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.

 

Ron Paul campaign Press Release: Ron Paul WINNING the Battle for Delegates.

page: 8
55
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 09:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Still

Originally posted by evilod
Man, you seem very anti-business.

You do realize that you are not forced to do business with corporations you think might be too greedy or that might "run over your rights"? Oh wait, actually I take that back, I was forced to do business with some very large banking institutions over the past few years when our great regulators decided that I should help bail them out once their greed had caught up with them. Good thing we don't let the free market work - in which those greedy banks would have surely collapsed - because they were too big to fail, and their failure would have taken us all down... right?


In upstate NY we are being forced to deal with poisoned water supplies thanks to the practices of private business that Ron Paul would encourage and protect. Hey, they are only contaminating the water on their private property right?
Oh #, that is not how water works.


Well I guess if Ron Paul 'would encourage and protect' this sort of thing (which I disagree with your assessment), then of course the great saviour of mankind, hope and change Obama has already been hard at work for years stopping the contamination. Right? How's that working out? Seeing alot of hope and change yet? Maybe OB can commission those 20,000 or so drones the mil/ind/sec apparatus wants in American skies and can send a few of them over NY to keep tabs. My guess is actually there are ALREADY laws on the books dealing with poisoning groundwater and that those whom it affects directly need to spend a little time and energy making sure they're enforced.

Has Obama addressed the fraudualent war on (of) terror yet (wars for Israel/Oil/ profit and put an end to the mass killings in other sovereign nations. How about a little more Hope and Change here before the U.S. ends up in WW3. Dr. Paul is the only candidate who appears to want to end this insane cycle of death and destruction.This to me is an extremely important issue and as well for our troops, No wonder they back Dr. Paul.

What is Obama doing to reverse the rise of the Orwellian surveillance state? Anything constructive? No i don't see it. In fact he seems to be helping it grow. Dr. Paul rejects this as do many many Americans. So does the ever growing Liberty movement.

Why do corrupt firms like Goldman Sacs give such large sums of money to peope like Romney and Obama. Why does Obama turn around and give such large sums back to them and their ilk? How much has Ron Paul received from them?.Who really is on the payroll and who is really not? Follow the money trail to see who really supports these big corrupt firms and who doesn't.

Ron Paul is the clear choice IMO for 2012.




posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 09:04 AM
link   
Here's the thing about Paul, the GOP, and the electorate in general. Something around 30-40% of the electorate is gonna vote Democrat no matter the candidate, and around the same percentage will vote GOP regardless. So really after the primaries, where in caucuses and closed primary states only the party faithful is allowed to vote, candidates are trying to gain enough of that 20-40% of independents and swing voters to get 50% +1. Due to the electoral college they do this on a state by state basis trying to gain enough of the winner take all electoral votes from every state except Maine.

Paul supporters are the more vocal, more organized, more grassroots, and more loyal of any of the supporters of other GOP candidates. The problem for the GOP is that many will not support Romney/Gingrich/Santorum in the general election, and the GOP has done nothing to fold them into the party. If Paul doesn't win the nomination, many may vote Libertarian or Constitution parties. In a close election, and I don't see how it can't be at this moment, that could win Obama a second term. The GOP is missing a golden opportunity to fold some enthusiastic young people into their party, and when Obama is being inaugurated into his second term they might realize their mistake but personally I think a viable third party coming out of the Paul revolution is more likely.

I personally plan on voting for Paul in my states primary as it is the best way for me to raise my middle finger at the rest of the GOP candidates. I won't vote for Romney- too Morman and too Wallstreet, Santorum- Social issues aren't the pressing problem in the US right now, Gingrich- too Gingrich but might be able to hold my nose and vote for him due to us both being from Georgia.

I am probably going to vote third party in the general the way things look right now, but if I were only able to vote for one of the Demopublicans my hypothetical vote in the general would break down like this.

Obama vs Romney- Obama, won't vote for Romney for any reason
Obama vs Santorum- Obama,
Obama vs Gingrich- Gingrich only due to home state loyalty though Newt is qualified for the job.
Obama vs Paul- Paul hands down though I believe collapse is coming Paul understands the evil of the banksters/FED that caused it better than any of the other candidates.

Until I saw the GOP field I really thought the GOP would have no problems making Obama a black Jimmy Carter, but the quality of the candidates just does not impress me. Take some pretty blatantly manipulated economic numbers offering the illusion of recovery and it's very possible we could see 4 more years of Obama. Just last year I thought no way in hell Obama can win a second term.



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Still
reply to post by SurrealisticPillow
 


A long while back, I pointed out that anyone that points out any of Ron Paul's numerous human flaws, you will be labeled a troll by his panty sniffing blind worshipers.


No I think it's fine to point out Ron Paul's alleged human 'flaws', point away. But at the same time why not offer a viable alternative and explian how you have a better choice. Naysayers can bash all day if they want, but when they also offer no viable alternatives it does seem thier motives may be a little suspect and their reasoning a little short.



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Tecumte
 


With Paul the issue isn't corruption, though he's pretty dishonest in the way he uses populist rhetoric to mask the true beliefs of Libertarianism and in the way he asks as if his reading of the Constitution is accurate and accepted. It's not btw.

The issue with Paul is his dangerous ideology.

As I have said repeatedly, just like with Obama, many people that support Paul have almost
No idea what he believes, past his rhetoric.



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by Tecumte
 


With Paul the issue isn't corruption, though he's pretty dishonest in the way he uses populist rhetoric to mask the true beliefs of Libertarianism and in the way he asks as if his reading of the Constitution is accurate and accepted. It's not btw.

The issue with Paul is his dangerous ideology.

As I have said repeatedly, just like with Obama, many people that support Paul have almost
No idea what he believes, past his rhetoric.




Well how else would you expect people to judge Ron Paul if not for his voing record and rhetoric?

And please just breifly give us all some insight into his so called 'dangerous ideology' can you be specific?

Dangerous to whom,the Globalist minded insiders who scam the system and believe they alone are best suited to call the shots and FORCE everyone else into their rule by divine decree.

The most dangerous ideaology I see currently is that of the extremist neo-con element (and those who fund them) and those coat tail riders that seem ever more intent on pushing the world into WW3.



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Tecumte
 


I have given dozens in this and other threads.

A good example is that he will allow corporations to over run democracy in America. He will stop the funding of public education and repeal child labour laws. He will let food manufacturers police themselves and remove all food safety standards. Business will completely control all aspects of food supply.

Like Chomsky accurately says, US Libertarian is extremely anti-democracy and pro-corporate tyranny.



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 12:26 PM
link   
Here, let me help and put up some of Dr. Paul's 'dangerous ideology'.

First, he is said to be 1 of only 3 Repub's to vote against the, so called (misnamed) 'patriot' ACT.

Who would this vote be 'dangerous' to? Perhaps those who cheer on the ever invasive War on Privacy and Liberty and make their livlihoods from it? Those who wish to rule and subjegate the masses by fear?

www.youtube.com...



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Tecumte
 


Like I said, people love his populist rhetoric, you even just spread it around. But I doubt you actually know much about Libertarianism. It's anti-Democracy and pro-corporate monopolies and corporate control. Before yo' think it's not, to read some Ayn Rand, go study the Libertarian website and their beliefs. Go read up on what mainstream historians think the constitution is about, realise Paul's description ofthe document is EXTREME and often at odds with what courts and scholars has said for centuries.

This is the danger of not researching a new ideology. Libertarianism, like any cult of the self, is dangerous.



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by Tecumte
 


A good example is that he will allow corporations to over run democracy in America.


Like they don't now??? LOL, they already pay to have most all of the laws written and interpreted in their favor, bad government IMo is in *many* ways worse than NO gov. it gives those who rig the game 'legal' cover and funnelled dollars to do it

What exactly has Obama done to really put power back in the hands of The People? Anything???

Is there another thread here on ATS that lists Obama's great accomplishments and how he has made life so much better and freer. (link?) In fact probably numerous things come to mind since he has done such a fantastic job,(sarcasm) maybe you can site a long list without even have to look it up. I do know one thing right off ,he has certainly provided alot of opportunities to his banking buddies and funneled alot of cash and perks into the death industries, I guess the casket makers union is fairly happy, but how about some of the other wonderful things he has done for mom and pop mainstrean America in making this a more friendly, peaceful, freer, and less warlike society?



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by Tecumte
 


Like I said, people love his populist rhetoric, you even just spread it around. But I doubt you actually know much about Libertarianism. It's anti-Democracy and pro-corporate monopolies and corporate control. Before yo' think it's not, to read some Ayn Rand, go study the Libertarian website and their beliefs. Go read up on what mainstream historians think the constitution is about, realise Paul's description ofthe document is EXTREME and often at odds with what courts and scholars has said for centuries.

This is the danger of not researching a new ideology. Libertarianism, like any cult of the self, is dangerous.


A 'new' ideaology???LOL, wanting to be free of oppressive controllers, goes way way way back, it had a huge part in the very founding of America, despite the opportunists.

The cult of a tiny few, controlling the many, *for the alleged good of the many* has given us (and still does in many countries) some of the very worst abuses of the people ever, millions and millions sick and displaced and dead and lives shattered. I believe for any successful society to function at it's best there has to be respect for INDIVIDUAL rights and human rights, not trampling them for the imaginary 'good of the many'.

Paul's view of the Constitution and Bill of Rights seems rooted in Liberty, and it's not surprising in this attack climate on privacy and liberty that we see some voices trying now to trash the very Founder's views as well and distorting them, IMO. Most communist and fascist leaning people probably do interpret the Bill of Rights differently, I don't doubt it. When I read Jefferson's words they are true and timeless, the ideals cross millenia, it is only mainly tryants and their minions that take exception to them or try to distort them for self serving purposes.

I keep hearing the broken Globalist record, just one more war, just one more right relinquished, just one more law passed, just one more invasion of privacy and we will have arrived into that great utopian society where the All seeing Eye can shield and take care of us cradle to grave. BS. Giving even more and more power and control to the Elitists minions making the laws for their paymasters is never going to produce anything close to 'utopia', you can't give ever more money and power to a Satanic mafia and expect to have a society based on "christ-like" ideals. Ain't gonna happen.



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Tecumte
 


Why oh why do all RP supporters think their constituional scholars?

RP's reading the constitution is not based on history but on pushing an agenda.

As I said, you need to read up on Rand, Objectivism, Constituional history and the differences between the US version of Libertarianism and actual Libertarianism.

Put it like this, Paul chooses to associate with a party that his own supporters think are corrupt crooks. And he chooses to not expose them as it suits him politically. Mmmm...

Honestly, you're misunderstanding his ideology and spouting his disingenuous rhetoric simply underlines my point.



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by Tecumte
 


Why oh why do all RP supporters think their constituional scholars?

RP's reading the constitution is not based on history but on pushing an agenda.

As I said, you need to read up on Rand, Objectivism, Constituional history and the differences between the US version of Libertarianism and actual Libertarianism.

Put it like this, Paul chooses to associate with a party that his own supporters think are corrupt crooks. And he chooses to not expose them as it suits him politically. Mmmm...

Honestly, you're misunderstanding his ideology and spouting his disingenuous rhetoric simply underlines my point.


I don't think people in the Liberty movement or those that support Ron Paul's bid for the presidencey think they are 'constitutional scholar's' at all, rather they know the type of world they want and it's more in line with the ideals of Jefferson than those of Stalin or Mao. Dr. Paul simply seems to lean more toward the former than the latter, IMO.

Dr, Paul's 'interpretation' of the constitution reflects in his voting record, a tangible item, he put's his votes where his rhetoric is. You haven't even offered one valid criticism of his record and it appears you certainly have no leg to stand on in comparing it with others. It's easy to talk in generalities and go round and round in tail chasing exercises but IMO it's largely a waste of time and for the hundredth time nobody has put forth a better candidate. You don't have one.



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Tecumte
 


If you think Ron Paul is espousing what Jefferson believed you're very wrong. This is the heart of the issue. Paul is being dishonest or you're deluding yourself if you think what Ron Paul believes is what Jefferson stood for.

One quick example is that Jefferson worked to establish state funded education, as he believed the state was responsible for the general welfare of the populous.

Honestly, Ron Paul is almost the opposite of Jefferson.

To be clear, I'm not gonna address a few of his thousands of votes. I could, but of course like any politicians I agree with some disagree with some (most).

His core philosophy and the way he pretends to represent people like Jefferson, when in fact his beliefs couldn't really be MORE different in almost every way, is IMO despicable.

Here's what Objectivists (like Paul) believe:

"the proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness (or rational self-interest), that the only social system consistent with this morality is full respect for individual rights embodied in laissez faire capitalism"

Here's some of what Jeffesonian Democracy was about:

"Jefferson's fear was that unlimited expansion of commerce and industry would lead to the growth of a class of wage laborers who relied on others for income and sustenance"

Jeffersonians "were suspicious of urban commercial interests"

They supported States Rights, but only as a balance against ruling BUSINESS elites.

Objectivists on the other hand:

Support, nay demand a class of wage labourers
Embrace the unlimited expansion of commerce and industry
ARE urban commercial interests
Think the government should be privatised, in other words, the exact opposite of what Jefferson thought!


This is what I mean by you guys buying into Paul's rhetoric. You don't ACTUALLY know what he believes. At least a large chunk of you.

Go google Objectivism.
edit on 11-2-2012 by captainnotsoobvious because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious
 

No, I think the problem is that you're focusing too much in generalities and trying to stereotype everyone into one group. Leaning 'Libertarian' doesn't necessaily mean people that do will agree on every point any more than any other philosophy, it's simply a direction and reaction by more and more people who are coming to see the complete usefulness of supporting any MS candidates and the directions they are taking.

Too,I simply am saying Dr. Paul *leans* more "libertarian" and closer to Jefferson (in PART) than either Stalin or Mao. I think that's pretty evident, to say otherwsie I think is dishonest. And I was talking about Jefferson's apparent love for LIBERTY, I sense this when I read many of the things he wrote, I'm not saying he didn't want the state involved in *anything*, rather that he seemed the type of guy who didn't want the State involved in *everything*. And if he could see today how the State and Corp gov. are really but one entity and how the State is really only a tool of the Corporation then I bet he would be even less enthused to give it even more power.

Tell me. Who is going to turn the ship around before it gets torpedoed?

Obama? Newt? Santorum? The other guy....what was his name.. oh yeah,, Romney LOL,,,, anybody???

Vote or don't vote as you see fit. But just remember? If these guys pull off WW3 don't expect it to have a happy ending. At least for most of us.



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Tecumte
 


You realise he named his son after Ayn Rand? Yes?

Its not a vague thing.

He's the opposite of almost everything Jeffersonian. And would choose to give liberty to corporations. Who would then choose to take it from you, if it suited them. This isn't abstract. Read up on objectivism, Ayn Rand, US Libertarianism, etc. All of Paul's rhetoric is a smoke screen. But go study this and then decide for yourself.



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious
 



the novelist Ayn Rand was not the inspiration for Paul's first name; he went by "Randy" while growing up.[11] His wife shortened his name to "Rand".


Sorry his name wasn't inspired by Ayn Rand...



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by KonquestAbySS
 


Jesus that's worse.

I did read that somewhere but obviously its wrong. That being said Rand Paul is a piece of work. That whole Ophthamolagy Associatian he invented is ... Weak.



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious
 




He even said it himself, and explains how it came about to people thinking that he was named after Ayn Rand...



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by KonquestAbySS
 


Jesus that's worse.

I did read that somewhere but obviously its wrong. That being said Rand Paul is a piece of work. That whole Ophthamolagy Associatian he invented is ... Weak.


Geeez...what's really.....weak....are the lame attempts to bash Ron Paul and now...Rand too?

They must really seem a threat to someone(s).

Grasping at straw after straw after straw........



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cynicaleye

Originally posted by eLPresidente
reply to post by FraggleRock
 


They're just mad the Ron Paul campaign has a strategy to win the GOP nomination and is following through with that strategy successfully in an organized manner.

Ron Paul has the highest chance of beating Obama and that is why the Obama supporters will come out and bash all day at every millimeter that Ron Paul gains in this election.



Highest chance? You should be a stand-up comedian. He hasn't won a single primary yet. Laughable.


Did you even read the rest of the thread?




top topics



 
55
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join