Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Why is everyone on the Ron Paul bandwagon?

page: 19
18
<< 16  17  18   >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 4 2011 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by muse7
In my opinion he's no different than all of the previous presidents that promised "Change" and to do things different.

Nothing is going to change, absolutely nothing. The president first needs to support of congress to get things done. What makes you all so sure that he's going to come in and change everything?

Please remember that this man is still a politician.

The only way we will change things is when WE the people take action and get things done, instead of depending on other people to bring the "change" that we so badly want.


I couldn't agree more.

A life long politician put into a position where they are a powerless figurehead (AKA The Presidency) has only one option. Follow the orders of the master.

When they attempt to do something different, they end up like Kennedy.




posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 09:09 AM
link   
reply to post by muse7
 


The answer to that question, for me, is very simple...honesty.
For 30+ years Dr. Paul has been saying the same thing and has a voting record that supports that.



posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 09:24 AM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


I fully realize what you are saying and agree with you for almost every politico that I have studied. My only issue with your opinion here is that Dr. Paul has absolutely no history of any such behavior.

He has refused to accept money from any group he does not agree with, has chosen not to be part of the congressional retirement fund, has never voted for a congressional raise, has returned operational funds to the Treasury every year, and has never changed what he has fought for.

He hasn't changed his line for 30+ years, most other politicians change there's every 30 minutes.



posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by neo96
 


I agree.

I believe our focus needs to be more surgical and tactical rather than large scale.

But, again, this doesn't mean we should just withdraw from the world and pretend we're not a part of it.


100% agreement with your first statement, but as far as the last part, that is not what Dr. Paul is trying to do. What he is trying for is to reduce the aggressive posture that we have maintained since the end of WW2.

I have heard people say this aggressive posture has prevented war, but they obviously don't study history, we have had just as many, if not more, armed conflicts since we began this policy than before it.



posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by gamesmaster63
 





I have heard people say this aggressive posture has prevented war, but they obviously don't study history, we have had just as many, if not more, armed conflicts since we began this policy than before it.


I disagree.

We've been involved in MANY conflicts long before WW2.

America is viewed as a prize for anyone who can conquer it. To date, no one has been able to and for a good reason.

I'm not saying we should simply go to war when ever the mood strikes. But the notion that we can politicize war and national security, the indifference toward certain threats, and the refusal to understand them is something I view as far more dangerous.

Ron Paul thinks that Osama and AQ attacked us because of bases overseas. That is absolutely not true. bin Laden saw himself as a Caliph and the whole point of Islamic extremism is to remove all opposition from the world toward an Islamic Empire. That has ALWAYS been the goal of AQ and governments like that Pakistan and Iran, who view the creation of an Islamic Caliphate as the end goal. When dealing with such ideology it serves us no good to try to ignore it and hope it goes away. It won't.

Just like when Europe thought it could ignore Hitler and his massive build up of military strength. They became complacent, and Europe suffered greatly because of it.
edit on 15-11-2011 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by projectvxn

We've been involved in MANY conflicts long before WW2.

America is viewed as a prize for anyone who can conquer it. To date, no one has been able to and for a good reason.




Sorry, but what?

Who has tried to conquer America and who has failed?



posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by blupblup
 



The British, the Soviets, the Japanese, the Nazis....

All at one point or another looked at America as the ultimate prize.
All failed to take it.

Sorry if you don't understand the meaning.
edit on 15-11-2011 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by blupblup
 



The British,



Actually owned and colonised your country.




the Soviets,



Never invaded, never even tried to "conquer" America.... was just all a glorified propaganda war.



the Japanese,



Again... never invaded America... in order to conquer a nation wouldn't you have to invade it?
I understand they attacked "American Soil" and I use the term loosely, in Pearl Harbour... But it's a stretch to say they ever tried to conquer you.



the Nazis....




What??


They never even got close to the US??

They Never conquered us either, yet we were bombed nightly and their troops tried to get across from France but couldn't.


I think your idea of "Conquered" and being "Unconquerable" is slightly warped and not based even slightly in reality.... just making statements like yours and believing them, doesn't make them true.






All at one point or another looked at America as the ultimate prize.
All failed to take it.




Not even remotely...




Sorry if you don't understand the meaning.




I don't... and I don't think you understand history.



posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by blupblup
 


Nope, sorry.

ALL of them had the INTENT of conquering America.

None could find a practical way of getting it done.

Most of them had even drawn up plans for invading the US.

Just because it didn't pan out doesn't mean it didn't happen.

And yes, the Soviets DID want to invade America. They had also drawn up plans for it. Never could execute though.

Edit:

Even France under the leadership of Napoleon Bonaparte wanted to invade America and he's the only one who ever really got close.
edit on 15-11-2011 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by projectvxn
 




Apart from the British, who again, conquered, owned and occupied your country (
) the only other one who even had the remotest desire to conquer you would be the Russians.... and even then, nothing ever happened because it was a battle of wits.... mind games, a virtual game of chess.


Again, just because you don't accept facts and reality, doesn't make your OPINION right.... Facts are facts.



posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by blupblup
 


And what about the Nazi's Mr. Facts?

militarytimes.com...

it isn't opinion to say that many of these nations had aspirations to conquer America. It's a fact.



edit on 15-11-2011 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by projectvxn
 




I see you keep avoiding the obvious fact the the British did in fact conquer you...


Anyway... The Nazis planned to conquer the world.... Hitler was mental....he had plans of the British coastline, most American ports and cities....all sorts.... and yes, wanted to take over THE WORLD... but thanks to the Allied Forces defeating the Axis, (not America being unconquerable as you like to put it) Hitler and the Axis were defeated.

Everyone played their part.

There has never been a nation who has attacked or tried to conquer America.... so your statement, however much your "Ooh-rah" mind wants it to be true, just isn't.

But that's cool... you believe whatever you want.


Ignorance is bliss and I'm sure you're super blissful.


Anyway, England are just about to Conquer Sweden (In the football) so I'm off.

You have fun now and maybe read some history books... Actually no, don't bother.

edit on 15/11/11 by blupblup because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by blupblup
 





I see you keep avoiding the obvious fact the the British did in fact conquer you...


First of all, THAT is a misrepresentation of history.

We were a British colony first. THEN we fought a war of independence and WON.

THEN we fought the British again in the war of 1812. Which ended in mutual agreement.

The desire of conquering the US mainland is something many of our enemies have tackled over the decades and centuries.

If you were a foreign hostile nation at war with the US. Would you invade the homeland?
edit on 15-11-2011 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by projectvxn
 

What, "ohnoes teh crazy muslims is gonna take over the world!!!!"

No, that's not actually something you'll ever have to worry about. I guess maybe it's fun for you to pretend this is an imminent threat, I dunno. But it's not going to happen. They simply lack the capability.

it's a lie that was fed to you to justify two unwarranted wars and several pseudo-wars, with further propaganda thrusted by fundamentalists from another faith who want to see all "competition" literally killed off.

Afghanistan's a # plavce and the peopel running it are crazy, that's no doubt. But they're not exactly Genghis Khan, y'know?


Do you ever study history?

These are cultures that were creating empires while most of Europe was still shoveling pig and chicken crap. They created algebra and the basis for calculus.



posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 08:24 PM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


I keep forgetting, go ahead and have your say, you have the right to it, even when you want nothing but to put down those who don't agree with you.

No Dr. Paul can't achieve everything he desires, but he has shown honesty, and I respect that.



posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 08:29 PM
link   
reply to post by KrazyJethro
 


Bravo, well stated and succinct.

Just want to add one point, not only do the State's know better for their people than the Federal government, but according to the Constitution that is were the power should lie for social issues, and many others.

This is what Dr. Paul wants to do.



posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 08:32 PM
link   
I think the better question is..

Why ISNT everyone on the Ron Paul bandwagon?





new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 16  17  18   >>

log in

join