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.

 

An Article About Ron Paul That Would Make Any Intelligent Hardcore Liberal Vote Ron Paul 2012!!

page: 3
20
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Praetorius
We won't even address congress and the like allegedly dipping their hand into the till.


And from what I understand that money is NOT sitting around in a bank account earning interest. It has been spent and replaced with bonds which if things continue on the path they are..............will be worthless.

There is a much greater chance of grandma getting kicked to the curb if we allow things to continue on their current trajectory no matter what the politicians tell you they will do. If we do not stop the outrageous spending on war and subsidies for corporations making record profits, grandma WILL lose her social security.




posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 11:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Janky Red
 


actually i do my father was diagnosed with cardiomyopathy (congestive heart failure) at age 50 took early retirement and has been disabled ever since and he has lived to the ripe old age of 77.

since then hes had 3 pacemakers and been on a crapload of drugs.

nice try putting words in my mouth my father is an old time democrat and he knows the writings on the wall.

when medicare goes bust and it will theres not a damn thing he can do and he knows it and i know it.

because of all the do gooders who try to pass their sense of morality on everyone without the thought of HOW DO WE PAY FOR IT?
edit on 28-4-2011 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
reply to post by Janky Red
 


I also dont agree with Ron Paul on corporations. But, I trust him to get us on the sort of track where another President, in another term, can deal with them in a way I like better. People who will only vote for someone who promises them everything they want will always elect liars.

You need to pick your battles. Right now, stauching the flow of blood and dollars in the mid east is a BIG priority. As is protecting and restoring the Constitution.

He is honest, he is willing to do what needs to be done, no matter how unpopular, he has a proven track record of doing just that, and I feel he may be our best shot at getting out of the fast lane to Fascism.

No one can fix everything in one or two terms, but I believe he will focus on making America stable financially and undoing some of the damage done to our Constitution.
edit on 28-4-2011 by Illusionsaregrander because: (no reason given)


I don't know -

I think the way the SCOTUS has granted corporate personhood has essentially murdered the constitutions
safeguards. How can the constitutional principle be brought into focus when private money can buy the politicians and their policies flat out? How can you limit government, when corporations use government as a instrument to sure profitability? Remember they buy the politicians who make the policy...

As long as the constitution is erroneously applied to corporations, we will never get out of this, ever...

In order to free the government, Paul would need to see the corporations, multinationals for what they are, but he cannot, anymore than a a gun can change a persons deeply held religious beliefs. Not once has another member paced me on this concept, the Paul doctrine derails after a while because of this unfortunate reality.

Politicians are FIRST employed by PRIVATE money, they are first and foremost indebted to corporatism and its
monetary graciousness.



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 11:28 PM
link   
Reply to post by pccat
 


So what you are saying is that in 3 years (2 with a house majority) Obama could not have ended

2 wars

Guantanamo

Patriot Act.

In fact, he did quite opposite. Got us into another war, kept Guantanamo open, and renewed the Patriot Act.

That, my friend, is ridiculous. Everything else you mentioned as being ridiculous is because you can't handle the truth.




 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 11:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Janky Red
 


actually i do my father was diagnosed with cardiomyopathy (congestive heart failure) at age 50 took early retirement and has been disabled ever since and he has lived to the ripe old age of 77.

since then hes had 3 pacemakers and been on a crapload of drugs.

nice try putting words in my mouth my father is an old time democrat and he knows the writings on the wall.

when medicare goes bust and it will theres not a damn thing he can do and he knows it and i know it.

because of all the do gooders who try to pass their sense of morality on everyone without the thought of HOW DO WE PAY FOR IT?
edit on 28-4-2011 by neo96 because: (no reason given)


I am not putting words in your mouth neo, I have been good this whole time...

So you are aware of how much medical care runs,

I work in medical billing, if I stayed in the hospital 6 days I would owe my ENTIRE salary of a year and would be
as homeless a a stray dog.

I am not sure how we pay for it frankly

You are aware that at this rate, Health insurance will be equal to the GDP in 30 years, you understand that right?
That is a mathematical reality too, did the projection in a finance class... There is disaster every which way


Let's say we cannot pay for it, we stop medicare...

Do you have a solution, do you care about the lose of life and suffering? IMO I would find it awful and would advocate fixing the situation because it is life... What say you?



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 11:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Janky Red
 


the cost of healthcare is the direct result of government intervention

those rules and regulations that have killed off the competition to the point that there are only a few providers.

you wait and see how much higher those costs will go up.

the more providers competing to bring those goods and services to market the cheaper they are.


and really everyone one knows that healthcare is one of the most regulated industries in this country.


you think is bad now oh boy wait til you see whats coming.



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 11:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Janky Red
 


Ive never heard him say he supports corporate personhood. He has always struck me as a Constitutional purist, and the idea of corporate personhood is being promoted via case law as it is definitively NOT in the constitution that corporations are people.

I doubt he would support it, but I cant honestly say I remember any direct comment on him about it.



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 11:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Immortalgemini527
 


Sorry, but I'm confused...

You DON'T want to see a US president who would get the US troops out of the internal business of other nations?

You DON'T want to see a US president who would end the - honestly - failed and disastrous US prohibitionist policies as regards 'drugs'?

You DON'T want to see a US president who would end the attacks against Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Libya - as well as prevent the likely upcoming attacks against Iran, North Korea, and Syria?

You DON'T want to see a US president who would help end the destruction of the US dollar by encouraging a non-fractional reserve banking and a non-fiat currency through emphasis on a constitutionally-based (read: deal with america-style contract) monetary system?

You DON'T want to see a US president who would choose to end extraneous federal departments that only seem to infringe on the rights to privacy and independence of US citizens?

You DON'T want to see a US president who would choose to end the US income tax by cutting government spending and allowing citizens to keep more of their own money?

You DON'T want to see a US president who would choose to end government regulations that benefit big business by strangling small businesses via requirements that large, well-capitalized businesses can meet but fledgling business struggle to do - oddly enough, when there's not even any valid reason for them to need to do so?

I can do this all night - the benefits to a Ron Paul-style leadership FAR outweigh the benefits compared to pretty much everything we've received from Washington for quite some time now.

The detriments usually perceived are based on a myopic and overly optimistic view of where the US currently stands. If anyone can offer ANY candidate who has better ideas to address pretty much ANY of the issues the US, or even the world, is currently dealing with, I'd LOVE to hear them - as compared to the complaints I'm hearing that pale in comparison to the "business as usual" approaches I'm hearing from everyone else.

Gosh.



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 11:54 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


Thank you, Neo.

HMOs drive up costs by encouraging unnecessary services for the sake of benefit as well as killing any competitive requirements.

Effectiveness of service goes down while net cost goes up, and no one notices as it's diversified and passed off through shared taxes and premiums.



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 12:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
reply to post by Janky Red
 


Ive never heard him say he supports corporate personhood. He has always struck me as a Constitutional purist, and the idea of corporate personhood is being promoted via case law as it is definitively NOT in the constitution that corporations are people.

I doubt he would support it, but I cant honestly say I remember any direct comment on him about it.


Unfortunately it is a SCOTUS realm... My issue is what can be achieved in conjunction with Paul's views.
If Paul were completely hands off, the corporations could achieve "wonderful" results and STILL be in line with
the constitution. All they have to do is buy water rights and link water access to contracts for other goods and services.

In order to get my water, you have to purchase my electricity and my internet for example... Corporations
do this in third world nations with weak governments, but it is usually linked to employment and company stores.

The hole is so deep, I am very glad Paul and the SCOTUS are not teamed up. In many cases passivity creates
a result just the same as proactivity.

You want to access my gas, you have to use my credit card, if you do not your mortgage rate will increase 300%.

sorry, I am studying contract law and I see the writing on the wall



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 12:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Janky Red

In order to free the government, Paul would need to see the corporations, multinationals for what they are, but he cannot, anymore than a a gun can change a persons deeply held religious beliefs. Not once has another member paced me on this concept, the Paul doctrine derails after a while because of this unfortunate reality.



Because I had never heard him speak on the issue, after my last post I hunted all over to see if I could find anything. I found this.

www.ronpaul.com...

And honestly, he sounds ignorant of the whole issue of corporate personhood. He didnt seem familiar with the Fourteenth Amendment, he didnt seem to realize that allowing corporations personhood contributed to a problem he mentioned about the press destroying candidates. He actually didnt seem to understand the issue in any intelligent way at all. He just tried to apply libertarian views that people should be able to do what they wanted with their money and somehow muddled the idea into some theory that ONE person owned a corporation and should thus be allowed to do what he/she wanted with the money.

And I have to agree with you. Citizens United is my MAIN focus this election. I will sacrifice any other issue I care about on that altar if I have to. It is that crucial for us to stop the buying of elections that I would even leave the war issue on the table for one term.

So, you may be right. I could not vote for him if he did not understand the issue, and I could not vote for him if he was unwilling to enforce that Constitutional rights are for human people. Not artificial entities.



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 12:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Praetorius
reply to post by Immortalgemini527
 


Sorry, but I'm confused...

You DON'T want to see a US president who would get the US troops out of the internal business of other nations?

You DON'T want to see a US president who would end the - honestly - failed and disastrous US prohibitionist policies as regards 'drugs'?

You DON'T want to see a US president who would end the attacks against Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Libya - as well as prevent the likely upcoming attacks against Iran, North Korea, and Syria?

You DON'T want to see a US president who would help end the destruction of the US dollar by encouraging a non-fractional reserve banking and a non-fiat currency through emphasis on a constitutionally-based (read: deal with america-style contract) monetary system?

You DON'T want to see a US president who would choose to end extraneous federal departments that only seem to infringe on the rights to privacy and independence of US citizens?

You DON'T want to see a US president who would choose to end the US income tax by cutting government spending and allowing citizens to keep more of their own money?

You DON'T want to see a US president who would choose to end government regulations that benefit big business by strangling small businesses via requirements that large, well-capitalized businesses can meet but fledgling business struggle to do - oddly enough, when there's not even any valid reason for them to need to do so?

I can do this all night - the benefits to a Ron Paul-style leadership FAR outweigh the benefits compared to pretty much everything we've received from Washington for quite some time now.

The detriments usually perceived are based on a myopic and overly optimistic view of where the US currently stands. If anyone can offer ANY candidate who has better ideas to address pretty much ANY of the issues the US, or even the world, is currently dealing with, I'd LOVE to hear them - as compared to the complaints I'm hearing that pale in comparison to the "business as usual" approaches I'm hearing from everyone else.

Gosh.


first ,is ron paul Republican or Democrate ?



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 12:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Janky Red
 


the cost of healthcare is the direct result of government intervention

those rules and regulations that have killed off the competition to the point that there are only a few providers.

you wait and see how much higher those costs will go up.

the more providers competing to bring those goods and services to market the cheaper they are.


and really everyone one knows that healthcare is one of the most regulated industries in this country.


you think is bad now oh boy wait til you see whats coming.


Come on Neo, health insurance costs went up 130% during Bush who didn't not impose new regulations
on them. Not bashing Bush, rather my point is to show you that you are not correct...

Cigarettes went up how much in the last 15 years???

In my state 250% - 300% LESS taxes

Companies want more and more neo, that is the simple explanation

Look at the price of a bottle of coke

A burger

Gas

Water

I don't think you benefit yourself by blaming everything on government intervention

This government does not regulate world oil prices and look at the cost
all far beyond inflation



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 12:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Janky Red
 

Paul also wants free trade without gov control.
eliminate the EPA.

Oh great!!!
Now we have big corporations spewing
any old thing they want to into our air
and our water supply and NOBODY
or NO LAW to stop them.

Thank you Ron Paul.

and just think, 2 yrs ago I was a part of
that Paul Revolution, til I wised up and saw
just what his policies would do to this country.
No thanks on the dose of Paulism.



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 12:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Janky Red
 


guess inflation has nothing to do with it either.

cigarettes have gone up as much as $180 bucks for 3 cartons of marlboros their prices went up cause obama wanted a childrens program funded from blood money from tobacco

this government wants more and more

the price of a bottle of coke is about the cheapest thing i have seen lately

and $5 bucks a gallon of gasoline today 5 bucks!!!!!!!!!!!! guess banning offshore drilling has nothing to do with that or the continual devaluation of the dollar.


and this govvernment does regulate the dollar that is tied to oil and that oil is the lifeblood of everything else in this country that leads to increases prices across the boards.

i dont benefit blaming the government but they are the culprit in everything that messed up in this country

and its not the bloody corporations that everyone just loves to hate.

our congressman write the laws while they have their hands out taking their cash and the cash from unions.


the dollar is tied to oil remember that as long as its devalued to crap expect higher increases.
edit on 29-4-2011 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 12:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Immortalgemini527

Originally posted by Praetorius
reply to post by Immortalgemini527
 


Sorry, but I'm confused...

You DON'T want to see a US president who would get the US troops out of the internal business of other nations?

You DON'T want to see a US president who would end the - honestly - failed and disastrous US prohibitionist policies as regards 'drugs'?

You DON'T want to see a US president who would end the attacks against Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Libya - as well as prevent the likely upcoming attacks against Iran, North Korea, and Syria?

You DON'T want to see a US president who would help end the destruction of the US dollar by encouraging a non-fractional reserve banking and a non-fiat currency through emphasis on a constitutionally-based (read: deal with america-style contract) monetary system?

You DON'T want to see a US president who would choose to end extraneous federal departments that only seem to infringe on the rights to privacy and independence of US citizens?

You DON'T want to see a US president who would choose to end the US income tax by cutting government spending and allowing citizens to keep more of their own money?

You DON'T want to see a US president who would choose to end government regulations that benefit big business by strangling small businesses via requirements that large, well-capitalized businesses can meet but fledgling business struggle to do - oddly enough, when there's not even any valid reason for them to need to do so?

I can do this all night - the benefits to a Ron Paul-style leadership FAR outweigh the benefits compared to pretty much everything we've received from Washington for quite some time now.

The detriments usually perceived are based on a myopic and overly optimistic view of where the US currently stands. If anyone can offer ANY candidate who has better ideas to address pretty much ANY of the issues the US, or even the world, is currently dealing with, I'd LOVE to hear them - as compared to the complaints I'm hearing that pale in comparison to the "business as usual" approaches I'm hearing from everyone else.

Gosh.


first ,is ron paul Republican or Democrate ?

i just found out that this ron paul is a republican,and you mean to tell me, a republican is going to do all of what you said,really.



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 12:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by boondock-saint
I will not be voting for Paul and neither will any
members of my family due to his intentions
of eliminating Medicare, Social Security.
My parents worked over 60 yrs and inputed
into this fund and now when it comes time
to receive their benefits, they will be stolen.
Like hell they will.

www.rawstory.com...


Did you watch the video you posted? Starting at 4:15 he says what he would do with SS and Medicare: let people opt out. That is not "eliminating Medicare, Social Security". That is allowing people to choose whether they want to be a part of it. He advocates not letting the government take your money and give it to other people. I like that in a person, as most rational people do.

As to the OP, "liberals" could possibly read that and listen to him and say "hey this guy makes sense, I'll vote for him!" But "progressives" will never vote for him because he is for getting the federal government out of our business, smaller government, decreased spending, and living in liberty.

/TOA



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 12:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Immortalgemini527
i just found out that this ron paul is a republican,and you mean to tell me, a republican is going to do all of what you said,really.


Not all Republicans are George Bush. Dr. Paul is more like the Republicans of 1801, when Jefferson was President.

/TOA



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 12:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander

Originally posted by Janky Red

In order to free the government, Paul would need to see the corporations, multinationals for what they are, but he cannot, anymore than a a gun can change a persons deeply held religious beliefs. Not once has another member paced me on this concept, the Paul doctrine derails after a while because of this unfortunate reality.



Because I had never heard him speak on the issue, after my last post I hunted all over to see if I could find anything. I found this.

www.ronpaul.com...

And honestly, he sounds ignorant of the whole issue of corporate personhood. He didnt seem familiar with the Fourteenth Amendment, he didnt seem to realize that allowing corporations personhood contributed to a problem he mentioned about the press destroying candidates. He actually didnt seem to understand the issue in any intelligent way at all. He just tried to apply libertarian views that people should be able to do what they wanted with their money and somehow muddled the idea into some theory that ONE person owned a corporation and should thus be allowed to do what he/she wanted with the money.

And I have to agree with you. Citizens United is my MAIN focus this election. I will sacrifice any other issue I care about on that altar if I have to. It is that crucial for us to stop the buying of elections that I would even leave the war issue on the table for one term.

So, you may be right. I could not vote for him if he did not understand the issue, and I could not vote for him if he was unwilling to enforce that Constitutional rights are for human people. Not artificial entities.



Well thank you for considering my point of view, I think you might be the first person who really gave it a shot


I think what Paul forgets is that the individuals that comprise any corporation retain their rights as individuals.
They all have one vote... This Citizens United decision is completely disastrous in my opinion, as it endows
extra consideration, not only does a man get a vote, but he can buy politicians and dramatically shape policy with money. It seems to be legalized bribery and professional grade corruption bless by the opponents of government
- my head spins from it all, there couldn't be a better way to make government worse
unless you elected Henry the 8th and Hitler for VP.

all kidding aside, we, meaning humanity is going to lose... The gravity of this issue and the implications
can be obscured so easily, it is only a matter of time. Technically speaking, contractually speaking, less
existing law/"regulation", I could force you to get a tattoo in order to buy my water, which is the only piped in water in your area. A contract is simply private law and is in its essence a promise for a promise. All "they"
have to do is control the framework of law, so they can apply their own law for their benefit, because no
restrictions are placed upon "business".

Ah, the business of making law for business is the best business!

Paul has some of it right, he just falls REALLY short here, I agree though, the front of liberty is the question of artificial entities.

Are they bound by law or are they the embodiment of law?


edit on 29-4-2011 by Janky Red because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 01:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Janky Red
 


guess inflation has nothing to do with it either.

cigarettes have gone up as much as $180 bucks for 3 cartons of marlboros their prices went up cause obama wanted a childrens program funded from blood money from tobacco

this government wants more and more

the price of a bottle of coke is about the cheapest thing i have seen lately

and $5 bucks a gallon of gasoline today 5 bucks!!!!!!!!!!!! guess banning offshore drilling has nothing to do with that or the continual devaluation of the dollar.


and this govvernment does regulate the dollar that is tied to oil and that oil is the lifeblood of everything else in this country that leads to increases prices across the boards.

i dont benefit blaming the government but they are the culprit in everything that messed up in this country

and its not the bloody corporations that everyone just loves to hate.

our congressman write the laws while they have their hands out taking their cash and the cash from unions.


the dollar is tied to oil remember that as long as its devalued to crap expect higher increases.
edit on 29-4-2011 by neo96 because: (no reason given)


I said inflation does have something to do with it

But inflation does not account for the tripling of many things

15 years ago I could buy a pack for $1.25 here

that same pack is up 450% (is that right??? YES!!!)

taxes account for 150% which means

Phillip Morris is asking 3 times as much for the same product

OIL, we need to separate from the world market as our prices are tied to that, not domestic oil production



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join