big businesses to export goods. While he was voting against green energy he voted no to ending subsidies for oil and gas exploration. Isn't it hypocritical to say that we can't subsidize green energy, but we can subsidize oil exploration. I'm no enviromentalist, hey I hate being forced to recycle, but a little intellectual honesty goes a long way.

Ron Paul talks a good game. I even agree with him on foreign policy, the federal reserve, and other issues. I just don't think people truly understand where he is coming from, or his definition of the free market.

I believe that freer markets tend to work best. I also believe that to some extent the government does have to intervine to protect the citizen.















edit on 16-2-2011 by MikeNice81 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 10:10 PM
link   
Reply to post by MikeNice81
 


I can agree withyoi.

But the problem is that the government is like a leech. Once it latches on, it just grows.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 10:29 PM
link   
Oh my, there goes Social Security out the window.
Now my disabled parents will have no income,
no food, no prescriptions and no doctor's visits.
Thanks Ron Paul, you just sealed them in
their coffins. On with the Revolution !!!
Now only the rich will survive.
Sounds a lil like NWO does it not ???

And don't hand me an opt out excuse,
there is no opt-out. It's all one way or the other.
You can't keep a full federal system running
just for the ones who want to stay in.
There will be no opt-in if he dissolves all
those government agencies. It's double-speak.

I am beginning to think that Ron Paul is not
such a good idea after all.

Maybe Ron Paul should re-name it to
The Rich Revolution

edit on 2/16/2011 by boondock-saint because: clarifying



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 10:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by MikeNice81
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh
 


The free market gave us rivers that were so polluted they could catch fire.

After deregulation and auctioning of electricity in California, Texas gas suppliers started cutting off naturual gas during peak hours. It lead to wildly increasing electrical bills and rolling black outs. Certain companies gamed the system by pledging to supply more power per hour than the transmission lines. They ended up winning contracts for power because they artificially lowered their price per unit of power.

There is a place and time for the government to intervene and a time for them to stay away. I am a limited government guy. Ron Paul on the other hand claims to be a no government guy. I don't think it meshes with his record though.

Ron Paul insists that through tort laws regarding private property, polluters could be stopped. Tell me who has the money to take Exon, Koch Oil, Dupont, or some other company that large to court?

In 2005 Ron Paul introduced a bill that would have allowed cities to ban atheist from holding office. The bill states that seperation of church and state does not extend to cover states and cities.

In 2007 he said that if the Civil Rights Act came up again he would vote against it.

In 1999 he suported a bill that denies gay couples in DC the right to adopt a child.

He talks about ending entitlements. Yet in 2004 he voted to replace taxes breaks labelled as illegal trade subisidies by the WTO with $140 billion in new tax breaks. The bill ensured that the government kept subsidizing big business. The bill also included buy outs for Tobacco farmers. It had a $9.6 billion allowance for encouraging tobacco farmers to change crops. A bit of social engineering meant to lower the amount of tobacco in supply and increase prices.

He voted against vouchers for DC public schools. However, he voted for a tax write off if you send your kid to private school. In other words if you can afford $10,000+ for your kid to attend private school you deserve a $3,000 tax credit. If you can't, tough. He doesn't want to truly bring free markets to schools. Vouchers would ensure that a student could use the money government spends on them to shop for a better education. They could take that money to any school and offset the cost of a better education. Heck private schools could open and compete to run a better school for the same price as public schools. That idea of the free market doesn't work for Ron when it comes to public education. In fact at one time he ran on abolishing public education.

He voted no on tax incentives to create green energy. Yet he voted to supply billions in subsidies for big businesses to export goods. While he was voting against green energy he voted no to ending subsidies for oil and gas exploration. Isn't it hypocritical to say that we can't subsidize green energy, but we can subsidize oil exploration. I'm no enviromentalist, hey I hate being forced to recycle, but a little intellectual honesty goes a long way.

Ron Paul talks a good game. I even agree with him on foreign policy, the federal reserve, and other issues. I just don't think people truly understand where he is coming from, or his definition of the free market.

I believe that freer markets tend to work best. I also believe that to some extent the government does have to intervine to protect the citizen.



I'm not an Athiest nor am I extremely religous but I think Ron Paul is right in this regard, to be elected into office you have to be sworn in and place your right hand on a bible, now if you don't believe in God then what purpose does it serve by placing your right hand on the bible with God as your witness. I'm tired so maybe this sounds wierd but I feel they have no right being sworn in at all if they do not believe in God then they should not be allowed in office if there only gonna lie to the God that they do not believe in. It just doesn't seem right to me.











edit on 16-2-2011 by MikeNice81 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
8

log in

join