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.


I no longer support Ron Paul

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 09:32 PM
I like RP when he speaks his mind.
I do not like his endorsement of "Austrian Economics". It's like those bastards win and win.
Their worse case scenario...."RP" elected still means that the power brokers control the economy.
"Love evolution" needs to be "Revolution". Real change can't be enacted by someone who has profited from the system for so many years.

posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 09:44 PM
Simply the fact that he IS a politician means he owes his career in favors and debts accrued over a political lifetime of dealing with other politicians. It has long been known that "scratch my back Ill scratch yours" politics has been in play in politics since the first republics of Rome.
These people make their life off of wheeling and dealing and making promises that either; A) they intend to keep only as long as it garners favor and numbers in polls or, B) that they never intend to keep and use as "At the Moment" leverage.
Has anyone else here witnessed the last 3yrs
What was the campaign slogan that won everyone over "Change" something so ambiguous as to be ridiculous and a promise he kept, just not in what we the public envisioned..I never voted for the bugger nor will I vote for the next one...Fact is the president is picked before you ever hit the polls... Why, someone was owed a big favor and has the Monetary favors to back his buy in... Sucks through and through

In the words of the Great Ambrose Bierce "Voting is just a chance to decide between the lesser of two evils."

posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 10:01 PM
reply to post by LDragonFire

You can do what you want.

Nixing someone because of the letter at the end of their name? Kinda goofy.

I'm a fairly hard right conservative with libertarian tendencies. I dont give a rats butt what party someone is in as long as they seem like they have sense.

Ron Paul is only a R because at the moment, the dems are all socialist's.

Think a third party has a chance? Neither did Paul.

posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 10:12 PM
Why would the OP say that Ron Paul is the best choice and then say he's not going to vote for him. That's it, dont vote at all and give the frauds running for the job a better chance of winning.

Fail thread, negative star & flag for you.
edit on 5-9-2011 by Haxsaw because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 10:18 PM
I really do not see where people are making the connection that the Tea party is a major power that is affecting everything in D.C now. The tea party is NOT a third party. it was a name for the first event, and it stuck

Now that we know most of the country is conservative, If Ron Paul wanted to win, he'd stop opening his mouth about legalizing drugs and prostitution. conservative voters dont look kindly on that, especially those with kids. and dont give me that bs about " oh, well if you teach your children right and wrong and that these things are bad, they wont do them." we all know about experimentation.

I support his actions against the Fed, etc. but seriously, he has no chance if he cant connect with the repub base.

I see the "Too Left, Too Right' argument often , but what about the "Too Libertarian" one?

I'm ranting I think, but seriously, you cant agree with everything someone is about, and still not support him just because of party affiliation. that's like loving Derek Jeter, but hating the fact he's on the Yankee's and wanting them to lose all the time.

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

posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 10:27 PM
Ron Paul has been questioned on his ties to the Republican party time and time again, and with each inquiry I feel he comes out on top. You see, the sad fact is that our political system is rigged to benefit either the Republican or Democratic party. There's no debate on this -- that's why if you've ever taken a government or US history class, the textbooks will openly tell you our system is a two party system. It is virtually impossible for an independent third party candidate to win a national presidential election because the ballots are essentially rigged. For instance, in some states and districts, they won't even let a third party candidate on the ballot! Then there's the whole thing about funding. The two national parties raise so much money that they dwarf any third party's resources. I know its terrible, but its true. Our politically system is seamlessly fused with big money. And this among other reasons is why Ron Paul runs on the Republican ticket, so you really shouldn't hate on him.

Also, I should note that it's not so much Republicanism or Conservatism that's so much bad as it is the state-loving globalists who have hijacked the Republican party, just as they have the Democratic party (although centralization fits in much easier with liberal ideologies). You just look at someone like Mitt Romney and identify his voting record and his policies and you have to ask what really is the difference between him and Obama. Same goes with President George W. Bush. It appears Obama's policies are very much in line with his predecessor, does it not? Aside from a very few issues. But I'm getting off topic now so I'll just stop...
edit on 5-9-2011 by soma100 because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 10:30 PM

Originally posted by felonius
reply to post by LDragonFire

Ron Paul is only a R because at the moment, the dems are all socialist's.

that is Neostupid

I was drinking wine because some of my neighbors were eating hot dogs...

It is that dumb really

posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 11:07 PM
reply to post by soma100

this post actually makes sense, hope the OP reads it and learns something.


posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 11:18 PM
Theres something about the point of this thread that makes me think you never supported him anyway.

posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 02:05 AM
reply to post by Carseller4

Your wrong when Clinton was in office after old bush had his term he did not have us in a defecit...and he was the first in a while to not have an economic decline....unemployment was at it's lowest in 20 or so you can't expect Obama (not backing him up) to fix in 4 years what dubya did to us in 8...I mean he sold us to china...and when republicans (and democrats) won't agree on a damn thing how can we get out of debt? It's turned into a political pissing contest...actually it's reached an awkward poin were the piss is gone and the politicians are just standing around with there junk in there hands!!!!! Hahaha

posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 04:54 AM
I am Non~ Partisan and I think I will vote for him, regardless of his party affiliation.
Waiting to see any other reason I should not .....

posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 06:41 AM
reply to post by Janky Red

Dont misunderstand me.

I'm not a fan of the repubs too much either. IMHO, he figured his lot would be better in that camp.

posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 10:55 AM
Paul deserved my sympathy with his anti-war statements - call the troops home etc.Truly, why does an indebted nation wage wars in several countries thousands of miles away when its has no money to care for its own poor people or repair the bridges in its largest city?
Paul's recent speeches however, has shown him chanting typical Republican slogans - less taxes and less social care - which play into the hands of the rich and the corporatocracy, more directly than the corrupt democratic party does. That is the number one problem I have with most Republicans today. (On the other hand, few Reps mind the punitive and intrusive actions of the government into the lives of private citizens. Libertarians have been notoriously better at that.)

It is obvious to any non-ideological economist that it is not social spending that wrecked America economically, it is Republican tax cuts for the rich and for the corporations, as well as "welfare" like payments - e.g. to bail out speculators who live off of other people's hard-earned dollars. It is obvious to me that it is those folks that should be allowed to sink in true capitalism and not private citizens. Added to this, wars on foreign soil initiated by administrations of both parties. The US can't afford to be the unpaid policeman of the world any more. Let us face that.

But: there is a widespread misunderstanding about the function of the federal and state government among some fellow Americans, orchestrated by well-defined neoconservative and anti-social interests for decades. In some sectors of public life, the less power government has, the more power corporations will have, and thus you will have far less say in what happens to you. It is that simple. After all, we vote for politicians their programmes but we are simply not asked what policies any corporation will pursue, and its heads are also not elected.

At any rate, Paul will not be elected as some powers would want a world war, and he is against that. Those against wars (mostly on the "liberal" side) are usually more decent on social policies though - no top industrial country can afford to live without welfare and health care - we do not live in the Wild West any more. (Some would like to, but they have no choice since about a hundred years down the line anyway.)

As for true rugged individualism, we'd better look into the philosophies of the First Americans. They did it better - without corporations or trade unions. Mostly, power was balanced out between the individual members and the tribe. How is that now? Messed up on both ends.

posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 10:55 AM
THat remind me. anyone please reply to this thread here.

posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 11:07 AM
wha? republicrat? demolican?

OP clearly you are caught up in the 'false left right paradigm'

the secrets of the federal reserve is a great read available free online. its a good place to start for anyone who does not fully understand the depths of the 'false left right paradigm'

posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 11:11 AM
To sum it up simpler:

"Less government" in the twenty-first century means less freedom, less democracy and less protection of the average citizen from overpowered corporate interests.
As long as the government does its job - for which the majority elected it, also securing the rights of the minority.
It is a simple tenet of political philosophy that government is supposed to be executing the will of the people, by and large. It does not consist of some evil vampires but of people you and me wanted there.

If it flaunts the will of the majority of the people, or if it infringes upon the rights of minorities to pursue their happiness the way they want it, it should be recalled or deposed.

It is private voters that should check whether the government does its job or not. They should have the right to do so, whether they are rich or live under the bridge. That is not what happens today. Not only have rich individuals more influence, rich collectives (corporations) have the uppermost influence.

"Less taxes" generally means less taxes to the rich and corporations, which means again less protection of the average voting citizen from the brutal savagery and the manipulation of moneyed interests.

In contrast to what the failed trickle-down model taught, rich people and corporations will take their earnings out of the country. whenever they can.
They are not an enemy, only, understandably, they will never look at the interests of the coutnry or its private citizens.

Your government should do that.

Isn't it plain and simple why Big Money would want to persuade more and more voters to have "less government" and "less taxes"?

posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 11:18 AM
I agree that Paul is controlled opposition. But that's all there will ever be.
It's all one machine, with varying interfaces.

posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 12:03 PM
reply to post by area6

It doesn't matter what Ron Paul's affiliations are. We've seen this all before ... again and again and again ...

Ron Paul is a politiican.

And therefore a liar by trade.

Very understandable outlook, usually it is mine as well. However in this case your are mistaken. Do you have any proof of this, because I would be interested ion seeing it if you do? I seriously doubt you will find any, but anxiously await your response.

posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 12:06 PM
reply to post by FrenchOsage

I do not like his endorsement of "Austrian Economics".

Why? Everything I have seen from the Mises Institute has made sense to me. what is it about Austrian Economics that you do not like?

posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 03:26 PM

Originally posted by vermonster
wha? republicrat? demolican?

OP clearly you are caught up in the 'false left right paradigm'

I understand the false left right paradigm, but right now there isn't anyone on either side that I would vote for or support.

I'm somewhere in the middle. I'm pro gun rights, speech, and assembly. I'm pro immigration and believe everyone should have the right of life and the pursuit of happiness, including homosexuals. I care less about abortion, its between the woman and her god/conscience. I don't like the idea that once i accept a job I have little rights compared to what they expect from me [pissin in a cup for a paycheck is draconian and against the constitution] I think capitalism is a failure. I think forcing morality or sobriety or behavior laws are not apart of a free society. Most things I find wrong about this county seems to be Republican inspired, not that the Democrats are any better as I don't favor hate crimes [unless it applies to all, and it doesn't]

We need a simpler form of government, this one size fits all method just doesn't work. City people should not be able to dictate how country people live and visa versa. All people should not have to conform to christian morality. And our justice system would require a whole different thread....

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in