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.

 

Breaking News: Newt Gingrich's campaign is about to implode

page: 7
59
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 06:16 AM
link   
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious
 


"Ron Paul will never get the nod. Thank God."
Really?
are you really saying that vs the possiblity of The Nit,The Newt, and The Trump?
or did I misunderstand you?




posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 06:21 AM
link   
reply to post by missvicky
 


I am saying that Paul will never get the nod, even if all the candidates spontaneously explode the GOP will refuse to give him the nod.

"Thank god" because US Libertarianism is dangerous and most people that support Paul have no idea what US Libertarianism means. Hint: It's not good.

The GOP would rather run a scandal ridden candidate than Paul. Or someone in a coma. Or a boiled ham.



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 06:22 AM
link   
She's probably gonna reveal that he dressed in her cloths and pranced around in them. I kinda figured that already.



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 06:28 AM
link   
reply to post by missvicky
 


Watch this.



Educate yourself on what US Libertarianism means.

To quote Chomsky, "[US Libertarianism] means extreme advocate of total tyranny" and "power should be given into the hands of private, unaccountable tyrannies, even worse than state tyrannies".

That's what US Libertarianism is and that's what Paul wants. He wants to replace democracy with a tyranny ruled by the kings of industry and commerce.



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 06:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by missvicky
 


I am saying that Paul will never get the nod, even if all the candidates spontaneously explode the GOP will refuse to give him the nod.

"Thank god" because US Libertarianism is dangerous and most people that support Paul have no idea what US Libertarianism means. Hint: It's not good.

The GOP would rather run a scandal ridden candidate than Paul. Or someone in a coma. Or a boiled ham.


Ok. So Repubs are so desperate to get an electable candidate they're gonna throw out a boiled ham instead of Ron Paul? Are you freaking serious? All they have to do is get behind Ron Paul and they can take take out Obomber. Isn't that what they want anyway? At any cost? Oh, but wait....Ron Paul might actually make them consider the Constitution...which they just can't tolerate. Now isn't this a loverley can of worms???



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 06:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by missvicky
 


Watch this.



Educate yourself on what US Libertarianism means.

To quote Chomsky, "[US Libertarianism] means extreme advocate of total tyranny" and "power should be given into the hands of private, unaccountable tyrannies, even worse than state tyrannies".

That's what US Libertarianism is and that's what Paul wants. He wants to replace democracy with a tyranny ruled by the kings of industry and commerce.



Maybe you can give me a better transaltion than what I heard, but I got that he agrees with the Ron Paul idea of a free market can regulate itself in a world of perfect liberty. I like Noam Chomskey alot, but in this video he sounded like he was doing some seriously triple -X fence walking. And if we aren't continually striving for that "perfect libery" then please explain wth this is all about. Boiled hams???



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 06:42 AM
link   
reply to post by missvicky
 


Ron Paul actually doesn't really care about the constitution. It's just a selling point, a bit of sloganeering. Like EVERY politician he's adept at spinning his actions to match his ideology, but don't fool yourself, he only supports the bits of the constitution that he agrees with.

Watch that video I posted. Ron Paul believes in tyranny and he knows it.

His supporters are often quick to say, "so what if we replace democracy with business," which is of course completely antithetical to the very nature of the constitution. The Constitution isn't in fact a document that sits well with US style Libertarianism, no matter what campaign slogans they might think up.

The US Constitution wasn't written to give people freedoms. They had those before the constitution (think about it), it was written to PROTECT people.

The basis of society isn't to create hyper-independent individuals, at the expense of the weak and the less capable, it's to protect the masses.

The only way the US Constitution can be viewed as a treatise on individualism triumphing over society is though the eyes of an ideologue who WANTS it to say something it doesn't.

Hitler made Christianity into a religion of racist hate (not the first or last person to do that). The Soviets made collectivism into a bureaucratic killing machine. Ron Paul has made one of the greatest documents about society into a document advocating it's destruction.

These things happen.



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 06:46 AM
link   
reply to post by missvicky
 


You aren't following his logic, which is understandable, it's pretty thickly layered here.

Adam Smith and Chomsky both think that perfect liberty is impossible, due to the nature of humanity (go read Wealth of Nations and you'll see what I mean).

Because it's impossible any system predicated on it is either wildly naive, or in the case of US Libertarianism, simply a lie.

Chomsky is saying that because of the flawed nature of humanity the only possible outcome of US Libertarianism is total tyranny.

Thus the quotes I pulled out.

US Libertarians advocate total tyranny of the elite.



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 06:52 AM
link   
Here's what I really don't understand . . .

Despite the lengthy list of allegations of wrongdoing and generally reprehensible behavior, there is still a feeling out there that the ex Mrs. Gingrich can actually say something that will make this asshole look worse.

What does that tell you about the general mental state of the US electorate, the quality of people who are clamouring over eachother to lead the US, and the general state of ethics and morality in this country. Seriously . . . after everything that's been conclusively proven, this guy is still considered to be a viable option for candidacy to the point there is actually a debate about airing some more dirty laundry before the SC vote.

Pathetic.

Really really really pathetic.

No wonder many of us truly believe we are screwed with a capital F.



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 06:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by missvicky
 


Ron Paul actually doesn't really care about the constitution. It's just a selling point, a bit of sloganeering. Like EVERY politician he's adept at spinning his actions to match his ideology, but don't fool yourself, he only supports the bits of the constitution that he agrees with.

Watch that video I posted. Ron Paul believes in tyranny and he knows it.

His supporters are often quick to say, "so what if we replace democracy with business," which is of course completely antithetical to the very nature of the constitution. The Constitution isn't in fact a document that sits well with US style Libertarianism, no matter what campaign slogans they might think up.

The US Constitution wasn't written to give people freedoms. They had those before the constitution (think about it), it was written to PROTECT people.

The basis of society isn't to create hyper-independent individuals, at the expense of the weak and the less capable, it's to protect the masses.

The only way the US Constitution can be viewed as a treatise on individualism triumphing over society is though the eyes of an ideologue who WANTS it to say something it doesn't.

Hitler made Christianity into a religion of racist hate (not the first or last person to do that). The Soviets made collectivism into a bureaucratic killing machine. Ron Paul has made one of the greatest documents about society into a document advocating it's destruction.

These things happen.


Then your solution is to offer a boiled ham for POTUS just in case The Nit, The Newt, ot The Trump doesn't "make it"? You are offerring alot of discourse without solution as far as I can tell. Please don't say Palin is the saviour of this country now that you have appeared to run out of options.

Check this out:www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 07:03 AM
link   
reply to post by missvicky
 


I'm not so crazy as to vote for a Republican. My solution would be a LOT more parties, a lot less money in politics and a lot more careful regulation of the influence of business on government.

If you have the patience, watch all four parts of this.



This will explain a LOT to you.



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 07:03 AM
link   
reply to post by missvicky
 


BTW: I watched that Paul video and wasn't hugely impressed.



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 07:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by missvicky
 


Ron Paul actually doesn't really care about the constitution. It's just a selling point, a bit of sloganeering. Like EVERY politician he's adept at spinning his actions to match his ideology, but don't fool yourself, he only supports the bits of the constitution that he agrees with.

Watch that video I posted. Ron Paul believes in tyranny and he knows it.

His supporters are often quick to say, "so what if we replace democracy with business," which is of course completely antithetical to the very nature of the constitution. The Constitution isn't in fact a document that sits well with US style Libertarianism, no matter what campaign slogans they might think up.

The US Constitution wasn't written to give people freedoms. They had those before the constitution (think about it), it was written to PROTECT people.

The basis of society isn't to create hyper-independent individuals, at the expense of the weak and the less capable, it's to protect the masses.

The only way the US Constitution can be viewed as a treatise on individualism triumphing over society is though the eyes of an ideologue who WANTS it to say something it doesn't.

Hitler made Christianity into a religion of racist hate (not the first or last person to do that). The Soviets made collectivism into a bureaucratic killing machine. Ron Paul has made one of the greatest documents about society into a document advocating it's destruction.

These things happen.


Or he could be a decent human being trying to make the world a better place by ending wars, and stopping the house of cards from toppling over.

Those things happen too.



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 07:06 AM
link   
Romney pretty much blew it for himself during that debate - most people felt he was dodging the issues and not being honest. Newt may go under now. Perry has been shunned and Santorum is struggling with social issues.

That leaves - Ron Paul - Solid as a Rock.



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 07:06 AM
link   
What is funny is how smooth they lie. They are afraid it's unethical to show it before the votes, in reality it is unethical to withhold information that voters may need to make an informed decision.

I would say withholding it has a lot to do with letting Romney pick up one more lead and a few more delegates by splitting the other half of the votes by keeping Newt in for one more vote.



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 07:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by missvicky
 


You aren't following his logic, which is understandable, it's pretty thickly layered here.

Adam Smith and Chomsky both think that perfect liberty is impossible, due to the nature of humanity (go read Wealth of Nations and you'll see what I mean).

Because it's impossible any system predicated on it is either wildly naive, or in the case of US Libertarianism, simply a lie.

Chomsky is saying that because of the flawed nature of humanity the only possible outcome of US Libertarianism is total tyranny.

Thus the quotes I pulled out.

US Libertarians advocate total tyranny of the elite.


Thank you for that. What alternative do you propose? Are you proposing TheRepublican party ideal? Are you propsing the Democratic ideal? Obviously you have already scratched the Libertarian ideal, that I'm not covinced that that Chomsky is reaally aware of what that is now. You seem to be argiung lots of stuff that has nothing to do with the Constitution. What would you prpose that aligns with that document other than Ron Paul's campaign platform?



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 07:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by pshea38
 


It certainly would win my Oscar vote for Best Comedy in 2012.


The irony is that it is so far from funny though.
It is deadly serious.



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 07:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by missvicky
 


I'm not so crazy as to vote for a Republican. My solution would be a LOT more parties, a lot less money in politics and a lot more careful regulation of the influence of business on government.

If you have the patience, watch all four parts of this.



This will explain a LOT to you.


ok my disclaimer: I haven't watched the video cuz it's late (early) AND I'm not too keen to watch a NewAge video from a BANKSTER..oh and as you may have guessed I wasn't too entralled with your video of Chomsky either as he came off as a mumbly mouthed doofus when I know he's waaayyy more savy than the shpeil he spooned to the camera that day.However he did say that in a state of perfect liberty a free market system will work. Isn't that what we are to strive for? Instead of constantly settling for less? And isn't that Ron paul's platform? Who else?



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 07:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoalPoster
Here's what I really don't understand . . .

Despite the lengthy list of allegations of wrongdoing and generally reprehensible behavior, there is still a feeling out there that the ex Mrs. Gingrich can actually say something that will make this asshole look worse.

What does that tell you about the general mental state of the US electorate, the quality of people who are clamouring over eachother to lead the US, and the general state of ethics and morality in this country. Seriously . . . after everything that's been conclusively proven, this guy is still considered to be a viable option for candidacy to the point there is actually a debate about airing some more dirty laundry before the SC vote.

Pathetic.


Exactly. And in their stubbornesto take the country, themselves, our "allies" out they will proceed with the "norm. the proscribed program. adhere to policy at all costs. Meanwhile no solution to problems. Solution? The Constitution.

Really really really pathetic.

No wonder many of us truly believe we are screwed with a capital F.



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 07:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by pshea38

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by pshea38
 


It certainly would win my Oscar vote for Best Comedy in 2012.


The irony is that it is so far from funny though.
It is deadly serious.



I agree its serious. But you have to laugh at the fact that everyone gobbles it up day in and day out. Without question. If people really cannot see what is around them, I have to laugh or I would be one narcissistic dick to everyone.




top topics



 
59
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join