It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why I will have no pity for anyone if Ron Paul doesn't win

page: 2
23
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by SupersonicSerpent
I am English but i think there is something fishy about ron paul.The people who are running for president are already pre selected.Obama promised peace and no more wars look how that turned out.once he is in power if he wins you will fastly start to see his true colours when it is too late to do anything about it.


The difference being the Paul didn't take ridiculous sums of money from large institutions like Obama, has a better voting record than Obama, and the media are generally lambasting him every chance they get...




posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 11:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by mossme89

Originally posted by Praetorius
reply to post by mossme89
 
Government continually fails at what it claims to do, and we figure throwing even MORE money into that pit will turn the situation around?

That's kinda like saying "hey, if we put more water into the Titanic, maybe it will float!" (They did try that btw.)


Here's your Titanic corollary. It’s humorous, but yet so, so true. I can't remember where I copied it from...it may have been here on ATS or sent to me in a email.


What would all the world's experts and authorities say today if the Titanic were sinking but nobody was willing to admit it? The U.S. economy, after all, is sinking and taking on an unprecedented volume of water (i.e. debt), yet virtually no one is willing to admit the obvious fact that this ship is sinking. And much like with the Titanic, most "experts" continue to claim the U.S. economy is unsinkable, despite the obvious evidence that we might want to start heading for the life rafts

So in the spirit of comedy -- which is, after all, what we are witnessing in Washington these days -- imagine The Titanic hitting an iceberg in 2011, followed by a string of experts all trying to spin the story their own way. Here's what they might say:

The White House Press Secretary: The iceberg was placed in the Atlantic ocean by Al-Queda

The chemist: That's not an iceberg. It's merely solid-state di-hydrogen oxide.

Al Gore: That iceberg wouldn't have even been there if the polar caps weren't melting.

The Congressman: Quick, let's pass a new law that says ships shall not sink.

President Obama: The Titanic isn't sinking. It's merely engaged in "aquatic action."

Former President Bush: Icebergs are weapons of mass destruction planted in the ocean by terrorists. We must take the war on terrorism to the iceberg terrorists!

The Pentagon: We will equalize the hole in one side of the ship by blowing a matching hole in the other side.

The TSA inspector: You're not allowed onto a lifeboat until we check your anus for explosives.

The Cancer Doctor: We can't fix the hole in the ship, but through the miracle of chemotherapy, we can make you suffer so much that you won't care.

The Wall Street investment banker: Don't worry, the Fed will bail out all the water we're taking on. The Titanic is too big to fail.

The teenage girl: Can I still text on my iPhone under water?

Congressman Weiner: Yes you can, and by the way, here's a very special "going away" message for you to remember me by.

Average Joe: Is the ship's buffet still open?

The FDA: We believe the ship is sinking because of an e.coli infection that spread from the galley.

The CDC: Everybody should get vaccinated before the ship sinks, just in case there's a shark-flu virus in the water.

The New Ager: There is no hole in the ship unless you believe there is a hole in the ship.

The Academic: I have published a paper that proves this ship is unsinkable. Would anyone like to read it? Please?

The Catholic priest: I think we should save all the children first. Which lifeboat are they on again?

The Muslim Imam: This is the Jews fault!

The Journalist: The Titanic has a hole in its side, but official sources tell us it's only "aquatic action" and there's no cause for alarm. And we believe them.

The Federal Reserve: We have decided to dump more water onto the ship in the hope of making it float.

The Federal Government: Hey, these deck chairs look pretty nice. Let's buy more and rearrange them!

The Doctor: We need to order a couple dozen CT scans of the ship's null and bill them to Medicare before we have any idea at all what to do.

The Denialist: Stop talking about negative things. Stay focused on the positive and you won't need a life vest.

The Realist: This ship is going down, folks. You might want to think about taking action to keep yourself alive.

The Gullible Masses: Don't worry, this ship is unsinkable. Even if it did sink, there are plenty of lifeboats. Even if there aren't enough lifeboats, we all have life jackets. Even if we don't have enough life jackets, the government will come save us.


edit on 10-1-2012 by TDawgRex because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 01:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by dirtydog
Hope more youngsters like your self will get out and vote.But remember that not all old folks vote that way. Go Ron Paul, from an old fart.


Yep, and I second that...



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 02:20 AM
link   
What if the reason he doesn't win is because of some kind of manipulation via the voting machines such as what purportedly went down in Iowa? In other words, he may not win even though everyone voted for him.

I can relate to the sentiment though because as the only honest, real human being in the race, and as the only person in the running who even knows what the law of the land is (the Constitution), there is simply no other choice and if the American people fail to put this man into office then truly all is lost and the establishment has won. He's really the last chance. In fact, we'd be lucky if we even make it to having elections that he could win at given all the martial law that's been put into effect. Under their own fraudulent legislation they could shut everything down anytime they want. They just have to say there is an "emergency", and they can generate one of those anytime.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 03:01 AM
link   
Well finally someone in my generation who isn't in it 'for the lulz'. Most of the kids today are stuck on deciding if Drake or Lady GaGa are apart of the Illuminati, or are too overwhelmed by school, debt and personal ventures to care about the future.

Most just watch what's being talked about or are just trying to fit in. You mention Occupy or Ron Paul and they give you the most quizzical face, contorted to the max, and then shrug it off with a laugh. Ignorance literally is their solace. I for one stopped watching the T.V. at 15 and picked up a better habit as well as ways of thinking.

Of course this doesn't stand true for all, you and I are testament to that. Us early 90s born gotta lead by example. And our first test will be to get RP into office.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 06:21 AM
link   
I agree with you OP.

I don't wanna hear anyone complaining.

We have a chance to get SOME sort of change, we need to seize this opportunity.

I have the same frustrations as you..

It's hard for us young adults to put up with these old farts and their outdated way of thinking and running things.

They just don't understand why we'd want any of what Paul says. I mean no war? whatt?? how DANGEROUS...lordy..




posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 06:26 AM
link   
reply to post by SupersonicSerpent
 


Sorry, don't mean to offend..but i think you're way off base.

Paul supporters love him because he isn't the "system" candidate. Watch some of the debates, what him speak. And then compare it to the other candidates. Should become crystal clear.





Remember, Deny Ignorance.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 06:29 AM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


And yes, we have seen Pauls "true colors" for the past 60 years. He's the most consistent, honest, non-corrupt out of all of them.

If Paul would give away his dignity and flip-flop just for votes he would've gone back on a lot of his ideals in the past few months to please the common voter. (especially his "dangerous" foreign policy)

I agree with you reply-er.




posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 08:52 AM
link   
Its not just jobs.

More wars, more debt. As a matter of fact, they need wars to distract from the coming economic crisis, not just here but in Europe.

Think Americans might start to protest more? Think there might be more Tea Party protesters and OWSers in the street?

Well too bad.

Thanks to the Patriot Act, NDAA, SOPA and TSA VIPER teams, you're rights no longer matter.

NO OTHER PRESIDENT IS GOING TO CHANGE ANYTHING.




posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 10:22 AM
link   
So, time for me to ask some questions.

Ive been reading a lot of Ron Paul threads here, and everybody is saying he is the one who can get America out of trouble... so that must mean he will get a lot of power right?
Im not sure how the american government works in detail, but im almost sure that everything this Ron Paul wants to change has to be approved by another piece of government (Senate, Cabinet, Departments).

So unless Ron Paul has a lot of friends in those places, he cant do anything by himself.

Then you have the problem that the republicans dotn even know which frontrunner they think is best to set the tracks for the next 4 years. That means there is a whole party (in a two party system) who doesnt know yet who they will be supporting, and as far as I hear, the republicans arent fond of Ron Paul. So if he becomes president, can you really be sure his own party will help and defend him in everything he wants to change, while they are now still fighting eachother in their own party?

And of course, there is the conspiracy part in the story which I cant let behind on this side:

Many of you guys say everything is very well planned ahead by "TPTB". If thats so, ask yourself this question: If Ron Paul wants to chance a lot of things for "the best", lies that in the same line as what TPTB wants? When the answer is NO, then your screwed and Ron wont be elected. If the answer is YES, then Ron will be elected but it would also mean TPTB can use him to follow their path... which in the end wouldnt be so nice, would it?

Now, Im not saying you shouldnt support the guy, if you think he can chance America and make things better, then vote for him. The other candidates (as far as I know) are all warmongers, idiots, golddiggers etc. Im just questioning how realistic it is to expect from him to chance everything he wants...

..cause you heard that earlier with Obama: "Change" and "Yes we can!"... which turned out to be: "I guess we cant"


(ps: this was not ment to flame Ronnie-boy, cause if you would put another candidate like Obama in everyplace where you can read Ron Paul, you still would get the same outcome)
(pps: and of course, mind my lack of insight in the american politics, Im dutch, thats my excuse!
)



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by mossme89
If Ron Paul doesn't win, I will have absolutely no pity for any non-Ron Paul supporters.


And if Obama doesn't win, I will have absolutely no pity for any Obama supporters.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 10:56 AM
link   
not sure why the vast majority of us 'old farts' don't vote for RON PAUL - but he has my 'old fart vote'
gooooo RON PAUL - the only real American running.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mescalito
Ive been reading a lot of Ron Paul threads here, and everybody is saying he is the one who can get America out of trouble... so that must mean he will get a lot of power right?
Im not sure how the american government works in detail, but im almost sure that everything this Ron Paul wants to change has to be approved by another piece of government (Senate, Cabinet, Departments).


You are correct. The president is one cog in a machine. He doesn't control the machine, and in fact he's not even a critical part of the machine when it comes to legislation. If we send the same old senators and representatives to Washington then putting Paul into the oval office is likely just going to cause a lot of conflict and frustration all around.


Originally posted by Mescalito
Then you have the problem that the republicans dotn even know which frontrunner they think is best to set the tracks for the next 4 years. That means there is a whole party (in a two party system) who doesnt know yet who they will be supporting, and as far as I hear, the republicans arent fond of Ron Paul.


I wouldn't call that a "problem", that's just the way the process works. Once the candidate is determined then the party will rally behind him whoever he (or she) is.


Originally posted by Mescalito..cause you heard that earlier with Obama: "Change" and "Yes we can!"... which turned out to be: "I guess we cant"


Obama ran on a platform of "change", but he never bothered to define what that meant. It was a nice buzzword, no one can disagree with "change" when "change" has no definition. Hey, I give him credit, it was a brilliant strategy to get elected. But while campaigns are built on promises, legacies are built on results. And this is where he has utterly and completely failed, he has produced no results.



edit on 11-1-2012 by SavedOne because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 11:58 AM
link   
In the coming election there are three choices. Obama, Romney or Ron Paul. All three want to fundamentally change the US. SO here is how I see the three options.

Obama - wants a communist/socialist state on the model of the EU (unaccountable, appointed)

Romney - wants a corporate oligarchy where everyone is a good productive worker.

Paul - There is something not right about him, he talks the talk but all the "danger Will Robinson" alarms go off when ever I hear him talk to his followers. I think he is deliberately cultivating a cult of personality that he will use to transform America into a fascist dictatorship.

I think there are two equally likely scenarios that could happen.

1st - RP wins the republican nomination and a bunch of republicans sit out come the presidential elections and Obama wins.

2nd - RP looses the primary, his supporters believe it's a conspiracy, there are riots in the streets and they start a scorched earth campaign against the republican candidate and in the end Obama wins.

Lot's of people will disagree with my predictions but we'll know if I'm right soon enough.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 01:10 PM
link   
reply to post by SavedOne
 


Thanks for the answers, ive learned something today!

I guess its kinda a difference in culture. Here we have a free party system, practically anyone could get in the government, which leads to about 14 different parties to choose from. So a two-party based system seems odd to me. Of course, we have so much different parties to choose from, that we can never have "The One" who can symbolise change. They always have to work together which can lead to some fruitless decisions.

On the other hand, a two-party system has its flaws aswell, there isnt a lot of freedom to choose there. Either way, its a mess in politics-land, no matter if you live in America or if you live in the Netherlands.




top topics



 
23
<< 1   >>

log in

join