Ron Paul Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
rlg94086 said:
Ironic. The only political group I hear talking about their leader as a political savior are Ron Paul supporters. 🤷
Click to expand...
Well yes in a way Ron Paul is viewed as a savior. But there is a point, that I dont think is so subtle, but that is apparently missed. The difference is that Ron Paul does not believe he is omnipotent. He does not believe if only he ran things exactly the way he thinks they should be run will everything be perfect. He does not believe he alone can solve the problems. He believes the solutions come from the people. So he is a savior only in that he recognizes he will fail if he attempts to rule with great power and pride. He is a savior in his humility. He is a political savior in that he rejects the power the other men aspire for.

From the SC CNN debate.

Romney:
This – this – this president is biggest impediment to job growth in this country, and we have to replace Barack Obama to get America working again.
Click to expand...
Santorum:
Because you have the Democratic Party and Barack Obama, and all he wants to do is make them more dependent, give them more food stamps, give them more Medicaid…
This is what the answer is for the economic squalor that Barack Obama has visited on working men and women in this country, and it’s creating more government programs and getting them more dependent on those programs.
Click to expand...
Gingrich:
It is imperative that we defeat Barack Obama. This is, I believe, the most dangerous president of our lifetime, and if he is reelected, after the disaster he has been, the level of radicalism of his second term will be truly frightening.
Click to expand...
Paul:
So the morality of the country changed, but then the law followed up. When the morality changed, it will – reflects on the laws. The law is very important. We should have these laws. But law will not correct the basic problem, and that’s the morality of the people that we must do.
Click to expand...
source

So the other three insist the problem is Barack Obama and with them as president the world becomes a brighter, happier, better place. They present themselves as saviors from the evil Barrack Obama. Only Ron Paul has any hint of Christian Faith in his message. He realizes that in a democracy the law comes from the people, a fallen people. He realizes the government can not solve every or even most problems. He realizes you must change hearts and minds and doesn’t believe there is a power to transform the nation through law that he can wield as president.
 
exnihilo said:
Exactly. I’ve asked people who criticize Dr. Paul to explain to me what their candidate is going to do to end abortion.

The president cant defund anything and the president cant end abortion. I’ve asked people who complain about Dr. Paul regarding abortion to explain to me what any Republican is going to do to end abortion. They’ve ignored the question.
Click to expand...
Please. You sound like a broken record. I can tell you what a Romney, a Gingrich or a Santorum would do: they’d nominate justices who are contructionist - in the mold of a Scalia, Roberts or Alito. The political reality is unless we overturn Roe V Wade, there isn’t much we can do to seriously reform our abortion laws. That is not ignoring the question, its simply having a different opinion on the issue. You may not like the opinion, but don’t fabricate nonsense like " they’ve ignored the question."
exnihilo said:
Since Republican courts created and sustained the right to abortion and previous Republican presidents and Congresses did not end abortion I’m confused as to what tactic a president could use?
Click to expand...
How utterly misleading and disengenuous. You take what justices did 40 years ago who were nominated to the bench even earlier - two by Dwight Eisenhower - and use it to imply that the modern GOP is not pro-life. Also, you fail to mention that Democrats systematically opposed efforts by the Republicans to nominate good justices. Did you ever think to criticize the Democrats and the catholics who supported their efforts to thwart GOP pro-life efforts?
exnihilo said:
I’ve not heard of any novel strategies from the other candidates. Dr. Paul would have Congress remove the power of the Supreme Court to rule regarding abortion. That at least has not been tried (for instance during the Bush years when the controlled Congress).
Click to expand...
Then why isn’t that pie-in-the-sky strategy embraced by pro-life groups? Are they incincere (as some shamefully allege) or are they just stupid?
exnihilo said:
Rather than wasting time trying to get a politician elected Christians should be supporting the Church and her mission.
Click to expand...
If you really believe that then why do you waste your time trying to get Ron Paul elected?

Ishii
 
exnihilo said:
Well yes in a way Ron Paul is viewed as a savior. But there is a point, that I dont think is so subtle, but that is apparently missed. The difference is that Ron Paul does not believe he is omnipotent. He does not believe if only he ran things exactly the way he thinks they should be run will everything be perfect. He does not believe he alone can solve the problems. He believes the solutions come from the people. So he is a savior only in that he recognizes he will fail if he attempts to rule with great power and pride. He is a savior in his humility. He is a political savior in that he rejects the power the other men aspire for.
Click to expand...
Thank you for your honesty. You put an inordinate amount of faith in the man IMO.
exnihilo said:
So the other three insist the problem is Barack Obama and with them as president the world becomes a brighter, happier, better place. They present themselves as saviors from the evil Barrack Obama. Only Ron Paul has any hint of Christian Faith in his message. He realizes that in a democracy the law comes from the people, a fallen people. He realizes the government can not solve every or even most problems. He realizes you must change hearts and minds and doesn’t believe there is a power to transform the nation through law that he can wield as president.
Click to expand...
No, they haven’t presented themselves as saviors, just a better political option. I happen to agree with them…and, I agree with much of what Ron Paul says. I just don’t think he is the man to get it done.
 
Please everyone, listen to this short video that Tom Woods (Author, EWTN host, Harvard & Columbia graduate) made about this election cycle and Ron Paul vs. Rick Santorum. It seems like the conversation here is deteriorating. This guy is one of our best and brightest, at least consider with an open mind and debate the substantive points.

youtube.com/watch?v=cu2xaEd2cmU
 
exnihilo said:
Well yes in a way Ron Paul is viewed as a savior. But there is a point, that I dont think is so subtle, but that is apparently missed. The difference is that Ron Paul does not believe he is omnipotent. He does not believe if only he ran things exactly the way he thinks they should be run will everything be perfect. He does not believe he alone can solve the problems. He believes the solutions come from the people. So he is a savior only in that he recognizes he will fail if he attempts to rule with great power and pride. He is a savior in his humility. He is a political savior in that he rejects the power the other men aspire for.
Click to expand...
YAHOOO!

That’s right on the mark man! The thing is that Ron realizes that he as one man can’t CHANGE anything, like Obama claimed to be able to! It’s most important to Dr. Paul that we as American citizenz become more responsible and work together to clean up the mess!
 
JustaServant said:
Not sure how old you are, but I remember in the early days of the pro-life movement (late 70s, early 80s) the state-by-state solution was considered viable. Now it isn’t. And politicians who recomend it are now considered weak on the abortion issue. That makes me wonder about the sincerity of certain pro-life groups.
Click to expand...
Old enough to remember. For a while there was an emphasis on statewide elections in anticipation of overturning Roe so that the right people would be in place to act locally.
 
ishii said:
Definitely voter fraud from the lefty Democrats. I don’t, however, think there is a conspiracy against Ron Paul - there didn’t need to be as he had no chance of winning anyway.

Ishii
Click to expand...
Good point.
 
rlg94086 said:
I have plenty of other reasons not to vote for Dr. Paul, but his unelectability is one of the factors.
Click to expand...
What do you mean unelectable? He’s tied with Romney in a hypothetical match up vs Obama. Santorum & Gingrich are at the bottom due to not getting independents. Where do you get your information from?
 
ishii said:
Definitely voter fraud from the lefty Democrats. I don’t, however, think there is a conspiracy against Ron Paul - there didn’t need to be as he had no chance of winning anyway.

Ishii
Click to expand...
He had no chance of winning Iowa?

How many delegates did they each get?
 
sharptiger999 said:
What do you mean unelectable? He’s tied with Romney in a hypothetical match up vs Obama. Santorum & Gingrich are at the bottom due to not getting independents. Where do you get your information from?
Click to expand...
He’s unelectable because there is too much ignorance of the truth out there.

Everyone has been led to believe by the military industrial complex that we must continue our military bombardment of foreign countries for your safety, regardless of the fact that your safety is being compromised even more so by the fact that the country can not afford to continue it’s ways anymore.

bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-23/republican-security-advisers-tied-to-40-billion-in-contracts.html

Our foreign policy will change, whether they like it or not, whether Ron Paul is elected or not, whether all the evil guys around the world are blown up or not.

He’s unelectable because they believe he blames America first…

That coming from the folks who don’t trust government enough to handle domestic issues, but if you dare question their trust for government on foreign issues it’s un-American. I don’t understand how that works entirely, to me it seems that they are in the same tent with liberals fighting over the same damn camel. The argument seems to be which end they want in the tent, the one that eats everything or the one that stinks. I’m not sure which end the conservatives have though.
 
bbarrick8383 said:
He’s unelectable because there is too much ignorance of the truth out there.

Everyone has been led to believe by the military industrial complex that we must continue our military bombardment of foreign countries for your safety, regardless of the fact that your safety is being compromised even more so by the fact that the country can not afford to continue it’s ways anymore.

bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-23/republican-security-advisers-tied-to-40-billion-in-contracts.html

Our foreign policy will change, whether they like it or not, whether Ron Paul is elected or not, whether all the evil guys around the world are blown up or not.

He’s unelectable because they believe he blames America first…

That coming from the folks who don’t trust government enough to handle domestic issues, but if you dare question their trust for government on foreign issues it’s un-American. I don’t understand how that works entirely, to me it seems that they are in the same tent with liberals fighting over the same damn camel. The argument seems to be which end they want in the tent, the one that eats everything or the one that stinks. I’m not sure which end the conservatives have though.
Click to expand...
Our foreign policy will have to change when we no longer have the credit to borrow more for it. We need peace through strength, not peace through inerventionalism. We are repeating the mistakes of England, and it will bankrupt us, and our empire will fall. Peace through strength includes re-taking the moral high ground, and spending our defense dollars on our army at home, the same way that Reagan did. R Reagan thought that America was too great a nation for interventionalism. He said “we do not occupy countries.” I cry when I think of this and I can hear his voice as he said it. The pre-emptive strike is a moral and practical disaster. We cannot keep our greatness, when we fail to be “great.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top