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 is exploding!

page: 7
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 11:22 AM
reply to post by renegadeloser

this is absolutely untrue.

Actually it is entirely true, here, straight from the horses mouth:

* Immediately saving lives by effectively repealing Roe v. Wade and preventing activist judges from interfering with state decisions on life by removing abortion from federal court jurisdiction through legislation modeled after his “We the People Act.”

* Defining life as beginning at conception by passing a “Sanctity of Life Act.”


I'm not making this up, he wants to bypass the judicial branch altogether and make abortion completely illegal. The reason that we have Roe V. Wade to begin with is because Texas courts couldn't decide.

Why should the federal government regulate what a person does with their own body? How can Ron Paul possibly say that he's for smaller government when he clearly wants to dictate what a woman can and cannot do with her own body? That's not smaller less intrusive government, that's massively intrusive.

Also, it is certain that if public schooling was eliminated, that several, affordable, schooling firms would open up to fill that gap.

Oh is that certain? Or, like colleges, they would set tuition out of the reach of lower income Americans and thus force many parents to quit their jobs in order to educate their children. That's the other part of the equation that Ron Paul doesn't address when he talks about home schooling. The fact that one parent would have to give up their jobs in order to be a full time teacher to their kids, which many families simply can't afford.

reply to post by steve95988

I have to reply to this typical american comment, If you don't want kids, then keep it in your pants, or don't open your legs! pure and simple, As far as maybe rape or along those lines, the the matter should be considered, but not just cause of the first... im biting my tongue here with this comment

Why should the government get to decide? Shouldn't it be up to the parents? I'm pro choice myself, and when I found out that my then wife was pregnant, we discussed the matter. We decided to choose life, and I am happy for that decision. We chose, we weren't forced via a law to have our son, we made a determination that was in the best interests of both of us. Being pro choice doesn't mean you will always choose to have an abortion, it means exactly what it says, choice.

posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 12:04 PM

Originally posted by HauntWok
reply to post by EagleTalonZ

He's crazy? Why? Cuz he actually defends and supports the Constitution?

Why? Because he wants to overturn Roe V Wade and force women to have children they don't want. For someone who is supposedly against government involvement in people's personal lives, this puts a huge hole in that "less government into people's lives" idea.

Why? Because Ron Paul wants to take poor kids out of the classroom, destroy the public education system and force their parents to home-school them, thus ensuring that we have a larger gap between the have's and the have not's. It's just fine if you are wealthy and want to send your child to a private school, but if you can't afford that, well, he wants you to home school Timmy.

With parents who had sub standard education their lives thanks to the Reagan Era education cuts, this will certainly put a large percentage of children on the wrong track to meaningless jobs and less opportunities. Again, I am sure that there are parents out there that can do an exceptional job in homeschooling their children, but most can't.

Why? Because Ron Paul is a religious zealot and would govern via Christian Cannon Law. He even points this out in his "statement of faith" tab on his campaign website. I'm sorry, this is a Republic, not a theocracy, and I don't want a religious cult leader in charge of the country.

Aaah yes, the old right to kill another human being. I guess now we will just argue over what a human being is even though at conception the ovum has all that is a human in it. Just... wow. How about if a woman doesnt want to have a baby she doesnt #? What about women that are raped? Well, I have always believed that two wrongs dont make a right, if you would rather kill the child than live with it for 9 months and give it up maybe the right thing to do is kill yourself.
edit on 19-9-2011 by shug7272 because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 12:23 PM
reply to post by shug7272

It's not a baby till it's viable. Most abortions aren't late term. They happen in the first trimester and at that point the fetus is only a small amount of cells. At that point, it's simply a parasite. I agree, adoption is another alternative, and that should always be a choice as well, perhaps in many cases the preferred choice.

Being pro choice doesn't automatically mean that a woman WILL get an abortion, it means that in certain circumstances abortion is a viable option. Ron Paul and many people don't understand this.

Humans aren't an endangered species. There are nearly 7 billion people on this planet, and more and more are added all the time. It's odd that conservatives are so pro life, but are so willing to have the death penalty, and also send 18 year old kids off to die in war.

If you are pro life, good for you. If you find you or your significant other pregnant, have the child. Just don't force your decision on other people and don't let the government make that decision for you. That's not freedom. And don't tell me that the parasite growing in a woman's uterus has a say so, it doesn't.

posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 12:30 PM
reply to post by haarvik

How does one register Republican because I have no idea? If I will only be for RP's sake. Then I'd go back to being independent. Kind of wish Ventura would run with RP tho...he'd grab more liberal voters.

posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 12:38 PM
reply to post by laiguana

Hi, Laiguana... Just go down to your county's Registrar of Voters office and tell them you want to register Republican. It's really quick and easy.

posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 01:07 PM
reply to post by Thunderheart

I just hope this is not going to be another Ross Perot scenerio.... I like Ron Paul and will possibly support him.
will star the op as soon as allowed to do so.

edit on 19-9-2011 by HumanoidX because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 01:18 PM
Ron Paul is part of the illuminati gang.
It will be the same game they played when Obama was "presented" as HOPE.
And that's all he is/was: hope, not action, or facts.
Ron hype is part of their game: the under dog, that makes it home. tsc tsc tsc

Want to know whats the best president for the US: YOU.
Yes, you reading this post, has more condition of doing a good job than those already being manipulated in the two sides, by the same people.

posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 01:22 PM
reply to post by Wide-Eyes

How do you flag a post? Do I not have enough forum posts yet?

posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 01:26 PM
reply to post by Thunderheart

I am 110% for Ron Paul although I'm shocked that when I mention Ron Paul some people say, "Ron who?" Since the MSM is not recognizing RP, it is our job to spead the word! Go Ron!!

posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 01:44 PM
reply to post by Thunderheart

Ron Paul - An unstoppable rocket to third place in the GOP primaries!

posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 01:50 PM
reply to post by Inous

I just found out myself...looks like for posting stars you need 20 post..Flags I havent figured out yet?

posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 02:55 PM

Originally posted by HauntWok, and Ron Paul for however sense he actually makes is bat (snip) insane

What makes you say this? What has he done that is insane?

posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 02:58 PM

Originally posted by HauntWok

If you are pro life, good for you. If you find you or your significant other pregnant, have the child. Just don't force your decision on other people and don't let the government make that decision for you. That's not freedom..

This is exactly what Ron Paul has been saying forever. That the government should have no say in the matter. Thank you for championing Mr. Paul's ideas, even when you don't realize you are doing it.

posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 03:27 PM
That's too bad he would have made a great president!

posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 03:31 PM

Originally posted by HauntWok
If you all want to see the REAL Ron Paul, might I suggest looking at his donations near votes...

That will give you a real sense as to who Ron Paul really works for, and I'll give you a hint, it's not you.

Special interest groups pay Paul per vote and they usually get what they want and that is the REAL Ron Paul and that's why he shouldn't be elected.

I'll take the challenge and based on your source information, this is what I've come up with:

To be clear, the information I'm referencing is from 04 May 2006 - 18 October 2010 from the website link that HauntWok provided.

Ron Paul received a total of $1,820,850 in contributions whose timing was within 30 days of a supported piece of legislation.

The top four "interests" that appeared to have benefited from their timely contributions are:
#1 "Other single issue or ideological group" contributed $266,981
#2 "Military" contributed $237,648
#3 "Employer listed but category unknown" contributed $186,219
#4 "Attorneys & law firms" contributed $150,008

The top four interests that did not appear to have benefited from their timely contributions are:
#1 "Real estate agents" contributed $175,362
#2 "Securities brokers & investment companies" contributed $69,601
#3 "General commerce" contributed $66,537
#4 "Schools and colleges" contributed $45,463

I used the word "appear" because even though Ron Paul voted one way or another, it does not mean that the legislation became law (when he voted for it) or failed (when he didn't vote for it). A specific example is H.R. 2630, Campaign Expenditure Transparency Act which coincided with the largest amount of contributions within 30 days of voting, Congressman Paul voted in favor of it, as those interests would have him yet, the legislation did not become law. Also he did not vote on H.R. 3996, Tax Increase Prevention Act of 2007, which became law even thought 159 separate contributions totaling $69,601 from his contributors (mostly security brokers & investment companies) did not wish it.

A total of 226 pieces of legislation were up for Congressman Paul to vote upon. Of that number, 116 received 3,163 timely contributions in the amount of $1,022,031 for which he voted in support of his contributors stance. 110 pieces of legislation received 2,779 individual timely contributions totaling $798,819, for which he either did not vote or voted against the contributors stance.

So what does this all tell me? It tells me that timing of a contribution doesn't really mean anything when it comes to Ron Paul's vote on a piece of legislation. 51.3% were voted on as the contributor expected, where 48.6% were not so fortunate. That is less than 3% difference between them!

An interesting observation...It seems that nearly every resolution that the "real estate" interests supported, Ron Paul voted contrary to their stance on it. On the flip side, nearly every one the "military" interests supported, he voted in support of them.

In the end, thanks for the source, but you'll have to do better than simply pointing to a website and saying it is the proof that Ron Paul does not serve the interests of the people.


posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 04:20 PM
Ron Paul doesn't want pro life... He wants each state to decide for themselves.

posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 04:26 PM

Originally posted by HauntWok
reply to post by SquirrelNutz

Resign yourself to this fact: a democrat is not going to see the next Presidency - Obama has made sure of that.

I certainly hope you're right. The last thing we need for this union is yet another Democrat. (well, second to last thing, we certainly don't need Ron Paul in the white house either)

Romney is just a white Obama, and Perry is just a more radical George W. Bush. Good lord, don't we have anyone better?

The only person I will vote for is the independent that more closely represents my values. For those who think that's a wasted vote. I say, it's time to tell the PTB that a vote for an independent is never a wasted vote, it's a vote for the people.

So what you're saying is that you have no candidate in mind, no alternative to Ron Paul, Obama, Romney, or Perry to present to us for research on the issues that face the U.S., and thus are on this thread to waste electrons?

Ron Paul 2012.


posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 04:54 PM

Originally posted by dex77
Ron Paul doesn't want pro life... He wants each state to decide for themselves.

He has also stated that his personal feelings on issues such as this does not give him the right to say what someone can or can not do.

posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 05:42 PM
Can someone registered "Un-enrolled" vote in the Republican primary? Thanks.

posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 06:12 PM

Originally posted by Aggie Man
After reading the title of this thread, I thought to myself "no freaking way". So, I did a Google search and, much to my surprise, Ron Paul is exploding.

I know, pics or it didn't happen.....

Ewww!, I hope I don't get any on ME!

top topics

<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in