Mitt Romney Supports the Fed:



Look at who his top contributors are. Honestly tell me any of these polls saying he's in some kind of lead are accurate.

PFT, I agree that it is the Catholic Church that should define marriage, not the government. However, the Church has been infiltrated by many gαys. So a candidate can't just go "Oh, I'm not going to illegalize gαy marriage because that's for the Church to decide". In such a situation, gαy marriage should be made illegal by whoever gets elected. But unless Sanctorum or some other anti-gαy gets in there, it won't be. Not that the government would allow someone like that to get elected anyway. The final Repub spot will probably come down to Mitt Romney and Herman Cain.

So you're actually taking responsibility AWAY from the Church, and handing it over to some presidential candidate in the USA, as if they could dictate to the Church or God as to what marriage is? Really? That sounds pretty ridiculous to me. And no matter what, no pope is going to okay "gαy marriage" because Jesus Himself defines it as between a man and a woman. That will NEVER fly.

I'm not taking responsibility away from the Church. But the fact is that you're going to have gαys that obviously aren't Catholic getting married to one another outside the Church. Therefore the government should make gαy marriage illegal considering gαys aren't going to listen to what the Church teaches. But shoud gαy marriage be illegal they'll be forced to either accept it or move to another country that allows it.

He never said let gαys get married "legally." He said to KEEP THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF MARRIAGE ENTIRELY.

Correction:  I shouldn't say "the man is a fraud" but rather his politics are a fraud.

You said:
Wild West libertarianism is not something a Catholic should be sponsoring, PfT.  Hopefully you only see it as a better alternative than what we have, and not as an ideal, because if it's the latter, that is pure Americanism.

I reply:
Excellent deduction Raoul. I figured you knew me better than to even wonder if I believed this was an ideal, which, of course, I don't.


I said:
So you're actually taking responsibility AWAY from the Church, and handing it over to some presidential candidate in the USA, as if they could dictate to the Church or God as to what marriage is? Really? "


You said:
He's saying the civil government should enforce Church teaching.  The civil government should be submissive to the Church, and thus hands-on in making sure that ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs never get married.  It should be made clear that they will be punished if they do.  

What Ron Paul is selling is a pure chimera.  He is not going to stop the "nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr," Spiritus, because American so-called freedom is the very cornerstone of the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr.

I reply:
And what other candidate really will? At least he's making a decent attempt. You'd know this country was really done for if NO ONE supported his positions.


You said:
American idealism, a lie to begin with, is exactly what Ron Paul is advocating, once again, all wrapped up in a shiny new package.  His vision is not a return to Catholic values but a return to the "values" of the Founding Fathers.  The problem is that the values of the Founding Fathers are incoherent and not Catholic and inevitably led to the kind of chaos that Ron Paul claims he wants to stop.  As Albert Einstein said, insanity is doing the same thing twice and expecting different results.

I reply:
Interesting you would point this out, Raoul, since VOTING FOR THE SAME CORONATED NEOCONS IS INSANITY. There's obviously a reason they want Ron Paul ignored, and want people to dismiss him as unelectable. Perhaps because we're NOT doing what you Albert Einstein describes as "insanity?"

You said:
People who stump for Ron Paul and who try to get back to some kind of idealized America remind me of the communists who say "Oh, the system is good, it's just that the men like Stalin and Lenin blew it and got greedy."  They aren't seeing that, due to fallen human nature, communism CAN'T WORK, just like unfettered religious freedom based on the American model cannot work.  Both of them are enormous errors, and together, they have converged to create a world of lies.

I reply:
Raoul, I admit I am a purist, but to try to compare me to some kind of communist, because I am sick and tired of people doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting things to change, is just .... idiotic. The system is NOT good. I'm not even saying that the constitution is complete, but it's the best thing we have to try to stop the globalists  from spiraling us FULL FORCE into the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr. The nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr does not believe in the rights contained in the Constitution, which is evident from all the laws they've been passing over the years slowly whittling those rights down to nothing.

You said:
What holds together a nation based on religious freedom?  Money, as well as a spirit of rebellion against God's laws.  That is why Americans have worked against Catholic nations to spread our chaos, and that is why we ARE the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr personified.  Thinking Ron Paul will stop the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr is like thinking Christoper Hitchens will stop atheism.  It is just that paradoxical. He embodies the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr, but in a more seductive, classy way than a neo-con.

I reply:
Seriously, Raoul. So you're just basically telling us all, "Sit down and shut up. You're all a bunch of slaves, and you should just take whatever is coming," right? WHAT OTHER CHOICE DO WE HAVE OTHER THAN TO TRY TO WRITE IN "GREAT MONARCH" ON THE BALLOT?

You said:
PfT, you were talking in one post about the twisted code of morality of America, full of contradictions and completely arbitrary.  You are right.  Then you propose that people support Ron Paul, who is supporting no morality at all, the Wild West. What you're not seeing here is that the American twisted code of morality that has replaced the Catholic one, has replaced it because nature abhors a vaccuum.  Take away God's real laws, and humans are bound to create their own, in a feeble attempt to establish some semblance of law and order.  But it will not be real, it will be manmade.  And that is exactly what we have today -- arbitrary Wild West laws, and arbitrary, Wild West order, put together on the fly.  Ron Paul is proposing that we simply destroy everything that has been built up, restore everything to zero, so it can start all over again.  This is a nightmare vision -- not hope.

I reply:
Raoul, do you know anything about the drug trade? You should considering where you live. You must conceed that the strawman enforcement bodies we have are actually dealing the drugs and making an enormous amount of money off of all this, while throwing the people using the drugs in prison. Surely you don't advocate such a system? The only thing better than what Ron Paul is advocating, is a Catholic law forbidding the use of chemically compromised mind altering substances. But... as you know, we don't HAVE a Catholic government, so I'm looking at the next option, which is Ron Paul. You have something better to recommend? Because the system we have right now is NOT WORKING!

You said:
I also want everything to be brought low, but not so that America can have another chance to ruin the world.  No, the reset button must be pushed so that a Monarch will come and restore the Catholic state.  There Is No Alternative -- take that, Thatcher.  Jokes aside, though, there really is no alternative.

I reply:
Easy for someone that has no children to mold and form to say, Raoul. I used to be VERY involved in politics (like you were with the film industry, as I've gathered) and I got out of it, and supported "unpopular" people, on principle. I want as much time to work with my children to get them to heaven, and anything I can do to extend that just a little bit, I'm going to do. But don't paint me like some commie Americanist brainwashed chimera.

You claim:
Something else that should be mentioned after all this:  Ron Paul does not have a credible vision.  Just going out there and saying "We should end the Fed" is easy.  But what do you replace it with?  What does he propose the country should do without the Fed?  Because it was the Fed that created American industrial might, just as it is the debt from the Fed that will bring down American industrial might, as well as America itself.  But ending the Fed at this point will just accelerate the collapse; it won't restore anything.  It will not restore jobs, and it won't bring back the American dream, thank God, because that was anti-Christ to begin with.

I reply:
You've already said, Raoul, that there is NO ALTERNATIVE to the Monarch. So we just stay home and not vote in 2012. No thanks. I think pretty much everyone sees where you're going with this, and INACTION will not help things at all. Also, Ron Paul just put out a book called "End the Fed." Why don't you check it out? And if ending the fed DID accelerate the plans, THANK GOD. You really want to continue living like this? Slaves to a bunch of usurers, perverts and scuмbags that don't care about us at all? I say, we should send a message to these thugs that we're not going to be controlled.

I wonder what you would say if they tried to murder Ron Paul (or succeeded in doing so?) Would you eat your words? Would you say, "Meh he was bad anyway?" I wonder...

You said:
This man is a huge fraud. (And you instead said you meant that his "politics are a fraud")

I reply:
... What have you to give as an alternative? Nothing, except just wait for God to do His Business and intervene when He wants to, which could be another 100 years for all we know...

You said:
He is not even as realistic as Obama.

I reply:

 :roll-laugh1:  

Really? Funny, because he's been SAYING THE SAME THING FOR WHAT, 30 years while MOST PEOPLE JUST IGNORED HIM AND CALLED HIM CRAZY?

You quipped:
We are much too far into this game to just pull out now.  The whole engine of the world is funny money -- not just the Western world but the WORLD.  Ron Paul makes it sound like if you ended the Fed, you could just hand out gold nuggets on the street corner and the economy would just pick right up.  It's ridiculous.  

I reply:
How about reading his book "End the Fed?" I'm sure that's NOTHING like what he advocates. That comment comes from sheer ignorance and cynicism.

You said:
The Fed will end, make no mistake, but when it does, there is nothing in the foreseeable future to replace it with.  The collapse of the funny-money system will utterly destroy America and many other countries besides ( as per the Fatima prophecy ).  


I reply:
Which goes back to my original point. He's the best we've got right now. I mean, if we could go back and look at what kind of comments people were posting against Pat Buchanan when he ran, you would probably be lambasting him for going to Brigham Young University, calling him a SHILL and an ANTICATHOLIC and whatever else.

I don't even know why you get involved in these discussions at all if you think this way, Raoul. You could have summed up your whole position by saying,

"KNEEL DOWN AND PRAY THE ROSARY UNTIL THE GREAT MONARCH GETS HERE BECAUSE NOTHING ELSE IS GOING TO DO ANY GOOD!"

I think it requires SOME amount of action from us to try to stop what is happening, and not a defeatist attitude to just roll over and let it happen. I wonder what my 86 year old friend who died last year would say if I told her she should have just accepted the nαzι occupation of Poland because "they had it coming" and what good would it do to join the resistance.

Sorry, I think she would have spat in my face, the way she spat in that nαzι's face and almost got herself shot then and there.

I think Ron Paul has already done alot.  In a little period of time, he was able to legitimize his views enough for him to be credible a candidate and he is no longer viewed as a buffoon...  He may as well help reshape some of the core values of the Republicans which are currently in an effort to re-brand. However, his views are not shared by enough people and he will not get the nomination.

I am amused by comments to the effect that polls are tricked on the basis that "that's not what I see when I talk to people around me"...  the latter being of course only a reflection of the type of people a person hangs out and speak with, and not an overall national view.

But overall, I think you are doing good in your soapbox moment PFT, and doing a good job in defending the man and his ideal.  There is no need to add polls trickery though, which makes you look "crazy" and I'm sure that Ron Paul himself would tell you "tsk tsk tsk...".  That's the type of support he don't need if he ever wants to break out into a full blown front runner and not simply someone making an idea inch forward.

 
 

Sorry PFT, but Raoul (like the average person) is for throwing people in jail who use illegal drugs. I know this for a fact, considering his comment regarding roscoe a few months ago that any doctor who recommends marijuana is a quack. And I agree with him 100%.

Bottom line is, Ron Paul would be much better than Obama. However, I cannot get over the fact that he allows gαys in the military. The government should submit to the Church's teaching on gαy marriage and punish any gαy couple that tries to marry each other. But no, Paul insists on allowing them in the military.

Obviously there's no such thing as a perfect candidate, but you have to determine which one is the best. I do disagree with Raoul that Ron Paul supports the NWO. The man called Ben Bernanke (sorry not sure how to spell his last name, LOL) a dictator. At the same time, it would be hard to pass up on Sanctorum considering he's a semi-Trad, maybe even a full Traditional Catholic.

So, then, you voted for Pat Buchanan in 2000? Because what you're saying is that you are a purist, and have to vote for a trad (if he's really even a trad) over Ron Paul. If you didn't vote for Pat Buchanan (who IS a trad, and unapologetically so) then what was your excuse for voting for George W. Bush in 2000?