Why don't you support Ron Paul?

[jamaesi]

All politicians from Texas are nuts.

Even Kinky?

 

[Trassin]

][/B]All politicians from Texas are nuts.

Oops, missed this one. Ron Paul isn't originally from Texas. He was raised in Pennsilvania and got his degree from Gettysburg College and the Duke University School of Medicine. He first went to Texas as a result of his airforce unit being based out of San Antonio, TX. He meet his wife, Carol, there and as a result ended up going back after they were married.​

 

[YmirGF]

I'm honestly curious why people may be voting for anyone other than Ron Paul. Please share your feelings with me.

Out of all the candidates from both major parties, Ron Paul would be the last one I would pick. Mitt Romney is looking good, but I think the smart money will end up going for the Clinton (P) & Obama (VP) machine. I see that as an unstoppable force and if we are lucky Ron Paul won't get re-elected when his time is up.

 

[Bishka]

I'm honestly curious why people may be voting for anyone other than Ron Paul. Please share your feelings with me.

To be honest and frank.

He's a Scientologist. There is nothing about Scientology that even seems remotely like a faith. It does not help people, it harms them.

 

[Trassin]

Out of all the candidates from both major parties, Ron Paul would be the last one I would pick. Mitt Romney is looking good, but I think the smart money will end up going for the Clinton (P) & Obama (VP) machine. I see that as an unstoppable force and if we are lucky Ron Paul won't get re-elected when his time is up.

You didn't really answer the question, YmirGF. Why would Ron Paul be the last one that you pick?

To be honest and frank.
He's a Scientologist. There is nothing about Scientology that even seems remotely like a faith. It does not help people, it harms them.

What? Rep. Paul is a Protestant. Where did you ever get the idea that he is in anyway associated with scientology? The second paragraph of his Statement of faith makes his religious beliefs very clear.

 

[Comprehend]

I agree. I think Comprehend is deliberately ignoring what Ron Paul actually said on the issue.

Actually I heard him say it live in a presidential debate.

 

[Mathematician]

To be honest and frank.

He's a Scientologist. There is nothing about Scientology that even seems remotely like a faith. It does not help people, it harms them.

Ron Paul is a Baptist.

 

[Trassin]

Actually I heard him say it live in a presidential debate.

You're talking about Ron Paul saying that part of the reason we were attacked on 9-11 is because of us bombing Iraq for 10 years, correct?

This is absolutly true. Not only did Osama bin Ladin list it as one of the reasons for the attack on us but study after study of the middle east has shown that one of the main reason for the fervent anger towards the United States prior to 9-11 was our continued policies towards Iraq.

If you have never read the book Imperial Hubris I highly recommed picking it up. It was written by the former head of the Osama unit of the CIA. They were specifically responsible for studying and understanding both Osama bin Ladin and Al Qaeada.

 

[mcteethinator]

To be honest and frank.

He's a Scientologist. There is nothing about Scientology that even seems remotely like a faith. It does not help people, it harms them.

??? I have no idea where you could've heard that from. Ron Paul is a Baptist.

Actually I heard him say it live in a presidential debate.

You're misconstruing what he actually said. I think Trassin explained it well enough in the previous post. In Osama bin Laden's own fatwa against the United States, he cited the bombings of Iraq as one of the reasons why he despises America. This is what Ron Paul said. What exactly is untrue with his statement?

Former head of the CIA's bin Laden unit, Michael Scheuer, said of Paul's statements: "Last week, Representative Paul did all Americans an immense service by simply pointing out the obvious: Our Islamist enemies do not give a damn about the way we vote, think, or live.... We are indeed hated and being warred against because we are 'over there,' and not for what we are and how we live. Our failure to recognize the truth spoken by Mr. Paul – and spelled out for us in hundreds of pages of statements by Osama bin Laden since 1996 – is leading America toward military and economic disaster.... And no matter how you view Mr. Paul’s words, you can safely take one thing to the bank. The person most shaken by Mr. Paul’s frankness was Osama bin Laden, who knows that the current status quo in U.S. foreign policy toward the Islamic world is al-Qaeda’s one indispensable ally, and the only glue that provides cohesion between and among the diverse and often fractious Islamist groups that follow its banner.

As cited in the 9/11 Commission Report, Osama bin Laden's 1996 fatwa called "Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places," published in Britain, reveals his anger with American policies as his reason for declaring a fatwa. In his fatwa, bin Laden cites the reasons for attacking America. In order, they are:

1. American involvement in the Middle East
2. Palestine, and
3. Sanctions on Iraq

If you're not gonna take Ron Paul's word for it, how about you take Osama's word for it, since he was the one who attacked the USA? Surely he would know what he's talking about?

 

[doppelganger]

Here's what Rep. Paul has to say abou it.

Ok, thanks, that seals it for me. He's ignorant. That's why I don't support him.

Please . . . . the "War on Christmas" . . . sorry but that's just ridiculous O'Reilly-style tripe.

 

[Trassin]

Ok, thanks, that seals it for me. He's ignorant. That's why I don't support him.

Please . . . . the "War on Christmas" . . . sorry but that's just ridiculous O'Reilly-style tripe.

While I don't agree with Ron Paul's beliefs on this issue I don't find anything "ignorant" about what he says. His argument is certainly founded on fact, that there are members of the secular left that want to drive religion from public life. Just as their are members of the religious right that think public life should be completely based around the bible.

Also, I'm not sure where you got your "war on christmas" quote from? Did you mean to quote the title, "War on Religion"?

 

[Bishka]

Ron Paul is a Baptist.

Really now?

Huh, I learn something new every day. Pardon my mistake, many people have told me he is a scientologist. My apologies.

 

[Smoke]

Oops, missed this one. Ron Paul isn't originally from Texas.

Doesn't seem to matter; it's something about Texas politics. The Bushes aren't originally from Texas, either.

Even Kinky?

Kinky is nuts in a good way. He's also more of a performance artist than a serious politician.

While we're at it, I also like Lyndon Johnson a lot more than you might expect, but Johnson was also kind of nuts. I like Jim Hightower, but the only office he was ever elected to was Commissioner of Agriculture. That leaves Ann Richards as basically the only sane and successful politician from Texas. And Texas threw her out for Shrub.

Whenever you see a Texas politician, always bear in mind that this is the state that gave us Ross Perot. This is the state that elected Shrub and Goodhair twice each. A politician from Texas had better be from Austin, at least.

It's not just Texas; you should also assume that any politician from South Carolina or Louisiana is unfit for national office.

 

[Trassin]

It's not just Texas; you should also assume that any politician from South Carolina or Louisiana is unfit for national office.

Under different circumstances I would tend to agree with you Midnight.

 

[mcteethinator]

Really now?

Huh, I learn something new every day. Pardon my mistake, many people have told me he is a scientologist. My apologies.

A non-Christian would never be elected President. A non-Christian would never even bother running.

I'm a bit baffled how anyone could say he's a Scientologist. I'm gonna have to google that one.

 

[Bishka]

A non-Christian would never be elected President. A non-Christian would never even bother running.

I'm a bit baffled how anyone could say he's a Scientologist. I'm gonna have to google that one.

Maybe that's just me then, I dunno, i always assumed he was -- didn't have a reason to think otherwise.

 

[Trassin]

I'm a bit baffled how anyone could say he's a Scientologist. I'm gonna have to google that one.

Same here, first time I had heard it.

 

[doppelganger]

While I don't agree with Ron Paul's beliefs on this issue I don't find anything "ignorant" about what he says. His argument is certainly founded on fact, that there are members of the secular left that want to drive religion from public life. Just as their are members of the religious right that think public life should be completely based around the bible.

That's not the ignorant part. The ignorant part is the need for Christianity to be a basis for morality and the same old nonsense about the U.S. being founded on "Christian" principles.

Also, I'm not sure where you got your "war on christmas" quote from? Did you mean to quote the title, "War on Religion"?

It's a paraphrase. The essay you posted is about Ronnie's disgust for people taking the religiosity out of Christmas, which he implicitly connects to the "Secular Left". This of course is patently stupid as Christmas has been homogenized and commercialized by his corporate CEO GOP buddies and nevertheless means whatever people want it to mean. If collectively, people don't want to focus on it as a religious observance as much any more, that neither prevents Ronnie from doing so, nor does it mean there's a triumph of the "Secular Left." Perhaps the Church should update its mythology so it has more meaning to modern people if it wants to rope in thoughts and identity better. Right now it's getting its arse kicked by American corporate consumerism. Of course, being in the GOP, reigning in conspicuous consumerism wouldn't go over very well with the base. So he pays lip service to religion with this silly "war of Christmas" rhetoric (just like most of the GOP and its followers pay lip service to Christianity) and goes about liberating corporations from public responsibility or accountability . . . and low and behold, spirituality is less and less a big deal unless it can be manipulated into sales volume. :yes:

 

[Trassin]

That's not the ignorant part. The ignorant part is the need for Christianity to be a basis for morality and the same old nonsense about the U.S. being founded on "Christian" principles.

Ah, got it.

...his corporate CEO GOP buddies

You must have Rep. Paul confused with someone else. He has very few to no "corporate CEO GOP buddies". Rep. Paul wants to take away their government subsides, remove control over the value of the American dollar from the federal reserve, and return to the "gold standard". The corporate world does not like this man. (I would post a link to his page at Opensecrets.org--Money in politics data so you could see for yourself but the damn site isn't working at the moment)

...goes about liberating corporations from public responsibility or accountability...

I fail to understand how any corporation can be liberated from public responsibility and accountability when it is the public that determines whether they stay in business or not. That being said, Rep. Paul is a libertarian at heart so he certainly does believe it is the consumers job to pay attention to the business practices of who they do business with, not the governments.

As for your comments on Christianity, as I've said before, this is one of the areas I dissagree with Rep. Paul on.

 

[doppelganger]

You must have Rep. Paul confused with someone else. He has very few to no "corporate CEO GOP buddies". Rep. Paul wants to take away their government subsides, remove control over the value of the American dollar from the federal reserve, and return to the "gold standard". The corporate world does not like this man. (I would post a link to his page at Opensecrets.org--Money in politics data so you could see for yourself but the damn site isn't working at the moment)

Maybe. But he won't get the GOP nomination unless he cozies up to the corporations that own American democracy and its conduits. (Likewise, neither can any "Democratic" candidate).

I fail to understand how any corporation can be liberated from public responsibility and accountability when it is the public that determines whether they stay in business or not.

Through the law, manipulation of prosecutors and regulatory agencies and buying off congress, federal contracts, reduced legal liability . . . How does Paul intend to reign in corporate excesses and maintain his "libertarian" cred?