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.

 

Dedicated To All Neocons That Booed Ron Paul (Video)

page: 2
22
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 08:24 PM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


Anyone Elected to the Higest Office in the Land would be Obligated to Act in the Best Interests of the American People in a Time of Crisis no matter what their Personal Feelings may be . In Ron Pauls case , he like the Other Presidents before him would Do his Duty.




posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 08:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Res Ipsa
"get the word out".......Perfect! Do you see how you are making my point, or are you being sardonic?
For the sake of argument let us say you are not.


Only sardonic towards those that need it my friend. So because I utilized a worn out catch phrase makes me as such!? Interesting I guess it is time to change my vernacular to that of "Paulese" and refrain from using such.

How is that for sardonic for you? A little less veiled and open I suppose.


You are like those people in the audience....you are the people they target their catch phrases/sound bytes for...."job creators" for instance instead of the rich elites........"No New Taxes".......you like that too.


Yep, I live my life based on catch phrases. I only listen to sound bites (a sound byte wouldn't be much other than 1010). I hope you are catching on to my sardonic nature by know, but just in case...


Is that the only way Ron has a chance to win? Does he have to dumb down his message? What more does he have to say about Iran? Israel has said they will take care of it themselves. What possible justification or sense would it make for the U.S. to ignore that?


No his chances of winning the electorate are insanely low -- for a number of reasons. I wouldn't want him to dumb down his message at all; where do you even come up with that? Merely stating "get the word out" to you means I want him to become an ignorant fool and only appeal to the crayon coloring masses?


get the word out.....you meant to say, "he needs to bash people over the head by saying some tested phrase over and over again"


Nope, I meant what I said. Should I have said "Ron Paul needs to further establish his foreign policy stance and start aiming towards certain demographics so they understand he isn't crazy"?



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zanti Misfit
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


Anyone Elected to the Higest Office in the Land would be Obligated to Act in the Best Interests of the American People in a Time of Crisis no matter what their Personal Feelings may be . In Ron Pauls case , he like the Other Presidents before him would Do his Duty.


And how would this differ from a president utilizing a justified stance as you have just stated, from saying "Iran is in our best interest to be bombed to oblivion so I am authorizing drone strikes"?



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 08:37 PM
link   
reply to post by AzureSky
 


Exactly they hate us for acting like an EMPIRE all over the world with the legions of cia agents corporatiOns and military let alone jackals and money pouring in to trash their ethics
Neocon repubs are trash to me


Ron paul needs to keep harping on this

We have been empire building with a corrupted form of capitalism for about 100 years



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 08:39 PM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


If Any President would take such Actions, they must be Justified by Facts . In regard to Military Actions , the President must explain the Logic in his Reasoning to do a thing such as that or Risk Impeachment .



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zanti Misfit
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


If Any President would take such Actions, they must be Justified by Facts . In regard to Military Actions , the President must explain the Logic in his Reasoning to do a thing such as that or Risk Impeachment .


And this is all inferred that a President Paul would act accordingly. Here is the thing: When I read his platform and hear him speak (when not on a tangent), I get excited about him and think he is a breath of fresh air. But when his supporters (not specifically you) start up, using fallacies to try and make their points, it just turns me off.

Would you then, based off what we have just discussed, say that Afghanistan was a justified response? Vietnam? Korea? Bay of Pigs? Serbia?

Maybe I just want to know too much...



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 08:52 PM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 





No his chances of winning the electorate are insanely low


And this is because of the mass media influence on our country's people. It is a FACT among republicans that to win the 2012 election you need independent votes, and Ron Paul blows all the other candidates out of the water on that front, let alone "fence-line" democrats...



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by rstregooski
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 





No his chances of winning the electorate are insanely low


And this is because of the mass media influence on our country's people. It is a FACT among republicans that to win the 2012 election you need independent votes, and Ron Paul blows all the other candidates out of the water on that front, let alone "fence-line" democrats...


A fact? Really? Please, since it is a fact, do show. Show me those that are vying for a position to be in the electorate that advocate and support Ron Paul.

The larger factor here is he may have support amongst the public, but not the public that actually engages in the electoral process that elects the President.



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 09:02 PM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 





But when his supporters (not specifically you) start up, using fallacies to try and make their points, it just turns me off.


I understand your reasoning for this statement, but one should never let supporters affect their belief of "someone" in this game of politics. What a horrible excuse to use supporters as a platform for your objection to a candidate's stance.. "Because I can't stand his supporters"... Well I'm just so happy for you then.. You've clearly got your political opinion well drawn out based on the hatred of one candidates' supporters, don't you?



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by rstregooski
I understand your reasoning for this statement, but one should never let supporters affect their belief of "someone" in this game of politics. What a horrible excuse to use supporters as a platform for your objection to a candidate's stance.. "Because I can't stand his supporters"... Well I'm just so happy for you then.. You've clearly got your political opinion well drawn out based on the hatred of one candidates' supporters, don't you?


Can you point to my hatred? I just can't stand supporters of any group who aren't even able to look inward and realize that their person of choice is not the Second Coming. To be truthful, no one in the field is appealing. Maybe if we chop them up and splice them together we can get the perfect candidate.

My dislikes for Ron Paul are because of Ron Paul. His supporters are just the icing. I also never said "Because I can't stand his supporters"; placing in quotes infers that I did. But I just hate supporters; my family at this point would go into chaos because they learned that I hate something.

ETA:

And who are you how I should determine my political likings?
edit on 26-2-2012 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 09:16 PM
link   
Thank you for the post OP, great video. Shows just how radicalized some on the right are and out of touch with reality. Ron Paul can see through the smoke and mirrors and has no problem telling an ugly truth, even if it means getting booed by a bunch of vapid neocons who only want to hear "they hate us for our freedoms (herp derp)".



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Originally posted by rstregooski
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 





No his chances of winning the electorate are insanely low


And this is because of the mass media influence on our country's people. It is a FACT among republicans that to win the 2012 election you need independent votes, and Ron Paul blows all the other candidates out of the water on that front, let alone "fence-line" democrats...


A fact? Really? Please, since it is a fact, do show. Show me those that are vying for a positiogiven n to be in the electorate that advocate and support Ron Paul.

The larger factor here is he may have support amongst the public, but not the public that actually engages in the electoral process that elects the President.


I speak the "fact" in the realm of reality. My point is that the independent vote is a huge factor. Obama already has basically a 50% rating in the polls, though I hate to reference polls. But in reality all it will take is a false-flag attack or something VERY serious to concern voters as to vote in the realm of not wanting to change the leardership of this country... We all have a front row seat, just sit and watch!



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 09:25 PM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 





I also never said "Because I can't stand his supporters"; placing in quotes infers that I did. But I just hate supporters; my family at this point would go into chaos because they learned that I hate something.


This is a non-issue. Support whomever you feel directed to do so, but don't bring radical (awesome) Ron Paul supportors into your choice because it makes no friggin' sense...



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 09:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by rstregooski
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 





I also never said "Because I can't stand his supporters"; placing in quotes infers that I did. But I just hate supporters; my family at this point would go into chaos because they learned that I hate something.


This is a non-issue. Support whomever you feel directed to do so, but don't bring radical (awesome) Ron Paul supportors into your choice because it makes no friggin' sense...


It absolutely is an issue. You levied it and now you are backing off from it. Interestingly, earlier I utilized the word "isolationist" and have since admitted that it was the wrong word. You have since, when clearly shown otherwise, continue to move the discussion away from points I brought up to you in specific response to me.

I understand; you are a die-hard fan (I know this since you quaintly said 'radical (awesome)') and I am not trying to persuade your passion. But more often than not, any one that dares speak out against Paul -- or question him -- or even *gasp* oppose him, is met with rhetoric such that you have exhibited over the past few replies.

It is mainly why I enjoy chiming in on these threads. Sharpens my debating and rhetoric skills.
edit on 26-2-2012 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)


ETA:

You said support who I want, but don't do it this way; do you not see the contradictory manner of your speech?
edit on 26-2-2012 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-2-2012 by ownbestenemy because: Fixed word usage



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 10:57 PM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 




yet I cannot fathom the complete isolationism of Ron Paul.


OK.. well.. here is what I cannot fathom:



Germany


Strongest industry in Europe, 3rd in the entire World. Wealthy. And the have a history of being able to militarily defend themselves (as well as be aggressive) .. So um .. why do we need to protect them?



Japan


Incredibly powerful economy.. they restrict their own military because of past shames.. but why should we be protecting them?



England


Powerful.. wealthy and expansive .. second most powerful army in the World. WTF do we need any bases there for? (And besides.... wouldn't one military base in Europe suffice??)



Middle East


Because they lurv us huh?

We don't need to protect our allies because they are strong enough to defend themselves. This isn't the Cold War anymore.. no matter how much our government wishes it was.

We don't need forward bases because we shouldn't be attacking nations for no reason. We have the ability to mobilize and attack any nation on Earth from within our own borders in a matter of hours. We can deploy the World's largest invading army to anywhere in the World in a matter of weeks.

It's not just a matter of the fact that we shouldn't have bases around the World. It's also that we shouldn't be interfering in World affairs. We CAN survive without waging wars on every continent.. We CAN have a quality life if we focus on ourselves.. limit immigration, limit our presence in the World. We should focus on developing our culture, our society, our economy. Instead we have this obsession with focusing on World affairs, waging wars, perpetual corporate growth and expanding our population in a battle to see who can entice the newest voters. I find it disgusting.



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 12:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 


As far as bases in Germany, Japan, Europe, etc. - this is going back to the Cold War - we weren't there to protect them but to contain communism (same reason we launched a 'police action' in Viet Nam - contain communism). Today it's sheer folly to have all these overseas bases, except to keep the empire propped up while the core rots from within.



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 12:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Originally posted by rstregooski
Alright, folks.. I've gotten quite sick of everyone who states that they like Ron Paul except for his "crazy" foreign policy stance.. These same people are beating their damn war drums and refuse to look at the history of American Interventionism, whether it be CIA, SF, our globalist bureaucracy, or whatever..


I beg to differ! But continue your broad strokes. I would like us to become much less involved in foreign affairs and close down nearly every base save about 4 (Germany, Japan, England and one in the Middle East); yet I cannot fathom the complete isolationism of Ron Paul.

So no, those that dislike and think his foreign policy is extreme don't all sit around a camp fire singing war songs hoping we set off for war once again.


You are clearly missing the point. Allow me to point out the obvious.

1. Obama is a War President. If re-elected he will continue the ways of War.
2. Mitt Romney favors War with Iran
3. Newt Gingrich favors War with Iran
4. Rick Santorum favors War with Iran
5. Ron Paul does not favor war with Iran or anyone.

So the point here is, a vote for anyone else for the exception of Ron Paul is a vote for more War. This is not a matter of opinion, it is a fact.

Calling Ron Paul's foreign policy "isolationist" is really just silly and flat out false. Perhaps you should actually look up the word in the dictionary. If Paul's policy was truly isolationist, he would also refuse to trade with other nations. Paul has been very clear in both his words and his voting record that he favors trade with ALL Nations. This does not fit in with the definition of "isolationism" therefor we can not call his policy "isolationist".



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 12:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
Germany


You make a good point. And let me expand on my comment. We should do what Germany does here. I was stationed at Holloman AFB and the Germans have a command there. A full wing. I believe in mutually shared bases and would promote them. So yes, I would retain a base in Germany for training purposes. It isn't about protecting them.



Japan


The same applies to Japan., and so forth.



Middle East


Here, when I refered to the Middle East it was solely upon protecting spheres of influences. Not to be confused with the standing doctrine of bullying.


We don't need to protect our allies because they are strong enough to defend themselves. This isn't the Cold War anymore.. no matter how much our government wishes it was.

We don't need forward bases because we shouldn't be attacking nations for no reason. We have the ability to mobilize and attack any nation on Earth from within our own borders in a matter of hours. We can deploy the World's largest invading army to anywhere in the World in a matter of weeks.


On the first part, I agree and when I advocated the location of bases in different countries it wasn't under the assumption of protection but of being an ally and mutual training. I should have clarified that.

On the latter, I agree. We can have boots on the ground in 24 hours or less anywhere in the world. Bring that capability home.


It's not just a matter of the fact that we shouldn't have bases around the World. It's also that we shouldn't be interfering in World affairs.


Interesting since I never said such bases should be utilized to dictate the world. In my opinion those would be strategic bases for the United States to maintain. Gives access to all parts of the globe while maintaining a non-interventionist attitude.
edit on 27-2-2012 by ownbestenemy because: Edited content that wasn't mine.



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 12:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrWendal
You are clearly missing the point. Allow me to point out the obvious.

1. Obama is a War President. If re-elected he will continue the ways of War.
2. Mitt Romney favors War with Iran
3. Newt Gingrich favors War with Iran
4. Rick Santorum favors War with Iran
5. Ron Paul does not favor war with Iran or anyone.

So the point here is, a vote for anyone else for the exception of Ron Paul is a vote for more War. This is not a matter of opinion, it is a fact.


You missed my recant and are missing the whole of my post since then. But lets play with your statement.

You said "Ron Paul does not favor war with Iran or anyone" -- yet proclaim that my earlier and albeit misjudgement of saying he is an isolationist is incorrect right?

Sophistry is at play here, along with chicanery.



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 01:43 AM
link   
Thanks for the post and video sir,

As for the replies in the thread. Bottom line is this as someone else pointed out already..

Ron Paul = No Un Constitutional Wars. It will need to be declared by Congress. He has stated clearly over and over he will stand by his Oath of Office. Unlike the person we have in now.

Ron Paul = Restoring our Rights. Repealing NDAA, Patriot Act to name a few..

Ron Paul= Trying to end Special Intrests and Fascist Corporatism

Ron Paul= Real Cuts and Restoration of our Currency.

We all might not see eye to eye with Dr. Paul on a few things but his Positive outweight his Negatives. If these core things are not enough to sway a persons vote..I'm not sure what to say. Have fun with more of the same, hope you enjoy the downward spiral.



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join