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 A Distaster For The USA. Hes Always Wrong. Why Is There So Much Love For Him ? Wrong Paul

page: 8
50
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 6 2011 @ 09:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by tonypazzohome
ron paul is an idealist and idealism unfortunately does not translate into the reality we are in. change has to start somewhere but we cant afford it to start here under such austere conditions.


Unfortunately you are clearly incorrect.

RP is one of the only Realists in the system.

The Idealists and fantasy-lovers are the Republicans and Democrats. They believe they can keep spending money we don't have and everything will be fine.

That's pure fantasy.




posted on May, 6 2011 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by tonypazzohome
ron paul is an idealist and idealism unfortunately does not translate into the reality we are in.

I'd say he's way more practical than idealist

end the wars and cut spending is mere idealism?
stopping the propping up of foreign govts. is mere idealism?
stop spending billions on the american empire which only increases hatred upon the U.S. is mere idealism?

what exactly is idealistic?
I'd say that Universal Healthcare is Idealism, the idea that things should be perfect where money grows from trees and it's okay to force people to pay for other people's well-being because in an ideal society everyone would want to anyhow.

Is it possible that you misunderstand the word "Idealism"?



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 09:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Cuervo
 





I don't understand why you are so convinced they would end up like that.


Pardon me for butting in, but I believe the reason is simple. When politics leans toward the emotional, folks tend to see things in black and white - 'either, or' situation. This is simply a failure of imagination that does not take into account the limitless possibilities that true liberty brings.
edit on 6-5-2011 by Smack because: punctuation



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Smack
reply to post by Cuervo
 





I don't understand why you are so convinced they would end up like that.


Pardon me for butting in, but I believe the reason is simple. When politics leans toward the emotional, folks tend to see things in black and white - 'either, or' situation. This is simply a failure of imagination that does not take into account the limitless possibilities that true liberty brings.
edit on 6-5-2011 by Smack because: punctuation


I think we all suffer from that occasionally. Good point.



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 09:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cuervo
I don't understand why you are so convinced they would end up like that.


I don't understand why you feel it'll be any different under the state level? Maybe you have this idea that the federal goverment consists of evil blood sucking reptillians and the state government does not, but you need to look at things more objectively. If the federal government is capable of being corrupted, if humans are capable of being corrupted, what makes a state government any different?

In 2001 Bush passed the Patriot act. How many state goverments and governors objected? Governor Perry was a staunch support of the patriot act being passed, the Texan government was fully behind Bush, as were other governments. You are deeply mistaken if you are to assume that state governments are automatically in your best interests. Government is government at the end of the day, doesn't matter how many levels you go down.


If you think that, blame the voters there, not the sovereignty.


Ok so I see now.

Blame the federal government for installing fascist rule.
Blame the state voters, not the state government, when the state implements fascist rule themselves? Right?

hmmm....


Just because some backwoods folks wanna live under their Christian version of Sharia law, doesn't mean that will happen in every state.


People have fundalmental rights granted by the constitution. You appear to have no issue with the idea that states can trample on those constitutional rights. And you want people like me to take Ron Paul's agenda as something positive?



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by ModernAcademia

Originally posted by tonypazzohome
ron paul is an idealist and idealism unfortunately does not translate into the reality we are in.

I'd say he's way more practical than idealist

end the wars and cut spending is mere idealism?
stopping the propping up of foreign govts. is mere idealism?
stop spending billions on the american empire which only increases hatred upon the U.S. is mere idealism?

what exactly is idealistic?
I'd say that Universal Healthcare is Idealism, the idea that things should be perfect where money grows from trees and it's okay to force people to pay for other people's well-being because in an ideal society everyone would want to anyhow.

Is it possible that you misunderstand the word "Idealism"?


i mean in the current climate he is an idealist. if he wasn't, then there would be several others who were also "singing his tune" - he's unique. that doesn't equate to success in today's political scene



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 10:02 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


Wasn't too long ago you were going lengths to say basically the same thing about Paul.

Remember?



I was happy to be enlightened in 2007 that a politician like Ron Paul actually existed. I have so much respect for him and to be honest, I feel like that's saying a lot as our lifestyles are polar opposites. Making it abundantly clear that liberty and freedom transcends all social barriers if people will take the time to understand it.

Ron Paul, 2012!



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 






I really think you need to check some figures..
Inflation before the Fed was around 1%..
1917 was over 17%...

Yep, the Fed sure held down inflation..
inflationdata.com...


Thanks for the reference.(bookmarked) It is one I did not have .



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 10:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


Everybody would still be protected under the constitution. You just wouldn't have any additional laws imposed by the feds. The federal government would operate much like it was originally intended; to be a union of sovereign states. And, yes, I do think things would be different on a state level. People would actually care about local elections, for one thing, because they would actually matter to them more than the presidential ones do.

If you have rights stripped away from you (patriot act) on a federal level, it's imposed on every citizen. The feds just gave Monsanto carte blanch for two years while they re-evaluate regulations. I'm 95% positive that my state, if under its own control, would not allow them to operate within our borders. We are not protected under the federal government. USDA? FDA? Really?!

As far as racial segregation? Are you really considering that as a possible outcome? I guess I just have more faith in Americans than to think of that as a realistic possibility.



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 10:12 PM
link   
reply to post by DeadFlagBlues
 


yeah refresh my memory where i created a thread to bash ron paul and basically said big government was good and the fed was good and the centralization of power was good?

i have always leaned right but i guess lately after listening to and comprehending the message from paul that there is another way and business as usual is not the solution to getting things done.



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cuervo
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


Everybody would still be protected under the constitution.


Yet you support the right of states to implement laws the likes of racial segregation or abortion laws that will inevitably invade upon a person's own body and personal life. You even support that states could employ invasive religious laws. Am I wrong? Is this not what where you stood in previous posts? How do these laws work for individual rights?


And, yes, I do think things would be different on a state level. People would actually care about local elections, for one thing, because they would actually matter to them more than the presidential ones do.


Im not concerned about the right of states to implement their own driving age laws or drinking laws or even drug laws. We'r talking about personal issues here. The right of a woman to decider over her own body without any government, state or otherwise invading, the right of two consenting adults to marry, to be with one another, the right of people to free use the same services as others without any invasive state segregation laws. Those are the issues I'm referring to, issues you felt should be the right of states to decide. Fascism by the state level in my opinion, and this doesn't appear to bother you as much?


I'm 95% positive that my state, if under its own control, would not allow them to operate within our borders.


What state do you live in? And where is the evidence your government and your governor objected to the patriot act in 2001? If you are so confident that your state government will work in your best interest, it'd be simple to provide a source of your state government objecting to the patriot act and taking measures in 2001 to bar it from taking effect within state borders.


As far as racial segregation? Are you really considering that as a possible outcome?


My issue is not whether it's a possible outcome in future. My comment was regarding the right of states to implement racial segregation now. If your state was to implement racial segregation and anti-gay or racial marriage laws, would you support their right to do so? Its not a matter of it happening in the future, that was not my argument in the first place, it's hypothetical.

In the 60's there was a very similar argument to what you and I were having. Folks on my side argued against segregation, against anti-mixed marriage laws, the rights of american citizens to freely move and associate. It was an argument between libertarian Barry Goldwater and his supporters and liberal/conservative activists against segregation.

Libertarians clearly argued at the time that racial segregation can rightfully be implemented by the state. Do you agree with this argument?
edit on 6-5-2011 by Southern Guardian because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 10:29 PM
link   
Wow, so either the OP is very very very very very naive or it isn't just law enforcement and security agencies infiltrating sites like these anymore. Now, private banking cartels are doing it too! Holy obvious ploys, batman!



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 10:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Libertarians clearly argued at the time that racial segregation can rightfully be implemented by the state. Do you agree with this argument?
edit on 6-5-2011 by Southern Guardian because: (no reason given)


That's way overgeneralized and totally incorrect. Maybe a few did but all of them? Doubt it. Also you are using a loaded deck IMHO to try to paint freedom lovers as racists. Tisk tisk.

Anyways, the "State" has no rights at all. Zero. None.

Only living entities have rights, such as human beings.

Governments have Privileges granted to them by the People through law.

edit on 6-5-2011 by muzzleflash because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by mishigas
I'm not going to address the OP. I made that decision right after I read where he said "TARP is good".

But I will say that RP will never get elected POTUS in the US. During the debate on Thursday, he said he was in favor of legalizing heroin. That will never, ever fly with the American people. That single issue will ensure he never becomes POTUS.


His stance on drugs really turned me off, and I'm a staunch supporter of him and a lot of his ideas. I understand his Libertarian approach. I think the reasoning is that there would be no black market for which the govt and the CIA can run drugs to fund wars and such. On the other hand, most reasonable people will not buy that heroin or other drugs being legal will keep their kids safe. How can any parent tell their kids not to do such things if they are legal?



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 10:46 PM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


alcohol is legal yet most kids don't become alcoholics. self-destructive tendencies will manifest themselves in any environment. drugs are not the cause. they're simply a means to a desired end. the addict has no self worth. their intent is to DESTROY their self.



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by DeadFlagBlues
 


yeah refresh my memory where i created a thread to bash ron paul and basically said big government was good and the fed was good and the centralization of power was good?

i have always leaned right but i guess lately after listening to and comprehending the message from paul that there is another way and business as usual is not the solution to getting things done.



I didn't say you created a thread, but I've been following some of the Paul threads and there were few where you felt like you must interject to the contrary until just recently I've noticed a change of heart. Which I respect. Before I went gung-ho about Paul I tried to find dirt on him for the better part of 3 months. After I started to understand the constitutional interpretation of freedom, free markets, and personal liberty, I've been in favor ever since.



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
His stance on drugs really turned me off, and I'm a staunch supporter of him and a lot of his ideas. I understand his Libertarian approach. I think the reasoning is that there would be no black market for which the govt and the CIA can run drugs to fund wars and such. On the other hand, most reasonable people will not buy that heroin or other drugs being legal will keep their kids safe. How can any parent tell their kids not to do such things if they are legal?


I tell my kids not to cross the street without looking.

BUT ITS 100% LEGAL TO CROSS THE STREET WITHOUT LOOKING......

Let's make a law that puts cameras on every street corner so we can stop people from potentially getting hurt!



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by mishigas
I'm not going to address the OP. I made that decision right after I read where he said "TARP is good".

But I will say that RP will never get elected POTUS in the US. During the debate on Thursday, he said he was in favor of legalizing heroin. That will never, ever fly with the American people. That single issue will ensure he never becomes POTUS.


His stance on drugs really turned me off, and I'm a staunch supporter of him and a lot of his ideas. I understand his Libertarian approach. I think the reasoning is that there would be no black market for which the govt and the CIA can run drugs to fund wars and such. On the other hand, most reasonable people will not buy that heroin or other drugs being legal will keep their kids safe. How can any parent tell their kids not to do such things if they are legal?


Seriously? Who tells their kid not to do a drug because it's illegal? You tell your kid about drugs because of the side effects to it...but anyways I do enjoyed how he handle it and quite frankly I agree with it I have been around the heavy drug users and been offered it and turned it down and it wasn't because it was illegal



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by tonypazzohome
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


alcohol is legal yet most kids don't become alcoholics. self-destructive tendencies will manifest themselves in any environment. drugs are not the cause. they're simply a means to a desired end. the addict has no self worth. their intent is to DESTROY their self.


You're kidding me right? When did I ever say most kids become alcholics? And oh, geez it's illegal to drink underage even in your parents house. You do know that don't you? Now, tell me how many adults become alcoholics? Tell me please why we have laws on drinking and driving? So now you are trying to tell me that heroin should also become legal because the system sorta works for alcohol? Care to tell me how many lives are ruined on a regular basis by alcoholic related behavior? I'm not even making a case against alcohol, but why make something as addictive as heroin legal?



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash
That's way overgeneralized and totally incorrect. Maybe a few did but all of them? Doubt it.


How many vocal libertarians opposed the idea of states deciding on segregation at the time? How many libertarians in the 60's muzzleflash?? Obviously it was not all libertarians, but the most vocal ones either supported the stance of Barry Goldwater or kept shut.


Also you are using a loaded deck IMHO to try to paint freedom lovers as racists.


The stance on segregation at the time is a good example and measure on the true agenda of those who called themselves libertarians at the time. Are all libertarians racist? No, but I certainly did not see a vocal libertarian movement to end it. Now, it's 2011, and all of a sudden it's the FASCIST GOVERNMENT!


Anyways, the "State" has no rights at all. Zero. None.


I'm glad you are clear on your stance. States have NO right to implement such laws, but it's clear members here support states to do whatever the hell they want. Apparently, it's only fascism when the federal goverment does it and I've made it clear, that is not the case.



new topics

top topics



 
50
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join