Here is a side-by-side comparison of the top contributors for Ron Paul and Barack Obama for the 2008 campaign.
You might notice quite a few, significant donations from the “Friends-Of-Obama” group, which were subsequently provided tax payer money in return for their contribution and Obama’s success.
According to Wikipedia, Goldman Sachs received $10,000,000,000 from the TARP program. $10B is a nice return on their $994,795 investment in Obama. Don’t ya think? I’m sure Citigroup, JP Morgan, UBS, Morgan Stanley and others did just as nicely now that they bought the Presidency and unlimited access to taxpayer money.
Notice not only who, but how much (or how little in Ron Paul’s case), each candidate received from various groups. In a side-by-side comparison, Ron Paul wins hands down.
Ron Paul in 2012.
Categories: 2012 Election, Obama - Our God King
Angrywoodchuck's Blog 
Why I will never vote for Ron Paul.
And a liberal view of Paul.
http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/gy4ps/listen_up_ron_paul_lovers_you_will_never_be_able/
lol. So I guess you’re not voting for anyone in 2012 then, since 99.3% of Congress believes in some form of religion. Until an Atheist runs for government, I assume I won’t be seeing you participate in the democratic process at all.
And since Obama is a Christian, like Ron Paul, I guess you didn’t vote for him either. Right?
So, using that same reasoning you’d “assume” that every single one of my friends or family that I associate with would have to be atheist too? Every business I go to secular? No. Every time I’ve voted, I’ve voted for a theist. That’s not something I use to judge a person. Theists are not bad people, I just don’t agree with their view of creation and existence. I do however try my hardest though to pick one that wouldn’t allow his/her religious views to contaminate their decision making while in office.
Ron Paul just told me that his vision of the United States is the complete opposite of mine. He thinks religious institutions should “eclipse” the state in importance? Where is the reasoning behind that? Yes I understand he wants smaller government but I don’t agree with replacing it with a church.
Is this the most important issue facing America right now? No. Is this the most important issue for me? Yes. Why? Because I am part of a minority, there is no one who cares about this issue except for me and a handful of others. Thats why the most important issue for LGBT is marriage equality. The most important issue for hispanics is immigration. The majority doesn’t need my help, they have plenty.
Obama isn’t a Christian, he’s a muslim (lol). But seriously, when its comes to issues where religion plays a role (evolution, abortion, LGBT rights, etc) we share the same views.
No, I would not assume that. Your concern over who could be President is based on how much power that person will have over you, how much change they can produce that would impact you directly in areas of your life that are important to you. Your friends, or the businesses you deal with don’t have anywhere near as much authority over you as a President does. You can unfriend your friends at any time, you can not buy from a particular business if they do something you don’t like but a President can influence laws you don’t want that that can hurt you directly, that can take years, even decades to unwind if they can ever be unwound at all. You can’t unfriend him and you can’t go somewhere else. So no, I would not assume that.
The last time you referenced that quote, I knew you did not understand what he said. You took the easy route and swallowed someone else’s interpretation of the quote without question, a classic case of contextomy mixed into a bucket of Kool-Aid.
The first time you commented, I actually went and found the speech that the quote you are referencing came from and unfortunately for your argument his speech does not support your assumption or the assumption of the person who sent that to you, and worst of all, the assumption it does to everyone that you or anyone else sent that to including people who read my blog now.
As far as the quote on the top of the image, it sounds like Ron Paul is saying that church and state should be combined, or that the church should replace the state. That’s what whoever made that image wants you to think, even though that’s not true at all. If you read that entire speech you would realize that he said that as a defense to what he believes is a concerted effort to destroy religion by the government and ban it from every aspect of our lives. As an atheist, you would think that shouldn’t bother me, but it does. There are many people that believe in “a” religion, whatever that might be, even if just a form of theism. I don’t wish to ban religion from religious people any more than I want them to force their religion upon me. Our individual freedom to believe, or not believe, in whatever we want is protected by the Constitution and the “rigid separation” of church and state is being used by the federal government to remove religion from every aspect of our lives, and I disagree with that, even as a non-believer, because I may not believe in religion, but I believe in the absolute right of people to be able to believe in whatever they want.
Ron Paul is against the federal government authorizing a national religion, like England did with the Church of England, which was supported by taxpayers and against a government that is trying to destroy all religions. He is not against religion in America, and I mean any religion. He believes that church….ANY CHURCH…be it a Christian church, a Mosque, or a Temple, etc… all teach important moral and ethical values to people. Good people make good citizens which make a strong country. His fear is that government will force people to learn their ethics and their values from the government, rather than their church…ANY church. That is what he meant by “churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance” where importance in this context means, ‘the importance of where one can learn good ethics and morals.’ Do you see the difference between what he meant and what you assumed? That’s what happens when someone takes a quote out of context to undermine the real meaning. Only made worse by people that propagate it without checking first.
But to be fair, and honest, I’ve made the same mistake and I’ve had to go back and make edits and updates to my posts because we do want to believe what we want to believe, and sometimes I find out later that I was wrong, usually while researching some related topic for this blog. At that point, all anyone can do is try to make up for it as best they can and be more careful in the future. In fact, I would say that is the biggest problem for me with this blog. In an effort to be as “accurate” as possible, without jumping to conclusions and just piggybacking on someone else’s claim, for any one post that takes me 30 minutes to write, I do between 2 and 4 hours of research. There are some bloggers I know I can rely on because they do as much research as I do, which you learn after checking up on them a few times. But really you become some concerned with trying to be sure you’re being accurate that you can’t take anything at face value which becomes a major time suck. It’s certainly not the ‘easy way’ to write a blog. Anyway, I digress…
His fear is that government will destroy religion…ALL religions…and people will be instructed how to act, what to believe, right from wrong, by their Government. I agree with him…this should not be allowed to happen. So no O, he is not “replacing government with a church.”
I think the scariest part for me, is that people are so willing to quickly jump to conclusions without breaking the sweat it takes to really understand the issue, or the person. Ron Paul is not just about smaller government. He is about transferring power away from the federal government back to the states and to the people, including the LGBT who will have more power, not less, when the power to influence change is ripped from the federal level and given back to the state and the counties where minorities like the LGBT or Hispanics or Atheists or whatever, can make REAL change for themselves, where the Constitution, and Ron Paul, believes it really belongs. The center of power must be moved away from the national level and returned as close to the PEOPLE as possible.
Which do you think is easier? A minority group trying to convince 307 million Americans to support them across the entire nation, or just the few million in their state or the few thousand in their county, whereby they may make up the majority of anyway? And imagine a thousand minorities trying to convince the other 999 minorities and the majority to pass this law or that law…it’s impossible, but that’s what happens when power is at the national level.Everyone has to destroy everyone else to get just ONE thing done for their own little minority because the entire nation of 307 million people has to be convinced of something. And the politicians use this to their advantage, doling out what each minority wants, even if nobody else wants it, like candy, for votes. Because when power is this centralized, its the only way to get anything and the federal politicians have all the power.
The Constitution knew the absurdity of that, which is why power is supposed to be decentralized, dissolved throughout the nation where groups of like-minded people can gather and take control of their county, even of their state because they don’t have to convince as many people and like-minded people are coming together to where they are. That is how it is supposed work, not this federal cluster of rats biting each other for scraps the politicians throw them for some votes that we have now.
That is Ron Paul. That is the Constitution.
Rather than rely on email forwards from like minded friends, you should crack a book that Ron Paul wrote and get busy learning about the man. You might just find that a lot of the fears you have are unfounded and unfair.
Lastly, now that you understand what Ron Paul really meant, and that it wasn’t what you thought it meant…I wonder if you will be brave enough to undo the damage you’ve done and explain it to those you may have sent that image to, or to the person you received it from…assuming any of that happened and you didn’t find it by yourself of course.