Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Politics and World Leaders => Topic started by: parentsfortruth on May 28, 2011, 10:12:46 AM
-
http://lewrockwell.com/orig12/westfall1.1.1.html
The War on Ron Paul
by Susan Westfall
Whether the media establishments want to admit it or not, and believe me they don't, Ron Paul IS the 'front runner' for the republican primary. Despite voracious denials and vitriolic arguments from almost every quarter to the contrary, he is the only one with a chance of shutting out Obama for the presidency in 2012. He appeals to all sides of the aisle, and is attracting the much sought after independent swing vote almost as fast as he has the youth of the nation. The Internet is indisputably Ron Paul country as countless polls and google trends have repeatedly shown. The gradual change in political rhetoric flowing out of Washington, D.C. over the last 3 years reflects an explosion of interest in the freedom message he spreads so tirelessly. The continuous growth in popularity of talk and news shows focusing on freedom and the Constitution broadcasts loud and clear the rising prominence of issues he has brought to the debate. For anyone with any powers of discernment, it's a no-brainer.
So why do media pundits, dime a dozen politicians, and innumerable experts of self-aggrandized consequence spend great swathes of time, effort, and someone's money working so hard to convince the people otherwise? You can't turn on a TV, pick up a paper or surf the Internet without encountering the words "He can't win," or some other lame variation repeated ad nauseam with great gusto. According to all the most acclaimed talking heads, that mythical beast "The Front Runner" has yet to be seen on the horizon and is still to arise from some unknown lair, "blazing a new trail" of GOP fame and success across political skies sometime in the not too distant future. Their blind adherence to this tired refrain boggles the mind. Personally, I can find only one reason for the constant repudiation...fear. Fear of the known...Ron Paul, and fear of the unknown...future largess. The status-quo is cornered and its biggest backers are flailing in desperation through media and political mouthpieces.
With decades of consistency on record as proof, it is well known by all in Washington that Ron Paul will not compromise his principles for money, power or personal gain. Ron Paul is simply...not for sale. Lobbyists for special interests have never been able to rent his vote. This is such an undisputed reality that they don't even darken the door of his congressional office. His opinion can not be leased by the highest bidder, nor his silence ensured through threats and coercion. He is a man who stands his ground, refusing to back down, flip-flop, or play the political game of corporate footsie that entangles so many on the Hill. This is the kind of strength America not just needs, but deep down hungers for in a president. America does not need a president with the strength to circuмvent law by executive order, ignore Congress and engage in needless conflicts, or break international and common law to achieve a victory. Those who stand to lose the most under a president who would not compromise the peoples' liberties, the Constitution or the rule of law for any reason are deathly afraid of Ron Paul.
If we apply Donald Rumsfeld's ludicrous scale of measurement, in use long before he popularized the phrase during his tenure as Secretary of Defense, then Ron Paul could aptly be termed a "known, known". Needless to say, much heated discussion has probably occurred in many a smoky back room about this unpleasant reality. Logic tells us that a good number of those rooms might even be located in the Pentagon. Ron Paul has never made a secret of the fact that he would like to: reduce military spending to that needed for defense only; bring the troops home from all foreign bases; and restore foreign affairs to a non-interventionist policy more befitting a Republic that purports to be the shining example of liberty. Accomplishing these goals would of course mean a vast reduction in the present size and budget of the military industrial complex and can be only a cause for apprehension in those quarters. If recent world events are any indication, the threat must be great indeed. In an unprecedented flurry of efficiency the military, under direction of Commander in Chief Obama, has recently not only rescued another country from tyrannical oppression, but tracked down and killed the world's worst terrorist, Osama Binladen, thus proving its undoubted worth and necessity. Unfortunately, the tyrant really isn't gone yet and no one can figure out exactly what happened with the bin laden operation. Nevertheless, we've been assured of the worthiness of our current pedal-to-the-metal monetary support for the military industrial complex. If we haven't then we're obviously unpatriotic and borderline terrorists ourselves.
Of course no one would actually dare accuse Ron Paul of being unpatriotic. They'd be laughed right off the media stage, no matter how lofty their perch. So the approach is made from a different angle. That of foreign aid. Dr. Paul has clearly stated on numerous occasions that he would cut foreign aid to all countries, not only because of our fiscal situation but also because he believes we should respect the sovereignty of all nations and not try to dictate their policies through bribes or bombs. Cutting foreign aid in and of itself does not seem to be a problem. Polls reflect that a majority of Americans support cuts to foreign aid. However, the idea of cutting all foreign aid brings on an instantaneous and seemingly mass hysteria with regards to Israel. If we dare to look past AIPAC and other lobbyist groups for answers which contain more rational ideas than the usual accusations of anti-semitism, unpatriotic betrayal, or abandonment of democratic friends, informative sources soon surface. In a report by John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt of University of Chicago and Harvard University respectively, the "special relationship" between the US and Israel is explained more fully. Surprisingly, the military complex appears to play a weighty role here as well. A brief look at some benefits specific to Israel include: retaining 25% of aid dollars to subsidize its own defense industry instead of spending 100% to subsidize the US defense industry as other countries must do; not having to account for how aid dollars are spent; and being provided " with nearly $3 billion to develop weapons systems like the Lavi aircraft that the Pentagon did not want or need." There is a plethora of information in just this one report that evidences the detrimental effects of the "special relationship" American taxpayers purchase annually with their foreign aid dollars with what would appear to be little or no benefit to themselves. Interestingly, there is growing evidence of a substantive support in Israel itself for an end to US foreign aid which is seen by many there as "an affront against Israeli liberty and sovereignty, as well as a drain on the development of numerous sectors of the Israeli economy, such as the weapons and biotechnology industries." Based on just the above facts it can be argued that perhaps it's time for the American people to debate the prudence of an industrial complex deciding our military decisions, instead of a decisive military defending our national borders.
Having hurled their verbal slings and arrows of foreign policy insanity and foreign aid abandonment, most pundits proceed to trot out the next big issue to be refuted...individual liberties. Of course they don't often mention those actual words, but delve deeply right to the perceived heart of the issue...heroin. Ron Paul wants to "legalize heroin" is touted gleefully to choruses of "and prostitution!" A round of smirks is the cue for visions of marauding bands of crazed, drug abusing prostitutes to begin dancing through the viewers' heads and scare them out of ever considering Ron Paul as a viable candidate for anything, much less republican party nominee. :roll-laugh1:A thinking person might wonder why the fascination and focus on heroin, other than for the shock value of course, whenever individual liberty is mentioned. "Protecting individual liberty," Ron Paul often explains, "is the purpose of all government. Individual liberty is the right to your life, the right to your property and the right to keep the fruits of your labor." With those two simple sentences and a clear constitutional understanding of what they actually mean in regards to federal government overreach, almost everything that the status quo fights to maintain is essentially negated. Is it any wonder the most inflammatory phrases are employed at every opportunity to derail the very idea?
No matter how much Washington, D.C. wishes to protect Americans from themselves, lift them out of poverty, provide for their well-being, or ensure their safety from dangerous products and enemies, it cannot do so without infringing on their individual liberties and violating the Constitution. The federal government we live with today no longer serves the interests of the American people, but serves the special interests of: corporate cronyism; militarism for profit influence and empire; centrally planned debt management, counterfeiting, fraud and currency debasement. Those who would maintain the status quo, despite its almost certain destructive end, are beginning to realize just how much they have underestimated the power of a quiet, consistent message of truth delivered to the people by a man of principle. A man who would be president not for the power he could wield over the people, but for the power he would give to the people by restoring their Republic. So war has been declared again, but this time the war is on liberty...and Ron Paul.
May 23, 2011
Susan Westfall is a mother, a libertarian, and an educator.
Copyright © 2011 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.
-
My vote will definitely come down to Ron Paul and Rick Sanctorum. Still undecided but I have another year and a half to make my decision.
-
If Ron Paul gained any significant popularity he would be not long for this world. I am going to pray for his conversion.
Ron and Rick are as different as night and day.
Rick has said sufficient prayers to his god, Zion and will be placed in office if the Obama is to be replaced which is not likely, yet.
No one can stop the zio-comms but our Lord God Himself.
-
The neat thing is that Ron Paul has traditional Catholics working in his office, last I heard. He has a lot better chance to convert than most politicians.
-
Something I recently heard is that Rick Sanctorum supports the Traditional Latin Mass. So he must be a Traditional Catholic, or a semi-Trad at the very least. Interesting.
-
Something I recently heard is that Rick Sanctorum supports the Traditional Latin Mass. So he must be a Traditional Catholic, or a semi-Trad at the very least. Interesting.
Yep, but he also believes in endless war with the Middle East. He really needs to look further at this disastrous position.
-
Yes, I agree that the wars with Iraq and Afghanistan are pointless. However, the difference between voting for a Protestant who wants to give freedom to everyone (even gαys) and voting for a Traditional/semi-Trad Catholic who is both anti-abortion and anti-gαy is a pretty clear difference. Both of them are overall good candidates who would oppose the NWO, it's just a matter of choosing which one would be better. I still haven't made my decision yet, as I need to see if Sanctorum would do away with the IRS and Board of Education like Ron Paul intends to do, but I'm definitely considering Sanctorum. We'll see who ends up impressing me more. Right now, I'm leaning towards Sanctorum. But again, I haven't made my decision yet...
-
Um, believing in murdering innocent people in Iraq and Afghanistan and continuing the NWO WAR on the middle east is NOT a Catholic position. Sending our boys over to foreign countries to fight a non-existent enemy, and pumping our boys with vaccines that give them "gulf war syndrome" and cause them to kill themselves is NOT a Catholic position.
Taking away so-called "hate" crimes is awesome because it is constitutional and goes with "equal protection under the law" as does every other position that Ron Paul espouses. Can you give me one position that Ron Paul has that is against the Constitution (THE Supreme law of the land?)?
You keep harping about the gαy thing, but he doesn't want to give anymore rights to the gαys than they already have. They have just as many rights as the citizens have, and no more. (AND he wants to eliminate HATE CRIMES which give gαys MORE protection under the law than the average citizen, so ...)
I don't hear Santorum wanting to get rid of hate crimes. I hear him supporting the policies of the neocons (read GLOBALISTS) regarding the war, which to me is more disturbing than legalizing drugs, and "allowing" gαys in the military.
Look, if gαys were allowed in the military, and the hate crimes would disappear, there would be a LOT LESS gαyS entering the military, until there were none, since there wouldn't be any EXTRA protections for them at all. If they got beaten the snot out of, the ones doing it would be treated the same as if they beat up a straight person. The policy now, ENABLES gαys to be as perverted as they want and have SPECIAL protections if someone was to beat them up. "You beat me up because I was gαy!" If hate crimes were eliminated, a gαy wouldn't be able to even USE that argument, thereby giving everyone, even the guy that beat him up, EQUAL PROTECTION, as it should be.
-
http://lewrockwell.com/orig12/westfall1.1.1.html
The War on Ron Paul
by Susan Westfall
Whether the media establishments want to admit it or not, and believe me they don't, Ron Paul IS the 'front runner' for the republican primary.
Except that he's not. The Media, the Jews and the Elites pick who runs for President not the people. And they will never let a Libertarian leaning sane guy run for President.
-
The latest "poll" has Mormon Mitt as a frontrunner. Even on the "conservative" websites, I can't find a handful of Mormon Mitt supporters. They're fabricating a lead that doesn't exist for him. I find far more Paul supporters all over the place. They're LYING to say that Ron Paul isn't leading.
-
Ron Paul is hard for me to support, why? He is for for random freedoms, "do whatever". Ok drugs...rampant, b.c rampant, whoring rampant. I like the Idea of destroying the FED, UN, NWO etc etc, but a by product of his philosophy is nearly a hedonistic free for all.
I still wait for a Catholic monarch.
-
Baskerville is right, they will never let Ron Paul or any other tea party member reach the final Republican spot. And even if Paul were to somehow get in, they'd kill him once he tried to do away with the NWO. They will not let anyone get in their way. They are very sick people and worship lucifer.
I must agree with TraceG anyway. Ron Paul's position doesn't completely match what a Traditional Catholic would want in a candidate. None of these candidates do come to think of it, but it doesn't matter anyway because they'll never let him make it to the final spot.
-
Taking away so-called "hate" crimes is awesome because it is constitutional and goes with "equal protection under the law" as does every other position that Ron Paul espouses. Can you give me one position that Ron Paul has that is against the Constitution (THE Supreme law of the land?)?
You keep harping about the gαy thing, but he doesn't want to give anymore rights to the gαys than they already have. They have just as many rights as the citizens have, and no more. (AND he wants to eliminate HATE CRIMES which give gαys MORE protection under the law than the average citizen, so ...)
I don't hear Santorum wanting to get rid of hate crimes. I hear him supporting the policies of the neocons (read GLOBALISTS) regarding the war, which to me is more disturbing than legalizing drugs, and "allowing" gαys in the military.
Look, if gαys were allowed in the military, and the hate crimes would disappear, there would be a LOT LESS gαyS entering the military, until there were none, since there wouldn't be any EXTRA protections for them at all. If they got beaten the snot out of, the ones doing it would be treated the same as if they beat up a straight person. The policy now, ENABLES gαys to be as perverted as they want and have SPECIAL protections if someone was to beat them up. "You beat me up because I was gαy!" If hate crimes were eliminated, a gαy wouldn't be able to even USE that argument, thereby giving everyone, even the guy that beat him up, EQUAL PROTECTION, as it should be.
Sanctorum is anti-gαy. Why wouldn't he take hate crimes away? There's a difference between taking hate crimes away but not making gαy marriage illegal like it should be (Ron Paul's stance) and actually getting to the root of the problem by doing away with gαy marriage (Rick Sanctorum's stance). Anyway, you're missing my point. I never said I had committed to either candidate. Both are good candidates who would make a good President. But it will probably end up being Mitt Romney or that african-american guy (what's his name, Hermain Cain?) that gets the final Repub spot.
-
Ron Paul is hard for me to support, why? He is for for random freedoms, "do whatever". Ok drugs...rampant, b.c rampant, whoring rampant. I like the Idea of destroying the FED, UN, NWO etc etc, but a by product of his philosophy is nearly a hedonistic free for all.
I still wait for a Catholic monarch.
We have to look at the big picture. Under libertarianism our Catholic religion could grow unfettered. We could have Catholic practicing areas....a freedom of association that could not be trumped. The ACLU would be off our backs. The federal reserve could loose power to create financial crisis for us. We would have LESS government meddling.
But like PFT and SS say, they won't let him win. Besides I don't think that modern-styled 'conservatives' can tolerate his pro-legaliization stances.
Mitt is a has been (and a globalist neo-con, which is the status quo to date) but stay alert, Herman Cain is going to be on the fox propaganda network tonight.
:smirk:
-
Ron Paul is hard for me to support, why? He is for for random freedoms, "do whatever". Ok drugs...rampant, b.c rampant, whoring rampant. I like the Idea of destroying the FED, UN, NWO etc etc, but a by product of his philosophy is nearly a hedonistic free for all.
I still wait for a Catholic monarch.
And you think with all these laws we have now that the government is doing a good job of REGULATING the behavior of people? I say get rid of these laws, that are either barely being enforced, or being enforced to the extreme, while the really HUGE problems that are leading people to behave this way in the first place are ignored, and people focus on some non-existent "moral code."
What do I mean by that? You have all these neoCONS running for president, and they all have a nice little song. They say things like, "I won't let gαys in the military," but in the same breath they talk about "MUSLIMS ARE BAD AND WE MUST CONTINUE FIGHTING TERRORISTS!" thereby justifying the slaughter of millions of people in the Middle East on OUR DIME! They say, "I think we should lower taxes" et cetera, but then they talk about how it's so great that our airports are so secure, that the government can tap our phones and emails, and how the TSA should be able to continue to grope little children and old people, and NON MUSLIMS in the name of "not being a racist." So, they discard the Constitution citing "security" as some red herring, to change it to say, "GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT."
They SAY they're for the "drug war" but they don't even say anything about sealing up the border, and BRINGING OUR TROOPS HOME to actually DEFEND our country from FOREIGN INVADERS while they want to send our troops over to the Middle East, and KEEP them over there indefinitely, while we are pillaged and stolen from within.
They talk a good talk about "pro life" yet, they make exceptions to that, saying "in cases of the life of the mother" or "rape" or "incest," as if God put a child there by accident and the lives of these are not really lives at all. You have flip floppery going on with all of the neocons. Mitt Romney was an avowed "pro choicer" and when it was politically expedient for him, he changed his position.
One thing you can NOT say about Ron Paul is that he's not consistent. He's delivered 5,000 babies, and revealed to us all years ago when the so-called "partial birth abortion ban" went out that, "This bill isn't going to save one baby," while all the sanctimonious "pro life" republicans hailed it as a victory and took bragging rights for it. Usury is a sin, and it's actually a sin that's keeping us in bondage in this country. I don't see Hermain Cain't talking about getting rid of the banks (because he used to work for the biggest criminal bank in the world). I don't see Mitt Romney talking about getting rid of the banks (because he is a Wall Street buddy) and neither is Pawlenty (who is ALSO friendly with the crooks on Wall Street.)
I don't see the candidates talking about removing sex ed from the schools, but if Ron Paul had his way, the LOCALS would be taking care of the schools, as they should, rather than the FEDS.
Sure, people are not always going to make the RIGHT decision, but isn't that what free will is? At least give the people an opportunity to USE their free will to do the right thing. Isn't that what this country is about? Being FREE to do the right thing or not? The way these socialists on BOTH SIDES are trying to orchestrate things, is that THEY have TOTAL CONTROL over everything we do, from buying raw milk, to taking our biometric identification to put into our IDs when we've done nothing wrong. (That's what it's coming to.)
If you want the government to keep gaining control over your lives, then fine, vote for someone who is going to keep impinging on that. I'm not going to do it. I haven't done it the entire time I've been of voting age. I didn't vote for Bush either time. I didn't vote for Bob Dole. I didn't vote for John McInsane. No one could scare me out of voting for someone who actually had my best interests in mind. Some corporate stooge or big bank can buy a major party candidate if they get the nod very easily, but Ron Paul won't be purchased. His obligation is to the American people, and not some puppetmasters in the background. If he gets the nomination, we'd better pray that he's not murdered by some scuмbag for the banks.
I would love to be convinced to vote for anyone else, but so far no one has been able to do so. The entire rest of the field of republicans have major flaws in their positions, that I couldn't possibly support.
Sure, some of the things that Ron Paul advocates, might seem unsavory, but if you investigate his reasoning, it is very logical and totally jives with the Constitution, and I'd rather support those "unsavory" positions than support someone else that is advocating the opposite, yet their positions on everything else are HORRIBLE.
-
Taking away so-called "hate" crimes is awesome because it is constitutional and goes with "equal protection under the law" as does every other position that Ron Paul espouses. Can you give me one position that Ron Paul has that is against the Constitution (THE Supreme law of the land?)?
You keep harping about the gαy thing, but he doesn't want to give anymore rights to the gαys than they already have. They have just as many rights as the citizens have, and no more. (AND he wants to eliminate HATE CRIMES which give gαys MORE protection under the law than the average citizen, so ...)
I don't hear Santorum wanting to get rid of hate crimes. I hear him supporting the policies of the neocons (read GLOBALISTS) regarding the war, which to me is more disturbing than legalizing drugs, and "allowing" gαys in the military.
Look, if gαys were allowed in the military, and the hate crimes would disappear, there would be a LOT LESS gαyS entering the military, until there were none, since there wouldn't be any EXTRA protections for them at all. If they got beaten the snot out of, the ones doing it would be treated the same as if they beat up a straight person. The policy now, ENABLES gαys to be as perverted as they want and have SPECIAL protections if someone was to beat them up. "You beat me up because I was gαy!" If hate crimes were eliminated, a gαy wouldn't be able to even USE that argument, thereby giving everyone, even the guy that beat him up, EQUAL PROTECTION, as it should be.
Sanctorum is anti-gαy. Why wouldn't he take hate crimes away? There's a difference between taking hate crimes away but not making gαy marriage illegal like it should be (Ron Paul's stance) and actually getting to the root of the problem by doing away with gαy marriage (Rick Sanctorum's stance). Anyway, you're missing my point. I never said I had committed to either candidate. Both are good candidates who would make a good President. But it will probably end up being Mitt Romney or that african-american guy (what's his name, Hermain Cain?) that gets the final Repub spot.
Do you think that it's the job of the government to define marriage? I think Leo XIII aptly put it when he said this:
17. Now, since the family and human society at large spring from marriage, these men will on no account allow matrimony to be the subject of the jurisdiction of the Church. Nay, they endeavor to deprive it of all holiness, and so bring it within the contracted sphere of those rights which, having been instituted by man, are ruled and administered by the civil jurisprudence of the community. Wherefore it necessarily follows that they attribute all power over marriage to civil rulers, and allow none whatever to the Church; and, when the Church exercises any such power, they think that she acts either by favor of the civil authority or to its injury. Now is the time, they say, for the heads of the State to vindicate their rights unflinchingly, and to do their best to settle all that relates to marriage according as to them seems good.
You can read the whole thing here: http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13cmr.htm
It seems to me, that Ron Paul is on the side of the CHURCH in this matter. The GOVERNMENT has NO BUSINESS IN MARRIAGE AT ALL. That's up to the Church!
-
Mitt Romney Supports the Fed:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Np3B3YcmFg4
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
parentsfortruth 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? "
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. 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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
This man is a huge fraud. He is not even as realistic as Obama. 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. 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 ).
-
Correction: I shouldn't say "the man is a fraud" but rather his politics are a fraud.
-
Overall I agree with you Raoul. And yeah, I mant the government should enforce the Church's teachings on gαy marriage.
Just out of curiosity Raoul, who would you say is the best Republican candidate as of right now?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 promis 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 use. They are anathema. Some are even actually satan in bodiy 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.
-
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?
-
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.
What is "polls trickery?"
-
What is "polls trickery?"
:laugh1:
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.
-
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.
-
What is "polls trickery?"
:laugh1:
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.
-
What is "polls trickery?"
:laugh1:
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.
-
What is "polls trickery?"
:laugh1:
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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)
-
Rick Santorum
Certified
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c8/Oulogob.svg/120px-Oulogob.svg.png)
-
LOL Good one Darcy! :pop:
-
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.
-
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.
-
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."
-
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.
-
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.
-
You have Santorum saying that we should support Israel with foreign aid.
RANT ALERT
I remember in high school one of the reasons given for support for that state was because it's "the only democracy in the Middle East."
What does that have to do with anything, how does that concern our own national security?
With the (endless) War on Terror we're now supposedly tackling terrorism "over there" so we don't deal with it here; while at the same time bringing democracy to the Middle East.
If an estimated 11 million undocuмented people have entered the U.S. how many of those could possibly be terrorists?
If Juanita, Jose & the kids can waltz across our border, searching for a better life, why can't Achmed and his jolly band of terrorists do the same for their own intents? That's why I find the War on Terror to be such a sham.
9/11, no plane hit tower 7, yet it collapsed due to debris from the other two towers or fires, perhaps both? What crap!
John McCain was all for having U.S. troops stationed in Iraq for over 100 years, I'm damn glad he didn't win.
Saddam turns out never had WMD's, what a "whoops" moment. Now supposedly Iran may have WMD's or at least the means to manufacture them.
Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.
Fourteen trillion dollars in debt and rising, and we're doling out the dough for other countries while we have our own tent cities.