1
1holycatholic
Guest
There is no science without philosophy.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
P
pnewton
Guest
Ron Paul is a Republican. I refuse to listen to arguments that engage in labeling and rhetoric. I will not listen again to the Republican appeal to be a good boy and tow the party line. “Keep the good ole boys in. It’s the only way to fight abortion”. Bunk. I will no longer support a party and a system that has brought us abortion and economic disaster. It is time to take back the party, or abandon it. It would be better to take it back.Go ahead, vote for the 77 year old libertarian guy i
I would encourage all out there, Democrats and Republicans. Do not let others define these parties for you. You take an active part in defining them. The Republican Party today (and the Democratic Party) are not what they were, neither will they stay as they are today. It is the people as a group that should define them. If not Ron Paul, then someone else who listens to the message being sent by movements like the Tea Party and the Ron Paul followers.
Even the Democrat Party need not be defined by abortion. I know there are several Democrats here who are ardently against abortion. They too should never accept that they have to change to be a Democrat. Rather, they have as much right to help define that party as anyone.
BTW - I personally believe that Dr. Paul is the most electable candidate by far. The nomination will be harder for him to secure than the general election. He will bring far more cross-over and independent voters.
S
Scott_Lafrance
Guest
Seriously. Philosophy quite literally translates to “Love of Wisdom”. Wisdom meaning “the experience of others who have tried before and failed”. How anyone can embrace science without wisdom is a fool.There is no science without philosophy.
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
The middle East remembers the war between Iraq and Iran, and how the US supported Saddam in that war. They also remember when we went on a hunt for Osama Bin Laden, and how we removed Saddam from power, before finding Bin Laden.
There are number of people in the US who believe it was wrong and would possibly support Paul, over Obama and anyone they believe to have the same mindset as G.W. Bush. Many of those people voted Obama, over McCain, precisely because they hoped Obama would be less likely to expand our wars. I believe those people would give serious consideration to a candidate like Ron Paul, over Obama, and it would be a pull from the democrat base.
Yes, a nuclear powered Iran is a dangerous thing, yet we have enough nukes to turn Iran into a mirror in the desert, and Iran knows that.
There are number of people in the US who believe it was wrong and would possibly support Paul, over Obama and anyone they believe to have the same mindset as G.W. Bush. Many of those people voted Obama, over McCain, precisely because they hoped Obama would be less likely to expand our wars. I believe those people would give serious consideration to a candidate like Ron Paul, over Obama, and it would be a pull from the democrat base.
Yes, a nuclear powered Iran is a dangerous thing, yet we have enough nukes to turn Iran into a mirror in the desert, and Iran knows that.
S
Scott_Lafrance
Guest
We have enough nukes to turn Planet Earth into a smouldering ball of death.The middle East remembers the war between Iraq and Iran, and how the US supported Saddam in that war. They also remember when we went on a hunt for Osama Bin Laden, and how we removed Saddam from power, before finding Bin Laden.
There are number of people in the US who believe it was wrong and would possibly support Paul, over Obama and anyone they believe to have the same mindset as G.W. Bush. Many of those people voted Obama, over McCain, precisely because they hoped Obama would be less likely to expand our wars. I believe those people would give serious consideration to a candidate like Ron Paul, over Obama, and it would be a pull from the democrat base.
Yes, a nuclear powered Iran is a dangerous thing, yet we have enough nukes to turn Iran into a mirror in the desert, and Iran knows that.
R
Rich_Olszewski
Guest
Why would we do such a thing?we have enough nukes to turn Iran into a mirror in the desert, and Iran knows that.
If Iran developed a nuclear weapon, they’d use it on Israel, and you can be sure that Israel would retaliate with their nuclear weapons. Jew versus Aryan, none of our business. Le them fight it out.
E
estesbob
Guest
But iran would know that if they used them on Israel a President Paul would claim it was none of our business what they did to israel.Yes, a nuclear powered Iran is a dangerous thing, yet we have enough nukes to turn Iran into a mirror in the desert, and Iran knows that.
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
It seems there are those concerned with US safety. I was only pointing out a fact, that Iran is aware of.Why would we do such a thing?
If Iran developed a nuclear weapon, they’d use it on Israel, and you can be sure that Israel would retaliate with their nuclear weapons. Jew versus Aryan, none of our business. Le them fight it out.
I believe Obama received a lot of votes from people who were afraid McCain was just going to be more of Bush, in our foreign policy. Whether or not war is a proportionate reason, it’s another discussion and, many did not consider this when they cast a vote against war.
Now, we see a lot of arguments referencing abortion. It’s irony in some minds how one can be pro-life and pro-war. Ron Paul is an opportunity to pull votes from the democrat base, because of his view of foreign policy. If he’s overlooked by republicans, because they are viewing other issues besides, or over, abortion, they can’t, or shouldn’t, be faulting anyone if the democrats win again. Anti-war people are not going to switch to anyone they believe has the Bush mentality, when it comes to foreign policies.
S
SamH
Guest
That’s why you have to fool them, like Obama did.Anti-war people are not going to switch to anyone they believe has the Bush mentality, when it comes to foreign policies.
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
And Israel has enough nukes, and the willingness, to strike back, and strike back hard. Iran knows this, but they’re not going to give up the rhetoric, just as Saddam wouldn’t let Iran know it didn’t have any weapons of mass destruction. Remember, he just came out of a 10 year war with them. The US supported him, and he didn’t think the very people who represented the US supporting him would really invade Iraq. Not taking away from the bad Saddam did, but he was between a rock and a hard place and Bush put the squeeze on him.But iran would know that if they used them on Israel a President Paul would claim it was none of our business what they did to israel.
E
estesbob
Guest
No irony at all if one understands the teachings of the Church:.
Now, we see a lot of arguments referencing abortion. It’s irony in some minds how one can be pro-life and pro-war. .
- While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
We have two choices, the way I see it. We can bring in another republican, cut from the same cloth as the majority of republicans and risk everything remaining the same, or we can elect Ron Paul and have a draw on the democrat base.That’s why you have to fool them, like Obama did.
Most pro-lifers on these forums say there is nothing more important that abortion. This is the time to prove it and see that Ron gets the nomination. If he doesn’t get it, other issues came into conflict with the most important issue, and they can get ready to ‘share the blame’ if things remain the same.
E
estesbob
Guest
There are far more preferable pro-life canidates available running for the nomination than Paul. Canidates who do not carry the baggage he has concerning civil rights , foreign policy and an obsession with the ferderal reserveWe have two choices, the way I see it. We can bring in another republican, cut from the same cloth as the majority of republicans and risk everything remaining the same, or we can elect Ron Paul and have a draw on the democrat base.
Most pro-lifers on these forums say there is nothing more important that abortion. This is the time to prove it and see that Ron gets the nomination. If he doesn’t get it, other issues came into conflict with the most important issue, and they can get ready to ‘share the blame’ if things remain the same.
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
Okay, but you have very little time to try and convince, or educate, everyone that you say made a mistake last election. You’ll also have to educate them to believe the same as you do about Cardinal Ratzinger’s statement referencing that some could vote for a pro-abortion candidate, as long as they did not vote for him just to support abortion. It’s all in interpretation, and until the one voice makes a clarification, no one on either side of the argument can claim an infallible interpretation.No irony at all if one understands the teachings of the Church:
*Pope Benedcit XVI
- While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty*, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.
Or, you can put your money where your mouth is and support Ron Paul, overlooking the possibility of war for your view of abortion. It’s the same difference. If they wanted to avoid war and voted for Obama and were wrong, those who will not take an opportunity to nominate a candidate that is pro-life, yet anti-war, to drag those against the wars to the same base can share the blame if things remain the same.
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
Or far more preferable candidates who some find more agreeable because of other issues than the most important issue they throw at everyone else.There are far more preferable pro-life canidates available running for the nomination than Paul. Canidates who do not carry the baggage he has concerning civil rights , foreign policy and an obsession with the ferderal reserve
P
pnewton
Guest
You know, I was just thinking that very same thing. It will be interesting as the months go on to see if the rhetoric remains consistent or contradictory.Most pro-lifers on these forums say there is nothing more important that abortion. This is the time to prove it and see that Ron gets the nomination. If he doesn’t get it, other issues came into conflict with the most important issue, and they can get ready to ‘share the blame’ if things remain the same.
Would everyone here be willing to give up military supremacy over the rest of the world to restrict or end abortion abortion? Or do suddenly those “proportional reasons” apply. There is little understanding for Democrats here who use this reasoning.
G
gilliam
Guest
Actually that is not correct. Outside of the old Mullahs most of the Mid-East looks at that as ancient history. Remember the median age in the ME is something like 25. What they know of America is what we have done since 2001.The middle East remembers the war between Iraq and Iran, and how the US supported Saddam in that war. .
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0a/Median_age.png/800px-Median_age.png
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
The median age do not have control of the majority of countries in the middle East. Those in control remember well.Actually that is not correct. Outside of the old Mullahs most of the Mid-East looks at that as ancient history. Remember the median age in the ME is something like 25. What they know of America is what we have done since 2001.
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0a/Median_age.png/800px-Median_age.png
K
kubark
Guest
What motivation would Iran (armed with one nuke it does not yet possess) have for attacking Israel (a nation with hundreds of nukes and advanced delivery systems). If they actually did get a nuclear weapon, do you think they’d be stupid enough to use it? Where would they fire it? Jerusalem, and destroy Islam’s Dome of the Rock? Would they fire it at Tel-Aviv, killing thousands of Muslims? Anywhere that they fire a nuke against Israel, they kill Muslims as well. Ignoring Ahmadinejad’s politically-calculated raving involving “whiping Israel off the face of the map,” do you think the average Iranian let alone the Iranain generals (who really run Iran) wish to commit suicide? Also, you have misrepresented Ron Paul’s foreign policy. He puts America first rather than Israel first. He believes in free trade with all and entangling alliances with none. He believes in a Republic not an Empire. He has consistently defended the Constitution and has the voting record to prove it. And actually, he is the most pro-Israel candidate out there - Ron Paul would not stop Israel, the most powerful state in the Middle East, from defending her interests in any way she saw fit. When Israel attacked a nuclear reactor in Iraq in 1981, almost the entire U.S. Congress voted to condemn the act. Ron Paul was one of the few dissenters: he voted against the condemnation and in favor of Israel’s right to self-determination.But iran would know that if they used them on Israel a President Paul would claim it was none of our business what they did to israel.
G
gilliam
Guest
Your right, the mullahs in Iran hates us and want to destroy us. So we should allow them to have nukes?The median age do not have control of the majority of countries in the middle East. Those in control remember well.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.