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: 5
20
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


The article seems to be a hit piece on progressives and liberals, so it's kind of hard to get through, but on to the substance....

This article assumes that Paul would be able to get his agenda passed. The President is not a King or Dictator. They don't get in there and start making their own rules. Anyone who thinks Paul (or ANY president of their choice) is going to become president and start changing things in Washington, is a bit naive and has a surprise coming.

They say he'd bring the troops home and break ties with Israel. Yeah, right. These are "Campaign Promises". JUST like Obama made. They are a "wish list". It doesn't mean ANY of it would happen once he got in position. Washington is too settled in its ways to let some 'maverick' come in and shake things up.

Obama's no savior, but neither is Ron Paul.




posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Immortalgemini527
 


Let us enlighten you as to who this person is.. Ron Paul has been running for president for the libertarian party for many many years. He has been a congressman for a long time and frankly you're wrong when you say he isn't presidential material.

As to him wanting to abolish medicare.. that's not what he said.. He said there isn't going to be enough money soon for medicare to even exist... that's not his fault..

Plus when he says he wants the troops out. he means it.. he's been trying to get them home for a while now...

Plus... who is any better? Trump? aka white rich guy with a bad toupee? Obama? Ha!! Hillary Clinton or Sarah Palin (plz god whoever it is.. let it not be Palin)?? Personally when we are talking about who we would like to see in office... I think we should probably consider Paul as easily one of the best candidates...
edit on 29-4-2011 by DaMod because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
I suggest you actually listen to the radio interview with him on the issue of Corporate personhood then. Its is a defining issue, and, although I would never have guessed it, he doesnt have a clear understanding and hence he has come down on the wrong side of the Constitution on this one.

Do you have a link to that interview?



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
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)


You guys already lost that argument when the Republicans ran around scaring people away from a CHEAPER, COST SAVING, SUSTAINABLE, single payer system by promising that it would DESTROY MEDICARE. Now the exact same people say that Medicare has to be destroyed anyone because it costs too much? Yeah, then maybe Grassly should have kept his mouth shut about pulling the plug on grandma but no, now Republicans want to RATION health care as a solution to the problem created in part by them scaring people about RATIONING. Nope, this argument fails out the gate.



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockdisjoint
 


Yes, here it is again.

www.ronpaul.com...



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Obama's no savior, but neither is Ron Paul.


Obama isnt even speaking out against things that SHOULD be against the liberal agenda, such as going to war on people who have done nothing to us, keeping people in jail for life without trial, etc.

I agree that Paul would not be able to get every issue he wanted to passed. But Obama is not the same as Paul. Obama is a total sell out.



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


This is what gets me is entitlement programs have nothing to with the overall national debt. Social Security and Medicare should not even be talked of as cut in anyway shape or form. They are seperate and paid for by the citzens of the United States.
People do pay for Medicare; they pay around $160 per month for part A,B,D.
What would cutting these programs do for america? It would contribute to the poverty problem and homeless problem. More people would need generalized welfare which is part of the national debt. By cutting this programs down you will raise the national debt. If a person on Social Security is getting $20 less per month than he or she will get $20 more in EBT or food stamps. Or more in subidized housing help. Frankly I would raise the social security tax and make sure all social security money goes only to social security.
What type of cuts to Social Security and Medicare does Ron Paul propose? Does this also include unemployment or verterans benefits? Anyone talking of cutting any of these type of programs will NEVER get my vote.



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by DaMod
 


I don't buy that for even one second that there won't be enough money for medicare to exists. First of all we all pay a Medicare tax this is already funded by the citzens. Second of all; all on Medicare pay $160 per month for part A,B and D. Saying there isn't enough money for Medicare too exist is like saying there isn't enough money for Blue Cross and Blue sheilds or Humana to exist. A person can get a health care plan at either of these companies for a little more than Medicare. Sure for the elderly it would probably be $200 these companies don't get help from the tax payers so how do they stay afloat.
I say Ron Paul is full of it!
edit on 29-4-2011 by dreamseeker because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


The article seems to be a hit piece on progressives and liberals, so it's kind of hard to get through, but on to the substance....

This article assumes that Paul would be able to get his agenda passed. The President is not a King or Dictator. They don't get in there and start making their own rules. Anyone who thinks Paul (or ANY president of their choice) is going to become president and start changing things in Washington, is a bit naive and has a surprise coming.

They say he'd bring the troops home and break ties with Israel. Yeah, right. These are "Campaign Promises". JUST like Obama made. They are a "wish list". It doesn't mean ANY of it would happen once he got in position. Washington is too settled in its ways to let some 'maverick' come in and shake things up.

Obama's no savior, but neither is Ron Paul.


Does your Obama worship know no bounds?

Ron Paul is head and shoulders above Obama. And it disgusts me to concede that as a far left Socialist.



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


I"m a Right-Winger myself, so let me just say, "THANKS for posting this."

I think the Right and Left have more in common than they realize, and hopefully Ron Paul is the guy to open the eyes of both sides!



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
Obama isnt even speaking out against things that SHOULD be against the liberal agenda, such as going to war on people who have done nothing to us, keeping people in jail for life without trial, etc.


He did during his campaign. That's what Ron Paul is doing. Making campaign promises.


But Obama is not the same as Paul. Obama is a total sell out.


We won't know if Paul is a sell out, as you say, unless and until he gets in the Presidency. Same with Obama. We didn't know how much of his agenda would get passed until he got in there and started fighting for it. I'm not one of those who thought Obama would make the world a better place with rainbows and unicorns. I had reasonable expectations of Obama's presidency. They still weren't completely met and there have been many disappointments, but it's that way with EVERY president.

In my opinion, ALL presidents are a big disappointment. Some are just more disappointing than others.


The only way to know if Paul will be any different is to get him in there. I'm all for giving him a shot at it, just as I was with Obama.


Originally posted by NadaCambia
Does your Obama worship know no bounds?


I appreciate the offer of political trolling, but no thanks, I'm trying to quit.

edit on 4/29/2011 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 01:10 PM
link   
I am voting for the only candiate who is not talking about cuts to Medicare and Social Security! The government needs to leave their hands off the US citzens money! How can anyone vote for a candiate who admits upfront he will cut these programs? Sure that would eliminate a small tax for people but what does he propose to put in place. I would like to know answers to these questions. If he does not have a better plan than there is no way he should be allowed to run.
edit on 29-4-2011 by dreamseeker because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 02:15 PM
link   
I have a lot of liberal views, but I dig Ron Paul (at least until tptb buy him out)

Socially liberal with a desire for a fairly small government. Less interference in general, except for some laws to keep the mega corporations from destroying our country.

I'm also in favor of a work for welfare program. No need to kill the poor, just offer them a job for their welfare check so that everyone can make ends meet if they want to. That way it also increases production and is good for society as a whole.
edit on 29-4-2011 by pirhanna because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by pirhanna
 


Yep you and me would be bros in real life


Pretty much sums up what I think. I do not like big bloated government at all, but there needs to be some serious regulation and checks of power towards big business and corporations (including a revamping of Wall street) before I agree to any serious weakening of the government establishment. I am one not to believe that unchecked capitalism is the answer to all problems and that's why I am not a libertarian (though I share many of their views when it comes to the consititution, 2 amendment included).
edit on 29-4-2011 by Chewingonmushrooms because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 04:54 PM
link   
I agree that Ron Paul is a great dude and I'm definitely voting for him in 2012, but the OP is worded like a sneaky lawyer's remarks in court. Sleazy language, which I don't like.



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Sinnthia
 


no what fails out of the gate is the sustainability of medicare.

a single payer system will never work because there is no competitition that drives the costs down.

down like your provider good luck going anywhere else since its a single payer system there is no alternative.

i got news for you medicare is already rationed you people kill me putting medicare on a pedtisal and shouting at the top of your voices its the greatest thing since sliced bread.

medicare is a joke good luck if you need glasses no vision plans there and good luck if you need any dental work since neither of those are covered.

medicare has already been destroyed because the left just cant keep their hands off of it they cant stop telling patients and doctors what they can or cant do and what kind of care they can or cant get.

please medicare has been an epic fail since its introduction just like social security has been and medicaid has been.

but hey pat yourselves on your backs for a job well done people like you have made 3 half azzed programs that benefits noone but have become a detriment to this nation as a whole.

really job well done.
edit on 29-4-2011 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Janky Red

"I am a capitalist. I believe in capitalism. I do not want to tell the corporations what to do at all as long as they do not commit fraud and live up to their promises..." - Ron Paul, U.S. House of Representatives,May 1, 2002


It's the last sentence that gets me... I believe corporatism is what is destroying the world, From Monsanto, to
BOFA, the goal is control. Pauls ideas give a direct path to a world where individuals are controlled by private law
and governance by the people, who have billions of dollars... I think government cannot be curtailed until
you end this relationship and the ultimate control of the government which is ALREADY PRIVATE IN NATURE.

The politician does not fund the corporation into power -

Paul has the equation off, I enjoy his stances on freedom of the body and belief. I also enjoy he anti military
stance too... But I think he does not see how his beliefs help create what he believes he is fighting against,
this contradiction is substantial.

Thanks for the Article


Companies like Monsanto and BofA are already out of spec with Dr. Paul's statement. They are certainly what you say they are, but that doesn't make all corporations evil, just the evil ones who are ruining this country and buying off politicians to sway policy and legislation in their favor.

That's the kind of thing we have to rid our country of, along with crooked politicians who are not representing the people, in addition to dissolving the companies that perpetrate it.

Then maybe we can get back to a system of capitalism without the rampant greed. Keep companies honest and punish those persons who aren't. None of that happens today.



edit on 29-4-2011 by AwakeinNM because: wonky grammar



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

He did during his campaign. That's what Ron Paul is doing. Making campaign promises.


Not really. Ron Paul has been loudly outspoken the whole time. While elected and not running for President as well. He doesnt speak one way on the campaign trail and then suddenly morph into George Dubya once you elect him.

Paul actually did vote against the war in Iraq, not just promise to end it and then start two more.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
We won't know if Paul is a sell out, as you say, unless and until he gets in the Presidency.


Yes we do know. He has been in office quite a while, and he actually votes the way he says he will. Not along party lines. Now maybe there really IS a little room where they take new presidents and show them pictures of their family members with targets on their heads, and maybe after going into said hypothetical room, Paul WOULD sell out. But I suspect he actually MIGHT tell us that had happened if it did.

Obama on the other hand, cannot blame his two facedness on the little room with the CIA snipers. Because we knew on the campaign trail he was lying to us BEFORE taking office by that little Canadian memo none of the Obama supporters wanted to acknowledge.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
In my opinion, ALL presidents are a big disappointment. Some are just more disappointing than others.


The only way to know if Paul will be any different is to get him in there. I'm all for giving him a shot at it, just as I was with Obama.


And even though I am arguing in favor of Pauls integrity, and I am, I myself do not know if I can vote for him unless and until he clarifies and changes his position on corporate personhood. If he really is going to run, Im hoping that will be elaborated on.

Im from Hawaii. Same Island as Obama. I wanted to support him, but I knew from waaaaay before he ran he was being groomed after he gave some speech and the media started calling him the next Martin Luther King Jr because of his speaking ability. Then, the sheer amount of corporate dollars he got said something. The way the media was bashing HIllary for staying in the race. The way they replace McCain with a zombie during the campaign. Obama was hand picked to be president to entice liberals into swallowing policies they would have revolted over if a Republican floated them.

And it worked. And, honestly, like the article implies, they should be ashamed of themselves. If you are against something when a Republican does it, be against it when your team does it to. For the love of all thats holy have some principles and stand by them.

Ok. Political rant over.



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by ModernAcademia

Ron Paul is far from perfect, but I’ll say this much for the Texas congressman: He has never authorized a drone strike in Pakistan. He has never authorized the killing of dozens of women and children in Yemen. He hasn’t protected torturers from prosecution and he hasn’t overseen the torturous treatment of a 23-year-old young man for the “crime” of revealing the government’s criminal behavior.

dissidentvoice.org...


Put another, even less charitable way: Democratic partisans – liberals – are willing to trade the lives of a couple thousand poor Pakistani tribesman in exchange for a few liberal catnip-filled speeches and NPR tote bags for the underprivileged


This is an incredible article that everyone should share with every liberal progressive dem.
I mean where are the priorities?


Social Security’s great and all I guess, but not exploding little children with cluster bombs – shouldn’t that be at the top of the Liberal Agenda?

Seriously... where are the priorities?

I want to know what every left leaning member here on ATS thinks of this article?
I want to know what opposition do you have to this article???

How can liberals be okay with the status quo and then paint themselves as peace loving people that have open minds and care for others all while allowing this to go on just because the president is a part of the Democratic party?



Well the answer is simple. Because in general liberals are "peace loving people that have open minds and care for others." What the author of that article has done, and what you have propogated by posting this article, is fall prey to several logical fallacies in an attempt to make his point. First I would like to point out, before going into the actual mechanics of this, that I doubt that any President, or elected official for that matter, has ever been elected by a constituency that supports mass murder of innocents. Similarly I doubt the that any American political official has ever ordered a fatal action being taken against an innocent civilian of any race. When looking at political realities, I think you'll find that these unfortunate people are refered to as "collateral damage". Since conflict began, innocent people have been mistakenly injured or killed (including a good number of people under Republican presidents). This unfortunate condition of conflict is one of the many reasons "liberals" in general oppose war ad I find its use in the vilification of progressives laughable.

As a side note, I find it amusing how the author of this article is portraying liberals as callous uncaring people when Ann Coulter, a widely known Conservative speaker and author (with millions of followers), has repeatedly called for "bombing those "camel jockeys" back to the stone age" (when speaking about Syrians, a people/country we are not even at war with).

Anyway, what the author of the article has done is gloss over enormous sections of the political spectrum with a blanket statement saying that because we (as liberals) have not risen up against Obama we must condone all of his actions and priorities. This falls under the realm of the logical fallacy known as "the fallacy of Necessity".

Essentially:
A:Obama has ok'd the use of explosives that have harmed innocents.
B:Liberals, in general, voted for and approve of Obama.
Therefore
C:Liberals are ok with the use of explosives that harm innocents.

Obviously the author of the OP's article presented the information in a more compelling, emotionally appealing way, but that is essentially what he is saying. Rather than go on to further fallacies, I'll do that when I get replies from Republicans and Tea Baggers (maybe even some Democrats) who will, no doubt, angrily be expressing their opinions, I will opt to simply answer the OP's questions, seeing as how I need to leave soon. So to answer your questions OP.


Originally posted by ModernAcademia

I want to know what every left leaning member here on ATS thinks of this article?
I want to know what opposition do you have to this article???

How can liberals be okay with the status quo and then paint themselves as peace loving people that have open minds and care for others all while allowing this to go on just because the president is a part of the Democratic party?



1. I think the article is absolute rubbish. Picking and choosing examples of poor choices is not a good way to gain a sense of a mans character. I also think that the author has an inordinate amount of contempt for progressive thinking and is, in all likelihood, a walking zombie parrot for the more ignorant views of the far right.
2. I have enormous problems with this article for alarmingly varied reason: ranging from pure stupidity to utter absurdity. I can, however, appreciate this person's desire to protect innocents and express a political view point (demonstrating that even he is not beyond redemption).
3. I imagine its much the same reason that Republicans espouse support for the coporate shills who inhabit their party, who proceed to rob the country blind while giving tax breaks to the wealthy, while the average republican wants to balance the budget and ensure a decent quality of life without government intervention. We are all morons and the vast majority of us (Americans, not just democrats) have an exceptionally poor understanding of how our political system works.

So, in short, next time you feel you've found the "end all be all of articles" that will convince all Democrats to think Republicans were right all along. Read it with a more critical eye and maybe find one that isn't so blatantly ignorant.



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


It's better than nothing. Drs do take Medicare. Drs can take any insurance they want if a Dr wants to not take humana or Blue Cross it is up to them. My sister was on Intergra for a short time and not even the Drs who took medicaid or medicare would take her.
If you read my above comments you will realize Medicare isn't free. Please read all my comments;(in this thread); and respond because you must have missed those comments.



new topics




 
20
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join