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.

 

Why is Ron Paul different from Barack Obama?

page: 3
5
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 10:22 AM
link   
reply to post by My.mind.is.mine
 
JFK, MLK, Gandhi - these few were allowed to get into high station or otherwise get much influence before they were dealt with - the fact that they were dealt with proves they did not have the blessing of the powers-that-be.

Taft, Jefferson, and some other presidents - yes, presidents, even though they were in the same mold as Ron Paul. They were allowed to be leaders, and they led appropriately. Ron Paul follows their example.

Ron Paul is different from Barack Obama, based on his record, consistency, and ideas. He understands the founding intent of the US, even if you disagree with him or think those views are too anachronostic. I, and most others who were actually paying attention, were able to call Obama for what he was and would do if he made it into office - mainly, change his stripes and continue too many of the failed policies of Bush (we nailed it).

We could not do the same for Ron Paul. His only changed views over decades have been on the death penalty and immigration. The proof is in the pudding, and by all available evidence, Paul represents himself accurately and honestly. This is a rare thing.




posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by My.mind.is.mine

Originally posted by marg6043
reply to post by My.mind.is.mine
 


Hey that is how Obama got to be president, he was different, a novelty and changed history in this nation, we has prop to be president and people fell into the trap.

I did.


edit on 4-9-2011 by marg6043 because: (no reason given)


So then why am I crazy for questioning Ron Paul..?


No, you should openly question Ron Paul, and let the facts speak for themselves. I question why a man who is so anti establishment is still in bed with the GOP, which clearly serves the private interests.

Liberals and independents did not question Barack Obama and it came back to bite them in the ass. I used to point out to people back in 2008 that the guy was being funded by the bankers and no one wanted to listen.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by illuminatislave
 

No, you should openly question Ron Paul, and let the facts speak for themselves. I question why a man who is so anti establishment is still in bed with the GOP, which clearly serves the private interests.

Please clearly define "in bed". Paul has a clearly-historical republican (paleoconservative/old right) alignment and has addressed several times how the party has moved away from its traditional views towards neoconservative tendencies - he's trying to bring the party back to its roots.

And, if he were in fact "in bed" with it, I doubt so many of the current republican gatekeepers (the party majority, talking heads like Beck, Limbaugh, Levin, and all the others who "good" conservative republicans listen to) would actively and *loudly* be directly opposed to Ron Paul. He differs with them just as much as he does with establishment democrats, just primarily on different issues - he's a politician of a different era, trying to prove that old ideas may in fact still be the best ideas in some cases - and his ideas traditionally align with what the republicans used to stand for. Hence I SUPPOSE you could say he's "in bed" with the GOP on some level...but by no means as far as continuation as their current ruinous policies is involved.

He's also quite clear on the record as to why a third-party run is not an option. Sad but true, anyone who considers it to be a viable choice has not been paying attention to history or the way elections work as our country is quite clearly still in the strangle-hold of a two-party duopoly, which Paul has worked against to the ire of his party, in pushing for people to support third-party candidates at a press conference during the last election cycle.


Liberals and independents did not question Barack Obama and it came back to bite them in the ass. I used to point out to people back in 2008 that the guy was being funded by the bankers and no one wanted to listen.

Oh, trust me, some of us listened, and tried to warn others as well. For the life of me, I still can't account for how so many fell for it beyond some of my friends telling me they "like the way he talks", and others telling me how proud they would be to be a part of history in electing our first black president.

Perhaps I just didn't talk to enough Obama supporters, but the fact that those were the most substantive arguments I heard disgusted me quite thoroughly. There was the war argument, as well, but with Obama's constant hedging and backing off on the withdrawal issue as the election got closer and closer, it was obvious that was a no-go.

Be well.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Praetorius

Please clearly define "in bed". Paul has a clearly-historical republican (paleoconservative/old right) alignment and has addressed several times how the party has moved away from its traditional views towards neoconservative tendencies - he's trying to bring the party back to its roots.


I never denied that. But you are the company that you keep. And if Paul thinks that he can bring that party back to its roots he's delusional, there's too much money being made for them to return to good ol conservatism.

Mind you, I'm not calling Paul corrupt like his associates. He appears to be one of the last statesmen left that isn't on the take. But who knows really is all I'm trying to say.



Oh, trust me, some of us listened, and tried to warn others as well. For the life of me, I still can't account for how so many fell for it beyond some of my friends telling me they "like the way he talks", and others telling me how proud they would be to be a part of history in electing our first black president.

Perhaps I just didn't talk to enough Obama supporters, but the fact that those were the most substantive arguments I heard disgusted me quite thoroughly. There was the war argument, as well, but with Obama's constant hedging and backing off on the withdrawal issue as the election got closer and closer, it was obvious that was a no-go.

Be well.


I saw through his garbage before he even got out of the primaries. People were voting him in for superficial reasons, and they weren't thinking for a second about who was filling the scumbag's campaign coffers. Now he hob knobs with elite, playing rounds of golf with the same people that take the American people outside and # them in the street.

You be well as well



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by illuminatislave
I saw through his garbage before he even got out of the primaries. People were voting him in for superficial reasons, and they weren't thinking for a second about who was filling the scumbag's campaign coffers. Now he hob knobs with elite, playing rounds of golf with the same people that take the American people outside and # them in the street.

You be well as well


Perhaps the "artificial reasons" can be tag to some but not me, I research and I know that no political figure in this nation is clean they all belong to big interest regardless.

In my case I feel for the propaganda, he actually hit with his speeches and proposed political stance what I wanted so bad in a president.

Sadly as an experienced voter I should have known better.

Now I I can not trust even Jesus if he comes and run for president


I am now a skeptical, a cynic and I am after all political figures in power to be exposing what they are.
edit on 5-9-2011 by marg6043 because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-9-2011 by marg6043 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043

Originally posted by illuminatislave
I saw through his garbage before he even got out of the primaries. People were voting him in for superficial reasons, and they weren't thinking for a second about who was filling the scumbag's campaign coffers. Now he hob knobs with elite, playing rounds of golf with the same people that take the American people outside and # them in the street.

You be well as well


Perhaps the "artificial reasons" can be tag to some but not me, I research and I know that no political figure in this nation is clean they all belong to big interest regardless.

In my case I fee for the propaganda, he actually hit with his speeches and proposed political stance what I wanted so bad in a president.

Sadly as an experience voter I should have know better.

Now I I can not trust even Jesus if he comes and run for president


I am now a skeptical, a cynic and I am now after all political figures in power to be exposing what they are.


Live and learn I say, I used to believe in 'voting' and would think that if I went out and cast my vote, it would change things.

Silly me


You know what changes things in this country marg? Hundred dollar bill stacks being deposited into the campaign account of candidate x or politico z.

TPTB vote with their money. The rest of us like to play pretend every four years.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by The Old American
 





Why? Because Ron Paul obviously grew up with the values of honesty and integrity instilled in him at a young age, and carried those values to adulthood.


Old American, I so love it when I come to these Ron Paul threads to find that you've already been here......



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by illuminatislave
 


Hey read my signature,

It tells my feelings about the political system we have.






posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
reply to post by illuminatislave
 


Hey read my signature,

It tells my feelings about the political system we have.





more like the bribery system

"Hey candidate douchebag, how much is your soul worth?????"



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Praetorius
 





Ron Paul is different from Barack Obama, based on his record, consistency, and ideas. He understands the founding intent of the US, even if you disagree with him or think those views are too anachronostic. I, and most others who were actually paying attention, were able to call Obama for what he was and would do if he made it into office - mainly, change his stripes and continue too many of the failed policies of Bush (we nailed it).


You put that very well, Praetorius. I have no party affiliation and, had Obama been someone with a solid political career or good track record behind him, I would have voted for him regardless of his party affiliation. All I saw with him was talk, not to mention he came from nowhere and was publicly endorsed by many of the elite. Why would they endorse someone with his scant record unless he was their chosen puppet?

Too many people fell for his b.s. when he didn't have the career to back it up. This isn't the case with Ron Paul, and his opponents know this. Ron Paul has the track record they only dream of. Too bad for them. Now all they have left is trying to allege he's just a puppet of TPTB. Kinda hard to sell that line when his record speaks otherwise.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by fooks
 





eta; why don't you get ME in the oval office and see what I do?


Do you have a 30+ year political career like Ron Paul's to back you up?



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 12:15 PM
link   
reply to post by illuminatislave
 





No, you should openly question Ron Paul, and let the facts speak for themselves. I question why a man who is so anti establishment is still in bed with the GOP, which clearly serves the private interests.


Hahaha! "In bed with the GOP." You are cracking me up. Yes, a Libertarian who is running on the Republican ticket because third party candidates never stand a chance......Yup, he's in bed with them all right.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 01:03 PM
link   
Why does anybody still assume that any affiliation with the GOP = instant corruption? A simple google search would've yielded an answer to this question, and for the record, yes I would be asking the same question if I didn't know it. Who would I ask? Google! not spewing nonsense to other people in before such such a crucial election like this one.

Ron Paul is at heart, a libertarian, he ran as one in his first presidential campaign and knew he couldn't win as an independent and resorted to run on the GOP ticket and reform from within. This is why people don't think he can win the GOP nomination because he is so far from what a current day GOP republican politician is, Ron Paul represents what a traditional GOP politician is and can be in our future but WE THE PEOPLE need to do our part, not just sit back and complain on the internet every time something unfortunate happens.

I hope this FINALLY clears up any misinformed members on why Ron Paul is running for president on the GOP ticket.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by My.mind.is.mine
reply to post by The Old American
 


Ron Paul is the PERFECT bait, and you're proving that. So all of a sudden now there's a "flawless" candidate, according to a conspiracy theorist?????? I see a problem there


Which candidate is flawless? Certainly not Ron Paul. As much of a states' rights proponent I am, even I wince at some of his ideas of which social services should be run by the state, if at all.

But he's leaps and bounds better than any other candidate out there, especially including the sitting president.

/TOA



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join