It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ron Paul: Santorum should emphasize liberty, not religion TELL ME WHY: Back it UP

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 07:35 PM
link   
My personal stance: I believe in God but I do not believe in religion.

www.cbsnews.com...


Ron Paul suggested Monday that personal religion is too large a part of Rick Santorum's presidential campaign message, and said his own message appeals to people of all faiths. Asked by a voter during a town hall with voters at the Bonner County Fairgrounds exhibition hall here why an evangelical Christian would vote for Paul, the Texas congressman told the 1,000-person crowd: "The same reason everybody else should vote for liberty."


I ask us ATS members why Rick Santorum has such a big following? Is it strictly his his religious beliefs? If so, there will be no change in his supporters. Once you've drank the "Kool-Aid", you will go back for more.

Why do some of us condemn Islam, (well most on this site), and their followers? Is it not the same? Once said "Kool-Aid" is drank, is there no hope?

Please tell me the reasons Ron Paul is not the best candidate to be POTUS for the next 4 years. Give common sense a chance!

There IS a bigger power out there that most of us feel, if not lucky to experience. But it is not within the bindings of a book.


edit on 5-3-2012 by UFO1414 because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-3-2012 by UFO1414 because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-3-2012 by UFO1414 because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 07:49 PM
link   
reply to post by UFO1414
 


Easy!! I’ve got plenty of reasons why RP isn't the best man for the job.

Let's start with his failed approach to foreign policy:

Failed US Foreign Policy? Is Ron Paul the Answer? History Says NO!



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 07:56 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


Dear Lord. You're own thread has been pwned far better than I could ever do. Thanks for backing me up.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 07:59 PM
link   
reply to post by UFO1414
 


Explanation: S&F!

Uhmmm?



Please tell me the reasons Ron Paul is not the best candidate to be POTUS for the next 4 years. Give common sense a chance!


I was going to try and be funny and say that was an impossible task!


But here goes nothing ...

The system is broken and its SO FREAKING HUGE that just one man inside or outside of it has no hope of ever changing it ... it will just kill them and keep on rolling on in a very broken manner.


If you want a nanny then you can do no better than voting for Ron Paul!


But I find it ironic that he speaks about liberty without explaining that to have liberty is to be 100% SELF SUFFICIENT and that state of being means the system is irrelevent!


Personal Disclosure: As far as religion goes ... I'd like to quote what the Amityville Horror House said to the priest ... "GET OUT!"



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 08:00 PM
link   
reply to post by UFO1414
 


Please allow me to take a shot at answering your questions, but you should know that I haven't picked a candidate and will really only start looking after Super Tuesday when I see who is still in, so there's a lot I don't know.

Problems with Paul? Two come to mind. His non-interventionism is seen by some as a dereliction of his duties in the world as a whole. The other problem is a weakness and a strength. He is very determined and "pure" in his beliefs. I think he's written something like 482 bills in his congressional life and only 1 ever became law. That can create the impression that he can't work with others. Perhaps, while his goals are great, he won't be able to get the necessary support to put them into effect.

Romney is seen as being too moderate to deal with the problems that have come up during the Obama administration. Gingrich is conservative enough for those Republicans and would destroy Obama in a debate, but as you know he's got some problems.

That means, for a large number of Republicans, Santorum is what's left. And that isn't taking religion into account. I'm sure his supporters would come up with positives, just like Paul's do.

I think Santorum's support is more thoughtful and complex than "kool-aid drinking."



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 08:07 PM
link   
reply to post by UFO1414
 


Ron Paul is the guy sayin we need to live by the golden rule and to set an example for others.

Sounds more in line with Cristianity to me, than hypocritical sanitarium.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 08:13 PM
link   
reply to post by OmegaLogos
 


Yes, the system is entirely broken. Look, Ron Paul is no saviour, but he speaks the truth. Ron Paul is not perfect. Conceded. He is the best "best-case" scenario from all candidates left, right or up the middle.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 08:33 PM
link   
The older crowd. That's why Santorum is doing so well. His adorable sweater vests, and talk of Satan's assault on the U.S. is right up the alley of the 65 and up crowd. Romney at least has half a mind to know/say Religion has it's place and it's not in the Oval Office, as does Ron Paul.

By the way on Islam, I think many condemn it because it's perceived as very different and largely mysterious to those who think they dislike it, but it's not much different than Christianity./ Radical Islam is no more a threat to this country than Radical Judaism is.

Also, I can imagine Ron Paul would be all for more interventionism (as if we don't get involved enough as it is) if we could, oh I don't know... Afford it? Those darn bombs and bags of rice do cost money we just don't have, tiny little detail the rest of the GOP just keep forgetting.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 08:42 PM
link   
reply to post by UFO1414
 

You forgot the link to the article and I can't venture to guess what Paul was referring to exactly since that wasn't quoted in your posted quote.

My feelings are that politicians religious views should be left out of campaigning. It's bad enough that those religious views taint politicians decision making (good or bad from some perspectives) in a political system that demands a separation of church and state.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 08:47 PM
link   
The question you should be asking is what has Ron Paul managed to accomplish while in congress? Then ask yourself why would it be any different as President? I know many people do not like him because of some of his crazier ideas but to me the guy just talks and talks and accomplishes nothing. His own party does not want him and yet he stays because its convenient. The guy says he is against certain bills but is more then happy to add earmarks to them knowing they will pass, sure he votes against it to keep his record in tact but what effort does he really make to kill them? None. For all his talk about selling off the national parks, killing student loans and his odd look at foreign policy its just that talk. He has never managed to do much of anything but, talk.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 08:47 PM
link   
Santorum is the most Conservative with the least amount of baggage and has the least amount of coruptable time in office.Rhino Romney doesn't cut it, Newt had a chance but his failed marriages and length in office is against him.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 08:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Starrunner
 


My bad, now linked in the origanal article.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 08:53 PM
link   
Ron Paul respects the constitution, which stands for liberty.

Preaching your version of morality, based on your personal beliefs;and wanton desire to push your ideals and ego off on others is not libertarian.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by mugger
Santorum is the most Conservative with the least amount of baggage and has the least amount of coruptable time in office.

Sanitorum is considered one of the most corrupt congressmen in office.

Don't let that creepy Howdy Dowdy smile fool you.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by mugger
Santorum is the most Conservative with the least amount of baggage and has the least amount of coruptable time in office.


...?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Wow good one!

Check this out:
post by PhysicsAdept
 



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 09:55 PM
link   
reply to post by OmegaLogos
 





But here goes nothing ... The system is broken and its SO FREAKING HUGE that just one man inside or outside of it has no hope of ever changing it ... it will just kill them and keep on rolling on in a very broken manner. If you want a nanny then you can do no better than voting for Ron Paul! But I find it ironic that he speaks about liberty without explaining that to have liberty is to be 100% SELF SUFFICIENT and that state of being means the system is irrelevent!


All right, but here's the thing, I think this is predicated on a faulty, and most likely intentionally encouraged supposition--That he doesn't have supporters within government (he has at least 1 in his son) that would support his cleaning house. Emptying the whole thing, exposing them for the criminals that they are (and leaving the good ones.) Opening up the whole thing to a true, non-rigged election where the will of the people is truly done. Demolishing all previous signing statements with one last signing statement. Then what would you think of his chances?

Just acknowledging that the system is broken and then being hopeless about it does nothing to change things.
edit on 5-3-2012 by coyotepoet because: last sentence



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 10:02 PM
link   
I thought I'd look into a couple of points made here, that Santorum's support is in the 65+ age group, and that Paul is a good first choice for Left, Right, and Center voters.

It turns out that a Gallup poll of registered Republicans has some interesting bits of information. First, here's the link: www.gallup.com... I wasn't able to cut and paste, otherwise I'd post the whole thing, but you might like to start with this.

Among Registered Republicans Romney (R) has 36%, Santorum (S) has 23%, Gingrich (G) has 16%, and Paul (P) has 11%. I thought Paul would have at least passed Gingrich.

Conservative Repubs break 35% (R) 27% (S) 18% (G) 9% (P)
Liberals and Moderates go 40% (R) 14%(S) 11% (G) 16% (P)
18-34 year olds?...............33% (R) 16% (S) 13% (G) 22% (P)
35-54?.............................34% (R) 28% (S) 14%(G) 13%(P)
55+?............................... 39% (R) 21%(S) 19% (G) 5%(P)

Weekly church attenders 32% (R) 31% (S) 17% (G) 8% (P)
Church seldom/never........ 37% (R) 15%(S) 17% (G) 14%(P)

Here's my interpretation for Paul. He and Romney are the candidates that attract liberal and moderate Republicans. Paul's support is largely from the young, he gets more 18-34 year olds than all other ages combined. He and Santorum are the candidates for whom church attendance matters. People who go to church prefer Santorum 2-1 over those who don't. Paul is the reverse, he's much more popular among those that don't go to church. Paul and Romney are the fans of liberals and non church goers.

Santorum's strength, by age, is the 35-54 age group, Romney and Gingrich are the two who gets the 55+ crowd.

From this poll, at least, Gingrich and Santorum are the "Conservatives," and Paul and Romney are the "Liberal/ Moderates."



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 10:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by mugger
Santorum is the most Conservative with the least amount of baggage and has the least amount of coruptable time in office.


I don't know where you got that idea from, but the facts say otherwise.

www.awareandprepare.com...



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 10:53 PM
link   
reply to post by bl4ke360
 

It's hard to tell whether Santorum is corrupt, and if he is, how much. Here's the link to the 240 page .pdf complaint by CREW. www.citizensforethics.org...

They seem to be fairly partisan, they named three Democrats out of eighteen. I will not accept the idea that Republicans are 6 times as corrupt as Democrats. The complaints against Santorum begin on page 209, and they all seem pretty minor, especially considering other politicians in high office.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 11:15 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


What you discuss in that thread is irrelevant to modern times.
First RP doesn't propose isolationism, that's just what idiots, that don't know what isolationism is, call it. Second, that was from a time when it took months to prepare and months to get involved in anything across the ocean, nowadays we can be anywhere in the world in a matter of moments. Third and final, really, it didn't work, because I recall us becoming the number one super power in the world within 100 - 150 years (a second by history's standards).



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join