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: End Obamacare, Abolish the IRS, Eliminate Support for Big Government

page: 6
37
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 11:09 PM
link   
reply to post by whaaa
 





Basically I like Dr. Paul but I could never vote for anyone that wants to steal my tax dollars that I have already paid into the system. Privatize....to who? Another corrupt govt. contractor like Haliburton?


Lol out of all the sitting politicians you should understand Ron Paul is the least likely to steal your tax money. Plus, all the other elected officials have pillaged social security numerous times.

If you pay more attention to Dr.Paul, you would relize he does not stand for these half government/half private firms either. No Sallie Mae, not Fannie or Freddie, not blackwater. Private and public should not be merged, even a little bit. Here is why:




Benito Mussolini "Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism, as it is the merger of corporate and government power." - Benito Mussolini


www.great-quotes.com...




posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 11:17 PM
link   
reply to post by boondock-saint
 





what happens to us here at home is more important to
me than what happens in Iraq, Libya, Syria or any
other place we're dropping bombs.



I absolutely disagree. What we are doing oversees is far more important than domestic policy right now, mostly because it is our foreign policy bleeding American taxpayers dry. Not Social Security. Not Medicare/Medicaid. Not Welfare

As President Kennedy once said Domestic policy can hurt us, but Foreign policy can kill us"
edit on 10-6-2011 by Skerrako because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 12:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by boondock-saint

Originally posted by The Old American
Social Security seems to be a sticking point for some of you.
/TOA


ya know we heard this "CHANGE" slogan
3 yrs ago and didn't hash out the details
of that change and see where we are now ???


That is exactly why I am voting for Ron Paul! I can't take another 4 years of the current White House occupier! I thought bush was bad until this guy started running things.

Anyhow Paul stands for something and sticks by what he says. I have yet to meet a puppet running for office that doesn't change his tune 20 times before election day just to appease all the different special interest groups!



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 12:11 AM
link   
reply to post by The Old American
 


it doesnt take a rocket scientist to see he's the only real american running for office in 2012



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 12:12 AM
link   
Lots of talk about Social Security in here.

If somehow Ron Paul were to become President, the only way he's going to get such a major change done to it is with Republican majorities in the House and Senate.

The elderly aren't going to vote for anyone who plans on screwing with SS and medicare.

Look, Ron Paul has some good ideas. I'm with him on our foreign policy, federal reserve, and doing something about free trade amongst some other things....but too many of his beliefs are far too extreme....such as legalizing all drugs and prostitution....along with the privatization of medicare and SS. Cleaning up the corruption involved in the programs i absolutely support...destroying them I do not. There are also the racist articles in the Ron Paul Newsletters that he will once again have to deal with. The media has stayed silent on it so far with the campaigns heating up...but it will arise again I guarantee you.

Not to mention...he's pretty damn old. I really don't want another President that doesn't know where the hell he is half the time like Reagan.

Ron Paul also supported the "Citizens United" ruling by the Supreme court which allowed even more incredible corruption by corporations in our government...most of which who have interests outside of our country.
edit on 11-6-2011 by David9176 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 12:14 AM
link   
Taking down big government would in fact give rise of power to big corporation.

You can't get rid of one without empowering the other, unless you get rid of both.



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 12:29 AM
link   
I have to be honest- I like him because he seems honest and wants to get rid of the federal reserve.

I'd vote for anyone to get the govt. off my back some- to heck with money, they can have it.



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 12:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by drkylefletcher
Taking down big government would in fact give rise of power to big corporation.

You can't get rid of one without empowering the other, unless you get rid of both.


I disagree. One of the big advantages large unaccountable corporations have is the power of the big government they co-opt. They're large and unaccountable BECAUSE they buy the power of government to begin with. If the government is large and unaccountable, and the corporations take advantage of that power, then it makes it easier for those corporations to be large and unaccountable as well. It's a cycle of corruption that feeds on itself. And the only real control we can exercise is our control over the size of government.

If you want corporations to survive on their own without being able to seek special favor from government you MUST reduce the power of the government that can be co-opted to their favor. Large corporations like the Bankster cartels LOVE big governments.
edit on 11-6-2011 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 12:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by drkylefletcher
Taking down big government would in fact give rise of power to big corporation.

You can't get rid of one without empowering the other, unless you get rid of both.


Corporations, in fact, exist because government chartered their existence. It is patently absurd to argue that by limiting governments ability to empower the corporation will give rise to an even more powerful corporation. The corporation can only exist by grant of charter...revokable charter. Big government has no problem in revoking charters to small to midsize corporations but universally refuses to revoke the charters of corporate monstrosities like Monsanto, and Exxon. It is just more doublespeak to argue that limiting the government that has created the corporate monstrosity will make an even greater corporate monstrosity.



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 01:16 AM
link   
reply to post by David9176
 





There are also the racist articles in the Ron Paul Newsletters that he will once again have to deal with. The media has stayed silent on it so far with the campaigns heating up...but it will arise again I guarantee you.

Not to mention...he's pretty damn old. I really don't want another President that doesn't know where the hell he is half the time like Reagan.


Without a hint of irony you go from insisting that Paul has to account for racism, then you turn around and engage in agism, as if this is perfectly okay. You also imply that reaching a certain age means senility, but below that age it is implicit that people "know where the hell" they are. However, you conclude with this erroneous assertion:




Ron Paul also supported the "Citizens United" ruling by the Supreme court which allowed even more incredible corruption by corporations in our government...most of which who have interests outside of our country.


Whether Ron Paul "supported" the SCOTUS decision or not, it was not a ruling that "allowed even more incredible corruption by corporations" it was a ruling that struck down the unconstitutional portion of the BPFR Act. Their reasoning was quite simple. The Supreme Court looked at the First Amendment, that instructed them that Congress had no authority to legislate any laws that would abridge the freedom of speech, they then looked at the BPFR Act which did in fact abridge speech, and they correctly struck this down.

If Ron Paul "supported" this ruling it was because it was a ruling rooted in Constitutional principles. Those who abhor the ruling ignore the fact that BPFR also prohibited unincorporated individuals from the same speech, but it matters not to them. Their knee jerk reaction is all that matters, and so what if Congress was rebuked for acting unconstitutionally, so what that individuals not incorporated benefited by this ruling, all that matters is that corporations benefited from the ruling. This knee jerk reaction presented as political thought hardly supports the contention that only old people who reach a certain age don't know where they are.



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 01:17 AM
link   
While I do like Dr. Paul, some of his ideas do scare me, although I probably haven't heard the complete logistics of these plans. When there is talk of getting rid of anything big, as he is doing, I raise an eyebrow. This is because of the potential havoc that would be created. There must not only be a smooth transition, but a lengthy one as well.

If he is elected in 2012, and starts to implement some of his ideas, everything will be discombobulated for a good while, until the transition is complete. So I am not sure how the masses will interpret that. I just don't think things will get better, if he is elected, right away. He has long-term plans in mind, and imo he will need two terms to iron everything out, and even then we cannot know what the following President will do. Maybe I am just being cynical, and I hope that things work out for all of our benefit, but I am just trying to be realistic.

I will vote for him regardless, mainly because he hasn't flip-flopped on his issues like the majority of politicians do. I am hoping that his momentum keeps up, and that the MSM will start to paint him in better light, because your average citizen probably knows nothing about him...I think it will come down to that. Exposure, and letting people know his history on issues, and how he is a man with a plan.

The amount of money Obama spent on his campaign was utterly ridiculous, and I hope Ron Paul can get some of that dough for his campaign. The thing is though, he probably won't because I doubt he will play ball with any of the corporations. I think Dr. Paul is too good for politics, and it saddens me to no end that our country has come to this.
edit on 6/11/11 by JiggyPotamus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 01:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Old American
Here he goes again making sense.



Dr. Paul has been consistent for 30 years. Any freedom loving, liberty leaning, Constitution-respecting American would be proud to have him as the leader of this country.

/TOA


ok, you people who are pushing this no government is good government crap need to do some honest research, and see how much everybody depends on government to maintain some type of civility, and our basic way of american life, and to do that costs alot of damn money.
all you rich bastards need to start paying a larger share of taxes, and quit whining about how it is "YOUR MONEY"...guess what...IT ISN"T...why? because that's the ticket price you have to pay to live in a decent country. you don't like big government or high taxes? go live in nigeria, or laos, nothing to worry about there, right?...jesus, what a bunch of 5 year olds.
and all you business people that keep saying we have to compete with china are full of crap...why? because the majority of workers over there make approx. 200 to 300 bucks in a month, and that's working 50 to 70 hours a week...let's see one of you live on that here in the US... there is no "compete" ...it's a word used by every F'IN economist, businessman, politician, and they have repeated it so much that they now believe what is coming out of their mouths is somehow the truth, and now they are trying to get every slopped-headed, knuckle-dragging, american to also buy into this crap...what's wrong with you people?
the average american is getting screwed by big oil companies, big insurance companies, big banking and finance companies, and who's to blame? big government...yeah right...we need our government to grow a big pair of regulator balls and go kick some corporate ass, so that they answer to the american people, and not the other way around. immediately put a 10% tax on all income above 250,000 for the next 2 years, raise tariffs on goods coming into this country so american workers do not have to "compete" with every slave wage country in the world. it's about time to stop moaning and groaning about government, and help those now in it, to start doing the right thing for the average person. also, it's time to stop the poor and middle class from taking all the crap that roles downhill, and start making the wealthy "feel some pain"...just like the rest of us have done for the last decade.
edit on 11-6-2011 by jimmyx because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 02:07 AM
link   
reply to post by jimmyx
 


Yep, Jimmy. This was a really mature way of dealing with those of us who favor SMALL government.

I'm not even sure it's worth refuting whatever point you were trying to make in that name -calling rant of yours.



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 02:20 AM
link   
reply to post by David9176
 


Hello friend, I am going to refute most of your points, but all in good conversation and different viewpoints



If somehow Ron Paul were to become President, the only way he's going to get such a major change done to it is with Republican majorities in the House and Senate.

I think both parties would deadlock him, Republicans would be even more steamed than the dems if he cut their war spending.




The elderly aren't going to vote for anyone who plans on screwing with SS and medicare.


Very true! Let's hope Dr.Paul can make them understand that if things remain as they are, there will be No SS or Medicare, and old people would literally be on the street with no food and no medical care if something isn't done differently.



Look, Ron Paul has some good ideas. I'm with him on our foreign policy, federal reserve, and doing something about free trade amongst some other things....but too many of his beliefs are far too extreme....such as legalizing all drugs and prostitution....along with the privatization of medicare and SS. Cleaning up the corruption involved in the programs i absolutely support...destroying them I do not. There are also the racist articles in the Ron Paul Newsletters that he will once again have to deal with. The media has stayed silent on it so far with the campaigns heating up...but it will arise again I guarantee you.


Here is where you make the common man mistake. First, Paul does not want to "legalize" all drugs and prostitution, he just doesn't want the federal government restricting them. The argument is that we own our bodies, and we can put anything in them, as long as it has no adverse effects on anyone else's personal liberty. And for the record, drugs were legal for more time in American history than they have been illegal, ironically during the times that we were growing into a full-fledged nation. There seems to be a fear that if drugs were legal suddenly everyone you go out and do heroin, when in reality the people doing heroin are going to do it whether it is legal or not. Also, we could just have a taxpayer funded program to anyone that wants to get clean. Before you say "I don't want to pay for that" you already are, through the jail system (some of which are owned privately). Privatizing SS and Medicare would not destroy them at all, I believe it would make them run more efficiently by eliminating governmental waste. Paul will have to deal with race, but it can be done. I am the case in point- black, and a stout Ron Paul defender. I have also shown many others that Ron Paul has more in common with what they want than most of the Dems do





Not to mention...he's pretty damn old. I really don't want another President that doesn't know where the hell he is half the time like Reagan.

Don't forget that Ron Paul is a Doctor, and has been in public office for 30 years. He knows the stresses of the presidential office as he has (probably) seen more than you or I.This isn't old chubby John McCain here.

Speaking of McCain, Paul is against the McCain-Feingold act ruling because he believes that you should have the right to spend your own money as you see fit, even if it is a billionare CEO. It doesnt seem fair because of our keynesian economic system. If true capitalism was in place, those billionaires would probably be poorer than many of us.....That is why ending the FED and returning to sound money is key.



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 02:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by jimmyx
 


Yep, Jimmy. This was a really mature way of dealing with those of us who favor SMALL government.

I'm not even sure it's worth refuting whatever point you were trying to make in that name -calling rant of yours.


ok, i purposely spoke in that style, because that is the type of language most, not all, small government people would understand.
the reason for any democratic, republic, representative government is to control the wealthy and powerful from the average citizen. why?
our government wasn't setup to just have a military to protect our country...a king or dictator has always had that.
our government wasn't setup to just help with commerce...a king or dictator has always done that.
what ron paul and other small government people are proposing can be done with a king or dictator, as has been done all through the worlds history. we here in america need a balance of socialism with capitalism....any other form of governments have been tried and they have failed.
representative governments have ALWAYS been about controlling the excesses, and influences of the wealthy.
edit on 11-6-2011 by jimmyx because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 02:28 AM
link   
reply to post by jimmyx
 


You're not confusing at all.

You're just berating and rude which isn't worth the conversation.

Now if you wanna act like an adult and talk to people the way you would like to be spoken to then we might be able to hash out the issues. We've been having an intelligent, adult conversation for most of this thread until you showed up with your name calling BS.
edit on 11-6-2011 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 02:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by jimmyx
 


You're not confusing at all.

You're just berating and rude which isn't worth the conversation.

Now if you wanna act like an adult and talk to people the way you would like to be spoken to then we might be able to hash out the issues. We've been having an intelligent, adult conversation for most of this thread until you showed up with your name calling BS.
edit on 11-6-2011 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)


really? adult conversation? doing away with the IRS is somehow a thoughtful discussion?
and an intelligent conversation on making government smaller, seems to always involve cutting programs that help people in the bottom half, is that the adult level that you are looking for?



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 02:47 AM
link   
reply to post by jimmyx
 





go live in 'n-word'ia


This rudeness and lack of tact is when I stopped reading.

You're so clever.

reply to post by projectvxn
 


Hey projectvxn, just stop talking to this clown, it's not worth it. Let him ruin someone elses thread. You can be the bigger man, because it's clear he isn't going to be.
edit on 11-6-2011 by Skerrako because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 02:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Skerrako
 


Yeah that's where i stopped reading too. Anyone who uses that kind of language to get a "point" across isn't worth the conversation.

Now, if anyone OTHER than that person wants to have a debate on these issues I would be happy to oblige.



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 06:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by inforeal
reply to post by The Old American
 


Bill Clinton BALANCED THE BUDGET!
GEORGE BUSH BLOW IT BACK UP!
Those are facts, where are your facts?
You dont have any, all you have is dogma, that makes no moral, ethical or common sense.


Yeah, Clinton balanced the budget with what, 2 weeks left of his last term, with a Rep House and Senate. Remember the surplus idea? Where did he get the surplus from, the white house gardens money tree? If there was a surplus, then it was tax dollars that the Govt was not entitled to, but should have gone back to the tax payer.



new topics

top topics



 
37
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join