It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


From an Outsider: Ron Paul Does Not Care If You Live Or Die..

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 03:38 PM
reply to post by EvanB

yeah lol he is about money! lol

thats why back in the late 70s or early 80s he would allow people on Medicare or whatever fed assistance we used, to go to his doctors office and get treatment, but refused to take the government money. he would just treat them free, and refuse to take their money.. thats why he proposes he gets paid 30 something thousand dollars as the president. the list goes on.

if ron paul is after money, then what the hell are these other guys after.. our souls?

posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 04:00 PM
Ron Paul is 100% correct. Imagine a world where people didn't depend on the government for help. They wouldn't depend on FEMA coming to the rescue because they would already have plans in place.

FEMA discourages people helping each other because they know they don't have to anymore since their darned tax dollars are already paying for it!

Also, out of all the people I've talked to that live in areas like these, every-time SHTF I ask them why they don't just live somewhere else. They often get offended as they are proud to live where they live and love their way of life. You would think they are taking on the responsibility of cleaning up just by living there knowing that these things happen & often.

I'm not saying they shouldn't be allowed to ask the gov. for help and getting it though. Everyone needs a little extra help once in a while. I also believe it would make the communities stronger and more willing to help each other. How often do you see young people hold a door for old people?
edit on 5-3-2012 by oniraug because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 04:06 PM
reply to post by braydenf

I did not know that...

That is what this thread is for.. EDUCATION..... Especially for us outside of America..

You may not think that your choice of president has anything to do with us.. But from personal experience in the British Army I can assure you that your foreign policies do...

On a personal level I would come to the USA's aid anytime because you are family as most Brits are concerned.. However the choices you make reflect on us also, thus we also end up put in the same boat when you fk up and am open to the same retaliation for your foreign policies... Which... As family we gladly accept..

Hence why we take great interest in your politics because when America catches a cold we sneeze...

The last thing I want is for any of my family to die for the sake of money....

Hence my reticence with RP's rhetoric..

Take no chances!

Especially with family...
edit on 5-3-2012 by EvanB because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-3-2012 by EvanB because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 04:25 PM
reply to post by EvanB

i never really thought about how much it could affect others if we isolated ourselves from the outside world (which is impossible) i tend to get caught up on the $$$ we would save. Which is what you were saying in the OP money

but ron paul isnt suggesting that we hide in a cave and be inhumane to others problems.

didnt mean to be harsh brother.

on that subject though, i think Ron Pauls point of view or at least how i see it, is we as people dont need to depend only on the government, or someone else’s government at that, army, etc.

posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 04:25 PM
and i agree with take no chances espeically with family, which is exactly why i am voting for him

great speech on families by ron paul.
edit on 5-3-2012 by braydenf because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 04:36 PM
Yeah, Ron Paul doesn't care if you live or die, but the other candidates do.

They want to have the legal authority to have you murdered.

I'll stick with Paul on that one.

posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 04:51 PM
reply to post by braydenf

Im not saying that you HAVE to depend on government alone... I know that no one else should be made responsible for our choices... However, when that choice is taken from you.. From lack of employment to natural disasters.. I believe that the government should do all to alleviate suffering in the country they serve...

If the public sector (government) is not doing its job I am not against the private sector taking over if they are regulated beyond, and save us money, doing the job..


We have a responsibility to our neighbours come what may.. And with that.. Our taxes have paid for it..

posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 05:13 PM
reply to post by Holodomor

He also says that people should have insurance (frankly in our current society you should have insurance) to cover themselves if they live in disaster-prone areas. This is a bit of common sense.

While people certainly should have insurance, insurance companies aren't exactly philanthropic organizations. They are businesses only worried about the bottom line. If they can come up with some arcane technicality that makes it so they don't have to pay they will. There are tons of stories out there where people have been screwed over by their insurance provider. So even if a person has insurance it doesn't mean that they will be receiving the assistance they expected in their time of need.

posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 05:19 PM
We won't get a candidate that we all like. We have a two party dominant system. Has always been this way, and probably always will. We are forced to pick between the lesser of two evils, and the two parties are very much aware of this. They're controlling everything right now, and we all just blow it off, and pretend we are actually choosing something when we're voting. Problem is, we get to choose out of a list of selected candidates( the ones selected for funding, and air time). So essentially the job is already half done for us. When we all decide to start fixing issues, we can work on this one, so we can actually get things done, rather than the political machine just spinning us in circles until we get dizzy and start throwing punches.

posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 05:41 PM

Originally posted by EvanB
Just Keep Paying Them Taxes!!!

I have read and read everything on RP thanks to this site.. I believed that he was the best hope for America and the free world.. However after looking at his policies and listening to his rhetoric, I have changed my mind..

Maybe it is a cultural thing??? Here in the UK we have a national health service and welfare that takes care of our citizens from the cradle to the grave.. Its not perfect and home growns and foreign take the piss out of the system.. However that is changing.. But... Even though a minority take the piss I still do not mind my taxes helping the health and wealth of my fellow citizens..

I INSIST that my taxes are used to help out in any emergency... After all... It could happen to me and mine too..

RP seems to be about the bottom line... MONEY...

If you are in any trouble then fk you!!

Health and disaster, you can count on RP's consistency to tell you to fk off no matter how poor you are..

Is that an America you want?????

I hope not!!

One without a social conscience but with a fk you attitude if you happen to be too poor to afford insurance...

That kind of smacks of elitism no??

Natural selection?? Or just perks for the rich??

Either way it stinks!!

RP is WORSE than Obama! At least the singer in chief has a social conscience hey??

Why would you put RP in the whitehouse if the government is just at a state level, each one just taking care of itself in a fractured and devolved un-USA???

Why would you need a whitehouse??

Or a president???

Thats just my take on it..

Sorry for droning on...
edit on 5-3-2012 by EvanB because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-3-2012 by EvanB because: (no reason given)

Well OP, yet another thread surprised that Ron Paul is exactly what he claims to be; A constitutionlist...

The fact is it's not about MONEY for Ron Paul, it's about THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. And when you read the constitution and realize that the federal government was granted THREE and only THREE powers under the constitution, ie guarding the shores and borders, coining money and setting the value thereof and regulating interstate commerce and thoroughfares, then it becomes easy to see why Ron Paul doesn't support federal welfare programs, those are powers the federal government stole from the states.

The fact is, though Ron Paul is against federal programs, if you asked him whether he thought each of the states should be allowed to intact welfare programs, disaster relief programs or even health care programs, I bet he would say it's up to the individual states....because, constitutionalists believe that is the states business, and the federal government needs to stick to just it's three jobs granted by the constitution.

It's not really hard to figure out and reading your thread makes me want to rip off a campaign slogan from clinton, but in this case instead of it being, "It's the economy stupid," it would instead be "It's the constitution stupid."

Really, I wish people like you who keep making these anti RP threads would just study the constitution and constitutionalism, then you can figure out pretty easy everything Ron Paul would be against as a constitutionlist and just make one "RON PAUL IS CONSISTENT CONSTITUTIONLIST!" thread, instead of spreading it out in thread after useless thread only picking one stance and issue at a time.

Anyway, Op, just like Ron Pauls consistent voting record, he has always said he is a strict constitutionalist, so no surprise he is against federal programs outside of the three powers granted to it by the constitution.
edit on 5-3-2012 by prisoneronashipoffools because: typos

posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 05:42 PM
reply to post by EvanB

However, I have friends in Florida and California who pay absurd amounts of money for insurances that they are required to have for their mortgages alone which kind of bypasses your optional quote if you need a place to live.. In some cases they are paying the equivalent to $500 a month just for health insurance which is a mandatory requirement.. I know that is for mortgage holders, however it just serves as an example of the cost of living even for the semi successful who work hard, pay their way and wish to remain healthy in order to do so..

I definitely agree we could do with reform of a good many things. But, as far as I can tell, big federal government is rarely the answer (very much so at least in the case of the US). And, Ron Paul being a former doctor, he's seen these systems from the inside, and can testify to how the government and HMOs getting involved has pretty much broken our healthcare system here and driven the prices up astronomically.

Prior to these groups getting involved, medical care was much more affordable, and insurance itself was also cheaper (and only used for generally catastrophic situations, instead of being tied into pretty much all levels of healthcare). Just like with many of our other problems, throwing more money at it (which comes out of all our pockets) and continuing to centralize power through the geniuses in Washington will likely continue to make this problem even worse.

Devolved government is indeed a good thing... I personally wish to see that at the county level in the UK (regional assemblies) with a English parliament... However I would not begrudge my fellow British citizens help if they need it..

I wouldn't so much call it devolved government as I would more decentralized, and more reasonable. The US used to be very impressive, before this onslaught of federal governmental expansion and centralization of so much authority in Washington - its citizens generally ranked very highly on world health and quality of life indexes, with a lot less people locked up and generally a great less problems.

Now look at us - from what bit I can see, the increases in governmental grasp has correlated quite well with the increases in almost all of the ills we're dealing with. Big government trade deals have coincided with the collapse of a once-thriving job market, healthcare costs are through the roof, wars abound, and we are slipping on the world stage in most categories I'm familiar with.

Back to your original point, as I've already said a bit, Paul also does not begrudge helping those who need it - in fact, as a doctor, he would discount or offer free services to the needy or in lieu of accepting 'entitlement' funds. He just sees that things aren't working as they should, and believes that different approaches might be much more effective (and he has proven quite prescient on some other very large issues, so I personally trust his judgement) - and also believes that redistributing wealth is unbalanced and unfair, as well as untenable in the long run while we've got so many other significant issues and need to do a lot of housecleaning to get things in order. NONE of my fellow citizens will benefit from irreparably damaging vital systems and breaking the whole danged thing.

Take care, friend.

posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 06:20 PM
reply to post by Praetorius

In the end of the day it is up to the citizens of the USA to decide her leader..

In theory...

For all our sakes, I hope you get it..

But as an outsider who looks in..
I see a whole nation laden with debt to the hilt. With blood too..

As a vet myself who has fought alongside my American cousins many times in places we maybe should not have been I have seen our blood wasted, and futures on the undeserving leaders we "vote" in and my hackles get raised when a DOCTOR says if someone dies without insurance is just tough...

I see that the quotes are out of context

But they ALL say that hey?
edit on 5-3-2012 by EvanB because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 07:45 PM
Typical b.s. from the Paulers, trying to justify a politico that would rather see americans suffer instead of receiving aid.

Of course you all would agree with this lunatic...until your life is turned to # by a natural disaster.

posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 08:33 PM

Originally posted by illuminatislave
Typical b.s. from the Paulers, trying to justify a politico that would rather see americans suffer instead of receiving aid.

Of course you all would agree with this lunatic...until your life is turned to # by a natural disaster.

And in another thread someone will be saying how FEMA was created to facilitate mass killings. And in another thread someone will say how Obama is throwing money away in government organizations. And in another thread...

Blah blah blah.

It's all about context.

posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 09:00 PM

Originally posted by EvanB
Here in the UK we have a national health service and welfare that takes care of our citizens from the cradle to the grave..

Then yes, Ron Paul isn't compatible with you, and neither is it a cultural thing, it's a moral difference: Ron Paul sees the state as monopolized violence and hence its performing welfare functions is akin to someone robbing your neighbor with a gun and then coming over to offer you the spoils. There's nothing more anti-life than the rejection of the individual's nature as a human being with an independent will who will accord to charity/helping out other people to the best of his experience without the need for legal aggression.

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in