Ron Paul: Alone No More

page: 3
32
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Blaine91555
 


I never did understand this "viable", "electable" candidate thing. As far as I'm concerned the United States is supposed to be a country where anyone can become president, a land of opportunity.

Not sure where I got that crazy idea from. *shrug*

To me, supporting someone just because you think they are going to win / they are "supposed" to win signifies a false or ignorant belief about something or someone. A truly honorable person will support what they believe in, not a predetermined beauty contest winner.

I guess you could say I have my doubts that THIS many people actually legitimately support having a choice between two bad presidents, living in anything other than a free country and turning America into a greed/corruption infested corporate oligarchy. I don't know, maybe people just really are this stupid.
edit on 24-4-2012 by RSF77 because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by KingAtlas
 


In terms of media perception, RP has a long way to go.

It's happening as we speak so that's a good thing.

All I wanted was for the RP supporters to be right because Obama needs a challenge. Romney is small potatoes.



posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by Blaine91555
 


He doesn't run as a Libertarian, because he's a celebrity politician. As a Republican, he's in the spotlight, now, but as a Libertarian, he's just another kooky extremist.

It's no more than that.


But you are a self professed Obama supporter. you constantly run down Ron Paul and call him cookey and extremist? but yet you are supporting arguably the worst and most extremist President in American History.who has increased the debt levels more than any other president, signed more executive orders than any other (even Bush), engaged in more illegal wars than any other president, and has just passed the most tyranical legislation (NDAA) in the history of the republic?
Do you think Ron Paul Could be any worse? i doubt it.
edit on 24-4-2012 by auraelium because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by auraelium
 


I am an Obama supporter like you're a Romney supporter; I don't like him, but he's the best of a bad bunch.

I "run Paul down" because his "kooky" beliefs about the Constituiton and his desire to destroy pretty much everything I like about America, by selling it all to corporations

I know Paul supporters think that unregulated Capatalism is preferable to democracy, but I disagree.


edit on 24-4-2012 by captainnotsoobvious because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by auraelium
 


I am an Obama supporter like you're a Romney supporter; I don't like him, but he's the best of a bad bunch.

I "run Paul down" because his "kooky" beliefs about the Constituiton and his desire to destroy pretty much everything I like about America, by selling it all to corporations

I know Paul supporters think that unregulated Capatalism is preferable to democracy, but I disagree.


edit on 24-4-2012 by captainnotsoobvious because: (no reason given)


Best of a bad bunch? he is the worst president in the history of of the state.

Ron Paul wants to uphold the constitution to the letter of the law as the founding fathers intended.. you find that "Kooky" ?

Unregulated Capatalism is preferable to democracy? and you support the bankster's choice Obama who is so democratic he doesnt even feel the need to consult congress anymore before he passes legislation?

I think you are confused...



posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by auraelium
reply to post by Blaine91555
 


You say you are not a Republican and not a Libratarian and you say that you hope Ron Paul does'nt run as a 3rd canidiate as not to hand the election to Obama? so what are you exactly ? just curious.


An Independent not registered in any Party. I vote for the person I like the best and base my views on the individual running for office. Independents like me just took over as the most powerful voting block in the US. We pick out who wins in national elections.

I prefer candidates who lean to the Left of social issues and to the Right on governmental and financial issues. There is also a bit of Libertarian in me. I'm considering voting for Gary Johnson if he gets the Libertarian nod. He fits my beliefs.

I started out a Democrat during the end of the Vietnam War and later on after maturing I realized the Progressive agenda was taking over the Democrats and left them. Reagan got me to try the Republican Party for a time as he was almost identical to JFK and his beliefs.

I suppose what I really am is an old school, conservative Democrat from before the Progressives took over and changed the Party into something new and in my view dangerous. My own Parents, long gone now, would not even recognize the Democrats today. Democrats used to be sensible and honest, unlike the madness now. The Republicans used to be the same, unlike now. Now it's all venom and lies, spin and deceit coming from the Parties and the people they have burdened us with in our government. How can I be for either one?



posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 05:07 PM
link   
So, since we no longer can establish what EITHER party stands for anymore why do we have two parties in the first place?? The rhetoric spewed from the mouths of babes such as those with arguments regarding Ron Paul that he doesnt stand for the party platform, his own party doesnt want him, etc. is astonishing and only seems to show the bias and troll like attitudes when it comes to these types of threads.

So, to clear all of this up for those that want to continue with the same argument that doesn't make a world of sense here you go.

1. Both the Rupublicans and Democrats both change there stance on issues depending on what the special interest is right now. Example: Go look at the origins of both partys and you might be a little surprised about how different they are (Republicans more so than Democrats).

2. The GOP in General would love Ron Paul to be President. The GOP (DNC) (TBTB) (Special Interest) TAKE YOUR PICK does NOT want Ron Paul to be President because as the earlier poster advised : ) go read the list of things that Ron Paul wants to actually do (FYI - these are called GOALS with details on how to actually achieve these goals not some Campaign BS).

Now, the big question comes down to Does He Have a Chance?? Based on the video regarding the other Presidential Candidate who did the same thing and winning the convention doing the same thing RP is doing than the ANSWER IS YES.

As far as Ron Paul being alone, he has never been alone and is gaining more LISTENERS NON SHEEPLE than ever before. Remember, he has been on the Political Radar much longer than you have been alive. And, things were a lot different in the 80's than it is now. Same with the 70's, 60's etc.

So, in conclusion (probably not) I think the people who are most scared of RP are those that either have an agenda or do not have much to live for. The reason we are in the position we are in right now is because people dont want to admit there wrong. Please try and come up with some kind of visual support (not a random poll) that shows any other GOP Candidate having any sort of big following. I dont see it. Are you trying to tell me that the only people using the Internet are between 15-26?? Trust me, the majority of people posting Ron Paul videos on You Tube are typical Obama, Clinton or Romney supporters and they ALL SUPPORT PRESIDENT RON PAUL. I think the stupid people that support Obama, Clinton, and Romney are too stupid to up load a video to Youtube anyway so that might be the problem.

Thank you.
edit on 24-4-2012 by hoochymama because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 05:07 PM
link   
edit on 4/24/2012 by Blaine91555 because: bad communication



posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Blaine91555
 


Sry my mistake.i wasnt replying to you it was for captainnotsoobvious.



posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by auraelium
 


Watch that Chomsky clip, go learn a bit about US Libertarianism, and then back off the completely inane hyperbole about Obama being the worst President in the whole history of the Universe ever.

Then we'll talk.

The thing is, there's a reason why so many people, independents and republicans and democrats, think Paul fans have no idea what Paul stands for, and it's not just because they hate freedom. It's because Paul's understanding of the constitution isn't the "one right way" to read the constitution.

On top of all of that, Paul's willingness to stay a Republican, for George W Bush, for the Iraq war, during the bank bailouts, etc. Why? Because he's a hypocrite. He wants the attention the (R) gives him, but won't do more than bitch a bit about the policies of his long term party.



posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by phishfriar47
 


There's plenty of reasons to dislike Ron Paul, like his willingness to remove funding for public elementary education, that aren't based on fear, but on not wanting the whole world to be owned and managed by for profit corporations.

In addition, as Chomsky has stated, Paul and US Libertarianism represents tyranny of the wealthy over not only government, but the individual and society. You think government is corrupt an unresponsive, wait until the justice system works about as well as you cell phone provider's technical support phone number.



This does not even compute. Liberty does not equal Tyranny.

It is quite simple, you do not understand how politicians are completely linked with corporations. They are often ONE AND THE SAME.

RP is the exception. Him and like 7 other people in D.C.

He cannot be bought. Money, threats, blackmail, etc. all mean NOTHING to him. Most politicians will toe a line they are told to, he doesn't.

I need you to explain to me how Tyranny will happen once people are liberated.



posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious
 
Its already SOLD to Corporations, where have you been??

Ron Pauls Policies would basically start reversing this trend immediately. It might not be perfect at the beginning but over time it would shake it self out (FREE MARKET). The only way though this will work is Contract rights being up held to a much higher standard. Also, these Contracts must be legible and fair. I think this is his plan to basically have a Checks and Balance to the possibility of Corporations causing pollution, work safety, etc. Ohhhhhhh snap. This is the problem we already have with the CURRENT SYSTEM WE HAVE. LOL.

Please stop with the "Ron Paul's policies will sell us out the Corporations" and the "Ron Paul doesnt believe in regulations". HAHAHA. HE DOESNT BELIEVE IN GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS. Theres a big difference.

Lets say WalMart wants to build a huge Store down the street from the local store that everyone has been going for decades. Everyone knows that Wall Mart will have better prices and better selection but the people are worried that this will create an eyesore so to speak and of course they love the old store they have gone for a long time. So, Wall Mart makes a deal with the People that they will BUY the old store and higher all of there employees and maybe make the previous owners Managers for Life or whatever Put this in a Contract that will be enforced. Now, could this sort of thing be abused?? Maybe, but is it better than the Wall Mart Lobbyist paying the City Congressman to look the other way and the City Planner to go ahead and "stamp the plans" for a little paycheck?? I think so.



posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious
 


What Hyperbole?

He has bypassed congress more than any other president...
He has engaged in more illegal wars than any other president...
He has passed and tried to pass more constitutionally illegal legislation than any other president..
He has passed the most Tyranical legislation not only in the state but in any state in the western world since WW2..

That is not hyperbole its fact.

RP opposed the war..
RP opposed the bailouts..

What are you trying to say? why should he have left the Republican party? he was a member of the republican party before George bush was even born. why should he leave?



posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by fourthmeal
 


The really are just buying into the Paul rhetoric. Do a bit of research. Chomsky isn't a fool or casual with language.

I'm not bashing Paul, I'm judging him, he's awful and if he had his way, with his brain dead, refried Ayn Randisms meets Religious blather, the corporations you delusionly think Paul would protect you from would be "liberated" into being your government.



posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious
 
If he is not a Republican or not a Democrat than how can he have a chance to be nominated for President?? Are you even old enough to remember Ross Perot?? Or, do you have any clue that back in the day there might be 7 or 8 people debating to be PRESIDENT not just 2????

I hope your young or just didnt read your History but there are some people trying to point out that your wrong and you just dont even want to admit it. Ron Paul HAS TO run as a Republican....not because he wants to be in the same party as George Bush....LOL.



posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 05:26 PM
link   
Remember he's not a Neo-con, and these other cats are. What most of the "establishment" of Republicans want is a Neo-conservative. He simply is the real deal. A Neo-con and a Corporatist are, to me, the same. At least in what we see today.

If they were not, politicians would not be 100% in bed with corporations (and sometimes, one and the same people.)



posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious
 


reply to post by fourthmeal
 


I want to hear an answer to this too. I guess you're talking about Noam Chomsky right? Isn't he a libertarian?

How exactly does US Libertarianism represent capitalist tyranny?

You aren't making much sense to me either.

On another note, here's an interesting tidbit of information related to the guy:

Nim Chimpsky (November 19, 1973 – March 10, 2000) was a chimpanzee who was the subject of an extended study of animal language acquisition (codenamed 6.001) at Columbia University, led by Herbert S. Terrace. Chimpsky was given his name as a pun on Noam Chomsky, the foremost theorist of human language structure and generative grammar at the time, who held that humans were "wired" to develop language.[1]
Nim Chimpsky
edit on 24-4-2012 by RSF77 because: (no reason given)


EDIT:


Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by fourthmeal
 


The really are just buying into the Paul rhetoric. Do a bit of research. Chomsky isn't a fool or casual with language.

I'm not bashing Paul, I'm judging him, he's awful and if he had his way, with his brain dead, refried Ayn Randisms meets Religious blather, the corporations you delusionly think Paul would protect you from would be "liberated" into being your government.



Ideologically identifying with anarcho-syndicalism and libertarian socialism, Chomsky is known for his critiques of U.S. foreign policy[13] and contemporary capitalism,[14] and he has been described as a prominent cultural figure.
Noam Chomsky


???
edit on 24-4-2012 by RSF77 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by Blaine91555
 


He doesn't run as a Libertarian, because he's a celebrity politician. As a Republican, he's in the spotlight, now, but as a Libertarian, he's just another kooky extremist.

It's no more than that.


That makes sense. Perhaps if he ran inside the Party he really believes in, he could help them shed the title "kooky extremists"?

I'm seriously considering Gov. Gary Johnson if he gets the nod. His record is very good in my book. I don't see him a kooky either.

I think the problem is that people seem to think that you have to either be all for or all against a candidate. I don't see it as a sporting event. I like some of Ron Paul's idea's, but not all.

It goes without saying that Obama is bad for the country and maybe the worst President in our history.



posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious
 
Your name doesnt fit. It already has happened. The thing you think Ron Paul will cause has already happened. The same thing Chomsky (and yes, he is not stupid) is saying has already happened.



posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by auraelium
reply to post by Blaine91555
 


Sry my mistake.i wasnt replying to you it was for captainnotsoobvious.



No problem at all.





top topics
 
32
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join