It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Ron Paul on Fox News 8/16: I'm Trying to Change the Course of History

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 10:26 AM
My biggest gripe with Ron Paul is the fact he wants to abolish the EPA.

Regardless of what you believe in terms of greenhouse gases and climate change, throw that out the window.

Having worked in the environmental consulting industry for 11 years, I've seen what the "free market" does when it comes to environmental practices = nothing. Ive seen 40,000 gallons of toulene dumped in pristine trout streams, thousands of tons of hazardous waste buried, and countless examples of "out of sight, out of mind".

If you want an example of what industry's unregulated approach toward environmental practices would be, look at Mexico City, Bangladesh, Shanghai, hell-all of China.

posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 10:48 AM
reply to post by Habit4ming

reply to post by Habit4ming

I must say that interview moved me. If Ron Paul is who he says he is, he is the real deal. He could change the world with his ambitions. My only fear is that he is a well placed shill/distraction. I worry less about this each day now though.

I also worry that if he is for real TPTB will not allow him to become president. This guy is a major threat to the war monger bank cartels. They cannot continue to let him get his views out to the mainstream media. I am very worried for Mr. Paul. Israel must be pist at his pulic announcement that he can careless for the Zionist regime.

Finally a glimmer of hope, I think

posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 10:52 AM
reply to post by dtrock78

So you would not support him just because he wants to rid us of yet another bloated, useless agency? While I agree big business does a lot of damage to the environment, the EPA is about as useless as the FDA and USDA. They serve their corporate masters, and no one else. My cousin used to work for them. Did you know their former headquarters in RTP, NC were contaminated so bad that it sat empty for years? Even when new tenants moved in, there were still issues. If they can't keep their own offices from being a dangerous environment, then how do you expect them to keep the US safe?

posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 10:54 AM
It's like she was trying to pull him on 'iran nukes' mine, she even said something like 'you said iran should have a nuke' which he denied. I loved his argument about 300 israelis nukes, they have this capability since 1967, and since it's completely secret, those 300 nukes is estimate (mind you, country with circa 7mln pop, way less then NYC.). How come US gov is so ok with that.

I think they had to react (MSM i mean), but they will try to picture him as soft for terrorists, for iran, gonna weaken the army yappitayappa. All that ironically, because he's opposes REAL terror machine. He should shoved in her face info bout donations from active military comparing to others.

posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 11:28 AM
reply to post by Habit4ming

If you can assume the BBC to be neutral in this, given their summary of the major players, and particularly that of Ron Paul, would be quite strange if he wasn't the favourite on this site...

posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 11:29 AM
He can win, don't doubt him because your quantum brain power will actually hurt his campaign.

We just need some hope, but not that Obama #, real hope.

posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 11:30 AM
As a canadian i'd like to have a Ron Paul to vote for here in Canada
but we don't
Here's the new impresive campain video ad ( Aug 14 )

posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 11:34 AM
reply to post by Habit4ming

I loved the walking-on-eggshells disposition she had, especially when he was starting to get into why media outlets hate him and how special interests own the news.

She was all like "Let's get back to Iran. You know, that subject that doesn't put Fox's corruption on display?"

All in all, this was a genius move for Fox. To some, it's an obvious apology but, even if so, it's an appreciated token of humility.

posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 11:47 AM

Originally posted by Kitilani

Originally posted by slowisfast
reply to post by RoguePhilosopher

what are you talking about?
ron paul didn't 'just appear'
he's been towing this line since he first got to congress in the 70's.
he's ran for president before. multiple times.

and never came anywhere close to winning.

But hey, this time it will be different boy, you betcha. He has a new suit and a nice new haircut. Things are looking up for old Gil. The wind is at his back. Even though he has run and run and run and run and run and never come close, hey this time is going to be different!

do you have a point?
because you seem to just be rambling.
edit on 17-8-2011 by slowisfast because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 11:51 AM
I'm torn about the continued comment that he's not electable.

I'm worried that the Republican Party doesn't support him because of his views and he won't be their "puppet".

I voted for Obama, was so excited to see a black man win the Presidency, how wonderfully historical. But I always thought I'd see a woman president before that would happen. Obama kind of snuck up on us and had a great message of hope and change. How utterly disappointed I am with him and his lack of leadership among other things.

The reason I bring that up is to focus on how powerful the message is. That is what won the presidency for Obama.

Now we have Paul - with a great and powerful message.

I will vote for Paul - because not only does he have a great message and platform - I see him as a man that will follow through for change.

And if he doesn't make it as the republican nomination ?

He will be my "write in" candidate.

How awesome would that be? Have a president elected by write in votes - That would send a message to the parties!!!
edit on 17-8-2011 by Julie Washington because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-8-2011 by Julie Washington because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 12:00 PM
reply to post by Julie Washington

I am with you on that! We need to start a write-in campaign for him if the GOP keeps ignoring him and doesn't give him the nomination! If Alaska can do it for a rep, we can do it for a president!

I have been flaming the msm sites for not covering him. I just hope others are doing this as well. If enough of us complain, maybe they will start covering him. Apparently my campaign to get Fox to cover him worked!
edit on 17-8-2011 by haarvik because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 12:22 PM
I disagree with many here.

I do not believe Ron Paul can win the election.

Not because he won't get the popular vote, because the election are rigged and always have been. The only way he could win is if we stuck someone outside every poll in America and told them the place their vote there to see if we are being lied too. Sadly, people are stubborn and think it should be a #ing secret on what they voted for.

posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 12:26 PM
Is there a reason NOT to vote for this man besides the chocolate chip cookie conspiracy? rofl

Ron Paul tells truth once again
Btw I noticed the reporter actually tried to discredit him with useless questions. I mean...really? Ron Paul owned her :p

posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 12:48 PM
reply to post by haarvik

Even though it was EPA headquarters, it doesnt give them special priority over other Superfund sites.

If they had a contaminated office building, it was likely a result of

A) Historical operations on the property
B) Adjacent property that had a migrating groundwater plume.

Regardless, your analogy doesn't make sense. It's like stating "Well, that cop shot and killed his wife! Do you really want policemen "protecting us" if they can't even take care of themselves?"

Abolishing the EPA would be the worst decision this country ever made. With no formal authority on regulating waste of any kind, industry would have a field day. It would be like abolishing all law enforcement branches at once and expecting everyone to act "nice". What do you do when they don't act "nice"? And don't tell me "let the free market decide".

posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 12:57 PM
Im not sure non intvention is a realitistic policy.

But in anycase, i like his non-intervention attitude towards Israel.

Leave them alone. Let them defend themselves, and dont interfere with their politics.

posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 01:01 PM
reply to post by dtrock78

I think the answer lies in his philosophy and that is to let the states deal with it, not the federal government. States have their own environmental agencies and as such it is their resources under attack and they should be the ones to deal with it. We do not need federal agencies telling states what to do. I think it is to this extent that he believes the EPA should be abolished. I don't think for one minute he doesn't care about the environment.

posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 01:10 PM
Apr 4th - US Senate agrees (82-6) to participate in WW I

whatever happened too those days?

US Senate agrees (82-6)

posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 01:18 PM
I love the 'Im running Bush policy but its not just pandering" LOL Awesome. If this guy wins the R nomination I may have to vote R.

Obama has really screwed all of us by promising to undo the Patriot Act disembowelment of our privacy and hes actually worse than Bush!! Wtf.

O is weak in getting things done as well. Between Bachman, Palin or the other clowns its easy - Obama. Between Paul and Obama? Thats easy too I guess. Vote for the honest guy.

posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 01:23 PM
@ Dontreally
I'm with you 100%

@ Haarvik

I understand, but the state agencies are poorly staffed (funding always gets slashed) and can barely regulate the existing laws. Plus, they are closer to home, so there's more political pressure on them from local politicians (look at what Corbett (PA governor) is doing to the PADEP. He's cutting off anyone's head at PADEP that pipes up about the natural gas fracking they're doing (tax free btw).

posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 01:48 PM
reply to post by dtrock78

You are correct, as I also live in PA. But again, if you delve further, if our spending was cut back and we stopped being the policeman of the world, and stopped trying to buy allies, we would have the necessary funds for states to accomplish this. It's not a hard thing to follow, but you have to be willing to dig deep and fully understand how government is supposed to work to understand how to fix everything. There will always be two sides to a coin, hence the fracking. Do you allow it so we can heat our homes at a reasonable cost, or stop it and cause even more damage to our economy? Is there a common ground so both sides are satisfied (I think there is)? The same applies to offshore drilling. Everyone complains about the high price of gas, yet no one wants to allow drilling, and complain about supporting terrorist nations. You can't stop one without the other.

To allow the status quot to continue because you disagree with one position is doing a disservice to all Americans. As one other poster said, if he can address my top points, then I can live with the rest.
edit on 17-8-2011 by haarvik because: (no reason given)

<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in