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.
Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
Ron Paul is irrelevant.
2nd
Originally posted by eLPresidente
As Mitt Romney becomes irrelevant
the good Doctor is giving up, is really upset with Obama's victory, and is, in effect, blaming Ron Paul supporters for destroying the country.
Originally posted by charles1952
Just ran across an interview with Dr. Paul. Putting what I think is a reasonable interpretation on the matter, the good Doctor is giving up, is really upset with Obama's victory, and is, in effect, blaming Ron Paul supporters for destroying the country.
I know that sounds odd, but what other conclusion do you draw?
www.washingtontimes.com...
Rep. Ron Paul, whose maverick presidential bids shook the GOP, said in the wake of this week's elections that the country has already veered over the fiscal cliff and he sees no chance of righting ship in a country where too many people are dependent on government.
"We're so far gone. We're over the cliff," the Texas Republican told Bloomberg Television's "In the Loop" program. "We cannot get enough people in Congress in the next 5-10 years who will do wise things."
Originally posted by eLPresidente
Books, lectures, tours, political/educational organizations, a grassroots that is embedding itself into the political system throughout the nation, and a message that is self-reverberating. At the age of 77 Ron Paul still refuses to retire, not when there is so much to do...and continues to spread the message of liberty, sound money, smaller government, Constitution, and inspiring millions to fight for principle, conviction, integrity, and honesty. Romney will go the route of failed presidential candidates like John McCain and nobody will care about him come tomorrow.
Who would've thought a man who goes fearlessly toe-to-toe against special interests, lobbyists, the military industrial complex, and the elite banking system would receive long-term respect over a man that will do and say anything to get in the oval office?
[
Ron Paul talks very candidly with longtime friend and Chairman of the Mises Institute, Lew Rockwell, about his thoughts on politics, the candidates, retirement from congress, and whats next on his bucket list.
www.lewrockwell.com...
edit on 6-11-2012 by eLPresidente because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by inverslyproportional
reply to post by eLPresidente
It really is too bad we didnt get the chance to see him in the oval office, this is truly a GREAT man!
Originally posted by CAMale
Originally posted by eLPresidente
Books, lectures, tours, political/educational organizations, a grassroots that is embedding itself into the political system throughout the nation, and a message that is self-reverberating. At the age of 77 Ron Paul still refuses to retire, not when there is so much to do...and continues to spread the message of liberty, sound money, smaller government, Constitution, and inspiring millions to fight for principle, conviction, integrity, and honesty. Romney will go the route of failed presidential candidates like John McCain and nobody will care about him come tomorrow.
Who would've thought a man who goes fearlessly toe-to-toe against special interests, lobbyists, the military industrial complex, and the elite banking system would receive long-term respect over a man that will do and say anything to get in the oval office?
[
Ron Paul talks very candidly with longtime friend and Chairman of the Mises Institute, Lew Rockwell, about his thoughts on politics, the candidates, retirement from congress, and whats next on his bucket list.
www.lewrockwell.com...
edit on 6-11-2012 by eLPresidente because: (no reason given)
I am a lifetime democrat always have been and always will be but I would have voted for Ron Paul in a heartbeat over Obama.
Originally posted by DeadSeraph
Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by DeadSeraph
Dear DeadSeraph,
You came across as a passionate, serious, poster. Great stuff, I have nothing but compliments for you. And we are twin souls in that we believe the root issue is freedom. That is the underlying trademark of America and what makes it unique. When we lose that, the world will start to go dark.
Excellent point. If America has the time, and I don't think we do, I'd like to see Paul as a party spokesman, starting tomorrow, raising up candidates at the local and state level. It may be a slow process, but win a Governorship or two, a few Congressional seats, and the Paul revolution is on the way.
The way I see it, Pauls policies were frightening to the average person because the average person doesn't understand that he'd also have to contend against the Senate/Congress and the Supreme Court. He couldn't change America over night,
With respect,
Charles1952
Unfortunately it's become clear that the 2 party system isn't interested in liberty/freedom. Both parties are interested in the same corporately funded circus they've been performing in for decades. Paul tried to change that by running as a republican (as opposed to running as a 3rd party candidate as he had in the past). While Paul was largely successful in communicating his ideals, it was clear from the outset that the republican party had strayed so far from it's roots that they were willing to squash Paul's chances at any cost.
I challenge any republican on this website to prove me wrong in regards to traditional republican policies on such subjects as interventionism, fiscal responsibility, size of government, and constitutional reform.edit on 6-11-2012 by DeadSeraph because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Tw0Sides
Had Ron Paul Been the GOP Candidate instead of a 'man without a plan"
Originally posted by solidguy
Ron Paul is too old to be relevant.
These numbers would be Vastly Different.
Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by eLPresidente
Dear elPresidente,
Please forgive my delay in getting back to you. You asked an excellent question, let me try to explain what I thought I saw.
Let me break my comments into three parts: Paul giving up, the country is destroyed, and Paul supporters are to blame.
I get the impression that you don't disagree with the idea that Paul thinks the country is destroyed. It seems clear that he believes there is no chance for change in the near to mid-future, and the very culture of the country has adopted a "gimme" mindset. We are "far gone" and "over the cliff." If he sees no change as far out as ten years, what will change it after that? Collapse of the country? Violent revolution? It seems as if Paul is saying that this election ended the country as the Founders intended it.
Paul may speak, and perhaps some other country will heed his words, but he gives no hint that it will happen in the US in his lifetime, or even in the next decade.
You're right that he did not specifically blame his supporters for the destruction of the country, but I still think that's one of two reasonable conclusions. Either his followers were numerous enough to swing the election away from Romney (whom they hate) or their existence didn't matter. If they gave the election to Obama, Paul is saying the country is finished, and who, then, should we conclude was responsible?
With respect,
Charles1952
If that was the case, he must be experienced enough to know that he wasn't going to win the Presidency, therefore Obama or Romney would be president. If one of them was going to be the winner, and he thought both of them would doom the country, we come back to "Why run?" Even if, by a miracle, he did get in, he knew Congress would stop him cold. It couldn't be for the message, it was too late, the country was doomed regardless of who won.
I hope you DO realize Mitt Romney's policies wouldn't have changed Ron's minds either. . .
Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
Ron Paul is irrelevant.
2nd