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: 9
55
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 05:41 PM
link   
reply to post by MsAphrodite
 


Do you even know what I'm referring to?

Rand Paul's fake Opthamology Board Cert:

wonkette.com...

Pretty #ing shady.




posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 07:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by MsAphrodite
 


Do you even know what I'm referring to?

Rand Paul's fake Opthamology Board Cert:

wonkette.com...

Pretty #ing shady.


C.mon geeez, so what, is that the best amount of dirt that can be dug up. By all means, try and sling dirt, avoid the real issues such as how both Ron and Rand stack up in their respective jobs.Their record. It stands on it's own against all cheap smear tactics.

I actually got a good chuckle out of reading that Enquirer like story, keep em coming you guys just look sillier and more desperate with each lame attempt.



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 05:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Tecumte
 


Ahh... so it's ok to lie through your teeth occasionally, just not very often... what's your standard? One major lie every six months ... once a year? A week?

You guys can't pretend these Paul folks are so moral and pure when the evidence points to something far more subtle. It's like the Obama madness all over again.



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 06:48 AM
link   
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious
 


Actually he WAS certified by the board and then backed out based on his principles.
So he is certified by his board and was certified by the other.

He passed his certification, there is absolutely nothing wrong with this (maybe more people should do it?) and he could be re-certified at any time.

Source - a better one than your political humor site



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 07:53 AM
link   
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
 


Ha! You guys are so brainwashed. If a heart surgeon said he was board certified, then screwed up your surgery, then you found out he'd generated his own "board" for him and his buddies, you'd prolly sue his pants off. You wouldn't go, "ahh he was lying because of his principles".

Such delusion.

In fact, imagine the wrath someone like Romney or Obama would inspire if they had done something similar and then claimed they we're doing it because of their beliefs. You Paul folks would be foaming at the mouth in rage!

But, Ron Paul's son... It's grand.. He's very principled.

Pathetic.
edit on 12-2-2012 by captainnotsoobvious because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by Tecumte
 


Ahh... so it's ok to lie through your teeth occasionally, just not very often... what's your standard? One major lie every six months ... once a year? A week?

You guys can't pretend these Paul folks are so moral and pure when the evidence points to something far more subtle. It's like the Obama madness all over again.


I'm not aware of any lie can you be specific as to *exactly* what it was.

And as far as being 'certified', I don't know about the specific mainstream organization you referenced (I'll have to look more into it), but if it's anything like the uber-corrupt AMA mafia and their partners in crime that step on all more holistic competing treatments and try and force doctors to only use THEIR million dollar often useless snake oil treatments, I would say GOOD, let's set up more ethical and less sold out boards to REALLY do what is in the best interests of the patients NOT what makes the most money for the health care (sickness creation) INDUSTRY.



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious
 


Did you even read what I posted. He was certified by both the national board and his own board.
He passed his certification and then moved on. So he is officially as qualified as anyone still currently holding that certification.Which is probably why only little rags like the one you posted are trying to make it out to be something it's not while my source was the washington post.
edit on 12-2-2012 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
 


"moved on"...

nice...

Try being honest, eh?



He had claimed to be certified by both boards, but Courier-Journal reporter Joseph Gerth quickly discovered that claim was false.


And


Patients have come to expect that a doctor who holds himself out as a “board certified” specialist, as Paul does, meets rigorous standards created by an independent body? And, if the American Board of Medical Specialties, the American Medical Association, the Kentucky Board of Medical Licensure and the American Academy of Ophthalmologists don’t recognize Paul’s National Board of Ophthalmology, exactly what are the standards required for certification by that board? You can find the requirements of the American Board of Ophthalmology at www.abop.org. Paul’s group maintains no such website. Raising even more questions is that when asked more than a month ago which board he was certified by, Paul incorrectly said that he is certified by both his own group and the widely recognized American Board of Ophthalmology.

Though we won’t provide Paul with a full list of questions, we will present a few of them here, just so you know a little bit about what we’re looking for.

What does the National Board of Ophthalmology certification process require? Does it require additional continuing medical education classes — over and above what is required by the Kentucky Board of Medical Licensure — like the American Board of Ophthalmology requires?

Do doctors have to take a proctored exam to earn or maintain their certification? If so, what does that exam entail and who wrote the test?

The American Board of Ophthalmology recertification process costs about $1,500 every 10 years. How much does the National Board of Ophthalmology charge, and where do any proceeds from the organization go?

Those questions aren’t that tough. Neither are the rest of them we’d like to ask.


So, he had enough honesty and integrity to create his own board (vice president - his wife), but for ages he claimed, as you would if you wanted to work, that he was certified by BOTH. Until he was busted. Then he became a moral beacon.

I'm sure you'll have an excuse for that lie as well.
edit on 12-2-2012 by captainnotsoobvious because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 10:47 AM
link   
Another great Rand Paul quote, wherein he calls for the potential imprisonment of people, based on "attending speeches" of people who want to over through the US government.

Freedom of speech be damned I guess. And freedom of listening to speech doubly so.

Here's the quote:

"But if someone is attending speeches from someone who is promoting the violent overthrow of our government, that’s really an offense that we should be going after — they should be deported or put in prison."

By that criteria a LOT of people on ATS would probably be in prison, as we've logged on to ATS and read people calling for the violent overthrow of the US government many times on here.

Welcome, to Rand Paul's America.

I hope Ron Paul speaks out quickly on his son's anti-Patriot, anti-Liberty, anti-constitutional speech. I bet he won't, as it's hurt him politically. (The same reason he doesn't speak out about all the vote-rigging ... he wants to win, democracy be damned.)
edit on 12-2-2012 by captainnotsoobvious because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
Another great Rand Paul quote, wherein he calls for the potential imprisonment of people, based on "attending speeches" of people who want to over through the US government.

Freedom of speech be damned I guess. And freedom of listening to speech doubly so.

Here's the quote:

"But if someone is attending speeches from someone who is promoting the violent overthrow of our government, that’s really an offense that we should be going after — they should be deported or put in prison."

By that criteria a LOT of people on ATS would probably be in prison, as we've logged on to ATS and read people calling for the violent overthrow of the US government many times on here.

Well, to Rand Paul's America.

I hope Ron Paul speaks out quickly on his son's anti-Patriot, anti-Liberty, anti-constitutional speech. I bet he won't, as it's hurt him politically. (The same reason he doesn't speak out about all the vote-rigging ... he wants to win, democracy be damned.)
edit on 12-2-2012 by captainnotsoobvious because: (no reason given)


I missed the link you provided for the quote, could you post it again so we can see the context and verify?

I fully admit, I know less about Rand than Ron, it is entirely possible the son may not fully share his dad's exact beliefs.

Link???



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


Cause there's a context in which you can justifiably call for the arrest of people for listening to a speech?

Answer that then I'll post the link.

And tell me, shouldn't Ron repudiate his son, for claiming to be supporting liberty, but actually trying to stifle speech?

Hmmm...?



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by Tecumte
 


Cause there's a context in which you can justifiably call for the arrest of people for listening to a speech?

Answer that then I'll post the link.

And tell me, shouldn't Ron repudiate his son, for claiming to be supporting liberty, but actually trying to stifle speech?

Hmmm...?


I don't know, let's see the link then we'll judge.

For all I know you may have just made it up.

Link?



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Tecumte
 


So you're on the record, as a Ron Paul supporter, saying that there COULD be a justification for arresting people, based on NOTHING BUT listening to a speech? Yes?

If you go on and say that I'll post the audio of him, full context, saying that exact thing.
edit on 12-2-2012 by captainnotsoobvious because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by Tecumte
 


So you're on the record, as a Ron Paul supporter, saying that there COULD be a justification for arresting people, based on NOTHING BUT listening to a speech? Yes?

If you go on and say that I'll post the audio of him, full context, saying that exact thing.
edit on 12-2-2012 by captainnotsoobvious because: (no reason given)


No, I'm saying let's hear what he ACTUALLY said in his own words, not just what you said he said and then I'll judge.

Link?



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 11:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Tecumte
 


One more time, here's his (ENTIRE) quote:

"I’m not for profiling people on the color of their skin, or on their religion, but I would take into account where they’ve been traveling and perhaps, you might have to indirectly take into account whether or not they’ve been going to radical political speeches by religious leaders. It wouldn’t be that they are Islamic. But if someone is attending speeches from someone who is promoting the violent overthrow of our government, that’s really an offense that we should be going after — they should be deported or put in prison."

That's his words.

Are you willing to say that there's some context in which you, as a Ron Paul supporter would agree with those words? It's an easy question. If I ripped it out of context you'll obviously cry foul and say I did.

Very easy, would you think that, in ANY context, there a reason for throwing someone in jail for listening to a speech?

Not gonna post the link until you answer that.



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by Tecumte
 


One more time, here's his (ENTIRE) quote:

"I’m not for profiling people on the color of their skin, or on their religion, but I would take into account where they’ve been traveling and perhaps, you might have to indirectly take into account whether or not they’ve been going to radical political speeches by religious leaders. It wouldn’t be that they are Islamic. But if someone is attending speeches from someone who is promoting the violent overthrow of our government, that’s really an offense that we should be going after — they should be deported or put in prison."

That's his words.

Are you willing to say that there's some context in which you, as a Ron Paul supporter would agree with those words? It's an easy question. If I ripped it out of context you'll obviously cry foul and say I did.

Very easy, would you think that, in ANY context, there a reason for throwing someone in jail for listening to a speech?

Not gonna post the link until you answer that.


Ok my answer: No, I can't readily think of a situation where attending a speech alone would be reasonable grounds for throwing someone in jail assuming no actual crimes were being committed.

Ok, now LINK???



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Tecumte
 




Now find a link to Paul denouncing that please!

I think it's important that Ron Paul distances himself from such comments. I know HE didn't say it, but he always promotes his son and Ron has repeatedly put Rand on the stage next to him at political rallies.

Time for Ron to distance himself from Rand's anti-patriot speech.
edit on 12-2-2012 by captainnotsoobvious because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious
 


We'll did a little looking on the "Think Progress" site (are you affiliated with them by the way, they don't seem very 'objective' to me) and from what I can gather Paul's answer was in reference to profiling at airports (context).

My interpretation of his answer was that he was referring to those "foreigners"? who plan "violent overthrow of the government" not just 'attending speeches'. Violent overthrow may well involve crimes wasn't this what Rand was talking about?

It is interesting Rand also doesn't support the badly misnamed 'patriot act', as sourced in the Think Progres link here, or in general of profiling of citizens based on skin color or religion.

It seems to me his quote is not only taken out of context but his words not interpreted correctly as to what he was really getting at. I am still educating myself on Rand and this quote just doesn't fit with everything else he stands for. I think "Think Progress" may well have their own political agenda that attempts to smear contenders based on twisting their words, but I intend to look more into it and we'll see who's not really being honest.

thinkprogress.org...



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


I think that's a HUGE stretch. He makes no mention of any crimes, in fact he says very specifically what he means. Very clear, unless you want to muddy the water.

As for what he stands for, thats called rhetoric. He just saw what people want to hear. As for him being awesome, do awesome people lie repeatedly about which board certified them as an opthamologist? Doesn't sound like an honest guy.

And no, I have no affiliations.

Well, i have a band.
edit on 12-2-2012 by captainnotsoobvious because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 01:49 PM
link   
The portion of the quote of interest to me:

"But if someone is attending speeches from someone who is promoting the violent overthrow of our government, that’s really an offense that we should be going after — they should be deported or put in prison."

First again, I'll just say IF Rand is talking about putting people in prison just for attending such speeches then NO I definately don't agree with that. But IS that what he is saying???, has he explained what he meant, as i"m sure this quote didn't go unobserved by his potential detractors.

I couldn't play the link (sound card out) so I had to just read and try and interpret what was said, to me it could be interpreted that he said "...someone who is promoting the violent overthrow of our government-- *THAT'S* really an offense we should be going after, they should be deported or put in prison.

If i read it that way I don't *necessarily* disagree , by the way who put those --- and commas intot he text, just by there use things can be made to seem to say different things.

So at this point I am open to he MIGHT have meant either of the two things, again has he explained exactly what his comment meant? Anyone know?




top topics



 
55
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join