Author Topic: Ron paul (Read 9540 times)

jman123 · « **on:** December 29, 2011, 08:42:35 PM »

what is it about Ron Paul that attracts a lot of traditionalists?

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #1 on:** December 29, 2011, 10:10:02 PM »

1.) He alone understands our economic system is fundamentally flawed and must be gutted. The rest want to tinker with the existing unsustainable system.

2.) He alone understands that unnecessary wars are the death of nations. That war should only be entered into if our national defense is at stake. That meddling in other nations' affairs breeds resentment and wastes money and lives.

3.) He's pro-life and wants Roe overturned.

4.) He wants absolute minimal federal government intrusion and regulation in our lives.

Santo Subito · « **Reply #2 on:** December 30, 2011, 10:51:36 AM »

Santorum is actually for a Constitutional amendment to ban abortion, while Paul is not. However, since there is not a chance such amendment pass anyway, I'm not sure it matters. Santorum is also Catholic and pro-family. No doubt he'd appoint pro-life justices. Paul, I'm not so sure. He'd appoint libertarian justices who may or may not be pro-life. Maybe he's promised to nominate pro-life judges, but if so I'd like a link to the source.

We also must consider whether Paul is electable and can beat Obama. The newsletters issue, creating a cloud of doubt as to whether he is a closet bigot, has hurt him, whether these charges are true or not.

s2srea · « **Reply #3 on:** December 30, 2011, 11:10:35 AM »

I've been sort of torn about this whole issue for the past few weeks. Part of me wants to really like Ron Paul, and everything he stands for, his consistency, his constitutionalism and minor isolationism and, what I see as, an anti-Judaic/ US control of the world and all world affairs; I refer especially to his views in the middle east with countries like Israel/Palestine and Iran.**

However, another part of me thinks, if someone's not Catholic (He isn't anyways), if they're not completely for the social Kingship of Christ and the restitution of Christ as the end of the citizens they represent, then everything else is moot.

I guess Ron Paul appeals to my political nature, yet he fails, as all modern politicians do, to appeal to my Religious senses- and of course the latter trumps all. We can talk all day about, "well perhaps God will use him to do this or that," or, "perhaps this is what God wants," but that's just adolescent wishful thinking.

When one sticks with what's visible to the Christian eye, its simple to see that only a great calamity will bring nations and rulers back to Christ, as our human nature and the abundance of Earthly pleasures have prevented most in this world from doing so. I think man comes to know and accept God in two primary ways: he is given, and is open to, His graces; or, because of no other choice, he is forced to turn to Our Lord because of need. I think most in Tradition fit the former description, and the rest of the world fits the latter.

There is no need in the world for God right now. People are led to believe they can live in this life without him; physically, this is true, as He forces no one to accept him. Sure, they create their own 'spirituality' to fill a void in their hearts; or, more correctly, they create their own spirituality to blind themselves from seeing the True God. They turn their head in another direction, avoiding the All Good, so they can continue in their ways, yet give themselves a false sense of spiritual satisfaction. But people do not care to seek out what is an absolute necessity, a truly Christian life. Vain pleasure rules, and one can readily find it in this world. The devil has worked hard, for many centuries to get to this point, and has so far succeeded.

So even if someone like Ron Paul, or Santorum, is successful in becoming the President, this may help Temporal matters in the world, but it will do absolutely nothing for what is truly important to the nation and the human race.

My

**He understands that the Church is able to fill the needs of those people who are poor, and had even worked for a Catholic hospital in the 60s and gave treatment to those in need for free; so while I support many ideals which do not fit the, so-called, 'conservative' agenda, I would support his approach; its all, or nothing. You can not call yourself conservative, yet remove the ability of the Church to render aid to those in need, either through supporting politicians who favor separation of Church and State, or through not supporting the Church of Christ. So for now, I support social welfare and fair treatment of workers, as the Church had done in the past when her ability to protect Her people was taken away.

jman123 · « **Reply #4 on:** December 30, 2011, 11:41:52 AM »

Quote from: s2srea

I've been sort of torn about this whole issue for the past few weeks. Part of me wants to really like Ron Paul, and everything he stands for, his consistency, his constitutionalism and minor isolationism and, what I see as, an anti-Judaic/ US control of the world and all world affairs; I refer especially to his views in the middle east with countries like Israel/Palestine and Iran.**

However, another part of me thinks, if someone's not Catholic (He isn't anyways), if they're not completely for the social Kingship of Christ and the restitution of Christ as the end of the citizens they represent, then everything else is moot.

I guess Ron Paul appeals to my political nature, yet he fails, as all modern politicians do, to appeal to my Religious senses- and of course the latter trumps all. We can talk all day about, "well perhaps God will use him to do this or that," or, "perhaps this is what God wants," but that's just adolescent wishful thinking.

When one sticks with what's visible to the Christian eye, its simple to see that only a great calamity will bring nations and rulers back to Christ, as our human nature and the abundance of Earthly pleasures have prevented most in this world from doing so. I think man comes to know and accept God in two primary ways: he is given, and is open to, His graces; or, because of no other choice, he is forced to turn to Our Lord because of need. I think most in Tradition fit the former description, and the rest of the world fits the latter.

There is no need in the world for God right now. People are led to believe they can live in this life without him; physically, this is true, as He forces no one to accept him. Sure, they create their own 'spirituality' to fill a void in their hearts; or, more correctly, they create their own spirituality to blind themselves from seeing the True God. They turn their head in another direction, avoiding the All Good, so they can continue in their ways, yet give themselves a false sense of spiritual satisfaction. But people do not care to seek out what is an absolute necessity, a truly Christian life. Vain pleasure rules, and one can readily find it in this world. The devil has worked hard, for many centuries to get to this point, and has so far succeeded.

So even if someone like Ron Paul, or Santorum, is successful in becoming the President, this may help Temporal matters in the world, but it will do absolutely nothing for what is truly important to the nation and the human race.

My

**He understands that the Church is able to fill the needs of those people who are poor, and had even worked for a Catholic hospital in the 60s and gave treatment to those in need for free; so while I support many ideals which do not fit the, so-called, 'conservative' agenda, I would support his approach; its all, or nothing. You can not call yourself conservative, yet remove the ability of the Church to render aid to those in need, either through supporting politicians who favor separation of Church and State, or through not supporting the Church of Christ. So for now, I support social welfare and fair treatment of workers, as the Church had done in the past when her ability to protect Her people was taken away.

true he is not for the social kingship of Christ.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #5 on:** December 30, 2011, 04:17:43 PM »

Quote from: Santo Subito

The newsletters issue, creating a cloud of doubt as to whether he is a closet bigot, has hurt him

It's not a real issue. You have to remember that the media is liberal and pro-Obama, they don't want someone like Ron Paul to get elected because he would do away with everything they stand for; the board of education, FEMA, the fed, the CIA, and EPA would all be gone (and notice how all of those are part of the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr?). So the media makes a mountain out of a molehill about small issues such as his newsletters in an attempt to ruin his campaign, and since it's the only dirt they can dig up on him, they bring it up over and over. I watched a video recently of Ron Paul being bugged by some CNN reporter about this issue. He said that he already answered the questions but she kept bringing the issue up until finally he took his microphone off and walked away. Sometimes the media will even make something out of nothing just to ruin him. They brought up a quote from his book from the 80s where he said that employees that are hit on by their boss should quit. The media was saying that quote could hurt him, yet I see nothing offensive there. It's just a desparation part on them, nothing but grasping at straws.

If I worked for a female boss and she hit on me, I would quit. Sure, the average person would take legal action, and perhaps some people could mistakenly believe Ron Paul doesn't think sɛҳuąƖ harassment is a big deal. But to pass it off as something that will hurt his campaign is quite ridiculous. Candidates like Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich have a lot more skeletons in their closet than Ron Paul does, yet interestingly the media rarely mentions anything negative about their past, if ever.

It's the same with all news stations, not just CNN. FOX News, which is sadly smiled upon by many conservatives (and neo-cons), doesn't like Ron Paul either. Sean Hannity who is a bit of a neo-con himself says that he likes every 2012 GOP candidate except Paul. Then you have Chris Wallace, a NWO freak who suddenly is coming out with statements that Iowa will be "dis-credited" if Ron Paul wins there, and that Iowa "doesn't even count". If it doesn't count, then why are you covering it, FOX? Stations like MSNBC are even worse. But they all have one thing in common: they can't stand anyone against the NWO. Even when Ron Paul is in the lead, they won't say he is, they'll say he's tied. They are all liars.

As for my thoughts on Ron Paul? Well, overall I think he's the best candidate to choose from. There are only two people I could vote for: him and Rick Santorum. Of all the candidates, Santorum is the one closest to the Social Kingship of Christ. I like his firm stance against abortion and gαy marriage. Unfortunetly, he's rather naive when it comes to war, and supports the patriot act. But even though neither Paul nor Santorum are perfect, I would settle for either one.

Anyone would be better than Obama, but being better than him isn't good enough. Romney is better than Obama, but he's still a NWO freak. There are only two candidates that I would trust to get rid of the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr. The sad thing is, neither one of them are likely to get the nomination.

jman123 · « **Reply #6 on:** January 02, 2012, 04:13:54 PM »

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

Quote from: Santo Subito
The newsletters issue, creating a cloud of doubt as to whether he is a closet bigot, has hurt him

It's not a real issue. You have to remember that the media is liberal and pro-Obama, they don't want someone like Ron Paul to get elected because he would do away with everything they stand for; the board of education, FEMA, the fed, the CIA, and EPA would all be gone (and notice how all of those are part of the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr?). So the media makes a mountain out of a molehill about small issues such as his newsletters in an attempt to ruin his campaign, and since it's the only dirt they can dig up on him, they bring it up over and over. I watched a video recently of Ron Paul being bugged by some CNN reporter about this issue. He said that he already answered the questions but she kept bringing the issue up until finally he took his microphone off and walked away. Sometimes the media will even make something out of nothing just to ruin him. They brought up a quote from his book from the 80s where he said that employees that are hit on by their boss should quit. The media was saying that quote could hurt him, yet I see nothing offensive there. It's just a desparation part on them, nothing but grasping at straws.

If I worked for a female boss and she hit on me, I would quit. Sure, the average person would take legal action, and perhaps some people could mistakenly believe Ron Paul doesn't think sɛҳuąƖ harassment is a big deal. But to pass it off as something that will hurt his campaign is quite ridiculous. Candidates like Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich have a lot more skeletons in their closet than Ron Paul does, yet interestingly the media rarely mentions anything negative about their past, if ever.

It's the same with all news stations, not just CNN. FOX News, which is sadly smiled upon by many conservatives (and neo-cons), doesn't like Ron Paul either. Sean Hannity who is a bit of a neo-con himself says that he likes every 2012 GOP candidate except Paul. Then you have Chris Wallace, a NWO freak who suddenly is coming out with statements that Iowa will be "dis-credited" if Ron Paul wins there, and that Iowa "doesn't even count". If it doesn't count, then why are you covering it, FOX? Stations like MSNBC are even worse. But they all have one thing in common: they can't stand anyone against the NWO. Even when Ron Paul is in the lead, they won't say he is, they'll say he's tied. They are all liars.

As for my thoughts on Ron Paul? Well, overall I think he's the best candidate to choose from. There are only two people I could vote for: him and Rick Santorum. Of all the candidates, Santorum is the one closest to the Social Kingship of Christ. I like his firm stance against abortion and gαy marriage. Unfortunetly, he's rather naive when it comes to war, and supports the patriot act. But even though neither Paul nor Santorum are perfect, I would settle for either one.

Anyone would be better than Obama, but being better than him isn't good enough. Romney is better than Obama, but he's still a NWO freak. There are only two candidates that I would trust to get rid of the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr. The sad thing is, neither one of them are likely to get the nomination.

The Duggars are campaigning for Santorum by the way

Darcy · « **Reply #7 on:** January 03, 2012, 12:12:06 AM »

Santorum was just being interviewd by Hannity on Fox and he said (according to script) that Iran wants to wipe Israel off the map.

Darcy · « **Reply #8 on:** January 03, 2012, 01:19:19 AM »

Interviews with Dr. Paul on Jan 1 2012

CNN
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvvciND6Xg4&feature=youtu.be

ABC

Faux News

With our new martial law I am almost afraid to support RP. I wonder if not voting will arouse suspicions....

Caraffa · « **Reply #9 on:** January 03, 2012, 03:30:48 PM »

Quote from: jman123

The Duggars are campaigning for Santorum by the way

19 votes and counting...

Caraffa · « **Reply #10 on:** January 03, 2012, 03:56:54 PM »

Although Ron Paul may not be the best Catholic choice, when it comes to Rick Santorum (even though it has been that he attends the TLM), let's not forget the compromises that he made by selling out to the "mainstreem" Neo-Con/GOP establishment from 2004-06. I have a hard time believing that one really supports "family values" when they also bow to Straussianism. For those that might have forgotten, see exhibit A:

A picture of Santorum in 2006 speaking to dispensational, Isreal-firster Evangelicals at a "Christians United for Israel" (CUFI, which I believe is run by John Hagee) rally. Israeli flag in the background.

Roland Deschain · « **Reply #11 on:** January 03, 2012, 05:08:42 PM »

I wouldn't vote Santorum for dog catcher based on his betrayal of Pat Toomey in the Pennsylvania Senate race, his Zionism not withstanding.

What particularly attracts me to Ron Paul as a candidate is his understanding of what constitutes a Just War. Every other Republican candidate seems to be chomping at the bit to start another war with Iran.

I hope the Neo-Con grip on the Republican Party will soon be broken.

chaz89 · « **Reply #12 on:** January 03, 2012, 05:52:43 PM »

I don't know if there is truth to this or if this org. is reputable but they claim that Santorum is pretty corrupt. This was done in 2006 so maybe he cleaned up his act since.

http://www.citizensforethics.org/index.php/press/entry/crew-releases-second-annual-most-corrupt-members-of-congress-report/

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #13 on:** January 03, 2012, 08:56:59 PM »

Well, I know that Santorum was voted the "most corrupt senator" in 1996.

The stuff I've read and heard about him the past few days really is a turn-off...so there goes any support I originally had for him. He'd be better than Obama, but "better than Obama" isn't good enough. All of the Republicans running for president in 2012 are better than Obama. That certainly does not mean that all of them would do away with the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr.

Alex · « **Reply #14 on:** January 04, 2012, 03:55:09 AM »

Quote from: chaz89

I don't know if there is truth to this or if this org. is reputable but they claim that Santorum is pretty corrupt. This was done in 2006 so maybe he cleaned up his act since.

http://www.citizensforethics.org/index.php/press/entry/crew-releases-second-annual-most-corrupt-members-of-congress-report/

Probably done by a Democrat since 21 of the 25 congress members on the corrupt list are Republicans. So I wouldn't trust this.