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.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Ron Paul Ambushed On Face The Nation,

page: 8
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in


posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 11:03 AM

He tried three ways to Sunday to foul Dr. Paul up and just wasn't able to do it.

You can't screw up a person that speaks from his beliefs rather than from a platform made for him by a campaign manager. I've said it before on a few other threads, Ron Paul speaks with substance, and that is what many Americans are finally starting to look for.

posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 11:13 AM

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by MysticPearl

The fact that he’s sticking to his guns on Iran saying they don’t have nor are they trying to pursue nuclear weapons is absolutely ridiculous.

And we shouldn’t have troops deployed overseas because we have submarines?? WOW!

He loses me on foreign policy….sorry!

Don't apologize, you have the right to your beliefs.

As far as Iran's nukes go, he is just quoting the best intelligence we have on their actual nuclear capability, which is close to zero.

Also, with such a username, I assume you are, or were in the Navy?

If so, then you should be well aware that our Naval power is well able to provide all the defense we need, including the time to fully mobilize ground troops; and the supply lines and on site support, if ever needed.

posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 11:26 AM
reply to post by seabag

OK, Seabag, you of course have every right to your opinion, I just happen to not agree with it.

First, sorry about the Navy assumption, images weren't loading for a few minutes, Semper Fi.

Now, I was deployed 5 times in my time in the Navy, and I never found anyplace except Hong Kong, where the LIN's wanted anything to do with us unless we had money to buy things.

I'm not saying that I received direct threats, although that happened also, but I never was in a country that they wanted our military bases there. Many of them would have loved to have us as tourists, but that comes down to money again. I will admit that I was never in the Middle East or Europe though.

As far as building inter-service camaraderie through training, that can be done within our borders. BTW, that includes all states and territories.

posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 11:51 AM

Originally posted by InspirationEverywhere
reply to post by seabag

How many countries have military bases on American soil? I've tried looking it up but cannot seem to get an accurate figure.

You can look it up all you want, the result will be zero every time. What we have on American soil is embassies, which are considered to be foreign soil. Within the confines of Embassy property, our laws do not apply, but all the laws of the country in which our military bases reside do apply on base.

posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 12:07 PM
reply to post by DevilsLettuce

Welcome to ATS, friend.

Just to let you know, Faux News will always, with the exception of one affiliate's journalist, try their hardest to make Dr. Paul and his supporters look crazy or stupid.

posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 12:11 PM

Originally posted by steppenwolf86
reply to post by yourmaker

How about a compromise? End the wars, keep our STRATEGICALLY PLACED Bases. And "Speak softly but carry a big stick."

That's one that I can agree with, and it wouldn't surprise me if Dr. Paul would be willing to make that compromise.

posted on Nov, 26 2011 @ 06:10 AM

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
he's a registered republican right ?

so if you are a 1% er , go ahead and vote for him

always vote your interest, always ignore the smoke and mirrors they use to confuse you

he's part of the problem, he's just better at confusing the people, especially those that will attack this post
edit on 22-11-2011 by syrinx high priest because: (no reason given)

I like what Ron Paul stands for, and he kicks ass in this interview, but I'm happy to change my views on things as I learn more, what do you think makes him bad? I know you say he is a part of the democrat republican scheme and all these candidates have the 1% in their interest, but do you disagree with what he says his beliefs and ideas are? I'm a bit skeptical about him, it seems like if they wanted to shut him up they could easily have done it a long time ago. Also don't like how he was predicting the problems we have today decades ago, it's like the idea of global warming took a long time to catch on. What Ron Paul says he will do sounds great and I can't imagine how it could help the 1%.

posted on Nov, 26 2011 @ 08:21 AM
This economic issue is going to big hummmm

posted on Nov, 26 2011 @ 03:34 PM
I think a slight adjustment in his foreign policy stance would go a long way. My stance has always been to close down all overseas bases except England, Germany and Japan. The hard part though is we provide military support in small numbers in various places no one even knows about.

Considering our tactical support and the ability to put boots on the ground anywhere in the world in a manner of 24 hours or less; along with our carrier-strike groups; and the long range capabilities of our Air Force, I cannot really see why we need bases riddled across the world (logically speaking of course; but just put yourself into the shoes of an executive from Northrup-Grumman, Raytheon, etc and one can see why).

As far as the comments about joint training - that can be accomplished with deployments with those countries to their countries if we want to jointly train with our allies (or they can come here). The United States has no logistics problems that would hinder such.

As far as Iran, speak softly and carry a big stick. Personally I am not comfortable with the current leadership in Iran or their ambition for nuclear power -- though it is a loose opinion because any information (pro/con) is so overly skewed it is hard to make a solid assessment. As shown throughout history, if a country wishes to obtain nuclear capabilities, they will find a way; clandestine or not.

But ever since we pulled the rug out from under the Shah of Iran (even if it wasn't a pretty marriage) we lost Iran as a potential anything except an adversary of some sort.
edit on 26-11-2011 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-11-2011 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 26 2011 @ 03:37 PM

Originally posted by gamesmaster63

Originally posted by InspirationEverywhere
reply to post by seabag

How many countries have military bases on American soil? I've tried looking it up but cannot seem to get an accurate figure.

You can look it up all you want, the result will be zero every time. What we have on American soil is embassies, which are considered to be foreign soil. Within the confines of Embassy property, our laws do not apply, but all the laws of the country in which our military bases reside do apply on base.

While not "bases" we do have foreign military presence here. The German Air Force has a complete squadron on Holloman AFB --- from their own headquarters and hangers down to their own commissary. Joint bases such as these are around but in effect no foreign country has their own base here on American soil.

posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 10:37 AM
Once again, a thread that was showing great promise to be a coherent and informed discussion with people actually looking for and presenting information and informed polite opinions is derailed by the usual trolls.

I have no problem with differing opinions; but when outright lies begin to be spouted, it is not longer an opinion, it is outright character sabotage.
edit on 29-11-2011 by gamesmaster63 because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 10:54 AM

Originally posted by seabag
As I’ve stated before, Ron Paul does a great job on the economy and other domestic issues but he loses me when it comes to national security and defense.

For those of you who support Ron Paul’s approach to national defense, you had to have reevaluated your position after the debate last night. I’m paraphrasing here but Paul basically suggested we deal with killers and terrorists through our legal system. He then used Timothy McVeigh as a shining example. He was promptly schooled by Newt Gingrich when Newt accurately pointed out that the Timothy McVeigh situation was an absolute FAILURE because 168 Americans DIED! Had we been able to use the tactics we have today (which Paul opposes) we would have prevented those needless deaths. Under a Paul administration, those things will happen again, and again, and again because he holds civil liberties much higher than a common sense defense policy.

I agree that we should finish the job in Iraq and Afghanistan and get the heck out.

I also agree that we should stop poking our collective nose into the business of other nations. That alone will help our security.

However, if we follow Ron Paul’s form of national defense, I believe more Americans will die here in America because he will take away all of the means we use to uncover these plots. IMO we cannot afford to have a reactive strategy while terrorists are actively seeking small, briefcase sized nuclear devices.

We must be proactive…..and YES, even if it means we give up SOME civil liberties.

I’d rather be patted down at the airport than dead.

I’d rather have my electronic transmissions monitored than be dead.

edit on 23-11-2011 by seabag because: (no reason given)

I mean no insult, but I have difficulty understanding how a future, present, or past member of the US military can support the continued or further loss of any of our Constitutionally guaranteed civil liberties, which is what it appears to me that you are doing.

We will still have intelligence assets abroad, just not a projected military presence.

I have had enough of my civil liberties taken from me already. I have not chosen to give them up, they have been STOLEN from me.

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" - Benjamin Franklin

posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 10:58 AM
reply to post by MysticPearl

I don’t watch Face the Nation and after watching this clip I probably never will. The interviewer was a gigantor douche. The thing about Ron Paul is….he makes sense and his answers are intelligent and honest. It is easy to be this way when you base your answers of your real beliefs and not what you think you should say.
My wife is a diehard Democrat that thinks Obama is the greatest president ever and all republicans are evil racist bastards (I have to agree with the evil part). I started telling her about Ron Paul in very small doses before the debates started kicking off and we watched most of them together. While we were watching the foreign policy debate she turned to me and said “Ron Paul is the only one that makes any sense”. She now really likes Ron Paul, and if Obama wasn’t running she very well would vote for him.

posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 11:03 AM

Originally posted by gladtobehere
reply to post by ker2010

It would seem very likely that she/he is either on some type of government support system or works for the government which means she is guaranteed a tax payer funded retirement.

No one wants to be on welfare. There was a time when people wanted to be self sufficient and productive until the government got involved. They have in-fact created a "welfare state". What may have started out as a helping hand has now turned into an attitude of entitlement and "gimme gimme gimme".

Once again, government has failed us.

Had the government not destroyed our economy, destroyed the value of our dollar and absorbed so much of our money in taxes, people may actually be able to help themselves.

I agree with you completely on this topic. In the past I have been forced by circumstances to use some of the programs to provide for my family, but I have never wanted a handout, I have always asked for a hand up, or to get out of my way so I can find work.

Again, I think that Ben Franklin said it very well,

I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.
On the Price of Corn and Management of the Poor (29 November 1766) - Benjamin Franklin

Give those that need it help, but don't give them everything.

posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 08:36 PM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 02:45 AM
Ambush, disinformation, deception. Go ahead and use all these tactics. Every American knows their roots and knows the truth and when they start seeing things happen that prove the conspiracy theories to be true then the people behind it will be in serious trouble.

You see we have you globalists in a trap. You crackdown on people the more people you wake up. Killing Kennedy created millions of followers and may be what will in the end cause exposure to the entire scheme.

Martyrs no matter how small are never good to create when using secrecy and infiltration to destroy a nation.

new topics

top topics

<< 5  6  7   >>

log in