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 supporters fight back, defending Kelly Clarkson after she tweeted support for Ron Paul

page: 3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 11:51 AM

Originally posted by getreadyalready
Today, we need Ron Paul.

Been there. Believe me, I know what it's like to be enamored with someone who I think is going to bring the change we need to this country, only to be totally disappointed when he became virtually impotent once he was in office. If Obama couldn't get his agenda passed, why do people think Ron Paul can? He'll be up against twice as much obstruction as Obama is. Because both parties in Congress pretty much want to maintain the status quo.

The Republicans in Congress will let Paul lower corporate tax rates to 15%, extend the Bush Tax Cuts, and define life at conception, but that's about it. Of course, the Democrats in Congress won't let him do any of the above... but they'll support him in abolishing the war on drugs, and foreign policy, but the Rs will never go for either of those...

Oh, sorry, those are nasty details. I'll just forget about the big picture...

Go Freedom! Go Ron Paul! Rah-rah-rah...

Sorry, I'm frustrated.

posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 11:59 AM
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

The difference is two-fold.

Fold 1: The other candidates won't even try. They will just go along with party politics and expand government further.

Fold 2: Even if Ron Paul entirely fails, it will still be an improvement. At this point, a deadlock, a government shutdown, 4 years of vetoes, is a vast improvement compared to "go along to get along" politics that we have now.

I voted for Obama. I don't remember him campaigning on completely re-writing healthcare law and spending 100s of billions to do it, and expecting others to pass it without even reading it, but the stuff he said during his campaign sounded ok, and I was scared to death of McCain/Palin. I figured Obama was a safer bet than McCain/Palin, and even with all of Obama's mistakes, I still feel McCain would have been worse.

I don't remember Obama campaigning on raising the debt ceiling every 3 months, and encumbering tax payers with $Trillions to hand out to failing business practices. That wasn't part of his plan, but he went along with it, and even pushed it through at some points.

SO......... McCain was too dangerous to vote for. Obama made some pretty words, but then he played right into the hands of greedy party monsters, and he made the situation worse by compromising.

With Ron Paul, he isn't dangerous, he won't compromise or play the get-along-party game, and at worst, we get 4 years worth of stalemate in government and we get a chance to let the country rebound from Bush and Obama and the huge erosion of our Constitutional and Human rights.

So, in my opinion, Ron Paul is still clearly the best choice.

If you are waffling, may I ask who you feel is equally or superiorly qualified? Because, I just can't imagine anyone supporting Romney, Perry, or Newt? They don't have any redeeming qualities in my book? Huntsman and Johnson have some good qualities, but they aren't really contenders are they?

posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 12:06 PM

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by jtap66

The Dixie Chicks were WRONG! It is unacceptable for a Country Band, that represents the Conservative values of our nation, to go overseas and blast a sitting president. If they did it to Obama, it would still be WRONG!

She did not blast the president. Her original comment was so benign - - - its damn scary how the Right exploded it the way they did.

posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 12:12 PM
reply to post by Annee

I didn't explode as "the right," I exploded as a Dixie Chicks fan. It actually hurt me to see what they said on stage in Europe. They were always such a traditional country band. They even had a fiddle player.
They made their way by playing traditional country music, with even a touch of bluegrass and Texas swing.

Then, when the backlash hit them, they became defiant to their own fans. If they had apologized for ruffling any feathers, and mentioned that their views were their own, and not meant to reflect the views of the nation, or their fans, then fine. But instead, the one, main "chick" just became defiant and she really, really turned me off.

It may sound childish, but I threw away my CD's.
Not because I was so much a Bush fan, but because I was so much a Chicks fan. Their music was always just a little better than mediocre, but I loved their story, and their commitment to country music roots. When they showed their true colors and lack of respect for their fans, then their music was just more mediocre music. No need to be a fan any longer.

posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 12:21 PM

Originally posted by getreadyalready
With Ron Paul, he isn't dangerous,

I'm not going to vote for someone because they're safe. And I'm not sure Paul IS safe.

For example, not that I know how he plans to end the FED (and fulfill all his grandiose promises), but let's say he does. What happens to the economy? How does he do this so it doesn't create panic and disaster in the banking system? You can't just pick a ship up out of the ocean and plop it back down in the opposite direction.

I'm actually concerned about his drastic changes. Yes, we need change and yes, I'd LOVE to go back to the Constitution, but from where we are to there? It's a LONG trip! With the momentum we have, I'm concerned that Paul's drastic agenda, if he manages to be successful, could shake the very foundations and crap could start falling.

If you are waffling, may I ask who you feel is equally or superiorly qualified?

I (still) haven't looked at Jon Huntsman, and I may not, unless he gets more popular and might be an actual contender. But he's the only other GOP candidate I might consider.

The only other person qualified is Obama, IMO. I don't think he's evil and I like much of what he's done. So, if I don't vote for Paul, it will likely be Obama. He's turning the ship. He isn't taking it to the same place as Paul would, but it's better than where we were 3 years ago.

posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 12:27 PM

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Sorry, I'm frustrated.

Ya know Jerry Brown - - born into politics said - - he used to be able to invite a Republican to dinner - - sit around - - discuss - - hack things out - - and come to a compromise.

He said this new breed of Republicans don't care. They have no interest in talking or discussing anything - - its there way or the highway.

We are not a 50/50 country - - where half are wrong and the other half are right.

I find the abuse of Obama appalling - - especially after the glorification of the Bush administration.

Here's where we are today: “America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.” - Abraham Lincoln.

Ron Paul is not going to get anymore respect then Obama. Probably less - - - seeing how the media has manipulated a simple tweet.

posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 12:34 PM
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Paul's "drastic" changes such as ending the Fed, and ending SS are 20+ year changes. As a president for 4 years, he will only slightly lay the groundwork for such grandiose plans. First and foremost, he will want to tie the currency to some type of index. Likely a precious metals + commodities index. This will stop the wild currency fluctuations and give the USD something real to base its value on. That is a change he can make in 4 years, and it is a first step in eliminating the need for the Fed.

For SS, he will likely try to introduce a private option for young workers, and possibly restructure payouts and benefits for older workers. His plan could alleviate the need for SS over the course of time. We also have Welfare programs as backups for those elderly in dire need. Paul won't remove any benefits that have already been bought and paid for by the workers.

He really doesn't have any "drastic" changes whatsoever. That is just the media interpretation of doing anything different than the status quo.

I like Huntsman, but I'm like you, I don't think he has the stuff to be a real contender. I'm hoping to see him as VP or Sec. of State.

As for Obama, I like what he campaigned on, and I think he had good intentions, but he totally lost me with the Bailouts, and with the Healthcare debacle. We need healthcare "reform," but we don't need it totally re-written and nationalized. We just need better regulations in how healthcare is performed and billed and covered.

BUT, Obama really, really lost me when he caved into the Republicans on the Debt Ceiling fight. We needed deeper cuts like the Reps claimed to be pushing, but we also needed to let the Bush-era loopholes expire. We needed both parties to hash out the most severe plan, with a real solution, and avoid raising the debt ceiling. Obama showed his weakness in cowing to the Republicans and now he is already asking for another $1.2T raise in the debt ceiling. He is willing to play their game, as long as they keep giving him blank checks. It is out of control. It isn't all his fault, but he isn't doing anything to stop it, he is a willing participant. Paul wouldn't do that. I am supremely confident that Paul would stand his ground on his ideals rather than cow to political pressures.

posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 12:37 PM
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

I just realized today that I waffle almost daily about whether or not Paul would be good for this country overall. I read and search and still, every day, I wonder... I really would like some input about the issues of my concern. I'm in the process of composing a thread, but I fear it will turn into a screaming Pro/Anti Paul thread... or more likely, will be ignored altogether.

My offer on addressing your concerns about Paul still stands, and I would like to think I'm generally reasonable and well-mannered here despite disagreements I have with some members so as to contribute usefully to any threads you put up on this.

posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 12:39 PM

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by Annee

I didn't explode as "the right," I exploded as a Dixie Chicks fan. It actually hurt me to see what they said on stage in Europe. They were always such a traditional country band.

And what exactly did Natalie Maines say. In an interview she said she was responding to something an audience member said.

Maines said "we don't want this war, this violence, and we're ashamed that the President of the United States (George W. Bush) is from Texas"

The band is from Texas.

You think that rather benign statement was BLASTING the president - - and deserved the extent of backlash the Right Wing took it?

Maines was a hardcore rocker BTW - - before by chance sang with the Dixie Chicks.

Thank you Rick Ruben for taking them beyond the restrictive confines of country music. Which isn't even country music anymore.

I'm into old country. Hate the new "pop with a twang".


The Dixie Chicks didn't deserve that - - any more then Kelly Clarkson deserves backlash from twittering her support of Ron Paul.

posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 12:41 PM
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
In regards to Paul's goals being limited if he reaches office, I'd like to reference one of my posts on another of my threads:

Secondly, as to what the president alone can do without any help from Congress:
1) order the troops home, end the wars, stop the involved money from being wasted, and prevent further loss of civilian life and lessen desire for retaliation against the US.
2) revoke all prior overreaching and unconstitutional executive directives.
3) order the DOJ to stop interfering with states' rights regarding their own laws on medi MJ, foods, and the rest.
4) pardon non-violent "offender" victims of the drug war.
5) shrink big government by refusing to fill non-essential position vacancies (attrition).
6) use the bully pulpit of the Executive Office to educate the american people and push for rational change via their representatives
7) restore some dignity to the office finally - no crappy gifts to foreign heads of state that don't even work in their nation, no bowing to foreign leaders, HONESTY AND FRANKNESS WITH THE AMERICAN PEOPLE for a change, no Bush-style embarassments...ugh, bushisms...
8) I suppose it's important to add one of the most obvious powers in vetoing unconstitutional, unhelpful, or stupid legislation as well as unbalanced budgets.

I could probably add more to this list if I thought about it awhile longer, but just the first few are enough for me. Sure, Congress will have to get on board to address some of the big things that need addressing, but despite the examples of past presidents, the presidency is NOT actually a useless position to hold.

edit on 12/30/2011 by Praetorius because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 12:46 PM
reply to post by Annee

Don't wanna get too far off-topic, I wonder if there is an old ATS thread about that fiasco?

I agree, none of them deserve the backlash they get, but then again, they should be more careful what they say on stage or in interviews. Natalie also attacked other country stars like Toby Keith. And, I didn't like the TK song either, but she has equally bad songs, so who is she to criticize another singer?

The Hank Jr. stuff was blown entirely out of proportion, but when I re-watch that, he looks amped up even before the intervew started, and I have to wonder if he was on drugs? He should have been more careful in what he said.

All in all, mixing politics and entertainment is a huge mistake, and it is probably our own fault for the horrid political situation we have in this country. "We the People" are usually where the blame lies, but we like to project it to some caricature on a stage.

posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 12:51 PM

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by Annee

Don't wanna get too far off-topic, I wonder if there is an old ATS thread about that fiasco?

Yeah! I added my qualifier at the end to stay on topic. I'm a good girl

Natalie also attacked other country stars like Toby Keith.

Oh! You don't want to go into any of that with me LOL

posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 12:55 PM
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
As regards ending the Fed, you don't have to worry too much - that would take an act of congress, and despite working towards it, I doubt Paul would be likely to achieve it. His main goal is to bring transparency on the subject, and with it, scrutiny. What happens to the economy IF he succeeded? Well, after any initial disruptions ended, not much - we've only had the Fed since 1913, and comparing our history under our various central banks as compared to the times we didn't have them shows...not a whole lot of difference, honestly.

Booms and busts throughout, recessions and occasional depressions (which are usually much less protracted when the government doesn't insist on tinkering with them - reference the Depression of 1920–21, etc.). As far as initial disruption - well, I can imagine we'd definitely have much more careful lending policies by the banks as a result of no longer having a lender of last resort or such an inflationary motivator...and I'd imagine we'd definitely hear all sorts of horror stories as its allies and survival instincts ramped up the rhetoric (these type of people HAVE intentionally caused a financial crash previously to induce a perceived need for the Fed as well, 1907) it could definitely get interesting and only time would tell.

That's entirely hypothetical, though, and I doubt we'd see it anytime soon as I mentioned already. If so, though, Paul's a smart cookie and IS actively aware of needs for damage control and doing things safely.

As to Huntsman - I agree with you on this. Out of the other republicans, I *might* be able to support him if such ever became necessary. He's definitely worth looking into just to check options.

posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 03:06 PM
This is so stupid, Obama in his own words:

That is more racist sounding than the Ron Paul smear campaign. Yet people aren't flipping out about that in as big of numbers.

posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 03:10 PM
I am just glad to see someone in the entertainment biz with a brain for a change. Most of those folks are usually very liberal thinking.

To the poster who said for her to basically shut up and sing, and get of politics? Stupid. Since when does being an entertainer mean that you are also not an involved or concerned American?

posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 03:29 PM
dont you fools get it?

this is huge..

of course her opinion does not REALLY value more then mine or yours..
but in america it kinda it does.....she gets media attention paul good for "us"

comon you know how your country works..--

with all the attention ...probably some fanbois of hers now voting too.....its a good thing!
edit on 30-12-2011 by Acetradamus because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 03:37 PM

Originally posted by Nana2
I am just glad to see someone in the entertainment biz with a brain for a change. Most of those folks are usually very liberal thinking.

Really? I think the media just gives the Hollywood Liberals the attention.

There are a lot of Republicans in Hollywood.

posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 06:14 PM

Originally posted by Destinyone
reply to post by popsmayhem

From your post.....*
Yes the 80% was a figure I made up to
try to explain what I meant. *

It's really hard to take anything you say seriously, when you pull figures out of...ahhh...thin air. as if they are real.

Use those figures to bolster your position....and then admit you made them up....not real bright I would say.

What percentage of Kellie Clarkman's followers on twitter
are minors then and can not vote?
I don't know any grown adult that follows her.
I have 2 nieces, they both do. Very odd.
I'm guessing I should put it in laymen's term
Clarkman was paid to do this tweet to support
Ron Paul.
Would not be the first time Paul bribed someone,
WAKE UP Ron paul is not who you think he is.
Bribery allegations against Ron Paul
edit on 30-12-2011 by popsmayhem because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 06:34 PM

Originally posted by popsmayhem
Oh yes, Kelly Clarkson is on the ron paul bandwagon

Here is how good of a supporter she is
“If he wins the nomination for the Republican party in 2012 he’s got my vote.
Too bad he probably won’t.

Because she was on some pop tv show she is some goddess>?


No one cares what KELLY clarkson has to say about politics
let her sing and dance, stay out of politics.

So because of her profession she has no right to voice her opinion and vote the way she wants too?.

No one cares what Popsmayham has to say about politics
let him troll and spout, stay out of politics.....!

posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 06:54 PM

Paul Supporters Reward Kelly Clarkson #1 on


Looks like blowback can work both ways. How many more Celeb RP supporters follow her lead?

Thanks Fox News. You again do more good than bad for RP and his supporters!

Maybe Ms. Clarkson will be singing at RP's Inauguration Party?

top topics

<< 1  2    4 >>

log in