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.

 

Are there Ex-Ron Paul Supporters out there???

page: 3
5
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 1 2012 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
reply to post by Doalrite
 




Again, your attempts to paint me as closed-minded are getting sad. Abortion is a main reason I won't vote for rp. It isn't the only reason.

Furthermore, the idea that pro-choice is a minority is downright laughable.



I find it funny,that there are those who will criticize you,for your views on RP.


I also supported him,heavily,voted for him twice actually. Unfortunately,the majority that support him,have galvanized him as the second coming,and wont even consider that he does have faults. They tend to be obnoxious,and over critical of ANYONE that doesn't feel the same way. Really, there is No difference between Obama supporters,and Paul supporters. The difference is the candidates,but its hard to drink the kool-aid,when its FORCED down your throat. Its a complete TURN OFF.

I sympathize with your reasoning's......




posted on May, 1 2012 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by 4REVOLUTION

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
reply to post by Doalrite
 




Again, your attempts to paint me as closed-minded are getting sad. Abortion is a main reason I won't vote for rp. It isn't the only reason.

Furthermore, the idea that pro-choice is a minority is downright laughable.


I think you may be understanding incorrectly what Dr. Paul is saying...

He states Abortion is NOT a Federal Issue. He has provided his outlook on it, but has stated no matter his viewpoint, he will NOT make it a Federal Issue, but leave that up to the States. If you want Pro-Choice, you can vote in your state, and if they say "No", move to a different state if it's THAT big of deal.


It doesn't get better than that.


This is what I'm talking about. A lot of people misunderstand RP's position on this issue because he softens or hardens his stance depending on who he is talking to. He wants to pass a bill allowing states to make their own decision because it will "save lives" that wouldn't be saved otherwise. He has clearly stated though that he would sign an ammendment to the constitution banning abortion if President. He thinks it is a federal issue since life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is guaranteed, and believes life begins somewhere around the first month. He understands though that getting everyone to agree on when life begins is a big block towards getting a constitutional ammendment to go through, so he figures just leave it up to the states for now and save as many babies as possible.
edit on 1-5-2012 by wearewatchingyouman because: add



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 09:48 AM
link   
I have to say, at this point in the thread, that this thread is a perfect example of the mentality of rp followers. Create a thread, specifically asking for ex-rp supporters.

But not to discuss the topic.

Just to tell them they're wrong.



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by 4REVOLUTION

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
reply to post by Doalrite
 




Again, your attempts to paint me as closed-minded are getting sad. Abortion is a main reason I won't vote for rp. It isn't the only reason.

Furthermore, the idea that pro-choice is a minority is downright laughable.


I think you may be understanding incorrectly what Dr. Paul is saying...

He states Abortion is NOT a Federal Issue. He has provided his outlook on it, but has stated no matter his viewpoint, he will NOT make it a Federal Issue, but leave that up to the States. If you want Pro-Choice, you can vote in your state, and if they say "No", move to a different state if it's THAT big of deal.


It doesn't get better than that.


No, I understand it perfectly.

He dances around the fact that he is anti-choice by saying he will make it a state issue. But I wonder, why does he need to change it at all? Hmmmm



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by wearewatchingyouman
reply to post by Doalrite
 


Why do you say they don't exist? I know many. There are a lot of people who have actually studied Austrian Economics, after becoming a Ron Paul supporter, and have come to a realization that we're too far gone to implement it now.

Also that a gold standard would simply make it easier to consolidate wealth. It is easily manipulated through hoarding and flooding the market. The bankers would love it. How do you think they aquired all the wealth in the first place?

Not to mention even just having gold as a competing currency would cause deflation of the dollar which in turn would lower the value of gold(since it's based on the dollar). Not really good for people who save their money, but great for makret manipulators.
edit on 29-4-2012 by wearewatchingyouman because: clarity


I love it when completely clueless people come on and try to act like they know what they are talking about on Austrian economics and the gold standard oh and claim Ron Paul panders and changes his stance depending on who hes talking to.. Really now? Post any two interviews on the same subject that Ron Paul gave different answers on. Until then you have no credibility.

And please stop pretending like you know something about Austrian economics and the gold standard you are only embarrassing yourself.

PS here is s hint Ron Paul does not advocate a gold standard he advocates competing currencies. Oh and one more thing what was left of the gold standard went away in 1971 but it is not the reason they banksters got all the wealth. It is fiat currency or money from nothing that funneled all the wealth to them. Think about it when you can print money at will who do you think will have all the wealth?



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye

Originally posted by wearewatchingyouman
reply to post by Doalrite
 


Why do you say they don't exist? I know many. There are a lot of people who have actually studied Austrian Economics, after becoming a Ron Paul supporter, and have come to a realization that we're too far gone to implement it now.

Also that a gold standard would simply make it easier to consolidate wealth. It is easily manipulated through hoarding and flooding the market. The bankers would love it. How do you think they aquired all the wealth in the first place?

Not to mention even just having gold as a competing currency would cause deflation of the dollar which in turn would lower the value of gold(since it's based on the dollar). Not really good for people who save their money, but great for makret manipulators.
edit on 29-4-2012 by wearewatchingyouman because: clarity


I love it when completely clueless people come on and try to act like they know what they are talking about on Austrian economics and the gold standard oh and claim Ron Paul panders and changes his stance depending on who hes talking to.. Really now? Post any two interviews on the same subject that Ron Paul gave different answers on. Until then you have no credibility.

And please stop pretending like you know something about Austrian economics and the gold standard you are only embarrassing yourself.

PS here is s hint Ron Paul does not advocate a gold standard he advocates competing currencies. Oh and one more thing what was left of the gold standard went away in 1971 but it is not the reason they banksters got all the wealth. It is fiat currency or money from nothing that funneled all the wealth to them. Think about it when you can print money at will who do you think will have all the wealth?


This is the biggest problem with Ron Paul: A lot of his followers have very poor reading and critical thinking skills.

I stated that I know many educated people who after becoming Ron Paul fans have studied Austrian econaomics and come to the conclusion that we are too far gone. Never did I claim to be an expert on the subject, but I can just about guarantee I am more studied than you. I'm sorry if you don't have the ability to notice a difference in tone and a slight change in how one answers. I don't really feel the need to scour youtube for videos. Your opinion of my credibility is of no consequence since you have demonstrated you have little.

Ron Paul wants gold as a competing currency as a transition towards a gold standard. I covered the basic problem with this in the last paragraph of the post you covered. Ron Paul has stated that it would indeed cause deflation of the dollar, so it's not like there is an argument here. Most Austrians believe that gold will win the "competion" exactly this way, and bam we have a gold standard.

The banking families had the wealth along time before the federal reserve note. Perhaps you should brush up on your history. Just cause you print more paper doesn't mean there is more wealth. While you're at it read about what happened to England when they tried to go back to the gold standard the middle of the last century.



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by 4REVOLUTION

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
reply to post by Doalrite
 




Again, your attempts to paint me as closed-minded are getting sad. Abortion is a main reason I won't vote for rp. It isn't the only reason.

Furthermore, the idea that pro-choice is a minority is downright laughable.


I think you may be understanding incorrectly what Dr. Paul is saying...

He states Abortion is NOT a Federal Issue. He has provided his outlook on it, but has stated no matter his viewpoint, he will NOT make it a Federal Issue, but leave that up to the States. If you want Pro-Choice, you can vote in your state, and if they say "No", move to a different state if it's THAT big of deal.


It doesn't get better than that.


No, I understand it perfectly.

He dances around the fact that he is anti-choice by saying he will make it a state issue. But I wonder, why does he need to change it at all? Hmmmm


I was going to bother answering you with different videos showing what you're saying is absolutely false, but what I've come to the conclusion is; either A) You're trolling, or B) You actually DO believe Social/Moral Issues are for the Federal Government to decide...

If it's A) Good Job! You got me.


It's it' B) God help us all!



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 11:12 AM
link   
I was going to vote for him after the debates..

But then I changed my mind a few reasons...

1. His foreign policy doesn't work for me or my job.
2. the crazy fans turn me off.
3. i dont like how if RP doesnt win, its automatically cheating....
4. Gotta beat Obama



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by wearewatchingyouman
 


My critical thinking skills are telling me your critical thinking skills aren't up to par.

One does not make a valid argument by stating that someone they're acquainted with knows something, therefore they themselves believe it, and expect others to take their secondhand information as truth.

Argument Invalidated.



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 11:22 AM
link   
reply to post by 4REVOLUTION
 


I wasn't making an argument based on what other people know. I was making the argument that people become "ex" supporters because of the stated reason. Once again Ron Paul supporters and their reading skills.

edit on 1-5-2012 by wearewatchingyouman because: ff



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by wearewatchingyouman
reply to post by 4REVOLUTION
 


I wasn't making an argument based on what other people know. I was making the argument that people become "ex" supporters because of the stated reason. Once again Ron Paul supporters and their reading skills.

edit on 1-5-2012 by wearewatchingyouman because: ff


Your original post infers what I said. You wouldn't have even mentioned it if you had your own argument to present.

No worries. I'm gonna have to research this "Austrian Economics."



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by 4REVOLUTION
 


I mentioned it because I was replying to doalrite who claimed there was no such thing as an ex supporter and if so they were very, very rare.

I was simply making the point that I know a bunch, and here are their reasons.



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by 4REVOLUTION

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by 4REVOLUTION

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
reply to post by Doalrite
 




Again, your attempts to paint me as closed-minded are getting sad. Abortion is a main reason I won't vote for rp. It isn't the only reason.

Furthermore, the idea that pro-choice is a minority is downright laughable.


I think you may be understanding incorrectly what Dr. Paul is saying...

He states Abortion is NOT a Federal Issue. He has provided his outlook on it, but has stated no matter his viewpoint, he will NOT make it a Federal Issue, but leave that up to the States. If you want Pro-Choice, you can vote in your state, and if they say "No", move to a different state if it's THAT big of deal.


It doesn't get better than that.


No, I understand it perfectly.

He dances around the fact that he is anti-choice by saying he will make it a state issue. But I wonder, why does he need to change it at all? Hmmmm


I was going to bother answering you with different videos showing what you're saying is absolutely false, but what I've come to the conclusion is; either A) You're trolling, or B) You actually DO believe Social/Moral Issues are for the Federal Government to decide...

If it's A) Good Job! You got me.


It's it' B) God help us all!


Why is it that this is the only response that RP followers ever have? "I was GOING to prove you wrong, but ive decided you're a troll/shill/sheep, so its not worth it". Why cant you just back up your claims?

here, a few quotes to back up my statements:
Here he is, admitting he wants abortion done away with:


One day I walked into an operating room, to just be an observant, which we would do generally, as a medical resident. They were performing this hysterectomy, which was a caesarean section. And they lifted out a fetus that weighted approximately 2 pounds, and it was breathing and crying. And it was put in a bucket and set in the corner of the room, and everybody in the room just pretended that they didn't hear it. And the baby died. And I walked out of that room a different person... Roe v. Wade is a reflection of the moral climate of the country, because the law was being defied, and then the law was changed, the law sort of caught up with the culture. So even though we work in the legal area, and work politically, ultimately I believe it's an issue of personal morality, and is a reflection of the country, more so than just the lack of laws. Just changing the laws won't be enough, we will ultimately have to have a society that's moral enough, where the fetus deserves legal protection. -Ron Paul


He called himself:



an unshakable foe of abortion



Here he is admitting he hates Roe vs. Wade:



“I am strongly pro-life. I think one of the most disastrous rulings of this century was Roe versus Wade. I do believe in the slippery slope theory. I believe that if people are careless and casual about life at the beginning of life, we will be careless and casual about life at the end. Abortion leads to euthanasia. I believe that.”


Here he is saying he would like to prosecute doctors who participate in abortion:




“ There has to be a criminal penalty for the person that’s committing that crime. And I think that is the abortionist. .”


Here he is, talking about a "human-life amendment"...wait, i thought he wanted to take abortion OUT of the hands of the government????





"A Human Life Amendment should do two things," Paul writes in the statement. "First, it should define life as beginning at conception and give the unborn the same protection all other human life enjoys. Second, it must deal with the enforcement of the ruling much as any law against violence does -- through state laws."


Heres a link to the anti-abortion ad he ran in Iowa...

www.politico.com...



Shall I go on?



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 06:12 PM
link   
reply to post by wearewatchingyouman
 





This is the biggest problem with Ron Paul: A lot of his followers have very poor reading and critical thinking skills.

I stated that I know many educated people who after becoming Ron Paul fans have studied Austrian econaomics and come to the conclusion that we are too far gone. Never did I claim to be an expert on the subject, but I can just about guarantee I am more studied than you. I'm sorry if you don't have the ability to notice a difference in tone and a slight change in how one answers. I don't really feel the need to scour youtube for videos. Your opinion of my credibility is of no consequence since you have demonstrated you have little.

Ron Paul wants gold as a competing currency as a transition towards a gold standard. I covered the basic problem with this in the last paragraph of the post you covered. Ron Paul has stated that it would indeed cause deflation of the dollar, so it's not like there is an argument here. Most Austrians believe that gold will win the "competion" exactly this way, and bam we have a gold standard.

The banking families had the wealth along time before the federal reserve note. Perhaps you should brush up on your history. Just cause you print more paper doesn't mean there is more wealth. While you're at it read about what happened to England when they tried to go back to the gold standard the middle of the last century.



So rather then offer any evidence for your claims about Ron Paul you first personally attack me and then proceed to spout more even more unsubstantiated nonsense about his positions etc... Ok gotcha slick... Sigh



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 06:35 PM
link   
Another Ex-Ron Paul supporter here.



Originally posted by 4REVOLUTION
I think you may be understanding incorrectly what Dr. Paul is saying...

He states Abortion is NOT a Federal Issue.


Then why has he been fighting for his "Sanctity of Life Act" at the federal level in every single Congress since 2005?

In case you're unaware of it, the Sanctity of Life Act would define human life and LEGAL personhood at conception "without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency."... ON A FEDERAL LEVEL.


When people make statements like, "He states Abortion is NOT a Federal Issue", it makes me wonder if you really have researched his policies or if you're just following him blindly, because of the thrill of "revolution"!

I'm with captaintyinknots on this. I supported Paul in 2008 and last year, but the more I learned... the less I liked.



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 07:26 PM
link   
I think its obvious that he is/was pushing a federal law (amendment), because thats how our system is set-up and works. He obviously believes life is important (and i would hope every living, breathing one of you would too, or else you wouldnt be here, so yes life is very important) so of course he would try to further his agenda in the current system by pushing this bill. Its not a crime to respect life, and that is his position, he respects life, no matter how new or fragile. It may contradict with a womans choice, but she also had a choice to use protection, and failed to do so. So just a casual abortion ensues. (realistically not all cases, but statistically whats the percentage of rape/incest abortions over just an 'oh s#@t abortion', probably not very high)

now should there be special considerations for special circumstances, of course. But since hes been at the literal fore-front of child birth, he doesnt see where mothers health warrants such a procedure, and 4000+ births without the need speaks volumes. Its a cop out to abort a baby, for any thing other than incest or rape, just admit you cant care for that child and move on with it.

I myself have many different opinions on abortion, and it ranges depending on circumstance. Overall though, I respect life, and ultimately i guess it comes down to if you are morally capable of dealing with killing your unborn child, or not.

Every human is granted "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" so the question becomes whose life is more important at what stage?

For instance, I think a rape victim should be granted this right, yes, full on abortion.

I think if a young 13-15 year old couple are faced with a child, the scenario becomes a matter of how good of a quality of life will an infant have and be brought up with having highly immature parents/parenting. I think quality of life matters also, we shouldnt ruin childrens (13-15 year olds) lives because they made a mistake and are forced to deal with that for the rest of their lives. So yes the infant suffers, but its before it can even be aware of its suffering. So yes, again, I am for abortion on a scenario such as this. The young couple should have a shot at a full and filling life without adult burdens.

Now I dont think there should be ANY person, with the absolute exception of rape and incest victims, that should be granted more than ONE abortion EVER. The first time can be chalked up to a mistake, the second or third just screams irresponsible. So, no, not in this case.

and thats the problem, there is no concrete way to handle this situation, theres too many gray areas, but at least Paul reaches across the aisle and defers that judgement to the PEOPLE. Right where legislation should start and end. We are a government for the people, he just wants to break it down where more 'people' are in control of their lives. and im ok with that.

Besides, my wallet, and the actual living (well dying) soldiers in harms way are more of a concern to me, plus my personal liberties and freedoms, so i dont see abortion as a huge topic that needs addressed right now considering our other problems. Case and point, there might not be an America left to have an abortion in if we dont get the country back under some sort of reasonable control
edit on 1-5-2012 by phishfriar47 because: to finish my rant

edit on 1-5-2012 by phishfriar47 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Another Ex-Ron Paul supporter here.



Originally posted by 4REVOLUTION
I think you may be understanding incorrectly what Dr. Paul is saying...

He states Abortion is NOT a Federal Issue.


Then why has he been fighting for his "Sanctity of Life Act" at the federal level in every single Congress since 2005?

In case you're unaware of it, the Sanctity of Life Act would define human life and LEGAL personhood at conception "without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency."... ON A FEDERAL LEVEL.


When people make statements like, "He states Abortion is NOT a Federal Issue", it makes me wonder if you really have researched his policies or if you're just following him blindly, because of the thrill of "revolution"!

I'm with captaintyinknots on this. I supported Paul in 2008 and last year, but the more I learned... the less I liked.


Because he respects life, and unfortunately for him, the abortion issue is already on a federal level, so thats the field he currently has to play on. Thats like asking why the Patriots are playing on the Steelers field, because thats where the game is at. If he had his way, he wouldnt need to push an amendment as the states would legislate this to the citizens preference. He cant realistically sit as a congressman and literally do nothing because he has to play ball federally or he will get voted out, and then he loses his chance to fight for liberty, he loses his chance to try to show how he respects life, and so he ends up with nothing.

No he has to play by the teams rule, until it comes time for his team to help make the rules, and the best part is he actually wants the citizens involved and playing with the team, instead of treating us like we are the amateurs and they are the professionals and we shouldnt even be on the same field as them
edit on 1-5-2012 by phishfriar47 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 07:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
reply to post by Doalrite
 




Again, your attempts to paint me as closed-minded are getting sad. Abortion is a main reason I won't vote for rp. It isn't the only reason.

Furthermore, the idea that pro-choice is a minority is downright laughable.


when did I ever say Pro Choice was a minority... I myself am pro choice

What is sad is it doesn't matter to you who we RP supporters really are we are all just crazy cultist.



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by wearewatchingyouman
reply to post by 4REVOLUTION
 


I mentioned it because I was replying to doalrite who claimed there was no such thing as an ex supporter and if so they were very, very rare.

I was simply making the point that I know a bunch, and here are their reasons.


I'm sorry maybe my reading and comprehension skills suck... so could you please quote me just to show where I claimed that there were NO SUCH THING AS AN EX SUPPORTER.... because I thought the point of the thread was to find an ex and just have a decent conversation... which in the beginning it was.

So you simply make the point that you know diddly.



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Doalrite


What do you mean by "sure, why not" I understand that anything is possible yet I have yet to meet an ex-supporter, and like the above post clarify I really don't think they exist


When I say I don't think something exists I would be saying I think no such thing exists. Maybe you meant something else?
edit on 1-5-2012 by wearewatchingyouman because: clarity




top topics



 
5
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join