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.

 

As Mitt Romney becomes irrelevant, Ron Paul tinkers with invitations to speak on the global stage

page: 3
34
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 02:05 PM
link   
Who wouldnt invite him ?

everybody inteligent and loving that care for a world peace
would invite THE Man


damn i love Ron Paul and i miss him .. been a while since i have heard about RP
i would bow before him and he would look at me in the eye and trying to get me up


RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT OF THE WORLD


thats why he couldnt be elected potus .. RP have way bigger ambition

also one of the best doctor in the world !
edit on 11/8/2012 by Ben81 because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 10:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
Ron Paul is irrelevant.

2nd


The GOP thought so too, but they found out that without his supporters they could not win the Presidency


That's not what I call "irrelevant"



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by eLPresidente
As Mitt Romney becomes irrelevant

By my calculations, that would make him irrelevant²



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 11:07 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 
With all due respect, charles1952, could you please explain how you arrived at the following conclusion:



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 read the linked article and nowhere was it stated or even implied that he was blaming his supporters for destroying the country, so I'd be interested in how you arrived at that particular conclusion.

And as far as the "good Doctor giving up," anyone that knows his character knows that those words are not in his vocabulary...



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 11:15 PM
link   

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."



Your interpretation is not what I'm seeing.

Please tell me where the 'Doctor' is giving up and where he blames his supporters for destroying this country? I obviously missed it.

It wasn't Obama's victory that Ron Paul isn't happy with, its Obama's policies. He wouldn't hesitate to criticize Romney's policies either and I think one of the few policies he does encourage by Romney is a stance on no bailouts, even though Romney has flip flopped on bailouts, Ron Paul is consistent about it.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 11:35 PM
link   
Ron Paul / Chuck Norris 2016!



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 01:05 AM
link   

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)


size=5]Short game, meet long game.

The Republicans have proven that they care less about America as a whole and the American people by nominating Romney instead of Ron Paul.

This is fact. Ron Paul and his message are very clear and it has been very consistent for very long time.
If America's conservative base would have listened to Ron Paul and nominated and then we would have a Republican president because Ron Paul would have slaughtered Obama.

I am a lifetime democrat always have been and always will be but I would have voted for bronopol in a heartbeat over Obama. But the Republicans want to have the same power as Obama and they want to abuse the power to make the rich richer and that's why they did not nominate Ron Paul.
If the Republican base does not learn from this second time of being slaughtered then the Democrats will soon regain control of the house and then the Republicans will pretty much be done



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 01:17 AM
link   

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!


I could not agree more with you!

But Ron Paul is so unlike today's typical Republican that America would immediately connect with him because he is logical rational screens commonsense is very smart and consistent he doesn't flip-flop he is just a wonderful great man!
The problem is that Ron Paul is not a Republican 11 purchase like an item on the shelf from the store by the corporations or the greedy delete who are milking this country drive through Republicans as a proxy.
As a matter of fact today's republican is nothing like real Republicans from the Reagan era.

Today's Republicans are so far radical and right that they scare the living daylights out of women today young voters and people with common sense

The Republicans of today has scared off mainstream America to the point where the only people that support today's Republicans are people filled with hatred and blame other people especially minorities for all the problems and failures in life.. And today's Republicans use that to their advantage by propagating the fake fear that a few brown people from Mexico and a few Asian people are the source of this country's problems. When in reality the problems this country faces are actually more simple.
For example just to name a few overspending this country has billions upon billions of dollars to take care of this country yet they managed to overspend largely because I'm unnecessary defense spending which today is more like a extreme offense and defense. Another problem is the fact that America has stuck their nose into many other countries business and foreign politics where it does not belong. Again the reason for this is because the people running the military industrial complex or the private military companies are so greedy and loved the billions they are profiting from all this war that they cannot stop.
Also having too many regulations make it difficult or impossible for some businesses to operate and cause also to regulatory nightmares and headaches just for example to start a new factory or production line.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 01:17 AM
link   

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.


Do you mind if I quote this in my sig?



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 01:26 AM
link   

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.

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,
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.

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)


You are absolutely right and you have said it very very well.

With the Republicans representing billionaires millionaires and corporations, and the Democrats representing unions and big brother big government agencies the American people are left out Nicole represented by nobody.
Ron Paul is the only well known politician who actively speaks out on behalf of the people for the people and actually works in his job as if he were by the people..

While I proudly stand as a Democrat and always vote democrat I will admit that they are not exactly what they say to be.

And that is largely because the two-party system is very broken and has been purchased by like I mentioned above either one of two sources and that's what makes up Democrats and Republicans...

While the Republicans are the ones who prominently use fear lies and propaganda to put fear into the American people into bowling for them unfortunately both parties are guilty of this.

I know that terrorism is real and terrorism exists but in reality on planet earth these terrorists are very poor people in Third World countries living in mud huts caves and dressed and blankets and wearing flip-flops.
American citizens are far more likely to be killed by car accidents robberies or even lightning then the chances of being killed by an actual terrorist.

This is why I believe the war on terrorism is very very little more than a fear game where fear is the initial weapon around politicians use against us the Americans in order to vote them into power.
Telling me that 700 military bases American military bases around the world are absolutely required an essential to keep me safe on American soil is a joke and laughable.

Americans would be just as safe if not safer if we closed a minimum of 200 basis and reinvested a fraction of those here at home instead of wasting all that money abroad and pain billions in profits to companies like Halliburton...

Please believe that for every dollar of our tax dollars that we pay Halliburton date profit between $.50 and $.80 on the dollar



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 01:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


Actually had people like you opened your eyes for a second you would see that Ron Paul's vote combined with the GOP vote in the swing states would have made the GOP win the election. His vote was bigger than the difference between Romney and Obama. So guess what, Ron Paul would have beaten Obama if he was the candidate.

Too bad neocons are so ignorant and full of fox news b.s. and allowed Ron Paul to be ignored and defrauded, even his 200 delegates on the convention floor were mistreated and he wasn't allowed to speak.

It is your fault that Obama is the president again. You chose him when you supported Romney by changing the rules and defrauding the vote.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 01:31 AM
link   
reply to post by solidguy
 


See my above post.
It's sad that when everything is said and done, and the outcome is not good, people like you still can't wake up to the facts.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 01:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tw0Sides

Originally posted by solidguy
Ron Paul is too old to be relevant.
Had Ron Paul Been the GOP Candidate instead of a 'man without a plan"
These numbers would be Vastly Different.


If Ron Paul would've been nominated as the Republican candidate he would have slaughtered Obama in the election.

It would not even have been a close race.

It would've been a landslide victory and America would literally have been saved.

Yvonne Paul would've been the Republican or any party candidate he would have won the election and America in 4 to 8 years for the vendor store to what it was all the way back to the 60s and 70s only with the benefits of today's bigger economy and more world power leadership through the technology boom in America created.

I truly believe that not only with Ron Paul have restored America too it's wonderful self that used to be I think Ron Paul and effect his administration would have with trickle-down through the rest of the world and make the world a better place with stronger economy and more peace throughout the world



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 02:47 PM
link   
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



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 07:59 PM
link   

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



Its not like he didn't believe the country was 'far gone' and 'over the [fiscal] cliff' the day before the election and after Obama was re-elected he changed his mind. And if you don't understand why I would make a statement like that because you don't understand Ron Paul's own policy and ideologies then you shouldn't be making statements like "Ron Paul blames his supporters for destroying the country"

Hence, there is no logical reason to pull out the notion that he blames his own supporters for destroying this country. I hope you DO realize Mitt Romney's policies wouldn't have changed Ron's minds either so how can he POSSIBLY blame his own supporters for 'destroying' this country?

You made the notion and there was no quote to back it up. You pulled reasoned out of misunderstanding, which is quite dangerous.


Oh who could possibly be blamed for the Romney disaster? Maybe the GOP establishment that shoved him down everybody's throat? Maybe the lazy Republicans that failed to turn out the vote in major swing states? Maybe the FOX pundits that spent the last month telling people that Romney had it in the bag and was already won the electoral map even though real life polls didn't reflect such 'opinions'?

You want to find blame? look in the mirror and ask yourself what more could you have done instead of looking for external sources to point fingers at.




edit on 9-11-2012 by eLPresidente because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by eLPresidente and 1yearning2befree
 


Gentlemen, thank you both for your responses, I'm really grateful whenever someone can show me where my thinking has gone wrong. How else can I learn? So again, thank you both. I freely admit that I am a stranger to Rep. Paul and looked at nothing beside his interview and a few posts here. If I may, I'd like to reply to your concerns with my thinking (if you wish to cll it that).

I took the "far gone" and "over the cliff" to mean that this marked the end of the United States as a free country. I didn't limit it in my mind to fiscal matters. Given that, and I think it's reasonable as others are saying it as well, I wonder why he ran.

I hope you DO realize Mitt Romney's policies wouldn't have changed Ron's minds either. . .
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.

The only thing I can conclude was that either he preferred one candidate to the other, or he wanted to die a (political) martyr's death, waving a flag as he and the country collapsed. My thought, which is reasonable, although it could be wrong, was that he did prefer one candidate to the other. With his interview, then, it seems like he thought the results of the election spelled doom, since Obama was elected.

As far as assigning blame, I didn't want to and don't want to. I can see where my sloppy work created that impression and I'm sorry for it. There are, perhaps, a dozen reasons. I have no idea whether one was critical. I do believe though, that if the Paul and Johnson fans campaigned for Romney there would be a different result. But that's not assigning blame. If any number of things had been different there would have been a different result.

Again, I could easily be wrong and could have reached the wrong conclusions. There wasn't any direct evidence in the interview proving I was right. All I did was throw out a reasonable explanation. My apologies for any offense caused.

With respect,
charles1952



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 08:57 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


I'm glad you agree with my previous points and that you have learned something about Ron Paul, glad to help provide the other point of view.

I'm thinking that your previous statements were a little pre-maturely drawn and now we can progress to another topic/question:

If Ron Paul knew it was too late, why did he run?

1) Ron Paul never believed in the current political system, he did his job because he believed it was the right thing to do and spent his entire careers fighting the military industrial complex and the federal reserve system. Did he think he could win? who knows. Did he, his campaign, and his supporters fight tooth and nail for victory? yes. they fought.

2) He ran for president because people wanted him to. He never ran for president because he wanted to be president, he ran out of duty, he ran to spread a message, he also ran to win but we all know what happened despite the progress made, the iron fist came down and screwed his movement.

3) Yes he did think we were going over the [fiscal] cliff, hes been talking about the debt for decades, that is why he had a trillion dollar cut in his first year as president.

Were his runs pointless? 75% of Americans want to audit the federal reserve when pre-2007, the federal reserve was a taboo subject relegated only to conspiracy sites like ATS. Ron Paul's audit the fed bill actually passed the house by overwhelming margins and Rand Paul's senate version is patiently collecting co-sponsors waiting for the right time to pass it through. You tell me if Ron Paul's presidential runs were pointless.


edit on 9-11-2012 by eLPresidente because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 10:01 PM
link   
reply to post by eLPresidente
 

Dear elPresidente,

Simply from the evidence of your post alone, and your enthusiasm, we can see that his run was not pointless. You, and I'm sure many others, have been inspired.

The results of this down the road? It's hard to tell what changes, if any will occur. But I can see that many people have been changed. Some good may very well come from it.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 07:48 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



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

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
Ron Paul is irrelevant.

2nd

Still crying over for Mitt Romney Aloysius the Gaul? guess what the era of Bush/Reagen candidates is for the GOP establishment.

If they keep selecting such candidates might as well cut the two party system. Because the GOP will keep on losing if they keep selecting war mongers and such similar faces and polices.

As i am editing the post the media is already deciding the candidates for us, why would they do that? Jeb Bush 2016? Good lord do we need more Bushes into the white house media.

edit on 10-11-2012 by Agent_USA_Supporter because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
34
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join