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.

 

Did Fox News remove and hide their debate polls because Ron Paul was leading them?

page: 9
71
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 02:10 AM
link   
reply to post by ColoradoJens
 


Yes, what is so hard to understand? Are you being sarcastic because I apologize, I cannot tell. When they held a filibuster proof congress during 2009, they voted to extend it along with Obama. Do you believe the patriot act is constitutional?




posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 02:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
I'm not going to be convinced that ending minimum wage is a good thing because a free market economist says his theory dictates so. For a hard working man, with a family, working a on minimum wage, to consider allowing his company to lower his wage to compete with vietnamese workers because, in theory, things will eventually "work out for the best" is absolutely lunacy.


I agree.

Abolishing the minimum wage just means the poor work for less. It doesn't create jobs and that is an empirical fact.

But economists have been trying for years to show a link between abolishing the minimum wage and increased employment.

They have been unable to do so, but not for want of trying.

Abolishing the minimum wage, as study after study has proved, doesn't create more jobs. It just means the poor work for less.




edit on 13-8-2011 by ollncasino because: spelling



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 03:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
I'm not going to be convinced that ending minimum wage is a good thing because a free market economist says his theory dictates so. For a hard working man, with a family, working a on minimum wage, to consider allowing his company to lower his wage to compete with vietnamese workers because, in theory, things will eventually "work out for the best" is absolutely lunacy.


I agree.

Abolishing the minimum wage just means the poor work for less. It doesn't create jobs and that is an empirical fact.

But economists have been trying for years to show a link between abolishing the minimum wage and increased employment.

They have been unable to do so, but not for want of trying.

Abolishing the minimum wage, as study after study has proved, doesn't create more jobs. It just means the poor work for less.




edit on 13-8-2011 by ollncasino because: spelling


What does it matter if the economy never picks back up because we are stuck in ...how many wars now? Ive lost count. It seems like everyone in that debate aside from Paul was ready to walk into Iran day 1.



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 04:41 AM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


Ah...my second (maybe 3rd) post at ATS. And, I'm an Internet guru finally giving to pressure to "communicate." I was happier when only involved with the business and tech side of it.

What discourages me from joining in is the "cool game." I'm waayyy past caring who likes me or if I will be judged.

"Are my gross, chunky shoes current enough?" "Will I know what shallow, empty things to say when my friends and I do trendy things tonight?"

So, in keeping with the human endeavor to shed oneself of the ego can we agree that your comments were not productive and kinda mean-spirited? I, too have the urge to unleash upon you a belittling barrage of political and social criticisms. But my goal is to rid the Net of flamey, heartless and sarcastic quips in favor of admitting that I know nothing.

Funny how it's always the person who knows the least, that has the most to teach. So, what do you really "know" about Ron Paul and the phenom of his political following being highly eager to flood polls with votes for RP?
edit on 13-8-2011 by TyrannyNews because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 04:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Section31
 


Where have you been? Perry was given 2 sardonic thumbs-up at the Bilderberg Conference in Istanbul, 2007.

The trading began then, but for his many slips of the tongue. So, bets were off while he remained hidden most of the past few years.

But alas, he has emerged from his cocoon and clearly gritting his teeth with coc aine excitement at his reclaimed acceptance.

So yes, I think he is the pick. Ron Paul doesn't break laws, so it will have to be Perry that breaks himself to allow Ron Paul his well-deserved chance.



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 05:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 




most of the folks I know are republican voters, conservatives, they know who ron paul is, my family members know who he is...


I agree with your conclusion that Ron Paul isn't likely to win, despite my sincere desire that he be our last president. I'm a Voluntaryist. We make anarchists look like part of the system. So, I absolutely get stiff when I think of being free from the tyranny of mandated that, and fees for this and taxes for that and register this and respect authority while they remind us of how much trouble we'll be in if we don't.

So, your friends and family would be aghast if they knew Ron Paul would prefer a Voluntaryist system, absent of government by force. He simply can't sell that to the public, who are known to be very dull of mind.

Two laws ----- Don't harm and don't steal. Now, if someone does either to you, would you like them to be put in a cage by force and fined? Ewwwww. But, that would break the two laws. Now you know the plight of Ron Paul. How to help people without punishing them.

Your points are valid, IMO.



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 05:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 




I see things for what they are.





I'm not interested in theories.


So, you don't want authorities taken from the Fed and given back to the states? Here's a quote from me...




SShhhhhhh. The secret is, Ron Paul doesn't want to stop at giving these matters back to the states. He wants to give them to the individual!


You know, pay an employee what you and the employee agree to. Pay for your medical care with your own money or with that from a source that agrees to pay, rather than by theft though taxes. Oh, I know that it's not a burden for many when the violent monopoly steals more than half and pays your medical bills with the crumbs.

It's that whole liberty thing that Ron talks about all the time.

I can already hear the rebuttal; "It's not realistic to think we could stop putting people in cages and forcing them to do what the group decides."

Try this sometime. Make a turn at a stop-sign without stopping (going only like 20 mph) and get the attention of a cop. When he turns the blue lights on, just continue about your business without stopping. That will be the day that you die. I probably should have warned you at the start! Ahhh. You gotta love democracy.

EDIT: I couldn't leave without adding that, in Ron Pauls opinion doctors should actually perform the 30% charitable service they take an oath to provide. That would go a looooongg way toward servicing those in need.

edit on 13-8-2011 by TyrannyNews because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 06:12 AM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino
 


Sadly, I really don't think you understand the issue well enough to draw the conclusion you have. I'm still open to the possibility a minimum wage might serve to do some good.

But think of all the bad that comes from "violently" forcing an employer to comply with your wishes. It's like deciding Danny the stock boy is deserving of an arbitrary wage, while Mom and Pop are not in their rights to enter into an agreement with him to work for a lesser wage.

What about administrative assistants, who don't make a "living" wage, but make well over the minimum? They can't afford to buy a house, or to send a kid to college, or to drive a new car, or to take vacations, etc. What "minimum" wage should we set for them?

But, at least Danny gets to buy 2 comic books. And, a minimum wage ensures that he's not abused or sexually harassed and won't face any of life's hardships.

I don't mean to get all sarcastic, but everyone thinks so one-dimensionally. We can't expect Ron Paul or anyone for that matter to take the time and carefully explain how the minimum wage is an inefficient approach to liberty when everyone is so uninformed with such narrow perspectives.



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 10:52 AM
link   
Ron Paul won that debate by a large margin




right Click- view image to enlarge



Just posting these here for record keeping/



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
I'm not going to be convinced that ending minimum wage is a good thing because a free market economist says his theory dictates so. For a hard working man, with a family, working a on minimum wage, to consider allowing his company to lower his wage to compete with vietnamese workers because, in theory, things will eventually "work out for the best" is absolutely lunacy.


You should get paid for the quality of work you do, and without Uncle Sam's fat fingers in your check you can make less go alot further. He wants to do away with the loopholes that make it lucrative for companies to send jobs overseas, and create an environment that brings the jobs back here. Employers that low ball people will not attract talented workers, and their business will likely suffer. That's how the free market works, you get what you give.



Corporations will eventually give a damn, according to libertarianism, it's a theory, and that's it really.


Right, because corporations don't have control now.


You even said yourself the establishment politicians are corrupt. They are bought and paid for by the corporations. The free market doesn't exist here, because all you have to do is buy a politician, and you can get LAWS written in your favor. Surely you know how that worked in the prohibition of cannabis, among many other examples.



I say that if somebody like Ron Paul wins, and he goes forward with his policies, I say that's a good opportunity, we'll be able to see for ourselves. No theory, real practice.


I agree. And again, there will still be checks and balances. He will just help push things in a sustainable direction, for all of us.



Oh ok, so now he doesn't want to cut medicare huh? He wants to keep a hold of it? Did he get a libertarian hall pass for supporting socialized healthcare for elections sakes? Did you give him that hall pass?


No, I think he is realistic, and understands that even though he has personal issues with those things, alot of people have grown accustomed to them, and he's not gonna come into office and turn everything on it's ear. If we were to cut spending in other places, such as our military projection, jailing people for crimes with no victims, etc., then we can afford those things.



What "checks and balances"?


Um, congress, and the judicial branch. Since when has a president come in and implemented everything they personally agree with?



Is Ron Paul going to stop a state like Kansas from criminalizing a raped child for getting an abortion? Somehow I doubt it. But you talk about "checks and balances", I've got your reassurance apparently.


When did I address you in a condescending manner, that called for the same from you? And, apparently you feel the need to use dramatic, rare worse case scenarios in your argument. Interstate travel would still be legal, under Ron Paul, so if the people in Kansas decide to outlaw abortion...there are plenty of states that wouldn't. And, after a rape, any female should probably get the morning after pill. I don't think the people in Kansas would be so extreme that they wouldn't allow the pill for those who are raped. If so, then reasonable people would take themselves, and their money away from Kansas.


edit on 13-8-2011 by 27jd because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by R1220518
reply to post by SquirrelNutz
 


Rick Perry is the most annoying politician ever. Nobody from Texas will ever see office again


I agree with the former. And, reluctantly, disagree with the latter.



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 11:42 AM
link   
Equal time to all candidates is the law, isn't it?

They also canned Newt Gingrich when it looked like he was going to run for President, but refuse to fire Sarah Palin as a commentator, even though she's still "undecided" about running, and recently admitted that they treat her a lot kinder than anyone else on the network, and then tried to retract that statement.

Ron Paul, given a fair shake by the media, would definitely be the front runner. He consistently leads debates (he clearly won both debates so far) of the GOP candidates, and his ideas are the only ones of all the candidates running for GOP that actually make sense. He's also the ONLY true fiscally responsible Conservative on the panel. He's the only one who actually has ideas as to how to fix everything, whereas every other candidate simply slams the Democrats.

If I were an American, Ron Paul would get my vote.



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd
You should get paid for the quality of work you do,


You're under the assumption that all businesses pay their workers to the actual quality of work they carry out. Again we see this mind set from libertarianism, corporations, the market, rewards people for performances. It's ignorance of reality, and while this works for some businesses, not all.

I know folks who put sweat and bones for more than 20years in a manufacturing company, until that business decided to cut pay because they found themselves competing with foreign manufacturers. You are right in that comment, you should get paid to the level of work you do, but the free market isn't concerned with rewarding people on performances, it's profit first. You should know this, especially in these times.


He wants to do away with the loopholes that make it lucrative for companies to send jobs overseas,


Well that's interesting. For a person who has complete trust in private business and the free market, he certainly doesn't have trust when businesses freely shift jobs overseas to maximize profit. I see another stray away for true free market ideals, but then again, it's the election season.

How confident is Ron Paul of a global free market? He does support the concept of free market, right?




You even said yourself the establishment politicians are corrupt. They are bought and paid for by the corporations. The free market doesn't exist here, because all you have to do is buy a politician, and you can get LAWS written in your favor.


Corporations can buy off politicians simply because they have the lawful right in this country, it's a right many politicians, especially free market politicians, support. Infact, why are you complaining about politicians being lobbied by corporations? They are people according to Ron Paul, he supported the supreme court decision of giving them the same rights as american citizens:

www.dailypaul.com...

Ron Paul: "One side will argue, 'Well corporations don't have rights, only individuals have rights!' Well, individuals own the corporations."


So apparently an american corporation, half owned by Chinese and Saudi Arabian investors and board members, will have the right to lobby and bribe american politicians legally with unlimited funds, and Ron Paul supports this. We should treat them like american citizens.

What's Ron Pauls solution for politicans being bought off? Vote in better politicians. I'm beginning to see a pattern of argument here from Paul. Allow seniors to opt out of medicare, that oughtta end it, vote in high character politcians, that oughtta end the issue of bribes in washington. How about we just tell the corporations to stop shifting jobs overseas because it's unamerican, that oughtta stop them!

The more excuses you make for this man, the more I begin to find him unfavourable.



No, I think he is realistic,


So he's cutting back on part of his fundamental libertarianist ideals because they are unrealistic. He'll keep medicare despite all his howling about socialist healthcare because he knows it's unrealistic to dismantle it and the free market won't cover those seniors. Gee, is that him admitting that his belief is just a whole lotta belony and talk at the end of the day? Sounds so to me.

By all means, I don't want him to hold back. I want the republicans like him to move to end medicare, I seriously want them to do that Paulers. People need to stop talking and do the walking and see the results for themselves.



Um, congress, and the judicial branch.


Ron Paul will not get congress to stop kansas from criminalizing victims over abortion. Ron Paul will not stop a state like Georgia from banning marijuana. He's made it clear, these are states issues, state decisions. "Checks and balances? for what?


"If you want to regulate cigarettes and alcohol and drugs, it should be at the state level."

www.ontheissues.org...

"Checks and balances", why would he need it? He's relying on the states to do so themselves, which is exactly my problem. But sure, sure sure sure, if any state interferes with guns and prayers in schools, good golly, paul will be out there with his checks and balances. I've got your reassurance on that.



When did I address you in a condescending manner


If you believe in ultimate control of states to create invasive laws like that of abortion, or even marriage (which should only be a private matter), you're going to get a very negative answer from me. I'm sure you're passionate about what you view as liberty and freedom in this country, well same for me. I actually believe in the right of man or a woman to control his or her own destiny, to legally smoke whatever the hell they want in their own yards, to associate or be with who they want. Paul, along with yourself here, insists this is exactly what you want, but right down to the core of these beliefs, I find absolute BS. At the end, it's about pushing fascism towards the state level (with the exception of guns and other core issues of the rightwing), that's all it is in my view, and that's exactly what Paulers want. You have your own version of freedom and liberty, your version is restrictive upon what I view and freedom and liberty in this country.


And, apparently you feel the need to use dramatic, rare worse case scenarios


You damn straight I do, it doesn't matter if it's rare, it happens and its the principal I care about more tha how common these scenarios are. It's very rare that a state goverment would pass a law on banning all privately owned guns, infact I don't recall it happening in this country's modern history, that doesn't mean it's a totally irrelevant issue or right to protect, that doesnt mean we should just ignore that fundamental right. I'm sure you understand perfectly well where I'm coming from. I'll mind your property, your body, and you mind mine, it has nothing to do with the federal or state government, but Paul wants to allow the state government to get involved. You want to play it down as irrelevant, that's fine, it's where he stands at the end of the day.
edit on 13-8-2011 by Southern Guardian because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
I actually believe in the right of man or a woman to control his or her own destiny, to legally smoke whatever the hell they want in their own yards, to associate or be with who they want. Paul, along with yourself here, insists this is exactly what you want, but right down to the core of these beliefs, I find absolute BS. At the end, it's about pushing fascism towards the state level (exception for guns and other core issues of the rightwing), that's all it is in my view, and that's exactly what Paulers want.


Funny you mention that, my state AZ gave us the right to smoke cannabis in our own yards, we have state issued green cards that allow us to do so. The people voted for it. The federal government of course doesn't see it that way.

You totally skirted my point that you get what you give. You seem to have a deep sense of entitlement, and it's done great for this country thus far, hasn't it? Ron Paul's ideas, will make it to where LAWS WON'T BE PASSED TO BENEFIT LOBBYISTS. The federal government will stay out of it, and not make it hard for competition to spring up. If a company treats it's talented employees like crap, it will lose them, and they will go to competitors to work. You're sense of entitlement is why you will NEVER support a candidate like Paul. Don't be disingenuous and act like my statements are pushing you away from supporting him. You never did.


edit on 13-8-2011 by 27jd because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by 27jd
 


I agree. Even more,I WONT see Medicaid,or Medicare,SS, because of the idiots who are running it now !!!!!........So WHY am I PAYING INTO IT?????? Please tell me that? Minimum wage???? If someone is so scared that ending minimum wage is going to kill this economy.......I have to say that he has his PRIORITY'S backwards...... When a loaf of bread costs 100 dollars,NO ONE will be able to afford it..............regardless of what you make..........Seems to me that some people dont understand basic liberty's,small Government,and WE THE PEOPLE..........



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by sonnny1
 


Yup, Paul's positions on alot of issues are broken down nicely on this site...


On Social Security, Ron Paul did say:

"So in many ways, the goal would be to get us out of this program that is a failure. It doesn’t work, and is
going to bankrupt this country. The only way you can do that is save enough money, tide the people
over, let the young people get out, because they’re going to be paying all these years and they’re not
going to get anything." (Ron Paul, 2008 GOP debate in Boca Raton, Florida, Jan 24, 2008).

But he also said this:

"The greatest threat to your Social Security retirement funds is Congress itself. Congress has never
required that Social Security tax dollars be kept separate from general revenues. In fact, the Social
Security “trust fund” is not a trust fund at all. The dollars taken out of your paycheck are not deposited
into an account to be paid to you later. On the contrary, they are spent immediately to pay current
benefits, and to fund completely unrelated federal programs. Your Social Security administration
“account” is nothing more than an IOU, a hopeful promise that enough younger taxpayers will be around
to pay your benefits later.

"The Social Security crisis is a spending crisis. The program could be saved tomorrow if Congress
simply would stop spending so much money, apply even 10% of the bloated federal budget to a real trust
fund, and begin saving your contributions to earn simple interest. That this simple approach seems
impossible speaks volumes about the inability of Congress to cut spending no matter what the
circumstances." (Ron Paul, "Social Security: House of Cards," November 9, 2004).

"As a matter of fact, my program’s the only one that is going to be able to take care of the elderly. I’d like
to get the young people out of it, just the younger generation, because there’s no money there, and
they’re going to have to pay 50 years and they’re not going to get anything. I’d take care of all the
elderly, all those who are dependent, but I would save the money from this wild spending overseas."
(Ron Paul, 2008 GOP debate in Boca Raton, Florida, Jan 24, 2008).

"I would say take care of the people that are dependent on us. The only way you can do that is cut
spending. If we don’t, they’re all going to be out in the street. Because right now Social Security
beneficiaries are getting 2% raises, but their cost of living is going up 10%. A dollar crisis is going to
wipe them all out." (Ron Paul, Meet the Press: 2007 “Meet the Candidates” series, Dec 23, 2007).

"When it comes to Social Security and Medicare, the federal government simply won’t be able to keep
its promises in the future. That is the reality every American should get used to, despite the grand
promises of Washington reformers. Our entitlement system can’t be reformed -- it’s too late. And the
Medicare prescription drug bill is the final nail in the coffin -- costing at least $1 trillion in the first
decade alone, and much more in following decades as the American population grows older.

"Don’t believe for a second that we can grow our way out of the problem through a prosperous
economy that yields higher future tax revenues. To close the long-term entitlement gap, the US
economy would have to grow by double digits every year for the next 75 years.

www.amoroden.com...


Bold mine.

People like Southern Guardian are gonna be real disappointed when they find out he's right, as he has been all along.

And he seems to be saying that he does want to support the elderly, and that truly cutting spending is a way to do it.

edit on 13-8-2011 by 27jd because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 05:31 PM
link   
My problem is this.........The "OLDER" Generation put us in this predicament. Its been boiling for years. No checks and balances,same Lib/N-Con arguments. Same Dem/Repub talking points. Vote one idiot in,vote another idiot out. Now people are worried that their entitlements are going to get cut. That the country is going to s@hT. They are right.Because they failed to vote in those who cared about their safety. They voted in those who were to busy raping our Country.Too busy selling short their children's future,and the next. Now you hear them panic.But Guess what??? They will vote in another idiot. Because TRUE liberty has been hijacked by Lobbyists,Entitlement Liberals,Big Business,and Neo-Cons.The one time a good Patriot comes their way, they will vote the opposite,because their EGO'S are too big to say they were wrong the whole time. Does that sum up AMERICA???



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 05:46 PM
link   
Looks like Ron Paul won 2nd in the IA straw poll, not bad.


It was almost a tie .
edit on 13-8-2011 by 27jd because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd
Looks like Ron Paul won 2nd in the IA straw poll, not bad.


It was almost a tie .
edit on 13-8-2011 by 27jd because: (no reason given)


Yeah its her home state. Regardless though all you have to do is tell the sheeple that voted for her that she voted for the patriot act and all those votes go to Ron Paul.



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 07:22 PM
link   
reply to post by e11888
 


Yup, and supposedly she dumped a lot more money, and brought in a lot more supporters than Paul.




top topics



 
71
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join