The meaning of Ron Paul's name

Interesting.. His full name=Ronald Earnest Paul

From babynamesworld.parentsconnect.com:

RONALD-
Origin:Norse--Meaning:=Ruler with counsel
Origin:English--Meaning:=Ruler with counsel

EARNEST-
Origin:--Germanic--Meaning:Earnest, serious
Origin:English--Meaning:Earnest; serious

PAUL-
Origin:Latin--Meaning:Small; humble

wow, go figure.. a President who is humble, but can also rule with counsel (doesnt think he is a one man god), but is also serious and ernest. FROM thefreedictionary.com--
EARNEST means-1. Marked by or showing deep sincerity or seriousness: an earnest gesture of goodwill.
2. Of an important or weighty nature; grave

reply to post by Nana2


I always wondered if a person's name had anything to do with their personalities.

In this case, I just might believe his name and his actions very well may be the same.

I always disliked the fact someone, usually boys/men, who has two first names but..

This is the only exception

The worship of Ron Paul is getting way beyond creepy.

Can someone look up his astrology sign???

How about someone do some numerology???

Can we connect him to Jesus at all???

Nice. That certainly sounds like the man. I was curious - here is his 'natal chart' as done by someone.

You avoid underhand manoeuvres and scheming like the plague! Your unfailing sincerity commands your entourage's consideration. You fight shams and all forms of hypocrisy.

Interesting read. I remember seeing Obama's a long time ago. I think the word egotistical and narcissist were used frequently.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
Can we connect him to Jesus at all???

Perhaps only to his detractors? As I see truth and light as being equivalent in the following passage:

"Everyone who practices wickedness hates the light and does not come to the light, so that his actions may not be exposed"

Please, Ron Paul is cool and all
but the meaning of his name really
has nothing to do with it.

You can take anybodies name
no matter what kind of person they are
and pull out the root meaning of the name
they and millions other have shared.
John
"God is generous
Wayne
"is wagon builder
Gayce'
"is of the pledge.

So John Wayne Gayce means
a generous wagon building pledge maker..

Originally posted by ararisq
Nice. That certainly sounds like the man. I was curious - here is his 'natal chart' as done by someone.

You avoid underhand manoeuvres and scheming like the plague! Your unfailing sincerity commands your entourage's consideration. You fight shams and all forms of hypocrisy.

Interesting read. I remember seeing Obama's a long time ago. I think the word egotistical and narcissist were used frequently.

I like this sentence from his natal chart--You prefer to innovate rather than to follow the trend, and to create rather than limiting your activities to repetitive tasks.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
The worship of Ron Paul is getting way beyond creepy.

Can someone look up his astrology sign???

How about someone do some numerology???

Can we connect him to Jesus at all???

worship?? More like an excitement unfelt in the corruption of DC in many many years, probably since the last "Ronald" was in office. We deserve it. Let us have it.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
The worship of Ron Paul is getting way beyond creepy.

Can someone look up his astrology sign???

How about someone do some numerology???

Can we connect him to Jesus at all???

What, starting to remind you of Obama giving the media tingles and people fainting and crying that he was going to pay all their bills and debts or something?

I will agree with you that some of what we've seen from various of my fellow supporters has been overboard, but this thread is benign, I see no signs of worship, and an Obama supporter really has no place to speak of such things anyway, unless you'll also decry the hysteria he so famously inspired and those who were caught up in it, which as far as I can tell goes well above and beyond anything the Paulies have done (that I've been made aware of).

And on a side note - Paul has yet to break any of his promises or exhibit in his record an intent to not fulfill them, just for clarity.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
Can we connect him to Jesus at all???

Sure. This thread suggests a connection to Christ...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
hah...granted, I've actually had somewhat the same thought myself, but I agree with another poster on that thread - at least as far as the family.

I can't remember if it's Charles' or William's coat of arms (if not the same) shares a lot of symbology with the book of Revelation to the point of getting more than a little creepy. Also, with the crown's/whoever's purported bloodline running back to King David (allegedly), yeah...

Otherwise, to address Outkast's question here, as I didn't previously - I'll just say Paul is the only one walking in christian fearlessness, wise as a serpent but harmless as a dove, as far as I can tell. All the rest...oi vey. Terrorists everywhere! Liberal corruption of our precious conservative beliefs - god forbid people be able to do what they want without intruding on anyone else!

Embarrassing, I say.

reply to post by Praetorius

Originally posted by Praetorius
I'll just say Paul is the only one walking in christian fearlessness, wise as a serpent but harmless as a dove, as far as I can tell. All the rest...oi vey. Terrorists everywhere! Liberal corruption of our precious conservative beliefs - god forbid people be able to do what they want without intruding on anyone else!

I actually agree with you on this. I love how Paul doesn't wear his religion on his sleeve, but his position on abortion is legislating religious morals and that bothers me. He's wise and harmless, I agree. But he's only harmless as a Congressman. He can represent his people, a fairly small enclave in Texas, very well. But I believe some of the actions he seems to want to take could be more harmful than harmless in our current fragile state.

Some days, I wish like crazy he had run back when it would have mattered... I think he's 30 years too late to the party.

I even agree with the OP here... not that Paul's name means anything special, but I agree he has the qualities listed, for the most part. (I think I might be able to make my name mean "Cool as the other side of the pillow" if I searched long enough. ).

I like Paul and many of his ideas and I have considered voting for him. But regardless how I feel about the MAN, I don't think he would make a good president for the US today. The job is too demanding for the man. Not just because of his age, but because of the person he is. He doesn't have what it takes to make it through a term as US President in 2012... I'm not sure anyone else does either, though... It will be interesting.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
I can gladly agree to respectfully disagree with you on parts of this.

As far as the abortion (and let's not forget gay marriage goes, as the two appeal to so many of the same people on all sides) issue goes, I can't agree with calling it legislating religious morals. While he's got his own personal views, they have nothing to do with the office of the presidency, and he doesn't feel either subject have anything to do with the federal government one way or the other - no authority.

I know some will fall back and say this leaves the door open for the states to criminalize such, but as far as I can tell, that would be better for some to do (which I consider doubtful that many would in our current era anyway, frankly), as compared for to one of these other big-government-control "conservatives" to get into office with a supportive congress via wave of discontent and criminalize both across the board for the entire US. This is one reason I can't support one-size-fits-all solutions, because someone with idiotic ideas will almost always eventually be able to impose some part of them. Sure, I'd like to see the STATE governments also realize they should stay out of peoples' private business (I honestly could not care less if two gay people want to get married, and abortion's a tough decision [and I have a long standing belief that prohibition causes more problems than it solves anyway, regardless of the matter at hand] that people should receive advice on - not dictates), but even if that doesn't happen, I believe it's much easier for the people to work on changing state decisions than it is federal ones.

As to the presidency being demanding - sure. But Paul's actually a pretty tough guy (you have to be to stand on such generally-despised views so consistently for so long), and with his policy views likely causing less strain of various sorts both here at home and abroad, I believe the presidency might actually find itself a little less stressful...despite how unpleasant the ride getting us back to any serious level of actual fiscal and economic stability might be.

Anyhow, thanks. I guess only time will tell - c'est la vie!

Originally posted by Praetorius
As far as the abortion ... he doesn't feel either subject have anything to do with the federal government one way or the other - no authority.

Ron Paul, 2012

And as President, Ron Paul will continue to fight for the same pro-life solutions he has upheld in Congress, including:

* Immediately saving lives by effectively repealing Roe v. Wade and preventing activist judges from interfering with state decisions on life by removing abortion from federal court jurisdiction through legislation modeled after his “We the People Act.”

* Defining life as beginning at conception by passing a “Sanctity of Life Act.”

Defining life as beginning at conception is effectively making abortion illegal on a federal level. He says he's "removing abortion from federal court jurisdiction", but he's hoping to make it murder on a federal level...

It's not something I can support. That's not the only reason I'm not going to vote for him, but it's big enough to me to show that his "freedom for all" rhetoric has its limits, drawn along lines based on his personal beliefs, and NOT the Constitution or true freedom.

Sure, I'd like to see the STATE governments also realize they should stay out of peoples' private business...

I would, too. But they won't. And it's the federal government's job to make sure we're all treated equally under the law. Turning everything over to the states is negligent, especially for Constitutional protections.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
Oh no...not the Kali discussion again... We went back and forth on this one for some time on another thread:

Defining life as beginning at conception is effectively making abortion illegal on a federal level. He says he's "removing abortion from federal court jurisdiction", but he's hoping to make it murder on a federal level...

It's not something I can support. That's not the only reason I'm not going to vote for him, but it's big enough to me to show that his "freedom for all" rhetoric has its limits, drawn along lines based on his personal beliefs, and NOT the Constitution or true freedom.

Definitions for the scope of the bill don't really have anything to do with the intent or function of the bill, and this one is honestly addressed easily enough (the concern is understandable, though) - no one disputes that adults are living, but states make their own laws and determine their own handling on the death penalty, justifiable homicide, manslaughter, and a whole range of other issues dealing with the early termination of life.

Paul recognizing that life begins at conception (understandable enough for an OBGYN - but whatever) would do nothing to make abortion a federal crime, any more than it would the same of existing cases, which we obviously don't consider to be federal crimes (other than in DC itself and a few other limited possibilities under the federal code). Just as states are free to handle these other cases of non-disputed existing life themselves, they would be the same with abortion.

I would, too. But they won't. And it's the federal government's job to make sure we're all treated equally under the law. Turning everything over to the states is negligent, especially for Constitutional protections.

You might need to clarify this bit a little for me - this would still apply as it always has. The 14th amendment deals primarily with incorporating the (National) Bill of Rights to apply as requirements for the states as well, and doesn't really have much of anything to do with any laws the states might implement (beyond ensuring they don't violate constitutional protections) - Bingham, 1866:

"The proposition pending before the House is simply a proposition to arm the Congress…with the power to enforce the bill of rights as it stands in the constitution today. It hath that extent—no more….If the State laws do not interfere, those immunities follow under the Constitution.”

I'm certainly sorry you feel you can't support Paul for this (and other) reasons - as mentioned, the SLA would be no more restrictive on states' abortion rights than are their current laws as regards the premature termination of life (either inflicting or judging/excusing it), and there are a good many other serious issues crying out for attention that I see no one else seeking the office even bothering to pay lip service to, let alone offering sincere indication that they'll strive to address them.

Feel free to provide your thoughts, or let me know what else you may have issue with. Entirely possible no minds may be changed, but I at least like to understand. Take care, friend.

can we keep this thread ON TOPIC please?