Is ATS Endorsing Ron Paul?

reply to post by totalvigilance


You're not serious, right? Are you joking or are you simply clueless? Please explain to us --- specifically --- how these candidates are the same. I'm on the edge of my seat.

reply to post by Xtrozero


Dr. Paul did run as a libertarian in the past but I don't think it's accurate to characterize him as a libertarian. What does that even mean, exactly? Look at the Reps and Dems. There is a pretty broad range of views in those parties as well. I think Dr. Paul would best be described as a Constitutionalist. Not the same as a libertarian but they overlap (as do Dems/Reps). The Constitutaion grants rights to the States and individuals and gives a small subset to the Feds. If we SAY the Constitution is the foundation of this country and the Feds all take an oath to uphold and defend it then THAT'S the way the country is supposed to run. If people don't like it, vote to change it. But to the best of my knowledge it still stands as the central governing law in this country and any law that has been enacted that goes against it is subordinate to it.

So the bottom line is this: Dr. Paul supports the Constitution 100% and his voting record proves it. The Constitution is the heart of this country and all government officials are legally bound to adhere to it. If people love this country then they respect the Constitution. The two go hand-in-hand. Anyone who does not respect the authority of the Constitution cannot possibly respect this country. No matter what kinds of red-white-and-blue paraphenilia they wrap themselves in.

In my opinion, supporting anyone BUT Dr. Paul is like holding someone's coat while they abuse your kid.

An update to my OP..

First, I would like to state, for the record, that I do not support any candidate at this point. So any drama to the effect that I'm a Paul-hater is incorrect.

Secondly, remember that the POTUS is only one person in our political system. Without the bi-partisan support of the rest of the Congress, he/she is powerless. *IF* by a long shot RP were elected POTUS, he would face an acerbic Congress.

Originally posted by hoochymama
To the point of duplicate threads...from my understanding duplicate threads in different portions of this web site are OK. There could be a thread in "Breaking News", "Current Events", "Below Top Secret.com", "Above Politics.com" that covers the same topic and it would be OK as far as I know.

Hoochymama, you're incorrect. Multiple threads was actually the impetus for my thread. There can be one "Breaking News..." thread, and one other forum thread. After that, it becomes duplicate. It's not the most strictly enforced rule, but it's there.

Originally posted by NGC2736


Because there are a lot of threads on him is due to the fact that he is not only the best "outside" candidate around, but there is an active drive to keep him from mainstream attention. Most of us would follow much more silently if there did not seem to be such a vocal anti-Paul movement. Even here on ATS.

See my reply to hoochymama above. It's not the number of threads, but the number of similar-topic threads that I question.

Originally posted by WolfofWar

Originally posted by jsobecky


Wow, that's a lot of attention to a rather mundane topic. But it brings up the question: is ATS breaking with tradition, and supporting a particular candidate? The sheer number of what could arguably be called duplicate threads would lead one to believe so..

just wanted to know how having two national records broken (most donations to a presidential candidate in one day, and having the most individual donatees in one day,) having shown the potential legitimacy in numbers when it comes to the internet ,proving the mainstream media wrong, and ofcourse validating the potential (in solid numbers) of the legitimacy of what was thought to be a no-chance-in-hell candidate, is a mundane topic.

Because it isn't, it's pretty serious business. And if you don't realize that, to rehash an already far too overused catchpharse, your not denying ignorance.

Well, my grandson blew about 40 spit bubbles non-stop the other day, smiling all the while. While that may be interesting, and a record of some sort, it is also a mundane fact. RP breaking a fund-raising record that will most likely be broken again is also mundane.

With all due respect, comparing the American Presidential Campaign to your son's "bubble blowing", is for lack of a better word... silly. The fact that Ron Paul raised 4.2 million in a single day, which was completely grassroots -- given the whole situation in regards to having almost no MSM coverage (and when they do they pretty much try and discredit him by making completely outragous claims, like "spammbot")... is significant in so many ways, I'd be more suprised NOT to see this many threads made. Hell, the whole event even forced fox news, cnn, msnbc... and pretty much every msm to cover it.

I honestly can't see how you're slightly slanted point of view towards Ron Paul is not what caused you to make this thread. Pretty much any other candidate elected means either everything stays the same (#hole), or it gets worse. Hillary = worse. Guliani = definately worse. Kucinich has nowhere near as much chance of winning in comparison to Ron, and in my oppion, isn't tackling the most important issues. The only republican candidate that can beat Hillary, is Ron Paul. That's because if Ron was to be elected for the Republican candidate, EVERYONE will be hearing his message -- which even a CNN analyst agreed, would be the greatest threat to Hillary.

So tell me... who are you thinking of voting for? I don't see how keeping with the status quo is better than a great change in direction, even if it may be a little risky.

I suggest people actually look up his most popular videos on youtube to see what he's about. Don't take the words of critics who can't handle change. And most importantly, listen to how he actually plans to tackle the issues... don't just assume it's impossible -- or it won't work. That'd be making the assumption that you're smarter then Ron Paul.


[edit on 7/11/07 by Navieko]

reply to post by jsobecky


You do not have to apologize for pointing out something that actually has merit.

I also has noticed the threads on Mr. RP.

I am not very familiar with him.

But I got a surprise when my 21 year old son told me that he is voting for him.

It seems that he is becoming popular with the younger crowd.

But then again my 23 year old daughter said she is voting for Hillary.

I guess is a woman thing going on around also.

Now when it comes to my husband and me, I think we will have a hard time voting this next elections.

reply to post by marg6043

Hi Marg! Look into Ron Paul. This "young" 50-year old and her old man support him! LOL



And to address the OP, I have seen situations (Cindy Sheehan and Cynthis McKinney, etc) where several threads got started and there were just too many to control. Look in the 9/11 section.
Hi jso!

[edit on 7-11-2007 by Benevolent Heretic]

reply to post by Navieko


True.. Ron Paul would be the only republican who is capable of beating Hillary Clinton. And say what you want, her husband president Clinton was a student of Carrol Quigley who was given access to records of the global elite/NWO/International bankers and their system, studied them and wrote books about them in which he agreed that these global elite should be the ones ruling the world and running/owning the federal reserve, bank of England, BIS, IMF etc... Making everyone else subject to them.

Bill Clinton is pro-NWO so I would imagine that his wife is as well. Ron Paul is anti-NWO. Perhaps politicians in other countries will get strength and inspiration to reform their central banking system like Ron Paul will do if he gets elected (and stays alive unlike JFK and Lincoln).

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Interesting BH I had no idea he was Republican I thought he was independent

Thank for the nice information, Bandit.

This is interesting indeed because is makes my son very intelligent when he is looking after the man itself without the political affiliations.

I guess I raised no fools, but I will have to have some woman to woman talks with my daughter on Hillary, actually the last time I tried to do that and point out that Hillary was a corporate sell out she got angry at me.

I will be giving some serious thoughts to Mr. RP.

[edit on 7-11-2007 by marg6043]

reply to post by Navieko

Originally posted by Navieko
With all due respect, comparing the American Presidential Campaign to your son's "bubble blowing", is for lack of a better word... silly.

Well, considering that the two leading Dem. opponents have Twenty Times That Amount Of Cash On Hand, I'd say you're making a mountain out of a $4M molehill...

Originally posted by Navieko
I honestly can't see how you're slightly slanted point of view towards Ron Paul is not what caused you to make this thread.

You don't know me, you don't know my views, so don't make any "honest observations" about me.

I already stated my views on RP. That's all you're gonna get.

Originally posted by Navieko
So tell me... who are you thinking of voting for? I don't see how keeping with the status quo is better than a great change in direction, even if it may be a little risky.

That falls under the category of "Nunya", as in "Nunya bidness".

Originally posted by Navieko
And most importantly, listen to how he actually plans to tackle the issues... don't just assume it's impossible -- or it won't work. That'd be making the assumption that you're smarter then Ron Paul.

[edit on 7/11/07 by Navieko]

Your problem is, you're looking for a savior to dedicate your life to. Learn to do things and make changes yourself.

I would personally like to thank jso for starting this thread, which has turned out to be another ringing endorsement for Ron Paul.

I bet I know who jso's gonna vote for, the guy that uses "9/11" as a verb, a noun, an adverb, a conjunction (junction what's your function), and a pronoun.

C'mon....tell me, am I close?

Peace

Originally posted by Raoul Duke
Ron Paul voted for:
1)Putting Attorney General Gonzales in charge of domestic electronic spying.

As opposed to who being in charge of it?

Look at it this way - if no one is in charge of it, then there's no oversight. If there's no oversight, who do we blame when something screws up?

Originally posted by Raoul Duke
2)Eliminating the Estate Tax, a tax that applies to the 0.27% wealthiest of U.S. citizens.

And?

Please tell me how this matters at all to getting our freedoms back and becoming the America our founding fathers wanted.

Originally posted by Raoul Duke
3)Making Bush's tax cuts for the rich permanent.

Ron Paul wants income tax gone for EVERYONE!

Originally posted by Raoul Duke
4)Banning gay adoptions in D.C.

Blah blah blah, gay marriage, gay adoptions, abortion, more issues that have no bearing on the state of this country and only blur the situation.

Let's stick to things that truly matter to our security, freedoms, and future.

Originally posted by Raoul Duke
5)Eliminating affirmative action in college admissions.

You know what keeps racism and other social issues going more than racist people? Things like affirmative action.

Here's a thought: WE'RE ALL EQUAL! Why do we have to set up these bs programs when performance and education already speak for itself?

Are black people not allowed to attend college? Are they not open to the same education opportunities as whites? Are they not open to job offers? Name one thing whites can do that blacks can't.

You can't, because there is nothing.

Setting up these programs do absolutely nothing.

Originally posted by Raoul Duke
6)The bankruptcy bill pushed by the credit card companies.

More information?

Originally posted by Raoul Duke
7)Drilling in ANWR.

He wants to eliminate our dependency on foreign oil. I don't know if I'd drill in ANWR, but that's hardly a reason to not vote for the guy.

Originally posted by Raoul Duke
He voted against:
1)Raising the minimum wage to a level comparable to that of the 1980s.

Ok?

Originally posted by Raoul Duke
2)Statehood for D.C. whose residents have no voting representation in Congress.

Again...ok?

Do you see how these are really pathetic issues that have no affect on the hardcore issues in this country? You probably don't because you're looking for anything to bash him over.

D.C. was set up the way it was for a reason. Each STATE gets voting representation. D.C. isn't a state, nor should it be. Our nation's capital shouldn't be in any state.

Originally posted by Raoul Duke
3)Allowing stockholders to approve executive pay.

Jesus, dude...

Originally posted by Raoul Duke
4)Strengthening the Social Security lockbox.

More information?

Originally posted by Raoul Duke
5)Restricting employer influence in union organizing.

More information?

Originally posted by Raoul Duke
6)OSHA's ergonomics rules, which protect workers against things like carpal tunnel syndrome.

And he probably voted to give this power to the states. Am I wrong, or are you leaving this information out?

The point is to take away all of these non-essential federal government powers. WHY does something like that need to be involved with the federal government? In this country, we're fortunate enough to have states who can govern themselves. These states can handle the domestic local issues like that, and the federal government can handle the international business. That's how it should be.

Again, you're just looking for anything to bash him over.

Originally posted by Raoul Duke
7)Requiring lobbyists to disclose bundled donations.

More information?

Originally posted by Raoul Duke
8)Banning soft money political contributions.

And in the bigger picture, this matters why?

Originally posted by Raoul Duke
9)Raising CAFE standards.

More information?

Originally posted by Raoul Duke
Paul was given a 37% rating by The League of Conservation Voters, compare that to Dennis Kucinich who received 100%.

Ron Paul has received the most support by the military.

Ron Paul has been the most searched term on the internet.

Ron Paul has the most viewers of any presidential candidate on YouTube.

Ron Paul has over 57,000 members in over 1,000 MeetUp groups.

Ron Paul head to head in straw polls against other candidates:

Ron Paul v. Rudy Giuliani: 33-5-0
Ron Paul v. Mitt Romney: 25-13-0
Ron Paul v. Fred Thompson: 23-14-0
Ron Paul v. John McCain: 34-3-0
Ron Paul v. Mike Huckabee: 31-5-1
Ron Paul v. Sam Brownback: 34-2-1
Ron Paul v. Tom Tancredo: 35-1-0
Ron Paul v. Duncan Hunter: 34-2-0

I could list more, but you get the point.

You posted those issues on Ron Paul. Most really have no true bearing on the future of this country as a free nation. Most come down to opinion. There are some that matter, and they were marked by a "More information?", so if you could post exactly what you mean by those, I'd appreciate it.

But despite all those issues, there's one issue about Kucinich that makes him less worthy of being president, and that's his stance on the 2nd Amendment.

Everything I've seen in regards to people's issues with Ron Paul, that one issue with Kucinich trumps all of it.

reply to post by NovusOrdoMundi


Well so he did voted for some issues that I am completely against off.

Now what can you expect from politicians they all liars and deceivers.

reply to post by marg6043


But marge... if what you say is true and inviolable then all hope is lost. It's time to stick guns in our mouths. It would seem at this point in history the only hope we might have is to reverse course and try a whole new direction: re-instituting the Constitution and Rule of Law.

Originally posted by NovusOrdoMundi

Look at it this way - if no one is in charge of it, then there's no oversight. If there's no oversight, who do we blame when something screws up?

Well before Bush broke the law (which he should have been impeached for btw) the FISA court was in charge of it. The FISA court is basically a rubber stump, Bush has tried to argue he can't fight terror with it in effect, but I just don't believe that at all.

Please tell me how this matters at all to getting our freedoms back and becoming the America our founding fathers wanted.

I look at the whole candidate, I believe in progressive taxation, which is the wealthiest contributing more to the government (b/c they've benefitted by living in this great country). Ron Paul thinks the wealthiest should be taxed the same as the working poor.

Ron Paul wants income tax gone for EVERYONE!

The income tax is based upon progressive taxation principles. The wealthy and corporations have too many loopholes, that is the problem.

Blah blah blah, gay marriage, gay adoptions, abortion, more issues that have no bearing on the state of this country and only blur the situation.

Let's stick to things that truly matter to our security, freedoms, and future.

It matters how my fellow human beings are treated. Many foster and abused children, could have great parents. I don't care if they're gay or straight. Why does Ron Paul? Is he beholden to the religious right?

Here's a thought: WE'RE ALL EQUAL! Why do we have to set up these bs programs when performance and education already speak for itself?

Are black people not allowed to attend college? Are they not open to the same education opportunities as whites? Are they not open to job offers? Name one thing whites can do that blacks can't.

Well I'm sorry to tell you your thoughts are just ahistorical. I fully agree we're all equal, but historically we have not all been treated as such. I actually believe in class based affirmative action, but until we get this reform; I don't think we should touch race based affirmative action. Are there problems with it yes? But it's an effort to right historical wrongs.

More information?

Just that that IMO the credit card companies want everyone to be deeply in debted to them. It made bankrupcy tougher for the working stiff.

He wants to eliminate our dependency on foreign oil. I don't know if I'd drill in ANWR, but that's hardly a reason to not vote for the guy.

It is for me, the amount of oil there is negligible for the amount of environmental destruction that would take place in a pristine area.




[edit on 7-11-2007 by Raoul Duke]

I'm sorry to say this Novus, but you're coming off as a near nihilist in the discussion. I can't tell what issues you're concerned with, you don't seem concerned with taxation, the environment, human rights, and other concerns... If this is how you really feel Ron Paul is probably your man.

Ok?

Well, the minimum wage was actually intended to originally to be enough to live off of. Nothing important there, people not being able to get by in the richest country on Earth and Ron Paul wants to make it worse.

Again...ok?

Do you see how these are really pathetic issues that have no affect on the hardcore issues in this country? You probably don't because you're looking for anything to bash him over.

D.C. was set up the way it was for a reason. Each STATE gets voting representation. D.C. isn't a state, nor should it be. Our nation's capital shouldn't be in any state.

These are just the issues that had positions/votes on that website. There are probably other sites that collect congress people's voting records, but that was the one I came across.

You're saying DC residents don't deserve to have a congress person or Senator representing them? B/c that is the status quo, and IMHO it's wrong.

Jesus, dude...

Executive pay is out of control, trying to put some check on it is a bad idea? Google it bro...

More information?

Just that Social Security has a fund to keep it solvent. Why it should be raided for other purposes is beyond me. You should ask Ron Paul apparently he's for this insane practice.

More information?

Well I don't know where you stand on unions vs. big business. Do you know it's no walk in the park to organize a union in your workplace in the U.S.?

And he probably voted to give this power to the states. Am I wrong, or are you leaving this information out?

You don't understand congress there wasn't a vote on giving the states this right. Just at the federal level and Ron Paul chose to stand against workers' safety.

The point is to take away all of these non-essential federal government powers. WHY does something like that need to be involved with the federal government? In this country, we're fortunate enough to have states who can govern themselves. These states can handle the domestic local issues like that, and the federal government can handle the international business. That's how it should be.

I think wealth should be redistributed, why else are we a union of fifty unless we want our countrymen (and women) to benefit.

Again, you're just looking for anything to bash him over.

Mmmm, not really, we just don't agree that this stuff shows Ron Paul to be wrong for America.

7)Requiring lobbyists to disclose bundled donations.

Well I'm for publically financed elections. A reform though of the campaign contribution system, could be to get rid of bundling. It's a band aid, but Ron Paul stood with the special interests who buy and own our politicians with this vote.




[edit on 7-11-2007 by Raoul Duke]

reply to post by marg6043


But Marge, if Ron Paul were the same as all other politicians, then the Republican Party (Cheney's Republican Party) would be pushing him like chocolate peanut butter candy! He would be a shoe-in! But they hate him and will NOT let him win the nomination.

That should tell you something...

I don't agree with all his positions, but on the most important ones, the issues we need to deal with RIGHT NOW (like corruption in government and Iraq/Iran) he's yer man! He's our man!

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


I agree BH, but since Mr. Bush has been in the white house our political system is so corrupted and attractive to any politicians with personal agendas.

But we do not know them until they are elected.

Just like Mr. Bush we didn't know what he he was up to until he got swored in and still he won two times.

I guess we are taking chances no matter who is elected.

So far the traditional candidates are just in the same corporate boat.

I will do my research on Mr. RP. and weight the obtions.

Originally posted by Raoul Duke
Ron Paul thinks the wealthiest should be taxed the same as the working poor.

When you say "taxed", are you referring to the income tax? Sales tax and all of that, I believe everyone is taxed the same.

If you're referring to income tax, again, he wants the income tax gone, so that means no body gets taxed for anything, except corporations.

Originally posted by Raoul Duke
The income tax is based upon progressive taxation principles. The wealthy and corporations have too many loopholes, that is the problem.

I agree they have too many loopholes. He wants to eliminate the income tax, or labor tax I guess you could call it. He doesn't want to eliminate the corporate income tax.

Corporate and personal income tax are different. Unfortunately, they're treated the same. One is legal, the other is not.

Originally posted by Raoul Duke
Why does Ron Paul? Is he beholden to the religious right?

I don't know why he does, but that's his personal opinion.

My point is this: Let's say Ron Paul and Hillary Clinton are the nominees of their party. We're on the verge of a war with Iran, for no reason, of course. Hillary Clinton wants a war, Ron Paul doesn't. If Hillary supports gay parental adoption, and Ron Paul doesn't, are you really going to choose Hillary because of that? (just assume you HAD to choose one or the other for the sake of this discussion)

That's my point. Is it morally wrong? That's up for debate. But should it come before the true issues? No.

Originally posted by Raoul Duke
I fully agree we're all equal, but historically we have not all been treated as such.

I agree that people have not been treated equal. But this unfair treatment happens all the time, no matter what your race. I'm white, am I treated the same as Bush whose white? No. That's just how society is. Setting up all of these rules, laws, organizations etc. to continue to give us the impression that we're so divided and we haven't moved on is wrong.

Are there still racial issues? Of course. But why not try to move PAST that? Why not eliminate these things? The longer these types of organizations are in the public eye, the longer people will believe we are still deeply divided. The sooner we get rid of these things, the sooner we can move on from what happened and truly forget about our issues, and just respect each other as human beings.

Originally posted by Raoul Duke
Just that that IMO the credit card companies want everyone to be deeply in debted to them.

I agree, and that's wrong. But what was it that he voted for/against, exactly?

Originally posted by Raoul Duke
It is for me, the amount of oil there is negligible for the amount of environmental destruction that would take place in a pristine area.

There's nothing saying he would truly go through with it. Maybe if he was elected and was about to do it, there would be enough pressure to stop it. Maybe by then we'll be more dependent on ethanol or some other fuel. Things change.

Originally posted by Raoul Duke
I can't tell what issues you're concerned with, you don't seem concerned with taxation, the environment, human rights, and other concerns...

You could always ask me what issues I'm concerned with.

I want the income tax gone.

I want more work to be done on the environment, though I don't think it's as bad as some say.

I am completely concerned with human rights and our freedoms in this country. If I wasn't, I'd be supporting Hitlery or Giuliani or some other CFR tool.

Originally posted by Raoul Duke
Well, the minimum wage was actually intended to originally to be enough to live off of. Nothing important there, people not being able to get by in the richest country on Earth and Ron Paul wants to make it worse.

Ron Paul also wants to eliminate the income tax and make social security optional. More money in people's pockets right there.

He also wants to go back to the gold standard, eliminate the federal reserve, and cut down on the massive foreign policy spending that continues to drive up our national debt. That will benefit the economy, raise the value of people's money and properties, and overall benefit their lives greatly.

And you think he wants to make it worse?

Originally posted by Raoul Duke
You're saying DC residents don't deserve to have a congress person or Senator representing them?

Why don't they move a few miles to Virginia or Maryland then?

Originally posted by Raoul Duke
Well I don't know where do you stand on unions vs. big business. Do you know it's no walk in the park to organize a union in your workplace in the U.S.?

I think there should be unions. It keeps big business in check.

Originally posted by Raoul Duke
Just at the federal level and Ron Paul chose to stand against workers' safety.

I highly doubt he would just stand against them for no reason. So that leads me to believe you're not giving me the whole story on it. So if you don't want to explain it to me, if you could give me a direct link to a site describing this stance, I will read it.

Originally posted by Raoul Duke
we just don't agree that this stuff shows Ron Paul to be wrong for America.

In your opinion it's what's wrong for America. I agree that we don't agree, but I don't agree with you saying it's wrong for America, when that's clearly your opinion and not fact.

I don't think he's perfect. I don't agree with him on every issue. But I think he's the best hope for this country.

But, anyways, I'd like to apologize for my argumentative tone earlier. Although I have an issue with Kucinich and his stance on guns, I think he's better than everyone else (aside from Ron Paul, IMO). So given that, I shouldn't be confronting you like this. At least you're not voting for Hillary.

Listen Novus,
I can see this is going to be time consuming as hell if I debate you until we're both fatigued. I don't want to tell you who to vote for. Kucinich is my guy, and since he doesn't have much chance I'd consider voting for Edwards in a primary (barring a miracle where Kucinich moved up in the polls). To tell you the truth maybe I'm a little jealous of you and the Ron Paul movement. I'm scratching my head over what is so appealing about this guy. Apparently you've discovered what it is that makes him so appealing.

reply to post by Raoul Duke


I'm not trying to tell you who to vote for either. A debate is inevitable when two people with opposing views show up in the same place, especially on this website. So don't take it as me trying to disrespect your opinion. I'm not. I know I sounded argumentative before, and again, I apologize for that. But I respect your opinion and am rather glad that you are one less vote that Hillary, Giuliani or some other criminal will get.