Ron Paul: Election shows U.S. 'far gone'

page: 4
22
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by The_Phantom

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
To be fair I don't think Paul can really complain about how the election went. He had the opportunity to endorse a candidate. He opted not to. If he thought someone could have run the country better than someone else he should have said so. He may be right, but if that's the case then he should have definitely spoken up earlier as his endorsement could have caused things to turn out differently.


He did speak up and say who he thought could run the country the best...that's why he ran for President.

None of the other available choices could have run the country better than him, why would he endorse someone that he knows is going to run the country off of the fiscal cliff? He has every right to voice his opinion now, after all, he is the only one whose opinion has been constantly correct when it comes to the economy.
edit on 8-11-2012 by The_Phantom because: (no reason given)


I love Ron P but I disagree. Where was he during the Romney campaign? I could be wrong but it appears he layed low so that he would not hurt Romney's chance. Hypothetically if Paul had won do you honestly think that he could have shut down the Federal Reserve? People are so funny. The thought that Obama, Romney,Paul or any one else can change what has been planned for over 100 years is delusional.




posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by openyourmind1262
reply to post by OperationIraqiFailure
 


I did'nt miss a thing. He disappeared during the election. All that $$$$$ he was given for what? Nothing. He is a shill for the republican party. He went with party lines......enough said. Mr.Paul should just go away. He as I said before is not relevent any longer. A crap stirrer. That's my views on Mr.Paul.

Would not third party run.......Just what tthe GOP wanted out of him and they got it. Don't ever tell me again that I don't feel for my country. It's theatre my friend... That's all it is. Theatre.

He didn't do a third party run, because they were seeing if their caucus strategy would pay off - not to win, but to force particular topics to have to be discussed. It didn't work, and the GOP used every cheap trick they could to suppress him.

To take his campaign up to the convention made him inelligible to run as a third party candidate. There was a deadline to register, and he had to miss it.

As for your remark about him going along with party lines, he did NOT endorse Romney. In fact, I believe he threw his support behind Gary Johnson about a month ago. Did you not observe any of that?



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Americanist
reply to post by SageBeno
 


Ron and Rand are watered down like the rest of them. Their supporters turned them into instant millionaires,


I hope you're not just assuming that campaign donations = pocket profits, because that would be an insanely ignorant thing to make up out of thin air.



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 08:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Trustfund
 


How about instead of taking the word from other people aka HEARSAY, go straight to the monetary source.

The FEC.

All presidential campaign spending is disclosed in monthly FEC reports, I've looked at them and nothing seems out of the ordinary, all the typical salaries, spending, and/or reimbursements that a presidential campaign requires.

Have you looked at the monthly FEC reports? or are you just operating on emotion? yourself getting stirred up by third parties who also haven't look at the monthly FEC reports?

How fun the facts are.



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



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 11:03 PM
link   
Actually, I just looked into it a little more, and Ron Paul didn't officially endorse Gary Johnson. He did, however, say, "I think he’s wonderful and I think he’s doing a good job and people should look at him and every individual should make up their own mind.”

Source



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 11:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by eLPresidente
reply to post by Trustfund
 


How about instead of taking the word from other people aka HEARSAY, go straight to the monetary source.

The FEC.

All presidential campaign spending is disclosed in monthly FEC reports, I've looked at them and nothing seems out of the ordinary, all the typical salaries, spending, and/or reimbursements that a presidential campaign requires.

Have you looked at the monthly FEC reports? or are you just operating on emotion? yourself getting stirred up by third parties who also haven't look at the monthly FEC reports?

How fun the facts are.



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





One of the most troubling cases of the congressman's possible double-billing revolves around reimbursements he received for flights from both his official allowance and the libertarian group the Liberty Committee. At that time, the Liberty Committee's finances were overseen by a relative of the Paul family.

"It's extremely disappointing," Liberty Committee President David James told Whispers of the double-billing.


Source

Family financing - No worries, things seem to play out the same regardless of whose last name it is.



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 11:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Americanist

Originally posted by eLPresidente
reply to post by Trustfund
 


How about instead of taking the word from other people aka HEARSAY, go straight to the monetary source.

The FEC.

All presidential campaign spending is disclosed in monthly FEC reports, I've looked at them and nothing seems out of the ordinary, all the typical salaries, spending, and/or reimbursements that a presidential campaign requires.

Have you looked at the monthly FEC reports? or are you just operating on emotion? yourself getting stirred up by third parties who also haven't look at the monthly FEC reports?

How fun the facts are.



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





One of the most troubling cases of the congressman's possible double-billing revolves around reimbursements he received for flights from both his official allowance and the libertarian group the Liberty Committee. At that time, the Liberty Committee's finances were overseen by a relative of the Paul family.

"It's extremely disappointing," Liberty Committee President David James told Whispers of the double-billing.


Source

Family financing - No worries, things seem to play out the same regardless of whose last name it is.


First of all you're bringing up a straw man argument because you had nothing to say about the FEC reports. Probably because you've never looked up the actual numbers like I have.

And second, You can't be serious ????

This was debunked on ATS months ago

I'm on my phone but when I get home I will search the thread and post it up right here.

The best part is, you will back peddle to another false assumption until you have absolutely nothing left to say. You may continue to claw and claw but nothing will ever come about it. The truth has already been discussed on ATS. Don't think you're to first one o the party that got rejected at the door either, many have tried And many have failed.
edit on 10-11-2012 by eLPresidente because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 11:43 PM
link   
reply to post by eLPresidente
 


No need to regurgitate the frequent flyer miles (unrelated to billing), so do some actual digging... I'd be curious to see the salary structure mainly. Also where the surplus ends up.


Your cooperation is greatly appreciated.

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



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 11:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Americanist
reply to post by eLPresidente
 


No need to regurgitate the frequent flyer miles (unrelated to billing), so do some actual digging... I'd be curious to see the salary structure mainly. Also where the surplus ends up.


Your cooperation is greatly appreciated.

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


The thread I was mentioning had nothing to do with frequent flyer miles (which was immediately debunked as well) and addresses your post head on. You can even search for it if you feel independent enough to do it.



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



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 12:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by eLPresidente

Originally posted by Americanist

Originally posted by eLPresidente
reply to post by Trustfund
 


How about instead of taking the word from other people aka HEARSAY, go straight to the monetary source.

The FEC.

All presidential campaign spending is disclosed in monthly FEC reports, I've looked at them and nothing seems out of the ordinary, all the typical salaries, spending, and/or reimbursements that a presidential campaign requires.

Have you looked at the monthly FEC reports? or are you just operating on emotion? yourself getting stirred up by third parties who also haven't look at the monthly FEC reports?

How fun the facts are.



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





One of the most troubling cases of the congressman's possible double-billing revolves around reimbursements he received for flights from both his official allowance and the libertarian group the Liberty Committee. At that time, the Liberty Committee's finances were overseen by a relative of the Paul family.

"It's extremely disappointing," Liberty Committee President David James told Whispers of the double-billing.


Source

Family financing - No worries, things seem to play out the same regardless of whose last name it is.


First of all you're bringing up a straw man argument because you had nothing to say about the FEC reports. Probably because you've never looked up the actual numbers like I have.

And second, You can't be serious ????

This was debunked on ATS months ago

I'm on my phone but when I get home I will search the thread and post it up right here.

The best part is, you will back peddle to another false assumption until you have absolutely nothing left to say. You may continue to claw and claw but nothing will ever come about it. The truth has already been discussed on ATS. Don't think you're to first one o the party that got rejected at the door either, many have tried And many have failed.
edit on 10-11-2012 by eLPresidente because: (no reason given)


Even the OP admitted he was wrong.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 01:03 AM
link   
reply to post by thePharaoh
 





your right...it does matter to the whole world.....thats why 99% of the world are happy obama won


Unfortunately the rest of the world gets handouts from the US and they think Obama will keep on giving the gift to them and stop the wars, even though he added a war to our tally. The rest of the world has taken on the socialist theme and so they are happy to take whatever handout the generous socialist in the USA will give. I'm sorry if that sounds mean, but I think anyone with common sense would admit it's true.

Case in point. Obama helped facilitate the "Double double toil and trouble" in Egypt and the ousting of the pro Western leader there and in other places, and gave even more money to them after the Muslim Brotherhood took power.

(sorry, I just saw a production of Macbeth last night and wanted to use that). www.potw.org...

edit on 11-11-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: add link



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 10:24 AM
link   
reply to post by eLPresidente
 


There's a whole lot of jumping around inside that thread... Peruse my post to spot the highlighted part. I'm curious what everyone in his family got paid (continue to be paid based on the 2 million surplus - Rand being the focal point).



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by thePharaoh
 





your right...it does matter to the whole world.....thats why 99% of the world are happy obama won


Unfortunately the rest of the world gets handouts from the US and they think Obama will keep on giving the gift to them and stop the wars, even though he added a war to our tally. The rest of the world has taken on the socialist theme and so they are happy to take whatever handout the generous socialist in the USA will give. I'm sorry if that sounds mean, but I think anyone with common sense would admit it's true.

Case in point. Obama helped facilitate the "Double double toil and trouble" in Egypt and the ousting of the pro Western leader there and in other places, and gave even more money to them after the Muslim Brotherhood took power.

(sorry, I just saw a production of Macbeth last night and wanted to use that). www.potw.org...

edit on 11-11-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: add link



We also give $76 billion annual in subsidies to 18 major banks as part of their welfare scheme.



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Americanist
reply to post by eLPresidente
 


There's a whole lot of jumping around inside that thread... Peruse my post to spot the highlighted part. I'm curious what everyone in his family got paid (continue to be paid based on the 2 million surplus - Rand being the focal point).


The OP of that thread came in with an agenda, one to paint Ron Paul as corrupt. He admitted he was wrong after all of the facts pointed the opposite of what he was trying to peddle.

If he can admit it, why can't you?

Why does this need to turn into something else (straw man argument)?

Why do you need to go after how much his staff or family got paid during the presidential campaign? They're all in the FEC reports. As of last month, it was below 2 M.

Why do you assume Ron Paul takes campaign money and pockets the change? the last time he had a surplus, which was in 2008, to the tune of MILLIONS, he created Campaign For Liberty, the organization that fought to stop SOPA and get Audit the FED passed in the house of representatives.

Where is Ron Paul pocketing money? bring on the proof to prove your wild accusations because I haven't seen one OUNCE of proof yet.

Just admit it and be done with it, there are much worse things to fight against than falsifying information about Ron Paul, the principled doctor that has fought against corruption for the last 30 years.



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 08:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by eLPresidente

Originally posted by Americanist
reply to post by eLPresidente
 


There's a whole lot of jumping around inside that thread... Peruse my post to spot the highlighted part. I'm curious what everyone in his family got paid (continue to be paid based on the 2 million surplus - Rand being the focal point).


The OP of that thread came in with an agenda, one to paint Ron Paul as corrupt. He admitted he was wrong after all of the facts pointed the opposite of what he was trying to peddle.

If he can admit it, why can't you?

Why does this need to turn into something else (straw man argument)?

Why do you need to go after how much his staff or family got paid during the presidential campaign? They're all in the FEC reports. As of last month, it was below 2 M.

Why do you assume Ron Paul takes campaign money and pockets the change? the last time he had a surplus, which was in 2008, to the tune of MILLIONS, he created Campaign For Liberty, the organization that fought to stop SOPA and get Audit the FED passed in the house of representatives.

Where is Ron Paul pocketing money? bring on the proof to prove your wild accusations because I haven't seen one OUNCE of proof yet.

Just admit it and be done with it, there are much worse things to fight against than falsifying information about Ron Paul, the principled doctor that has fought against corruption for the last 30 years.


1. The money was donated to the Ron Paul campaign... Not Rand Paul.

2. The Zeitgeist Movement was more effective plus a whole helluva lot cheaper to get the word out on issues such as The Fed and 9/11.

3. This has yet to be played out with roughly 2M in funds remaining.

Addressing these facts isn't quite the same as alluding to a straw man argument. At least we can agree there.



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 03:05 AM
link   
As I can see, the Election got fair and square.



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 03:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wide-Eyes

Originally posted by SageBeno
reply to post by thePharaoh
 


The problem is that Ron Paul stands for the future of the people, whereas the current setting is that the government stands for the future of themselves. How else could the level of corruption that exists in the goverment still remain that way?

If the government was not corrupt the entire world would have FREE ENERGY.
Instead, America is IMPRISONING anybody who produces a zero point generator on grounds of terrorism.
I ask you, how can one be a terrorist when trying to benefit the world!!!?

THIS IS MADNESS.


Do you have any evidence of this? I'm not trying to debunk you, I'm genuinely interested. I want as many facts as possible in the messed up world.


My evidence? The lack of free energy in our current life. America couldnt let a free energy device out to the public, that would crumble the tower of power they've built for themselves, making people reliant on energy, the energy they give us. Which is why they wont let anyone else release this, they call it conspiring against the country as it crumbles their tower theyve made for themselves.

Do I need to have a name of someone imprisoned for this? Or does it make as much sense to you as it does to me?

Heres one example:

Watch from about 4:00



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Americanist

Originally posted by eLPresidente

Originally posted by Americanist
reply to post by eLPresidente
 


There's a whole lot of jumping around inside that thread... Peruse my post to spot the highlighted part. I'm curious what everyone in his family got paid (continue to be paid based on the 2 million surplus - Rand being the focal point).


The OP of that thread came in with an agenda, one to paint Ron Paul as corrupt. He admitted he was wrong after all of the facts pointed the opposite of what he was trying to peddle.

If he can admit it, why can't you?

Why does this need to turn into something else (straw man argument)?

Why do you need to go after how much his staff or family got paid during the presidential campaign? They're all in the FEC reports. As of last month, it was below 2 M.

Why do you assume Ron Paul takes campaign money and pockets the change? the last time he had a surplus, which was in 2008, to the tune of MILLIONS, he created Campaign For Liberty, the organization that fought to stop SOPA and get Audit the FED passed in the house of representatives.

Where is Ron Paul pocketing money? bring on the proof to prove your wild accusations because I haven't seen one OUNCE of proof yet.

Just admit it and be done with it, there are much worse things to fight against than falsifying information about Ron Paul, the principled doctor that has fought against corruption for the last 30 years.


1. The money was donated to the Ron Paul campaign... Not Rand Paul.

2. The Zeitgeist Movement was more effective plus a whole helluva lot cheaper to get the word out on issues such as The Fed and 9/11.

3. This has yet to be played out with roughly 2M in funds remaining.

Addressing these facts isn't quite the same as alluding to a straw man argument. At least we can agree there.


Well isn't that interesting. I made points and you thought it was ok to completely ignore all of that and make up new points for me to directly counter. Sure, I'll play your game but its the last time. I really do hope that YOU can directly answer some of my concerns, after all, you are here for answers, aren't you? Or are you just here to throw out accusatory troll bombs? Its up to you.

1. Lease prove that Ron Paul's presidential campaign donor money is being used in any way for Rand Paul.

2. This topic specifically came from your own concern that Ron Paul pockets the money, and I brought examples of what the surplus was used for in the past. Now you want to talk about who could get the message out there for less dollar? Well if thats what you wanted to talk about, why didn't you just say that originally?

Also, I wasn't talking about Zeitgeist and I wasn't talking about who could do what on a cheaper budget. Ron Paul doesn't make documentaries, he speaks and repeats one simple message. If people support that message with their own voice or with their dollar, thats their decision.

3. Yes. it has YET to be played out, so why are YOU insinuating that Ron Paul is pocketing campaign money?

I repeat, if Ron Paul is personally pocketing campaign money, which was part of your original accusation... PROVE IT or LOSE IT.



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Juggernog
reply to post by watchitburn
 





but not on the military where 3/4 of all our budget goes".


Yep.. Im not a complete pacifist but 700 billion a year is freaking ridiculous.


Exactly. It's a giant elephant in the room and yet we continually hear about how grandma's SS is the problem, or that Medicaid is the problem.

Why are we even discussing this? It's plain as day!
We have to discuss this because our elected officials don't represent us. They represent their buddies 2 Lockheed and Haliburton. There is nothing else to say. It's a wash



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 10:13 PM
link   
reply to post by eLPresidente
 


It amounts to $75 million from two election cycles consisting of mostly individual contributions. And for what? To get the word out you say? Again, Zeitgeist and here recently the Thrive movement reached larger audiences. I'm not going to waste my time on 2000 pages of filings in order to figure out what he paid his family/ extended family. Pretty sure it's in there though. No telling what the 1.2 M surplus will be used on. I wouldn't make such a big deal about burning through cash as a politician, but it's not Karl Rove and Super PAC's... It was hardworking Americans that sent in whatever money they had left - striving to make an impact.


Nice Ron Paul avatar you're using. I can't wait to see what you come up with next...





new topics
top topics
 
22
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join