ForumGarden

The more I read comments and expressions of their faith made by each and every one of the Republican contenders for President of the U.S. the more it's turns me off in considering them. I thought Ron Paul might be different, but alas, as I read a bit more about his beliefs I gotta scratch him off my list.

Romney despite being a Mormon has been careful about his expressions of faith, but do you really think that mainstream fundamentalist (of which there are many) will actually vote for Romney? I doubt it. Not sure I could vote for him either.

I understand that in making these expressions of faith the candidates hope to woo like thinking voters. Why am I bothered by contenders expressions of faith? Because if they really really believe what they express I am convinced that it will lead them to make major foreign relation and domestic decisions, not always based on logic and facts at hand, but on personal moral and religious influence, and that in no way means it will be good for the country as a whole.

You never struck me as a one-issue voter, Lon.

Huntsman is also a Mormon but he accepts science unlike some of his fruitcake fundamentalist running mates. Too bad he doesn't stand a chance of winning the primary.

Accountable;1367256 wrote: You never struck me as a one-issue voter, Lon.


I am not a one issue voter and religion is not the issue, it's the DECISION MAKING that is influenced by different religious thinking and attempts at appeasing potential voters. EXAMPLE-----Our PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE prior to Dwight Eisenhower's presidency was "ONE NATION INDIVISIBLE" and was changed to "ONE NATION UNDER GOD". In view of our country today, the original version seems more appropriate.

Paul's got 2 decades of political votes on record to show how he reacts. Just what do you think would happen if he became president?

Accountable;1367261 wrote: Paul's got 2 decades of political votes on record to show how he reacts. Just what do you think would happen if he became president?


You obviously support your fellow Texan. I would be happy if a candidate never mentioned his or her particular faith and if the media would not play it up. Keep me in the dark I say, because as soon as a candidate's religion is brought into the picture, it influences my thinking about that particular candidate, but then, that's just me.

It's not about being a fellow Texan. I don't support Perry or any of my congressmen. I support Paul because of his voting record, consistency, and the fact that last April he published a book laying out his stances on 50 of the most controversial issues.

Amazon.com: Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedom (9781455501458): Ron Paul: Books

I support Paul because his ideology is very close to mine. Voting for Paul means that I won't be voting against someone I don't like, for the lesser evil, or hedging my bets by voting for who I think will win - I'll be voting for who I really do want to be the next President of the USA.

Sure, I'd rather them not bring religion into the campaign. I don't care if he doesn't go to church at all. But in America, if you're going to write off every candidate that mentions their religious beliefs you may as well stay home on election day. I can't think of one president in my adult lifetime that didn't make his religious beliefs known during the campaign. Obama claims his preacher of 20 years was his mentor (and that he never listened to his sermons). GW Bush made his religious beliefs known all too often. Clinton was a Southern Baptist and took his family to church often. GHW Bush is a Presbyterian, I think, and the one exception; I don't recall him making an issue of religion, but I'm sure he wouldn't shrink from the issue. Reagan was a fundamentalist Christian who quoted from the Bible. Remember the Shining City on the Hill? Carter was a Southern Baptist preacher, for cryin' out loud.

Accountable;1367273 wrote: It's not about being a fellow Texan. I don't support Perry or any of my congressmen. I support Paul because of his voting record, consistency, and the fact that last April he published a book laying out his stances on 50 of the most controversial issues.

Amazon.com: Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedom (9781455501458): Ron Paul: Books



I support Paul because his ideology is very close to mine. Voting for Paul means that I won't be voting against someone I don't like, for the lesser evil, or hedging my bets by voting for who I think will win - I'll be voting for who I really do want to be the next President of the USA.

Sure, I'd rather them not bring religion into the campaign. I don't care if he doesn't go to church at all. But in America, if you're going to write off every candidate that mentions their religious beliefs you may as well stay home on election day. I can't think of one president in my adult lifetime that didn't make his religious beliefs known during the campaign. Obama claims his preacher of 20 years was his mentor (and that he never listened to his sermons). GW Bush made his religious beliefs known all too often. Clinton was a Southern Baptist and took his family to church often. GHW Bush is a Presbyterian, I think, and the one exception; I don't recall him making an issue of religion, but I'm sure he wouldn't shrink from the issue. Reagan was a fundamentalist Christian who quoted from the Bible. Remember the Shining City on the Hill? Carter was a Southern Baptist preacher, for cryin' out loud.


Good post Acc

SnoozeAgain;1367257 wrote: Huntsman is also a Mormon but he accepts science unlike some of his fruitcake fundamentalist running mates. Too bad he doesn't stand a chance of winning the primary.You'd vote for him if you thought he stood a chance?

Accountable;1367261 wrote: Paul's got 2 decades of political votes on record to show how he reacts. Just what do you think would happen if he became president?Do you mind me answering this question? Stock markets around the world would crash.

Ahso!;1367318 wrote: Do you mind me answering this question? Stock markets around the world would crash.
I disagree, of course, but would stock markets crash because of his religious affiliations? That's the subject.

No, you're correct. The markets would tumble due to Paul's economic beliefs as opossed to his religious beliefs. Sorry!

:wah: The Party, with it's faith-based money system and make-believe economy, have created so many bubbles that we should adopt Lawrence Welk's theme song as our national anthem.

Accountable;1367445 wrote: :wah: The Party, with it's faith-based money system and make-believe economy, have created so many bubbles that we should adopt Lawrence Welk's theme song as our national anthem.Take a look at your life, this system is what's given you financial freedom and independence. Now what we need to do is figure out a way to expand it to those less favored in society, that's the debate, not how to restrict wealth. I'd prefer to see government assist in increasing worth and wealth instead of restricting it like Paul want to see happen.

Accountable;1367445 wrote: :wah: The Party, with it's faith-based money system and make-believe economy, have created so many bubbles that we should adopt Lawrence Welk's theme song as our national anthem.Explain how the current system is faith-based please.

Ahso!;1367476 wrote: Explain how the current system is faith-based please.


The Republican party seems now to work on the faith that God and corporations will take care of the environment, and the needy, as part of the free-market economy, if we just make gummint back off all those socialist regulations and let corporations make a profit for themselves.

Ahso!;1367476 wrote: Explain how the current system is faith-based please.
Simple. What is the US dollar backed by?

Accountable;1367552 wrote: Simple. What is the US dollar backed by?The good credit of the U.S. government. If gold was our currency what would it be backed by?

I can't believe there are so many GOP candidates that outright reject science. It's almost a badge of honor to act as stupid as possible.

I'm waiting for a candidate to come along and say: "My fellow Americans, as president, I not only promise I will uphold all the truths of the Bible, but I pledge that I am completely illiterate and can't understand a word of it."

A lot of folks acted like science was a non-issue when Bush was running, but it turned out he couldn't correctly interpret the evidence in a lot of areas. WMD, natural disasters, economy, etc. Turns out evidence-based reasoning was important after all, we will still be paying off his "conservative" 6-trillion dollar deficit for years to come.

Ahso!;1367553 wrote: The good credit of the U.S. government.
Nice side step. If I'm not mistaken, the phrase is "the full faith and credit of the US government." Thus, faith-based monetary system.

Accountable;1367557 wrote: Nice side step. If I'm not mistaken, the phrase is "the full faith and credit of the US government." Thus, faith-based monetary system.And you'd do what to change this? A thing (anything) is only as valuable as we determine it to be.

Right on both counts. The problem is that faith is limitless. It has become a bottomless pocket with no meaning and has allowed Congress to be phenomenally irresponsible. Why worry about a budget when we can simply print more money? I know teenagers with more money-sense than Congress has shown. Anchoring the dollar to a finite commodity would help ensure the bipartisan house of cards Congress built to insulate banks and other corporations from risk will not be built again.

Accountable;1367557 wrote: Nice side step. If I'm not mistaken, the phrase is "the full faith and credit of the US government." Thus, faith-based monetary system.What do you think that statement means? IOW, what is it the world has faith in regarding the U.S.?

Accountable;1367642 wrote: Right on both counts. The problem is that faith is limitless. It has become a bottomless pocket with no meaning and has allowed Congress to be phenomenally irresponsible. Why worry about a budget when we can simply print more money? I know teenagers with more money-sense than Congress has shown. Anchoring the dollar to a finite commodity would help ensure the bipartisan house of cards Congress built to insulate banks and other corporations from risk will not be built again.


Which finite commodity? Gold?

yaaarrrgg;1367688 wrote: Which finite commodity? Gold?Ron Paul is no longer calling for a "gold standard", he's now calling for "some sort of hard commodity standard", they're calling it a "basket". It sounds to me like Paulies are coming around to the understanding that there isn't enough gold in existence for growth purposes (population and otherwise), so they're now adjusting to a basket of commodities. Seems like they don't like their own philosophy and are looking for a way to expand the money supply. :wah:

Ahso!;1367690 wrote: Ron Paul is no longer calling for a "gold standard", he's now calling for "some sort of hard commodity standard", they're calling it a "basket". It sounds to me like Paulies are coming around to the understanding that there isn't enough gold in existence for growth purposes (population and otherwise), so they're now adjusting to a basket of commodities. Sounds to me like they don't like their own philosophy.


That's interesting. Maybe Paul could step up and offer to become the basket. He is somewhat a fruit basket. IIRC English currency backed by the Queen herself.

Before we went to the make-believe standard, didn't we use both gold and silver?

Accountable;1367755 wrote: Before we went to the make-believe standard, didn't we use both gold and silver?It's all make believe. The difference here is that the make believe you prefer is less flexible than ours.

"the full faith and credit of the US government."

What do you think that statement means? IOW, what is it the world has faith in regarding the U.S.?

Ahso!;1367765 wrote: It's all make believe. The difference here is that the make believe you prefer is less flexible than ours.

"the full faith and credit of the US government."

What do you think that statement means? IOW, what is it the world has faith in regarding the U.S.?
Yeh, about that. I looked it up and boy, was my memory flawed. That "full faith and credit" clause was from the Constitution requiring the States to honor each other's laws, records and judicial decisions. It has nothing to do with money at all. I'm embarrassed.

The U.S. greenback has value, people can purchase things with the money. The credit of whatever country the money represents is how much value the paper has attached to it. There is some faith involved in determining value of money and the U.S. has a pretty good record of maintaining a strong economy and so the American dollars carries a lot of weight.

Investors buy U.S. treasury bonds because they have faith the U.S. will not only be here when they mature, but also that the U.S. will in fact grow and maintain a strong economy, so there is faith involved in the bond market similar to investor's faith in companies via the stock and commercial bond markets.

Our problem today is that investors and companies alike are watching as one party plays havoc with every aspect of our system such as the tax code, the debt ceiling and the budget while the other party fights to maintain the integrity of our financial system - that's the uncertainty, not what Obama is or isn't doing. The republican party has gone on a quest to win the presidency at any cost including sabotaging the U.S. economic system. It's reckless and dangerous. So far this strategy has cost us a downgrade in one of the credit rating bureaus and has our stock market taking daily roller coaster rides due to the uncertainty of where America is heading. The U.S. is capable of climbing out of this current mess but the republican party is making the task much more difficult than it need be. It's the republican party that shows the most faith in the U.S. economy because they believe it can withstand their recklessness. How silly and immature.

As for Ron Paul - he's not part of the sabotage, he simply wants to go back in time and live in the 1700's. Sorry, but that's the truth. We live in the 21st century now. He says some good stuff and makes some common sense, but his views are very limited and his world seems rather small. Would I prefer Paul over any of the other republican candidate? Probably, but that's not saying all that much. Would I prefer Paul to Obama? Not on your life.

Ahso!;1367770 wrote: As for Ron Paul - he's not part of the sabotage, he simply wants to go back in time and live in the 1700's. Sorry, but that's the truth. We live in the 21st century now. He says some good stuff and makes some common sense, but his views are very limited and his world seems rather small. Would I prefer Paul over any of the other republican candidate? Probably, but that's not saying all that much. Would I prefer Paul to Obama? Not on your life.


I agree... Paul seems like an honest guy. I appreciate that he sticks to the issues and doesn't go into the mud as much as other GOP candidates. But his argument "let's put the country through a giant time machine... back to when we had slaves" is more fantastical than an actual policy idea. What he should argue instead, IMO, is the model of the EU. Very limited 'federal' government and the states/countries operate fairly independently. I wouldn't mind adopting that model if it means that the people in the south won't all be voting against my health care options ...