Ron Paul Wins The ATS Straw Poll!

page: 16
222
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Karmon
I have one question: How many political relevant parties do you have in the USA?

Are there just Republicans, Democrats and the Tea Party?


There are a lot more parties in USA.
But there's only the big ones that get's any attention at all.
It's a shame.

See the list of parties in USA here.




posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by something wicked
Ron Paul talks about legalisation of drugs and prostitution.

No, he is not. He is talking about decriminalising them, like tobacco and alcohol.

That is completely consistent with his stand of individual liberty and personal responsibility. It is a surprise or embarassment only to those who don't completely understand his stand on liberty. If they have been supporting him for the wrong reasons, this will help them correct that mistake



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by NerdGoddess
The stance on abortion thing... Do people really vote based on THAT? I mean its their choice, their vote; just seemed interesting that there were votes for those options on a few of the candidates.


Yes, that's a huge issue here in USA.
Presidents have won and lost, because of their opinion on that issue.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by something wicked

Originally posted by 27jd

Originally posted by TinfoilTP
The BBC was far more accurate than your revisionist historical account of the last election was. All you did was make excuses for him on his failings.


Find me the quote from Ron Paul saying he wanted to "legalize heroin? (yeah, I used a Z, cuz this is America
)



Is this good enough?

www.youtube.com...

Ron Paul talks about legalisation of drugs and prostitution.



Nope, not even close. I asked for a quote of him saying ANYTHING about wanting to legalize heroin (besides the interview on Piers Morgan where he declared that he has NEVER in his political career mentioned heroin). He does want to decriminalize drugs and prostitution FEDERALLY. That's no secret. But the media can't seem to stop saying "he wants to legalize HEROIN". They don't say cannabis, of course, because that wouldn't be as shocking would it? And most people would agree. They don't want that. Decriminalize means not putting people in jail for victimless crimes. He leaves the decision of legalization up to the states.

He would also end industrial hemp, with NO THC, and no ability to get people high, being a controlled substance. Now WHY ON EARTH, would a plant with so many useful properties, fuel, food, extremely durable textiles and building materials, etc. be considered a controlled substance? Because IT was the target all along, while you're googling, look up Dupont and the prohibition of marijuana (I hate that word, it was part of the lies).

Why don't they just say the truth, that he wants to decriminalize drugs and prostitution? Why would they keep saying he wants to 'legalize heroin'? Because they're sensationalist liars. Not interested in truth.

Come back when you have what I asked for, Ron Paul himself saying he wants to "legalize heroin". Keep googling.
edit on 18-8-2011 by 27jd because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd

Originally posted by something wicked

Originally posted by 27jd

Originally posted by TinfoilTP
The BBC was far more accurate than your revisionist historical account of the last election was. All you did was make excuses for him on his failings.


Find me the quote from Ron Paul saying he wanted to "legalize heroin? (yeah, I used a Z, cuz this is America
)



Is this good enough?

www.youtube.com...

Ron Paul talks about legalisation of drugs and prostitution.



Nope, not even close. I asked for a quote of him saying ANYTHING about wanting to legalize heroin (besides the interview on Piers Morgan where he declared that he has NEVER in his political career mentioned heroin). He does want to decriminalize drugs and prostitution FEDERALLY. That's no secret. But the media can't seem to stop saying "he wants to legalize HEROIN". They don't say cannabis, of course, because that wouldn't be as shocking would it? And most people would agree. They don't want that. Decriminalize means not putting people in jail for victimless crimes. He leaves the decision of legalization up to the states.

Why don't they just say the truth, that he wants to decriminalize drugs and prostitution? Why would they keep saying he wants to 'legalize heroin'? Because they're sensationalist liars. Not interested in truth.

Come back when you have what I asked for, Ron Paul himself saying he wants to "legalize heroin". Keep googling.
edit on 18-8-2011 by 27jd because: (no reason given)


Cannabis and coc aine are both mentioned in that clip so people obviously do say it, but there really is no point, you aren't going to listen to anything that is remotely like logic are you? To me though, you have just kind of proved the point of the BBC article. I'll quietly leave the room now as it's fairly clear sensible debate isn't going to happen.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd
He does want to decriminalize drugs and prostitution FEDERALLY. That's no secret.

Sure, that is his position as a constitutionalist. But as a libertarian he can be expected to support decriminalisation at all levels, federal and state although if a particular state wants to make them criminal offences there isn't anything he can do except voice disapproval.

The fact that he never proactively mentions them, means that is not specifically his agenda. However, his opponents would like to bring it up thinking it will somehow turn people against him. All such points will inevitably come out during the course of his campaign. There isn't any reason to be defensive about them. If you believe as he does, wear that point proudly on the sleeve.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by something wicked
Cannabis and coc aine are both mentioned in that clip so people obviously do say it, but there really is no point, you aren't going to listen to anything that is remotely like logic are you? To me though, you have just kind of proved the point of the BBC article. I'll quietly leave the room now as it's fairly clear sensible debate isn't going to happen.


That clip isn't the talking point that's making the rounds, it's "Ron Paul wants to legalize heroin", and that's what the BBC article stated. Which is not accurate, and it's nothing more than sensationalist BS meant to paint him as a lunatic fringe candidate, for holding the position that the federal government has no right to regulate what people do with their own bodies. It isn't working though, and it's backfiring.

I agree sensible debate isn't going to happen, but it isn't Ron Paul or his supporters who are taking sensible debate off the table.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Observor
Sure, that is his position as a constitutionalist. But as a libertarian he can be expected to support decriminalisation at all levels, federal and state although if a particular state wants to make them criminal offences there isn't anything he can do except voice disapproval.


Totally agree, and some states may be stubborn about it at first, but the people's voices will be heard, without threats from the federal government that put states in the position to go against the will of their voters. It took us 3 votes to finally get medical cannabis here, and the state got it's balls and told the federal government it stands.




The fact that he never proactively mentions them, means that is not specifically his agenda. However, his opponents would like to bring it up thinking it will somehow turn people against him. All such points will inevitably come out during the course of his campaign. There isn't any reason to be defensive about them. If you believe as he does, wear that point proudly on the sleeve.


I agree to a point, but he already has my vote. I want to be as proactive in combating the sensationalism as I can, in case there are on the fence voters reading who may not fully understand his positions, or how much sense they make when you take the shock headlines out....



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by fooks
 


screw that
Dude those are important issues


Ron Paul on jobs:

Printing & inflating money ships jobs overseas. (Jun 2011)
Right to organize; but no special benefits for unions. (Oct 2007)
Minimum wage takes away opportunities, especially for blacks. (Sep 2007)
No “sexual orientation” in Employment Non-Discrimination Act. (Sep 2007)
Voted NO on extending unemployment benefits from 39 weeks to 59 weeks. (Oct 2008)
Voted NO on overriding presidential veto of Farm Bill. (Jun 2008)
Voted NO on restricting employer interference in union organizing. (Mar 2007)
Voted NO on increasing minimum wage to $7.25. (Jan 2007)
Voted NO on $167B over 10 years for farm price supports. (Oct 2001)
Voted YES on zero-funding OSHA's Ergonomics Rules instead of $4.5B. (Mar 2001)
Member of the Congressional Rural Caucus. (Jan 2001)
Rated 47% by the AFL-CIO, indicating a mixed record on union issues. (Dec 2003)
Allow an Air Traffic Controller's Union. (Jan 2006)



where is he on energy independence?
Listen and find out:



what's he gonna do about big corps
I'm not sure, the best I could find is this video of him talking about corporations:

Inflated currency benefits some industry's CEO salaries. (Sep 2010)
Auto company nationalization is fascism. (Sep 2010)
Big business demand for easy money causes inflation. (Dec 1981)
Voted NO on letting shareholders vote on executive compensation. (Jul 2009)
Voted NO on more funding for nanotechnology R&D and commercialization. (Jul 2009)
Voted NO on allowing stockholder voting on executive compensation. (Apr 2007)
Voted YES on replacing illegal export tax breaks with $140B in new breaks. (Jun 2004)
Voted YES on Bankruptcy Overhaul requiring partial debt repayment. (Mar 2001)
Rated 46% by the US COC, indicating a mixed business voting record. (Dec 2003)
Repeal ObamaCare reporting requirements for small business. (Jan 2011)
Source


and taxes?
He has never voted to increase taxes.

Disastrous tax code contributes to underground economy. (Sep 2009)
AdWatch: Taxpayer’s best friend: never supported an increase. (Feb 2008)
Spending money doesn’t stimulate economy; reduced taxes do. (Jan 2008)
Doesn’t want flat tax or consumption tax. (Dec 2007)
Get rid of IRS; get rid of income tax; get rid of spending. (Dec 2007)
The most sinister of all taxes is the inflation tax. (Dec 2007)
I have never voted for a tax increase; and never will. (Nov 2007)
GovWatch: Zero income tax reverts to 1990 budget, not 2000. (Nov 2007)
Immediately work to phase out the IRS. (May 2007)
Get rid of the inflation tax with sound money. (May 2007)
Campaign slogan in 2004: The Taxpayers’ Best Friend. (Jan 2007)
1986 tax simplification made tax code more incomprehensible. (Dec 1987)
Inflation is a form of taxation on poor & middle class. (Dec 1981)
Voted NO on extending AMT exemptions to avoid hitting middle-income. (Jun 2008)
Voted YES on retaining reduced taxes on capital gains & dividends. (Dec 2005)
Voted YES on providing tax relief and simplification. (Sep 2004)
Voted YES on making permanent an increase in the child tax credit. (May 2004)
Voted YES on permanently eliminating the marriage penalty. (Apr 2004)
Voted YES on making the Bush tax cuts permanent. (Apr 2002)
Voted YES on $99 B economic stimulus: capital gains & income tax cuts. (Oct 2001)
Voted YES on Tax cut package of $958 B over 10 years. (May 2001)
Voted YES on eliminating the Estate Tax ("death tax"). (Apr 2001)
Voted YES on eliminating the "marriage penalty". (Jul 2000)
Voted YES on $46 billion in tax cuts for small business. (Mar 2000)
Overhaul income tax; end capital gains & inheritance tax. (Dec 2000)
Phaseout the death tax. (Mar 2001)
Rated 89% by NTU, indicating a "Taxpayer's Friend" on tax votes. (Dec 2003)
Rated 0% by the CTJ, indicating opposition to progressive taxation. (Dec 2006)
Repeal the Death Tax. (Jan 2009)
Taxpayer Protection Pledge: no new taxes. (Aug 2010)



trade deficit with china?
Ron Paul on Free Trade:

Market can sort out mess created by central banks. (Sep 2010)
Inflation is regressive & results in protectionism. (Sep 2010)
Free trade agreements threaten national sovereignty. (Apr 2008)
FactCheck: NAFTA Superhighway not a conspiracy; it’s I-35. (Feb 2008)
Look at the monetary system and deal with the trade issues. (Dec 2007)
Block international highway from Canada to Mexico. (Dec 2007)
No North American Union; no WTO; no UN. (Sep 2007)
Inappropriate to impose sanctions for persecuting Christians. (Sep 2007)
[color=limegreen]China trade not contingent on human rights & product safety. (Sep 2007)
No NAFTA Superhighway from Canada to Mexico. (Sep 2007)
NAFTA superhighway threatens widespread eminent domain. (Sep 2007)
IMF empowers politicians by causing inflation. (Dec 1981)
Allow Americans to own gold; end large-scale foreign sales. (Dec 1981)
Voted NO on promoting free trade with Peru. (Nov 2007)
Voted NO on implementing CAFTA, Central America Free Trade. (Jul 2005)
Voted NO on implementing US-Australia Free Trade Agreement. (Jul 2004)
Voted NO on implementing US-Singapore free trade agreement. (Jul 2003)
Voted NO on implementing free trade agreement with Chile. (Jul 2003)
Voted YES on withdrawing from the WTO. (Jun 2000)
Voted NO on 'Fast Track' authority for trade agreements. (Sep 1998)
No restrictions on import/export; but maintain sovereignty . (Dec 2000)
End economic protectionism: let dairy compacts expire . (Aug 2001)
Rated 76% by CATO, indicating a pro-free trade voting record. (Dec 2002)
Block NAFTA Superhighway & North American Union. (Jan 2007)



the borders?
Borders and immigration:

Let churches provide services for immigrants, not state. (Jun 2011)
If economy were good, there’d be no immigration problem. (Dec 2007)
Amend Constitution to remove aliens’ birthright citizenship. (Dec 2007)
Those who attack bilingualism are jealous & feel inferior. (Dec 2007)
No amnesty, but impractical to round up 12 million illegals. (Sep 2007)
Immigration problem is consequence of welfare state. (Sep 2007)
No amnesty, but border fence isn’t so important. (Jun 2007)
We subsidize illegal immigration, so we get more. (Jun 2007)
Keep rule barring immigrants from running for president. (May 2007)
End all incentives and amnesty for illegal immigrants. (Jan 2006)
Voted YES on building a fence along the Mexican border. (Sep 2006)
Voted YES on preventing tipping off Mexicans about Minuteman Project. (Jun 2006)
Voted YES on reporting illegal aliens who receive hospital treatment. (May 2004)
Voted YES on extending Immigrant Residency rules. (May 2001)
Voted YES on more immigrant visas for skilled workers. (Sep 1998)
Sponsored bill banning student visas from terrorist nations. (Jan 2003)
Rated 100% by FAIR, indicating a voting record restricting immigration. (Dec 2003)
Rated 83% by USBC, indicating a sealed-border stance. (Dec 2006)
Government services in English only. (Mar 2008)
Rated C by the ALI, indicating an acceptably anti-amnesty stance. (Nov 2010)
Declare English as the official language of the US. (Feb 2007)



illegals?
Ron Paul on immigration:



healthcare?
Ron Paul on healthcare:

Let people opt out of Medicare. (Jun 2011)
Legalizing prostitution is about protecting liberty. (May 2011)
Replace Medicaid with volunteer pro-bono medical care. (Apr 2008)
Private medical savings accounts, not government meddling. (Apr 2008)
Insurance companies & gov’t make healthcare unaffordable. (Oct 2007)
Transfer funds from debt & empire-building to healthcare. (Oct 2007)
Socialized medicine won’t work; nor managed care. (Oct 2007)
Managed care is expensive and hasn’t worked. (Sep 2007)
Oppose mandated health insurance and universal coverage. (Sep 2007)
Not government’s role to protect people like Terri Schiavo. (Sep 2007)
Insurance reward for avoiding tobacco, alcohol, obesity. (Sep 2007)
Voted NO on the Ryan Budget: Medicare choice, tax & spending cuts. (Apr 2011)
Voted YES on repealing the "Prevention and Public Health" slush fund. (Apr 2011)
Voted NO on regulating tobacco as a drug. (Apr 2009)
Voted NO on expanding the Children's Health Insurance Program. (Jan 2009)
Voted NO on overriding veto on expansion of Medicare. (Jul 2008)
Voted NO on giving mental health full equity with physical health. (Mar 2008)
Voted NO on Veto override: Extend SCHIP to cover 6M more kids. (Jan 2008)
Voted NO on adding 2 to 4 million children to SCHIP eligibility. (Oct 2007)
Voted YES on requiring negotiated Rx prices for Medicare part D. (Jan 2007)
Voted NO on denying non-emergency treatment for lack of Medicare co-pay. (Feb 2006)
Voted NO on limiting medical malpractice lawsuits to $250,000 damages. (May 2004)
Voted NO on limited prescription drug benefit for Medicare recipients. (Nov 2003)
Voted YES on allowing reimportation of prescription drugs. (Jul 2003)
Voted YES on small business associations for buying health insurance. (Jun 2003)
Voted NO on capping damages & setting time limits in medical lawsuits. (Mar 2003)
Voted NO on subsidizing private insurance for Medicare Rx drug coverage. (Jun 2000)
Voted NO on banning physician-assisted suicide. (Oct 1999)
Voted YES on establishing tax-exempt Medical Savings Accounts. (Oct 1999)
Abolish federal Medicare entitlement; leave it to states. (Dec 2000)
Limit anti-trust lawsuits on health plans and insurers. (Mar 2002)
Rated 56% by APHA, indicating a mixed record on public health issues. (Dec 2003)
Prohibit mandatory mental health screen for students. (May 2007)
Remove restrictions on estriol (menopause medication). (Jun 2008)
Repeal the Job-Killing Health Care Law. (Jan 2011)
Expand medical savings accounts for employers & individuals. (Feb 1999)
Expedited licensing for biosimilar products. (Mar 2009)
edit on 18-8-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 01:46 PM
link   
Exactly how i thought it would pan out.

Ron Paul's the man!



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


Well this is quite interesting. The overwhelming majority of ATS'ers and guests favor the candidate with NO chance to be elected President and who has no real ideas on how to fix anything. Paul has been running for President since God was a girl first as a libertarian then as a Republican.

If the overwhelming majority of ATS members and guests have so little common sense, it is not surprising that everything must look like a conspiracy to them. Which then begs the question: maybe there aren't so many real conspiracies after all. Then again, maybe there are. Who knows

Anyway, to support Ron Paul is NOT to deny ignorance; rather seems like promoting it to me.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by tomten
 


Noticed your motto line: "Who is John Galt?" John Galt was, is and always will be a fictional character created by novelist Ayn Rand. There is no counterpart to the John Galt character in reality; never has been, and never will be.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by lunatux
 


Really? No plan huh? Wow, you guys come on here, and tell us the sky is green. The internet, is chock full of Ron Paul's plans.

My Plan for a Freedom President
How I would put the Constitution back in the Oval Office
www.lewrockwell.com...

That's just one, there's alot more out there, so tell us again why you think he has no plan...



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 03:12 PM
link   
This was a good idea!
I hope to see a ATS Democratic straw poll.Ron Paul wining this thing is encouraging to me just as his showing in Iowa's straw poll.It means his message is spreading throughout the country and the MSM being tied in with the 2 party scam are trying everything to protect it.As for all the naysayers and partisans all of you and the GOP establishment have been gunning for Dr.Paul for years and you have yet to stop the man and the movement you talk about revolution and change but are unwilling to go through with it.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by snowen20
This ATS poll is very telling, either Ron Paul is popular because of what he stands for OR he he is only popular because Conspiracy theorists feel they have a foot in the door of the establishment.

It's almost certainly the latter, I think.

Myself - Gingrich has always been my guy. Don't get me wrong - I like Ron Paul and several of the others. But I'm voting for Newt if he doesn't pull out.

Trouble is, I can't see any of them actually winning the presidency. But what do I know?

Harte



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 07:36 PM
link   
reply to post by lunatux
 



Yea you seem to be full of crap, Deny this:

post by TupacShakur
 

edit on 18-8-2011 by eLPresidente because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 09:06 PM
link   
I am sorry, but i laughed pretty hard when i saw that one of the main reasons people voted for Palin and Bachman was because of their intelligence. HAHAHA. Wow. thanks for that. That seriously made my day. Intelligence.



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 12:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pabama
reply to post by Cuervo
 


How is it "smart" to allow people not affiliated with a "party" determine who their nominee is? I'm no fan of two party politics, but within a group of people with like-minded opinions, only they should determine their choice.


You must be a fan of it if you are supporting its rules. It is smart because it ignores the whole illusion. Having to draw lines in the dirt is just as good as saying I'm not looking at the candidate's worth, I'm looking at his party.



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd
reply to post by lunatux
 


Really? No plan huh? Wow, you guys come on here, and tell us the sky is green. The internet, is chock full of Ron Paul's plans.

My Plan for a Freedom President
How I would put the Constitution back in the Oval Office
www.lewrockwell.com...

That's just one, there's alot more out there, so tell us again why you think he has no plan...


That joke is his so called Plan?

He yanks out the carpet from under the dependants of govt programs, expects them to vote for him, and at the same time tells them to rely on large charity organizations and churches?

For one thing that would be the govt promoting churches, which is against the constitution. We can't even display the ten commandments in our courthouses any longer, this would get destroyed in the courts.

For another thing large charity organizations are run by the rich elite for their tax break incentives. When he attacks the elites programs they are going to pull the plug on the charity donations.

Nobody from seniors to young single mothers and govt employees in the middle will ever go for this hardlined heartless policy. Then you can include all minorities and the unemployed who will not vote for a Plan that reduces them further to street begging and forced religious servitude.

I bet a school child could come up with a more believable Plan than this.
edit on 19-8-2011 by TinfoilTP because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by TinfoilTP
He yanks out the carpet from under the dependants of govt programs, expects them to vote for him, and at the same time tells them to rely on large charity organizations and churches?


He's not "yanking the carpet" out from under dependents of government programs. You know this, but you're obviously on a mission to discredit Paul in any way you can, using the same old lies. Like I said before, you're just picking up rocks and throwing them, then when they don't hit anything, you try again. How many of your attempts to spread lies have been smacked down now? I think this is like your 5th or 6th. He has made his point clear, what he wants to do, is allow young people to 'opt out', and make provisions for their own retirement and healthcare. People who are dependent on government programs will not have the rug pulled out from under them...carpet is permanently affixed, generally.

Apparently you missed this quote in that link...

"Of course, just as the welfare-warfare state was not constructed in 100 days, it could not be dismantled in the first 100 days of any presidency. While our goal is to reduce the size of the state as quickly as possible, we should always make sure our immediate proposals minimize social disruption and human suffering. Thus, we should not seek to abolish the social safety net overnight because that would harm those who have grown dependent on government-provided welfare."

He explains further about 'opting out' here...
www.ronpaul.com...



For one thing that would be the govt promoting churches, which is against the constitution. We can't even display the ten commandments in our courthouses any longer, this would get destroyed in the courts.


Are you super dense? Where in that article does it mention the government "promoting" any churches?

Try again.
edit on 19-8-2011 by 27jd because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
222
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join