26 Things Non-Paul Voters Are Basically Saying

page: 2
27
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by TsukiLunar
 


Oh, I wasn't under the impression you were looking for an argument. I'm not, as I kindly thanked you for your input. Caps lock generally indicates an emphasis on loud talking or yelling to get a point across, which I felt needed to be emphasized in this case. I think think you need to let things out! Perhaps this thread is a nice release for you. Good for you!
edit on 8-2-2012 by Wookiep because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 05:05 PM
link   
Thanks for this post. If anyone actually takes the time to read the article and most especially to watch Mr. Woods' videos (embedded in the source article) and realize who he is, there will be alot of very embarassed thread trolls. This guy is great. He should be RP's VP.

Seriously people, watch the videos. Start with the second (it's shorter) and then come back and bash him and his points. I double-dog dare you.



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


I agree, he isn't the messiah. I do feel that we need to start the road to recovery and need to begin with a step and he is probably the first step. (on a very long and painful road)



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 05:09 PM
link   
I'm just curious about one thing: What is it about Ron Paul that makes most of his followers think he is going to be elected in and essentially take control of the White House reigns, as in start start calling shots of reform without the consent of a Congress and Democratic House? What is the difference between Obama promising change in 2008, and Paul promising change in 2012? Because this article is one of many that really portray Ron Paul as some sort of "political messiah" , as said earlier, and his promises of changing the current American government sound similar to Obama's pandering in 2008.
edit on 8-2-2012 by Chalupas because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Chalupas
 


Quite simply because the alternative is to let the established bi-partisan, corrupt government bureaucracy continue to destroy the country and all of us as they steadily have for decades. Can Ron Paul simply snap his fingers and fix things? No. But can he tell the American people the truth for once and at least start the country heading in the right direction? I believe he can. Supporting the status quo (no matter what talking head they put on it) is NOT an option. We are running out of time.



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chalupas
I'm just curious about one thing: What is it about Ron Paul that makes most of his followers think he is going to be elected in and essentially take control of the White House reigns, as in start start calling shots of reform without the consent of a Congress and Democratic House? What is the difference between Obama promising change in 2008, and Paul promising change in 2012? Because this article is one of many that really portray Ron Paul as some sort of "political messiah" , as said earlier, and that the approval of congress and the house need not apply to his decisions.
edit on 8-2-2012 by Chalupas because: (no reason given)


Therein lies the rub... Obama had a sympathetic dem congress his first two years. If RP (cue laughter) is elected he will have an antagonistic relationship with congress no matter which party controls which chamber. However, there is absolutely no lesser of two evils between the two mainstream candidates (no matter who gets the repub nomination).

For me, Ron Paul is not a messiah, but he represents some sort of sanity to a system gone mad. Even if he is not on the final ticket, I'll be writing him in as I hope many RP supporters will. It's a conscience vote.

edit on 8-2-2012 by JimmyNeutron because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by TsukiLunar
 



You expect me to do your think for you? Okay.


No I do not expect you to do my "think" for me. I tend to do my own thinking. You have been very clear as to the fact that this article upsets you, I simply asked you to explain why. Your one line responses do nothing to explain your position. I posted this article for discussion, that is the whole point of places like ATS. Users post stuff, other users see it, and then users discuss it. So asking you to expand on your one liner negative comments, is part of the process in having a discussion. That does not mean I need you to think for me.

So in regards to #1.

(1) The American political establishment has done a super job keeping our country prosperous and our liberties protected, so I’m sure whatever candidate they push on me is probably a good one.



Right, so the only choice for "freedom" is Paul, right? False Dilemma.


Well I do not see it as a false dilemma at all. The Writer makes no mention of Paul here. Only mention of Candidates that are pushed onto Voters. I think the suggestion is to vote for someone who is not pushed onto you. It is a short list, and that list would include Paul, and we can assume he is talking about Paul by the title of the article, but it is a Statement that you can take any way you want to take it. Is a Libertarian Party Candidate being pushed on you? A Green Party Candidate?



(2) Our country is basically bankrupt. Unfunded entitlement liabilities are in excess of twice world GDP. Therefore, it’s a good idea to vote for someone who offers no specific spending cuts of any kind.



So its a good idea to vote for someone who you disagree with simply because they think something should be cut? WRONG


The point being made does not say, "vote for who you disagree with". The point being made is that the current GOP Candidates offer no specific spending cuts of any kind. Ron Paul does have a plan to cut spending. He has shown that plan. No other Candidate has done so. That is the point. Where you get "I should vote for.." based on this point being made, is confusing to me.


(3) Vague promises to cut spending are good enough for me, even though they have always resulted in higher spending in the past.



Outright lie.


Can you explain how the statement is a lie? Candidates, The President, and Politicians have been making vague promises about cutting spending and making an attempt to balance our deficit for several years. How is that a lie? Since Candidates have been making vague promises and spending has continued to increase, I think it is fair to say the Statement is accurate. Or have we had less spending in the last several years that no one seems to know about?



(4) I prefer a candidate who plays to the crowd, instead of having the courage to tell his audience things they may not want to hear.



Outright lie. Plenty of politicians say stuff we don't want to hear that is the truth. Paul does not have a monopoly on this.


I do not think the Writer is claiming Paul is the only Politician who does this. The point seems to be about the current GOP Candidates. Santorum, Gingrich and Romney are all known to pander to the crowds they are in front of. Ron Paul is known for not doing this and just speaking what he believes.


There, first four are clearly fallacious or lies. I am not going through all 26 simply to sit and be ignored by those who circle jerk over Paul.


Umm clearly not and I am happy you didnt go through all 26. I dont know if I could roll my eyes 26 times in a row. You seem to completely miss the point of the article. The point is that this is a list of Paul's stances on various issues. So if you disagree with his stance on the issue, then the must agree with the opposite of his stances.

Like I said in the OP, it is a very simplistic way to view things. It is not realistic, but it does make a point. Even though the opposite goes to an extreme, that is how the writer is making the point. Using #14 as an example, I dont think I have ever heard anyone say, "Let's take drug addicts and have them get raped in prison". That is an extreme and very simplistic viewpoint. The fact is, Paul believes drug issues should be viewed as a medical issue and not a criminal issue. Which some courts already do. They sentence people to go to treatment and things such as that where they are treated as medical patients and not criminals in a jail cell.
edit on 8-2-2012 by MrWendal because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by jtma508
reply to post by Chalupas
 


Quite simply because the alternative is to let the established bi-partisan, corrupt government bureaucracy continue to destroy the country and all of us as they steadily have for decades. Can Ron Paul simply snap his fingers and fix things? No. But can he tell the American people the truth for once and at least start the country heading in the right direction? I believe he can. Supporting the status quo (no matter what talking head they put on it) is NOT an option. We are running out of time.


I agree that Ron Paul earnestly speaks the truth about America; however, the problem is the deafness of Americans. We as a people shouldn't put somebody in office because of their, how shall I say, social popularity (Obama), nor should we put somebody in office based soley on what they promise and say, even if that may be the truth.



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 





I do think most Paul supporters need to learn what a real libertarian is.


When I first registered as a Libertarian, years ago, it didn't take me too long at all to conclude that the worst thing that could ever happen to the Libertarian Party was that it gain political power. Power corrupts. If the Libertarian Party were to gain political power, the next logical strategy would be to protect and maintain that power, even expand it. Libertarians could not do such a thing without first sacrificing the principles they adhere to. Sacrifice is insane.


Thats basically what happened to the the classical liberal party.


As a registered Libertarian myself, I do hope they gain power but I'm also ridding on the hope that it doesn't corrupt them. Because really what else is there to hope for in politics?

OT: I find the article to be ehh. Seemed a little juvenile. I digress though.

However I will weigh in on the Ron Paul = libertarian debate. No he's not a true Libertarian( He leans more conservative) but hes the closets candidate that the party has seen in a long time get this far. I would really like to see someone other than Paul be the face of the party. I really do like Paul, and he's on my list to vote for but I'm only picking him because he's close enough. Plus if he does get into office I think it would really pave the way for third parties.



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by jtma508
reply to post by Chalupas
 


Quite simply because the alternative is to let the established bi-partisan, corrupt government bureaucracy continue to destroy the country and all of us as they steadily have for decades. Can Ron Paul simply snap his fingers and fix things? No. But can he tell the American people the truth for once and at least start the country heading in the right direction? I believe he can. Supporting the status quo (no matter what talking head they put on it) is NOT an option. We are running out of time.


Supporting a proven racist and homophobic old man is also not a option.



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Mcupobob
 





As a registered Libertarian myself, I do hope they gain power but I'm also ridding on the hope that it doesn't corrupt them. Because really what else is there to hope for in politics?


The hard reality is that the jealous guard and zealous protection of rights has nothing at all to do with political expedience. It really doesn't matter who is elected President at this point, until People begin to understand their individual responsibility in guarding and protecting their own rights, and begin understanding the law as it is, not how it has been presented by priest class lawyers, there is no person or politically party who can save them.

As the holders of the inherent political power, it is incumbent upon us as individuals to exert that political power whenever necessary. We as individuals are our own best shot at survival, redemption, and hope.



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 09:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 




As the holders of the inherent political power, it is incumbent upon us as individuals to exert that political power whenever necessary. We as individuals are our own best shot at survival, redemption, and hope.

That is why THIS individual, yours truly, is working to bring one simple truth to light to anyone whom will listen. In this coming election for president of the United States, there is only ONE candidate that has demonstrated a willingness to adhere to the spirit of our founding document, the Constitution.
As far as I am concerned, this election is a litmus test that will not only reveal to us how well the grass roots effort to educate the political student has gone, but also how far the organization has come it its quest to reclaim some ground in representative government.
JPZ, this is what the Campaign For Liberty is all about. It doesn't end when Ron Paul does, it only ends when we say it does, and I don't see that happening.



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 09:58 PM
link   
reply to post by TsukiLunar
 





That whole article is full of non-sequitors and logical fallacies. All it takes is a little critical thinking to find them.


Did you just make that up to cover-up that it is something true? Seriously people that deny a lot, and try to act intelligent, won't admit that it is something they would say. So for you to get all bent out of shape a long with the rest of the anti-Paul crowd just shows you won't admit to it, so you can continue spreading your malarkey on Paul threads.



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 10:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


100% agreed. I do my best to educate myself on politics of today, current events, and my rights as a citizen of this country. I preach what I believe, and try to be humble enough to accept when I'm wrong. The fight for freedom, and the fight for understanding is a long and hard road to travel, and I try and do my best in all areas. Don't get me wrong, I don't think that a Paul presidency is going to impact the world much. I do believe though its a step in the right direction, that hopefully critical thinking and the belief in individuality will start becoming a staple of our society.

I'm becoming more apathetic to our republic and country day by day. I still try and hold hope though, as the little guy running around in a pond of big fish there is little I can do at the moment. Those little things I can do though, I will. Because if I simply quit and accept things the way they are, like I have seen some on ATS have done then nothing will get accomplished.

In my young age I'm an Idiot. Though if I don't show my ignorance I will not learn. If I don't speak to my elders and think of their experience and wisdom I'm a little less whole. If I do not, retain my youthful optimism then I accept the world as is and not what it could be. If I don't immerse myself into the study of history and the art of literature then I'm doom to repeat. I can try and hope to accomplish a great change in my life that I believe to be for the better and history to be the judge. Even if I only change a small aspect in my life time I can die happy knowing my efforts will carry on.
edit on 2/8/2012 by Mcupobob because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 





im not looking to derail this thread, so i wont engage here. I do think most Paul supporters need to learn what a real libertarian is.


By all means, derail this farce of a thread. They come right out and insult others with poorly constructed straw man arguments and we are expected to respect that?


As far as I am concerned anyone who stars or flags this thread can sit on a tac.


Wow, this can only mean.....drum-roll please......you read it and got #-slapped 26 times!

I saw Tom Woods speak once. He's one smart man.

Funny article...Big Flag and Stars for all who got it!


Wow, my butt must look like Mankind after an extreme match!



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 01:00 AM
link   
Meanwhile ... the city burns and

No one spots the Grecian horse because we're too busy throwing ad hominids around and can't bother responding in a measured manner with those whom we disagree ...



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 02:23 AM
link   
So many elections are won by how presidents promise things and play to the crowds.

It really shouldn't be legal to have audiences at debates.. We all know Newt hates that idea, but the fact is the "excitement" in a crowd wouldn't be able to have influence on others. People would have to vote solely based on what their candidates say, not also based on how the masses react to what one candidate says.
There should also be much stricter laws on taking the office.
Your yearly salary is the average of what Americans make. (Same would go for congressmen and other politicians)
You make a promise before being elected in order to get votes? You don't stick to that promise once in office, you get impeached. Simple as that. If you promise X, and cant follow through with X, you are gone. No debating it. No months of deliberation about it, you're out. Cut and dry. Armed service men come into the white house and physically remove you if they must. That way you'll think twice before LYING to get votes.

Shrug... As for the article, it's partially true and partially false.

It's partially true in the sense that, and i'll use the spending cuts one (number 2) as an example.

Ron Paul has a spending cuts plan. The others do not. By not voting for Ron Paul, you are opposing his spending cuts plan in favor of a candidate who has none. That's just a fact. You are opposing his spending cuts plan.

The part of the article that isn't quite so true is that a person voting for Ron Paul may not be saying they oppose his spending cuts plan, and in fact, may be wishing their candidate had a spending cuts plan like his. Thus, the person is NOT "basically saying" that it is "a good idea to vote for someone who offers no specific spending cuts of any kind.". The fact remains that the person is still opposing the spending cuts plan, even though they may be in favor of it.

It's a similar case for many of the 26 things listed. Just my thoughts...

Cheers.
edit on 9-2-2012 by Qemyst because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 02:53 AM
link   
reply to post by SurrealisticPillow
 


Lord forbid we leave you alone to your own devices to make your own decisions

when it comes right down to it- Ron Paul is about tying your own shoes, doing your own laundry, paying your own bills... not a very revolutionary concept when you look at what James Madison and Thomas Jefferson had to say on the matter.

Thomas Jefferson basically wanted everyone to own their own land, till their own soil, grow their own food--- IE be accountable for their own decisions/actions

I realize this seems crazy- who wants to do that? we have A&P, Publix, Shoprite, Walmart, Piggly Wiggly, etc

but back then, i think 'ol Tom just wanted us to maintain as much independence as possible (anyone read Thoreau's Walden?) without "the man" getting us down

Ron Paul is *similar*, in that he wants things (like the Fed) to be transparent.. and accountable (like if i grow my own food, gonna be damn sure it's edible)

and he simply openly questions the benefits that the big G government can bring to the table.. i dont see why that's such a problem for some people

before/during/after OUR revolution, there was a very lengthy and thought-provoking discourse about what role government should play in many things- start with the federalist papers

then read Jefferson

then maybe Jackson's presidency- American Lion is a good start

All of these men did what they thought was right... and didnt A- worry about third wives and open relationships (newt), B- making money on the backs of others' accomplishments (mitt), or C- attempting to change the whole game overnight (barry)

Rep. Paul happens to be a politician who was born in an age where politics is merely a bidding war.. and he's not for sale--- hi haters, i see you

get used to it.. because eventually (20 yrs? 30?) the people in this country might wake up and realize that most politicians are nothing more than whores- and they say what they believe needs to be said at any given moment in front of any given audience in order to maximize votes, and then they do nothing,,, Paul wants to change this--- and thats readily apparent if you peek at his voting record

2 cents



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 03:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 





im not looking to derail this thread, so i wont engage here. I do think most Paul supporters need to learn what a real libertarian is.


By all means, derail this farce of a thread. They come right out and insult others with poorly constructed straw man arguments and we are expected to respect that?


As far as I am concerned anyone who stars or flags this thread can sit on a tac.



I am not an American citizen, and I have never liked the Republicans.. but for RP I couldn't be more happier to change my point of view..

The truth hurts doesn't it lunatic? You are a very hate filled person, this is obvious.. transparent even.. your hate flows like the blood spilled by the murderers you would elect... Its present in nearly all of your posts.

How about you take that tac and nail into your own forehead? Share the pain with us you would inflict on the rest of us.

And RP isnt going to win.. we all know that, it wont be allowed, becuase there are just too many broken people like you out there..

I am not looking forward to the coming wars... and there will be.
edit on 9-2-2012 by PrecogPsychicSensitive because: sp



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 04:53 AM
link   
Reply to post by MrWendal
 


Hate to burst your bubble buddy but RP is not going to win the nomination UNLESS he can win a few states.

Let the paulites come up with their silly articles. It won't make much of a difference.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 





 
27
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join