Author Topic: Ron Paul-- Not for sale (Read 6396 times)

Vandaler · « **Reply #30 on:** June 10, 2011, 11:06:04 AM »

Quote from: parentsfortruth

What is "polls trickery?"

My English is worsening... I don't know.

I meant to say that calling polls having Romney ahead, "fixed" and not true, smacks with loser attitude and it's not productive. But don't get to distracted by that critic. I like that your taking a position and defending it.

Darcy · « **Reply #31 on:** June 10, 2011, 11:12:17 AM »

Quote from: Darcy

We can not pretend we are going to get a silk purse out of the sow's ears that are the neo-con republicans. Even if they promise to their last day to put :smoke-pot: in jail!! and throw away the key!!

They are not true "conservatives".
This system is too corrupted because of the unholy alliance of the fed (not federally owned) reserve system and wall street. All run by people who are the living embodiment of the anti-Catholic. They are diametrically opposed to us. They are anathema. Some are even actually satan in bodily form.

Only Ron Paul wants to eliminate their power structure. The other person who wanted to do that was JFK, may he rest in peace.

I must correct my typos as I was interrupted before I could review and the cement had dried.

parentsfortruth · « **Reply #32 on:** June 10, 2011, 11:27:39 AM »

Quote from: Vandaler

Quote from: parentsfortruth
What is "polls trickery?"

My English is worsening... I don't know.

I meant to say that calling polls having Romney ahead, "fixed" and not true, smacks with loser attitude and it's not productive. But don't get to distracted by that critic. I like that your taking a position and defending it.

:) Van, you wanna see a poll where Romney was ahead by like 6000 votes, and the next day, he's neck and neck with Ron Paul?

http://strawpolls.info/2012-gop-poll/poll/results.php?pollid=1

Here's a "Fox News" poll that put NUT GINGRICH (who is pretty much out now, if you've heard) AHEAD of Ron Paul by at least 2%?

You seriously believe this? Any reasonable person who keeps up with this stuff KNOWS DARN WELL it's bunk!

http://www.foxnews.com/interactive/us/2011/06/08/obama-approval-drops-romney-tops-gop-preference/

There is ABSOLUTELY NO LEGITIMATE POLL that would show Gingrich ahead of Paul.

Vandaler · « **Reply #33 on:** June 10, 2011, 12:26:25 PM »

Quote from: parentsfortruth

Quote from: Vandaler
Quote from: parentsfortruth
What is "polls trickery?"

My English is worsening... I don't know.

I meant to say that calling polls having Romney ahead, "fixed" and not true, smacks with loser attitude and it's not productive. But don't get to distracted by that critic. I like that your taking a position and defending it.

:) Van, you wanna see a poll where Romney was ahead by like 6000 votes, and the next day, he's neck and neck with Ron Paul?

http://strawpolls.info/2012-gop-poll/poll/results.php?pollid=1

Here's a "Fox News" poll that put NUT GINGRICH (who is pretty much out now, if you've heard) AHEAD of Ron Paul by at least 2%?

You seriously believe this? Any reasonable person who keeps up with this stuff KNOWS DARN WELL it's bunk!

http://www.foxnews.com/interactive/us/2011/06/08/obama-approval-drops-romney-tops-gop-preference/

There is ABSOLUTELY NO LEGITIMATE POLL that would show Gingrich ahead of Paul.

Well, strawpolls are to be taken with a grain of salt, since they are usually taken during events and those events can be packed with an unusually large numbers of supporters for a candidate which is not representative to the national mood.
They are good to read the mood of a particular evening , in a particular venue though, and thus still have some usefulness.

As for Gingrich and his numbers, well, the polls your showing me was taken between the 5-7 of June, before the implosion of his organisation so I see no reasons to doubt the results, which are probably outdated.

parentsfortruth · « **Reply #34 on:** June 10, 2011, 12:30:59 PM »

Quote from: Vandaler

Quote from: parentsfortruth
Quote from: Vandaler
Quote from: parentsfortruth
What is "polls trickery?"

My English is worsening... I don't know.

I meant to say that calling polls having Romney ahead, "fixed" and not true, smacks with loser attitude and it's not productive. But don't get to distracted by that critic. I like that your taking a position and defending it.

:) Van, you wanna see a poll where Romney was ahead by like 6000 votes, and the next day, he's neck and neck with Ron Paul?

http://strawpolls.info/2012-gop-poll/poll/results.php?pollid=1

Here's a "Fox News" poll that put NUT GINGRICH (who is pretty much out now, if you've heard) AHEAD of Ron Paul by at least 2%?

You seriously believe this? Any reasonable person who keeps up with this stuff KNOWS DARN WELL it's bunk!

http://www.foxnews.com/interactive/us/2011/06/08/obama-approval-drops-romney-tops-gop-preference/

There is ABSOLUTELY NO LEGITIMATE POLL that would show Gingrich ahead of Paul.

Well, strawpolls are to be taken with a grain of salt, since they are usually taken during events and those events can be packed with an unusually large numbers of supporters for a candidate which is not representative to the national mood.
They are good to read the mood of a particular evening , in a particular venue though, and thus still have some usefulness.

As for Gingrich and his numbers, well, the polls your showing me was taken between the 5-7 of June, before the implosion of his organisation so I see no reasons to doubt the results, which are probably outdated.

So in one breath you talk about "poll trickery" and I'm a "crazy" or whatever, and now you say "straw polls are taken with a grain of salt." Dude, I'm sick of you're double sided smack talk. GOODBYE.

Vandaler · « **Reply #35 on:** June 10, 2011, 12:41:09 PM »

Quote from: parentsfortruth

So in one breath you talk about "poll trickery" and I'm a "crazy" or whatever, and now you say "straw polls are taken with a grain of salt." Dude, I'm sick of you're double sided smack talk. GOODBYE.

Polls are only as good as their methodologies and the questions that they ask.
Strawpolls are the worse yes. It's not what I say, it's common knowledge.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #36 on:** June 10, 2011, 03:58:27 PM »

Quote from: parentsfortruth

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus
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?

I wasn't old enough to vote in 2000. And I didn't say I'm a purist. I just like Sanctorum better than Paul. Simple as that. I don't like George Bush, he's a neo-con and Freemason.

parentsfortruth · « **Reply #37 on:** June 10, 2011, 05:28:23 PM »

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

Quote from: parentsfortruth
Quote from: SpiritusSanctus
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?

I wasn't old enough to vote in 2000. And I didn't say I'm a purist. I just like Sanctorum better than Paul. Simple as that. I don't like George Bush, he's a neo-con and Freemason.

Fair enough. But Rick Santorum MAKES EXCEPTIONS to abortion of RAPE AND INCEST which is something I WILL NOT SUPPORT!

Exception for rape & incest ok, even though they take a life. (Sep 2006)

Ron Paul believes life begins at conception, and the only record he has of voting for ANY "exception" was that bill that said "except in the case of the life of the mother" which would have meant either a yes or no vote, and there was no alternative bill giving NO exceptions.

Ron Paul voted YES ban gαys from adopting children in DC. Rick Santorum doesn't have that on his record.

Voted YES on banning gαy adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)

Ron Paul doesn't believe in these "trade agreements" but Rick Santorum has 100% YES VOTING RECORD on all of them!

Voted YES on free trade agreement with Oman. (Jun 2006)
Voted YES on implementing CAFTA for Central America free-trade. (Jul 2005)
Voted YES on establishing free trade between US & Singapore. (Jul 2003)
Voted YES on establishing free trade between the US and Chile. (Jul 2003)
Voted YES on extending free trade to Andean nations. (May 2002)
Voted YES on granting normal trade relations status to Vietnam. (Oct 2001)
Voted YES on removing common goods from national security export rules. (Sep 2001)
Voted YES on permanent normal trade relations with China. (Sep 2000)
Voted YES on expanding trade to the third world. (May 2000)
Voted YES on renewing 'fast track' presidential trade authority. (Nov 1997)
Voted YES on imposing trade sanctions on Japan for closed market. (May 1995)

Let's see Ron Paul's record and statements!

Free trade agreements threaten national sovereignty. (Apr 2008)
FactCheck: NAFTA Superhighway not a conspiracy; it’s I-35. (Feb 2008)
Look at the monetary system and deal with the trade issues. (Dec 2007)
Block international highway from Canada to Mexico. (Dec 2007)
No North American Union; no WTO; no UN. (Sep 2007)
Inappropriate to impose sanctions for persecuting Christians. (Sep 2007)
China trade not contingent on human rights & product safety. (Sep 2007)
No NAFTA Superhighway from Canada to Mexico. (Sep 2007)
NAFTA superhighway threatens widespread eminent domain. (Sep 2007)
IMF empowers politicians by causing inflation. (Dec 1981)
Allow Americans to own gold; end large-scale foreign sales. (Dec 1981)
Voted NO on promoting free trade with Peru. (Nov 2007)
Voted NO on implementing CAFTA, Central America Free Trade. (Jul 2005)
Voted NO on implementing US-Australia Free Trade Agreement. (Jul 2004)
Voted NO on implementing US-Singapore free trade agreement. (Jul 2003)
Voted NO on implementing free trade agreement with Chile. (Jul 2003)
Voted YES on withdrawing from the WTO. (Jun 2000)
Voted NO on 'Fast Track' authority for trade agreements. (Sep 1998)
No restrictions on import/export; but maintain sovereignty . (Dec 2000)
End economic protectionism: let dairy compacts expire . (Aug 2001)
Block NAFTA Superhighway & North American Union. (Jan 2007)

Rick Santorum voted YES to extend the so-called "Patriot" Act. Ron Paul? NO!

There are so many issues here, and you can look at them yourself.

http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/rick_santorum.htm
http://www.ontheissues.org/ron_paul.htm

Put them side by side, and you'll see that Ron Paul is LEAGUES above Rick Santorum as far as reality goes.

ROFL Priceless comment from Rick Santorum on your Freemason Friend George Bush.

"I agree with Bush 98% of the time, but I say when I don’t." (Sep 2006)
"My Iraq plan, and my opponent’s plan, is same as Bush’s." (Sep 2006)

:scratchchin:

Rummy is awesome, says Santorum:

Iraq: "We have a great game plan, and Rumsfeld does fine job." (Sep 2006)

Darcy · « **Reply #38 on:** June 10, 2011, 07:20:40 PM »

Rick Santorum
Certified

parentsfortruth · « **Reply #39 on:** June 10, 2011, 07:23:18 PM »

LOL Good one Darcy! :pop:

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #40 on:** June 10, 2011, 09:24:32 PM »

All those quotes you posted from Santorum were in 2006 or earlier. Same goes for those votes he made. He has changed in the past few years. He may still be for the war in Iraq, but there's no such thing as a perfect candidate. And George Bush is not my friend. Again, I have yet to decide between Ron Paul and Rick Sanctorum. I think Raoul was wrong when he said Ron Paul wouldn't oppose the NWO. Most of his other points were right, but that I disagree with. There's no need to debate with me on this subject because I never said I wouldn't vote for Ron Paul.

parentsfortruth · « **Reply #41 on:** June 10, 2011, 10:13:54 PM »

Personally, the big one for me is this so-called "free trade" problem. It's not "free trade" and Ron Paul recognizes that. But Rick Santorum is going right with the globalists when it comes to that, in lock step. "Trade" is a code word for "compartmentalization" of countries into larger bodies.

We see this with the Asian Union, the African Union, and the European Union, and if Rick has his way, it will also be the American Union.

parentsfortruth · « **Reply #42 on:** June 11, 2011, 12:33:07 PM »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_z0vC6rQv4&feature=player_embedded#at=332

I think this is something people should pay attention to that Ron Paul said at a "Faith and Freedom" Conference.

"Morality has a lot to do with legislation. We don't have abortions today because the law permits it. That's made it worse, but the law accommodated the social changes that occurred. It was the breakdown of our social system at that time (talking about the 1960s.) The war had something to do with it, the drug culture had something to do with it, and of course this move towards making live so careless and accepting the notion of abortion. But during this period of time, there was a rejection of the family as well. It started off, and the statistics came out, and they started to show that minorities were having more babies out of wedlock, but now it's cultural, I mean, it is getting to be epidemic, that the family values and the families have broken down, and this is where our real problems come from.

We would like to think all we have to do is elect the right politicians and everything is going to be okay. But believe me. The government is a reflection of the people, and that's why the burden is on people like YOU to make sure that we have those values."

Here's another thing he said:

"The king's (president's) time has run out, and guess who you're going to have to depend on? You're going to have to depend on YOURSELF, your FAMILY, your FRIENDS, your NEIGHBORS, and your CHURCH to be prepared."

This too:

"I, at times, when I think about what we need to do, everybody that wants to tell you what you have to do, is you have to sacrifice. Well, you know what? I don't tell the people I talk to 'That's up to you. YOU have to sacrifice.' You might have to go to work and take care of yourself, but what would it be like if you had less regulation, NO INCOME TAX, and sound money? That's not a sacrifice, that means you can take care of yourself a lot EASIER! The people that oughta be sacrificing are the people who ripped us off in the building up of the bubble (THE BANKS), and we went and bailed them out and they're making BIG BUCKS again, and the people who are suffering are the middle class. They lost their jobs, they lost their mortgages, they lost their houses. A moral society would not let that happen."

And then this last thing:

"We need to understand why the family is the bedrock, the educational should be through the family and the CHURCH. We should be promoting homeschooling and private schooling and NOT DEPENDING ON OUR PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM."

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #43 on:** June 11, 2011, 03:31:49 PM »

I agree with Ron Paul there. Again, my vote will come down to him and Sanctorum. I haven't made my decision yet, but I will carefully consider both candidates.

parentsfortruth · « **Reply #44 on:** June 12, 2011, 10:34:34 PM »

It's really a no-brainer when you consider the Israel thing.

You have Santorum saying that we should support Israel with foreign aid.

You have Paul saying that we should NOT support ANY country at all with foreign aid.

Who's right?

I'll let you decide.