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: 7
20
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 03:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Sword
reply to post by Tonosama
 


But he did inherit all of this #. There's no getting around that logic.

The difference is that the puppet masters got to him. Do you really think that TPTB would allow a president to follow his agenda to the fullest?

The last president to try was JFK and look what happened to him.


Every president inherits the # from the presidents before them. It is a given; comes with the job. Obama apologists, and Obama himself, wear it like some kind of armor to deflect any criticism of this admin's performance. His entire campaign was on fixing the problems he would inherit as president and then, once he became president, this "inheritance" is a crutch he uses.

If everything was so absolutely perfect with rainbows and sunshine prior to Obama's election then what would we need him for? We should just keep voting in Prez Rainbows and Sunshine because there is no need to have elections since they are designed to change things so someone else can come in and fix messes of their predecessors.

So, yes, he did inherit some #, as they all do. The problem is he needs to stop whining about it do something about it; i.e. actually close GITMO, stop wars, don't start any new ones, balance budgets vs. spending and printing trillions, etc...

EDIT: Oh, and if the "puppet masters" got to him (that fast) then he never deserved to be president to begin with.
edit on 30-4-2011 by Tonosama because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 03:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Praetorius
 


I supported Obama because I fell for his great lies as an orator. Plus he was up against McCain who said he would stay in Iraq and Afghanistan for 100 years, wouldn't do anything to try and correct the economy, and a few other things that I cannot remember. Whereas Obama didn't support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, said that he would try to correct the economy, was supportive of helping whistle blowers get the truth out, and several other things... all of which he either lied about, went turncoat on, and even did the exact opposite of.

Also, even though Obama wasn't a man with much experience, he definitely had potential and a clean slate. Which given the track records of a few past presidents was something of a godsend. I believe that after Bush people just really really wanted a fresh face. Obama had that fresh face, and he was seen as a man similar to JFK, but unfortunately for the people Obama did not have the stomach for the job.

I would say that with Obama that the lesson was learned, but really all it taught me was that anybody has the potential to be a screw up, a turncoat, or someone who succumbs to peer-pressure. And as much as I don't believe Ron Paul is an exception to the rule, at least vocally he has gone up against both democrats and republicans in a way that could be good for this country.

But really, what certainty or guarantee is there that if elected Ron Paul wouldn't just be more of the same? What if he's pressured into repeating the same old same old? It can happen to any lone wolf going up against an established institution of many. And this isn't a movie.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 03:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by arbitrarygeneraiist
reply to post by Praetorius
 


But really, what certainty or guarantee is there that if elected Ron Paul wouldn't just be more of the same? What if he's pressured into repeating the same old same old?.


Yes, but what if he doesn't? Why focus on the negative "if"? The facts are that Ron Paul has a huge voting history to look at (obama didn't) to show us how he votes. He has many many public appearances where he has told us his thoughts. We know a lot about him and he hasn't backed down in the face of pressure yet, no matter how many names the MSM call him or how many political hacks attempt to discredit him. I think he has real backbone. Unfortunately he comes across as a bit whiny. That is his main problem.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 05:20 AM
link   
Sometimes you people make me believe you have gotten a divorce from reality. Do you really believe that a single human can bring the troops home, for example? that's absurd. Or close Guadanamo? or eliminate excessive spending? or fix th healthcare system? or go against Wall Street or the banking system?

As soon as a man would try to do all those things, he would be murdered. So, if Ron Paul would become president, he would quickly succumb to TPTB, that do not include the president, of course.

Obama made a lot of promises before he got elected, but they won't let him implement them. If he tries to do anything, he will be popped as quickly as you can say "cheese". Let's not forget that Obama was publically threatened to be killed by Hillary Clinton, even if that was presented only as a slip of the tongue by the press.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 08:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by masterp
Sometimes you people make me believe you have gotten a divorce from reality. Do you really believe that a single human can bring the troops home, for example? that's absurd. Or close Guadanamo? or eliminate excessive spending? or fix th healthcare system? or go against Wall Street or the banking system?

As soon as a man would try to do all those things, he would be murdered. So, if Ron Paul would become president, he would quickly succumb to TPTB, that do not include the president, of course.

Obama made a lot of promises before he got elected, but they won't let him implement them. If he tries to do anything, he will be popped as quickly as you can say "cheese". Let's not forget that Obama was publically threatened to be killed by Hillary Clinton, even if that was presented only as a slip of the tongue by the press.


you can't assume that everybody is afraid of death....obama still got plenty of years left in him....ron paul is a lot older and he will probably pass away in the next 15 years or so I'm pretty sure he has come to terms with death is around the corner...Andrew Jackson wasn't scared and JFK wasn't scared its obvious the president in between and after lack a pair of balls



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 08:17 AM
link   
Ron paul is a mason, No doubt he will promise the world like every other polition who wants to get into power. Once they are in ? well we know the answer to that question. More of the same bollocks, pandering to the rich and the corps. Its about time we got rid of this system and tried some thing else.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 08:31 AM
link   
Illusionsaregrander: From my first post in this thread. My FIRST point:


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
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.


Then you made the assertion that Obama was "hand-picked" to be president - you didn't expand on how that worked, according to your theory. You didn't say who hand-picked him or if the the voters could have done anything about it.

From my reading here on ATS, most people who believe in the "hand-picked" theory don't think voting matters at all. They think that no matter how we vote, the office of president is already decided and there's nothing to do about it, because they have been "hand-picked" and WILL be the president regardless of our votes. Without you expanding on your theory, I assumed you were making the same assertion: That no matter how people vote, the president is "hand-picked" and there's not a damn thing we can do.


Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
You said if Obama was handpicked then Ron Paul must be too.


I did not say that! I ASKED YOU for clarification. These are QUESTIONS, not statements:


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
If Obama was hand-picked, then Ron Paul would be hand-picked, too, right?
Why would he be any different?


I asked for clarification in good faith and instead of answering those simple questions (which would have cleared your theory up for me), you got all condescending and started ragging on my logic. If you had just answered the freaking questions, we wouldn't be here right now.

If you had explained what you meant by being "hand-picked":

1. Placed in the spotlight and lauded as the only good choice so the people would be enamored and all vote for them
OR
2, A powerful entity has rigged the voting process and our votes don't matter because the hand-picked candidate will win no matter what.

I would have understood perfectly. I ASKED you for clarification, because I know you're intelligent and something wasn't making sense to me. My logic is usually pretty good. If I end up sounding like a moron, there's a pretty good chance that I'm misunderstanding something. I would think that you would know that about me...


I even said:


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
But if I've misunderstood something, maybe you can explain it to me...


I wish you had said the following when I first asked for clarification instead of getting patronizing on me.


Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
Hand picking just means these are the two candidates that will be funded and promoted by corporate interests and the corporate owned media.


That's all you had to say because now I know EXACTLY what you mean, and I agree. Normally, someone being "hand-picked" for a job doesn't mean there are other options to choose from.


edit on 4/30/2011 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 08:35 AM
link   
Seems to be a lot of negetive thinking on this and persons that have the ability to make the change by voting are refusing to admit that they have a say one way or the other.
As an Independant, should for some reason I decided to run for a political office (I don't know how and don't think I want to) and I observed the many whom did not or will not vote for the demipublicans or repocrats I would be doing all I could to obtain your vote and make your voice heard.
If the last person you voted for was a businessman then remember one may be running and you can vote for that candidate (the last businessman to be elected dropped two atomic bombs at the end of WWII) and wont take the bologna from the UN
Me I'm a disabled truck driver and can barely walk so even if I ran with a minus in front of my poles etc it would let you know that YAHOO (you all have other options).
Also if you voted for the current admin and don't like it "$%^&" and vote for some one else in 2012 It's your job as a citizen over 18 to do this from local to executive branches of government



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 08:38 AM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 


Thank you for helping to explain your position on why you think it would be different if Paul were the president.

It's good to see you.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 08:43 AM
link   
Ron Paul does not support ending social programs. That's a fallacy brought on by the statist media. What Ron Paul does support, is ending the force of tax-payers to pay for these social programs on a federal level, exactly in-line with the Constitution (particularly the 10th Amendment). Now, if the Amendment process were used to allow for such programs on a federal level, I'm sure it would be a different story.

Still, this says nothing for social programs on a state or local level. Also, history has proven that when a government doesn't provide charity, NGOs and non-profits do. In fact they flourish, especially without the medaling from government and they tend to do a much better job of it. You see, government is so inefficient, not to mention corrupt and many of these social programs wind up only benefitting the rich, still.

The thinking behind this, is that you shouldn't force people to do anything that they don't want to do. It's called liberty. If however, you do want to help your neighbors, you're more than free to do so, you're just not forced to do it.

Also, with the economy supported by Ron Paul, there would be a much smaller need for charity, as the elite wouldn't have the unfair advantage that they now have, With our current economy and monetary policies, more and more people are get poorer and poorer due to an unfair advantage and government favoritism, creating the need for government dependence or charity and thus ultimately force on the tax-payer better known a loss of liberty.


--airspoon


ETA: Hey BH, I didn't see that last post of yours before posting this
. I have been a supporter of Paul for a very long time and he is only just now getting the attention that he deserves. I have been waiting for this time, thinking that it would never come. It wasn;t long ago when the media would ignore him all together or simply spin his message into something that its not, such as Fox News trying to call him a terrorist.


edit on 30-4-2011 by airspoon because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by airspoon
It wasn;t long ago when the media would ignore him all together or simply spin his message into something that its not, such as Fox News trying to call him a terrorist.


Oh, I know. I remember. He hasn't been allowed in the debates and he's been made to look like a whack-o. BECAUSE of his Constitutional positions. People are so brainwashed and they think the twisted 'representation' we have now is the best we can do. I KNOW we can do a lot better.

I supported and was going to vote for Paul in 2008 until he wilted like hot lettuce. I have concerns about his ability to stand strong against the PTB. (do you?) It's going to take a lot more fight than I've seen from him so far. I have the impression that he gave 2008 up too easily. I am also concerned that his childlike demeanor isn't going to appeal to the general public. He has a certain quiet strength that I admire (like Dennis Kucinich), but he just doesn't have that mass appeal strength that people want in a leader.

And like it or not, mass appeal IS something that the voting public responds to.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 09:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


I didn't see him give up at all in 2008. You have to remember that year, he ran as a Republican so once the primaries were over, so was his ticket. If you remember the Republican National Convention though, Dr. Paul held an even bigger Campaign for Liberty Convention in the other "Twin City" next door. It was reportedly much bigger than the RNC and organized ad-hoc.

The Republican party, seeing how popular Dr. Paul had become and his uncanny ability to raise a whole lot of money through grass-roots, invited him to the RNC, to which he declined and instead threw an ad-hoc convention next-door that turned out much bigger than the boring old Republican Convention. I thought that this was a perfect ending that summed up his growing popularity.

In fact, not only was Ron Paul not invited to the primary debates, he was either ignored by all of the major networks or turned into a wing-nut, in spite of the fact that he had set records with raising money through grass-roots organizing. He was invited to the first Republican primary debate and overwhelmingly won that debate according to call-in votes, but Fox News edited him out of the debate all together when rehashing the event, claiming that one of the other candidates had won the call-in votes. It was an out-right lie.

As far as his ability to stand up against TPTB, I think his strengths are with his supporters, exactly how it should be in American politics. He has done one hell of a job with the "edit the fed" campaign. So yes, I think he will do fine, given the chance. He has an uncanny ability to win folks over, so long as the media isn't able to edit then twist his words.

We have to look at Dr. Paul in context. Unlike every other politician, Paul is only a conduit through which the American people can govern themselves, exactly how American politics were intended. Relatively recently, the media and statist agenda has falsely lead us to believe in the notion that we elect politicians to make choices for us, as opposed to by us. In other words, we leave the governing to the politicians when in fact we, the people are supposed to govern ourselves through our elected leaders.

With that, I believe that the social awakening induced by Ron Paul would be revolutionary in comparison with any kind of policies championed by him. It is what Paul represents, not necessarily Paul himself, that would be the biggest win for America. The very fact that once again, the people of this country would be in charge of their government and ultimately their destiny, is something that Paul offers us. This is extraordinary.

Of course, as you pointed out earlier, he wouldn't be able to change the system if elected as we still have a corrupt Congress and infrastructure. However, it would be the largest single step -and possibly the only step- for getting back to a nation governed "by", "for" and "of" the people. I truly believe that Dr. Paul is our last hope. That doesn't mean that if Paul wins, we get our country back. Instead, it means that if Dr. Paul wins, we have a chance to get our country back. So, instead of it ending with Paul, it would only be the beginning.


--airspoon


afterword - I often hear people say that they didn't vote for Paul because there was no chance that he would win and they didn't want to "throw away" a vote. That is such a sad thing to hear because voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil. Every time we vote for a candidate, especially Republican or Democrat (who holds their party platform), we are giving them a vote of approval. We are basically saying that we approve of what's been going on. How many people can honestly say that they approve of what either the Dems or Repubs have been doing for the past several decades? By voting for anyone who is line with either of those parties, we are saying that we approve of the status-quo (Paul is not in line with the Repub party).'

By voting for Paul or any third party candidate, even if it is hopeless for them to win, you are sending a strong message of disapproval for the status-quo. In fact, the only way not to waste a vote, is to not vote for what we perceive as the lesser of two evils.

There were many of us warning against Barrack Obama and not because he was a Democrat "lefty" or a liberal, but rather because he was a statist and clearly represented the status-quo. Sure, he advocated change but at the same time he was basically doing things that would indicate change was the last thing he wanted. Now look what we have, the same neo-con agenda where the elites are robbing us blind and turning this country into a banana republic. We basically voted George Bush III and not because he has the same ideals as Bush had, but rather because he is supported and backed by the same influences as Bush.

All it would have took for people to see this before they voted Obama in, was to look at his voting history, who he associates with (his appointees and business partners). With Dr. Paul, we don't find anything status quo about him and his voting record can be summed up by the intellect and sacrifice of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson -to name a few.

By voting for Paul, we are in effect voting for the Constitution and the notion that we are free because we have a government "of", "by" and "for" the people.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by masterp
Let's not forget that Obama was publically threatened to be killed by Hillary Clinton, even if that was presented only as a slip of the tongue by the press.


O. M. G.

Really? C'mon. Thats the most ridiculous statement of the day. (Although the day is still young)

She was being hounded in the press to back out of the competition for the Democratic nomination. She was being portrayed like some desperate clinging psychotic nomination stalker who just didnt know when it was "over." She brought up historical primaries in which the candidates had stayed in the competition longer than she currently (at the time) had, and as a further strategy to hound her into withdrawing, the MSM turned her examples into some utterly illogical claim that she was signaling some desire that Obama be assasinated like RFK. It was clearly just the corporate MSM assassinating HER chance to be president, and she actually had a very good one. Why they preferred Obama, we dont know, she is pretty corporate friendly herself, I am going to guess she is just harder to control.

www.huffingtonpost.com...


"My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don't understand it."


She mentioned the assassination ONLY because he was still campaigning when it happened.

She got Howard Dean'd by the MSM who count on potato heads who cannot think and reason for themselves just accepting their version of what happened.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by airspoon


afterword - I often hear people say that they didn't vote for Paul because there was no chance that he would win and they didn't want to "throw away" a vote. That is such a sad thing to hear because voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil.


You only throw away a vote if you vote a person you have not evaluated on your own, and who YOU think will be the most likely person to promote your position while in office. You do not throw away your vote for voting for the loser. You throw away your vote by not voting your INFORMED conscience

People need to start looking at voting records, and being very clear on their candidate. Not just picking the person the media is hyping as being their best bet. Everyone wants to be on the winning team, but roughly 50% of the population will be on the losing team in virtually any election. So even if you use the flawed reasoning that "if I vote for someone and they dont win I threw away my vote," odds are good you will do that no matter WHO you vote for.

So vote based on the person, and their actual historical behavior, not what comes out of their mouth on TV. And if the person is too young and inexperienced to HAVE a record of their historical behavior, that can be a sign too. Nader, Paul, Kucinich, et al, have a long track record of behavior that we can look at and determine what it is likely they will do next. And thats important.

Again, I dont care who anyone votes for. But for Petes sake dont just let the TV who that should be. Do your homework.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

I supported and was going to vote for Paul in 2008 until he wilted like hot lettuce. I have concerns about his ability to stand strong against the PTB. (do you?)


And you play right into their hands when you do that. Everyone who looks to the MSM to tell them who has a chance to win plays right into their hands. Because if you think rationally about it, that gives them control of YOUR vote. You still could opt out. But most of you do not.

Public appeal does matter, but you are taking someone elses word, the MSM, what the populace finds appealing. The same people who hide protests by Americans so we cannot see what other Americans are doing. Even though many of you seem to have some awareness the MSM is propagandizing you, you dont seem to realize how that can be used to buy elections.

Which is why Citizens United did not elicit the outrage it should have among the masses.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 10:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Fair point, and I think we were all disappointed - but how exactly could Ron have 'stood' against what was happening in the primaries and caucuses?

What could he have done different that would have had greater lasting impact the the Rally for the Republic and forming the Campaign for Liberty, which has had very useful effect thus far?

Just stay in and keep losing? The deck was stacked against him from the start with the media hatchet jobs and the level of crap that took places in the earliest, most influence, elections. How would he have fought?

If we could have cameras covering all ballots, etc., in all precincts at all times, then I could see a legal recourse. But this isn't the case.

And as far as being strong enough to stand up against opposition - I have never seen him waffle on anything or change positions to cater to anyone other than his own opinions (immigrations/borders...not anything else I can think of offhand). I knew not to trust Obama from the start as there was hedging that didn't take long to begin, as well as his positions were just wrong. Despite claiming to be a constitutionalist whatever, he was too much for intervention, too much for gun controls, and a good many issues I still have printed off from his wiki page before the elections.

What could Ron Paul have done differently?



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
Ron Paul also hasn't been commander in chief following someone as disastrous as Bush, leaving 2 wars, renditions and CIA torture prisons spread around the world, and a love-hate quasi alliance with Pakistan.

If RP is elected president he will commander and chief following someone even more disastrous than Bush, Obama.
Instead of bush leaving 2 wars Obama will be leaving 4 or 5 as he is adding Pakistan, Yemen and of course Libya.


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.

Ron Paul supports a transition period where the older people will continue to get all these social services but younger people will be able to opt out.

He has no intention of cutting these services for the older generation.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Praetorius

Just stay in and keep losing? The deck was stacked against him from the start with the media hatchet jobs and the level of crap that took places in the earliest, most influence, elections. How would he have fought?


We the people just need to see through the medias tactics and we the people just need to stop falling for it.

Our candidates do have to be willing to stand there and let us sidestep the media, however.

We cant change what the media does, (unless we buy the media outlets) we can only change how we respond to it. One way to do that is to promote awareness by word of mouth that the media IS propagandizing and skewing elections. Awareness is key here, and then having the courage to do what needs to be done even though the media is telling you its a waste of your time trying.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by boondock-saint
the opt out version will NOT work.

He's the only one that wants to end these wars
Continuing these wars and maintaining the healthcare that your parents value isn't going to keep happening forever.

I would say that his anti-war stance is way stronger than your point about the mass contributing to healthcare.


Originally posted by Janky Red
I will not vote for him because he will allow for corporations to dictate private law, through passivity in regards to
handling corporate intent and procurement of governmental prowess.

He will never achieve smaller government because they will assume the role of government and lobby government. There is a huge logic hole you and Paul are missing...

See this makes absolutely no sense whatsoever
Corporations cannot dictate private law, they are not legislators
Secondly how can corporations assume the role of govt. through lobbying(as they do so efficiently now) when there's no govt. body to lobby?

It is you sir who is clearly missing the logic
The only way corporations can lobby under his system is in the free market
and the only way to lobby free market is making good products and services at competitive prices.


Originally posted by Janky Red
How can you expect to be more free, when you strive to privatize everything, therefore making everything exclusive???

That doesn't even make any sense
you cannot privatize everything, it's impossible and isn't even what he is proposing



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Janky Red
I would not opt out, many people I know would stay in there because it serves a purpose in this society.
My Republican grandparents needed that money and they experienced what good that did for them.

Let me give you an analogy for what you are saying here

John and Stella have a family with 10 kids and a credit card
they allow all 10 kids to use these credit cards
when these 10 kids have their own kids they will be passing the same credit card down

those 10 kids, like your parents, experienced what good it did for them
But the kids of these 10 kids now have massive debts to pay and because of them later generations will be in such a horrible condition
That credit card now seems like a curse to later generations

Sky is not the limit and money does not grow on trees



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join